| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The amount of misunderstanding about
Battle Forms is still very large in this community.
It is very complex and quite frankly not totally clear.
I've put my arguments all together.
Can you please let me know of any mistakes or arguments I have missed?
Cheers
I think you've covered almost everything. Nice job.
One remark: Use Dex or Str for the Druids own unarmed is no issue. As you say later: balance. Form Control pushes the Druid to Strength, and Form Control is needed as far as I'm concerned, to keep the size of the shape a bot under control (plus the extended duration of course). So if a druid chooses dex, he'll miss out on those, or will need to invest in str also. So balance-wise, going with the max unarmed attack, either str or dex, is perfectly fine. Independent of the text with the forms.
And balance-wise: In my opinion the drawbacks of the Wild shaper are so severe I chose to go another route with a druid. Even with max bonus on str. I'd even say that having the option to choose Str over Wis a primary stat would be balanced for a wild shaper. Would also be fitting.
Just to keep the discussion in this separate topic instead of spread all over. I read over it the first time, but you read this line as very restricted:
If your unarmed attack modifier is higher, you can use it instead.
My interpretation for this line is that you can skip the entire first part of the sentence. Essentially: You can use you own unarmed attack modifier (But why would you do that if it is lower?).
Essentially, all the vagueness in wild shape and battleforms will never be gone, even with new errata. A FAQ with RAI on topics would be the easiest solution for all, I think. Same as you are doing in the Battle forms doc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to keep the discussion in this separate topic instead of spread all over. I read over it the first time, but you read this line as very restricted:
If your unarmed attack modifier is higher, you can use it instead.
My interpretation for this line is that you can skip the entire first part of the sentence. Essentially: You can use you own unarmed attack modifier (But why would you do that if it is lower?).
But you don't get the status bonus unless you are using your attack modifier
The intention is probably exactly what you say. I may well play that way when I GM. But the rule is logical and concise. I have to abandon language conventions to read it that way. In fact the whole game would shatter into a thousand home brew variants if you can ignore the order inherent in a phrase like "If A then B".
Essentially, all the vagueness in wild shape and battleforms will never be gone, even with new errata. A FAQ with RAI on topics would be the easiest solution for all, I think. Same as you are doing in the Battle forms doc.
We can never fix the games of people who half read or misread the rules. I'm happy for them to have their fun. But with just a small amount of effort the rules could be fixed for those who need to get it right.
They need a formula for attack and damage, including additional damage. They need to use that definition in the rules.
They need to define special statistics for the battle form spell.
They just need to clean up a few mistakes. I won't repeat them.
Yes some examples will be nice, and would really help clarity.
Source Core Rulebook pg. 278 1.1
To put it simply:
"Use your own attack modifier" doesn't mean you get to add traits on the atacks as well. For any and all non-finesse unarmed attacks, a druid, even if not in a bttle form, will be using Strength, that's his default "melee unarmed modifier".
Almost all characters start out trained in unarmed attacks. You can Strike with your fist or another body part, calculating your attack and damage rolls in the same way you would with a weapon. Unarmed attacks can belong to a weapon group (page 280), and they might have weapon traits (page 282). However, unarmed attacks aren’t weapons, and effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so.
Table 6–6: Unarmed Attacks lists the statistics for an unarmed attack with a fist, though you’ll usually use the same statistics for attacks made with any other parts of your body. Certain ancestry feats, class features, and spells give access to special, more powerful unarmed attacks. Details for those unarmed attacks are provided in the abilities that grant them.
Fist
Source Core Rulebook pg. 280 1.1
Traits: Agile, Finesse, Nonlethal, Unarmed
To be complete, this is about the part where you can substitute your own unarmed attack, where nothing is mentioned about that it has to be anything else as the unarmed attack modifier.
But you don't get the status bonus unless you are using your attack modifier
The fact that it's a status bonus is already a good indication that it's meant to always work. Simple reason: There are so many status bonusses out there, most obvious one the bard, and the druid won't get any of those bonusses.
So in short: Already behind martial, even with the +2, and that gets worse when the rest of the party enjoys ++ which the wildshaper has no use for.
I don't understand if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me here.
I'm totally disagreeing with you. The forms finesse trait, if there, has NOTHING to do with the druid unarmed attack modifier.
First things first: Wild shape is it's own spell, with it's own description, which only takes the Forms (you can add more forms to your wild shape list with druid feats) and adds those to the wildshape list. So strip off all the text which isn't part of the form. Form equals AC, Move, Att, attack forms, etc. In which Att is a value (all the added text substituting can even be considered part of the spell, not the form. A form is numbers, not text).
After that you can choose to you your own attack modifier and add the +2 bonus. Reading it like this, you can even say that you can use your attack modifier using your favorite weapon, because nowhere does it say unarmed. It would be logical to use unarmed. Balance wise, it wouldn't matter if it were the attack modifier with a weapon or unarmed. A wild shaper is better at using polymorphed shapes as another ordinary spellcaster, why not use his sword attack for claws value.
As for the minor point of substituting dex, that could well be the druids unarmed modifier.
[Again: There isn't a single rule that says "you can use Dexterity to attack with Unarmed".
There is only "the specific Attack Fist has the Finesse Trait".
As long as you are using anything else except Fist (like Claw, Bite, Tail, Horns, etc) then you default to generic melee attacks rules that...
This was actually quoting the rules (link in the prior message):
Table 6–6: Unarmed Attacks lists the statistics for an unarmed attack with a fist, though you’ll usually use the same statistics for attacks made with any other parts of your body. Certain ancestry feats, class features, and spells give access to special, more powerful unarmed attacks. Details for those unarmed attacks are provided in the abilities that grant them.
So attacks made with your body, which aren't defined elsewhere, use finesse, same as fist.
Ok, you appear to disagree with the actual quoted CRB rule text on unarmed attacks.
Sigh and around it goes:
The rules in Table 6-6 says you can/should use fist for any otherwise unspecified unarmed attacks. eg kick, bite, head butt. So technically a human headbutt can be reasonably determined to be a finesse attack.
Nobody, who is saying that you can use the fist to work out the unarmed attack modifier of the druid, is saying that any properties of the fist apply to the Battle Forms attacks - with the one exception of the attack modifier.
Is it relevant?
The game does not have a precise definition of unarmed attack modifier. You have to make a significant judgement call about what that precisely is.
It is certainly not clear that there is such a thing as a generic unarmed attack modifier. The fact that Strength is the default ability modifer does not help to determine this as you can have several different unarmed attacks.
Once you have a definition, then specific unarmed attack modifiers can be calculated for specific attacks. But where the modifiers are different, which one do you choose and on what basis?
So do we go with a generic unarmed attack modifer and how to we define it?
Do we go with the unarmed attack modifer for a particular attack?
There is no guidance in the rules for this.
It all boils down to that you have to make a few assumptions to form a basis to work your numbers. If you start with different assumptions you are going to get different answers. Arguing back and form is not going to help.
We simply do not have the base definitions to get a right answer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand where the confusion comes from exactly. A form gives a druid an attack. It also gives a default attack bonus with that attack, but you could also calculate the bonus yourself using normal rules. If the attack bonus you calculate yourself is higher, use it.
It's not letting you pick an attack bonus for an entirely different attack and use that instead.
I don't understand where the confusion comes from exactly. A form gives a druid an attack. It also gives a default attack bonus with that attack, but you could also calculate the bonus yourself using normal rules. If the attack bonus you calculate yourself is higher, use it.
It's not letting you pick an attack bonus for an entirely different attack and use that instead.
The term "default"or "specific" is something I have added to help distinguish between the concepts that the two sides are arguing about.
The term "unarmed attack modifier" or "attack bonus" is used in the battle form spells and various rules but is never well defined anywhere.
You cannot calculate an attack bonus without running into significant problems. You have to make some assumptions as to exactly what that is. Those normal rules you talk about for calculating attack bonus include the proficiency bonus, ability bonus, circustance bonus, item bonus, status bonus, other bonuses, other penalties. You can immediately see the problem here. There is no separate definition which excludes some of these bonuses.
There is not just one problem here there is a stack of them. Which I've outlined in my document.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand where the confusion comes from exactly. A form gives a druid an attack. It also gives a default attack bonus with that attack, but you could also calculate the bonus yourself using normal rules. If the attack bonus you calculate yourself is higher, use it.
It's not letting you pick an attack bonus for an entirely different attack and use that instead.
The term "default"or "specific" is something I have added to help distinguish between the concepts that the two sides are arguing about.
The term "unarmed attack modifier" or "attack bonus" is used in the battle form spells and various rules but is never well defined anywhere.
You cannot calculate an attack bonus without running into significant problems. You have to make some assumptions as to exactly what that is. Those normal rules you talk about for calculating attack bonus include the proficiency bonus, ability bonus, circustance bonus, item bonus, status bonus, other bonuses, other penalties. You can immediately see the problem here. There is no separate definition which excludes some of these bonuses.
There is not just one problem here there is a stack of them. Which I've outlined in my document.
Oh I see... your line "This is the Druids unarmed attack modifier before the Battle form spell comes into effect". Where is it stated that it's before your battle form is applied?
Oh I see... your line "This is the Druids unarmed attack modifier before the Battle form spell comes into effect". Where is it stated that it's before your battle form is applied?
In most battle form spells. Where it states Your attack bonus is +X. It also gives you the offer of using your own unarmed attack bonus instead. This being a separate enitity, not something defined or limited by the battle form spell details, but something you can use in place of the attack bonus given there.
It doesn't say you can use the Druids unarmed attack, its say the Druids unarmed attack bonus. You are swapping in a number, thats it.
Oh I see... your line "This is the Druids unarmed attack modifier before the Battle form spell comes into effect". Where is it stated that it's before your battle form is applied?
Not using item bonusses included in your own unarmed calc, the attack value of the druid is never ever even close to a martial or to the att value of the polymorphed shape. So the entire sentence of substitute your attack modifier would not be needed. Therefor, the only logical reasoning can be that it is the druids own modifier which needs to be calculated, including all possible bonusses from items. Which will end up, if optimized (max stat, max potency rune), just ahead of the poly shape.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You cannot calculate an attack bonus without running into significant problems. You have to make some assumptions as to exactly what that is. Those normal rules you talk about for calculating attack bonus include the proficiency bonus, ability bonus, circumstance bonus, item bonus, status bonus, other bonuses, other penalties. You can immediately see the problem here. There is no separate definition which excludes some of these bonuses.
All of the bolded are referred to as "other bonuses". The Core Rulebook defines a melee attack bonus as Strength plus proficiency. The problem is one you are adding to the text, not one inherent to it.
You cannot calculate an attack bonus without running into significant problems. You have to make some assumptions as to exactly what that is. Those normal rules you talk about for calculating attack bonus include the proficiency bonus, ability bonus, circumstance bonus, item bonus, status bonus, other bonuses, other penalties. You can immediately see the problem here. There is no separate definition which excludes some of these bonuses.All of the bolded are referred to as "other bonuses". The Core Rulebook defines a melee attack bonus as Strength plus proficiency. The problem is one you are adding to the text, not one inherent to it.
Read my doc. I quote the actual rules there. Or point me to the rule you are quoting. For example the term "melee attack bonus" never appears in the rules.
Here is the definition of Melee attack modifer - which should be the same.
Melee attack modifier = Strength modifier (or
optionally Dexterity for a finesse weapon) +
proficiency bonus + other bonuses + penalties
Other bonuses is not a well defined thing. But they are circumstance bonus, item bonus, status bonus and maybe other things.
So exactly what are you referring to?
"your own attack bonus" is different for different Attacks.
So which attack is "your attack bonus"
It can't be the attack bonus of the Druid with the Bears Claw as that is what you are trying to work out.
It has to be the attack bonus of the Druid before he transforms.
And why it has to be before he transforms?
Because "your attack bonus" has to be a different thing than the bears attack bonus. Because otherwise you can't use it instead of.
You are trying to imply that the bears claw is some form of pseudo weapon that the druid wields.
Which is sort of getting to the heart of it. This is the PF1 view of polymorph where the druid is transformed and his own physical abilities matter ( a physically stronger druid gave a physically stronger bear). That approach was relatively unique to PF1 in all the d20 games. There is no indication that that approach is to be followed in PF2.
In PF2 it doesn't matter if you started small or weak you get a set of generic bear abilities. Except for this clause where you can keep a higher bonus.
If his own bonus with the bear claws is better than the one given by the form, you use that.That's exactly what the rules say.
Thats the thing, it never says "with the bear claws" or anything like that.
It just says "Your".
Which you read to mean as if the Druid is somehow wielding the bear claw, but I read to mean with one of the Druids unarmed attacks.
c)if your own Attack modifier for Y attack is higher, use that.
Yep that is exactly what we are disagreeing about. Because it never says that.
In the end, getting to an agreement on this only solves some minor issues. Because "attack modifier" is not properly defined.
so, you are disagreeing with the RAW.
Got it.
Attack modifier is the modifier for the Attack, what's more that needs to be defined?
The rules clearly say what an Attack roll for an Attack is.
We already know the Druid's Attack modifier for any and all possible Attaks if we know the traits and the proficiencies of the attack. For which, the forms give us both.
No you are taking the position that the language in the rules is precise and means only one exact thing. That which is in your head. In fact it has several different clear readings.
Work through the rules and the formula given in the rules. It quickly runs into logical problems as it is not precise.
Read my document. I cover all of this including this text on elemental form.
As for a single error? I think I'm up to 7. Only one of which is effected by using your interpretation of the "attack".
I think longsword is a good example here. Suppose there was a form spell that allowed you to polymorph into a humanoid creature with a longsword. Now suppose it had the same language as the other form spells. It's pretty clear to me that it would be allowing you to use your attack modifier *with longswords*, assuming it was higher, because... what else would it mean? What other modifier could possibly be relevant?
I think this example is good because its easier to conceptualize your bonus with a longsword in the abstract, cause obviously all I need to do to use it is get a longsword. It's less intuitive with animal form because there's no way to get a tongue attack if you are a human.
The point is *if you had this attack, what would your modifier be*.
This spell exists. Its called Righteous Might. It applies to the dieties favoured weapon. In that spell its quite clear that you use the clerics attack modifier in his natural form with the specific favoured weapon. Its a very discrete specific attack with a specific weapon that is being substituted in.
Have a think about how you calculate the attack bonus of the long sword and how that applies.
Technically you would use a fist for a tongue attack in human form. Ok the GM is going to laugh and say no. But your point is taken, tail attack might be a better example. A human just does not have one.
In the end it doesn't really matter it is just a number.
I'd also point out the language in Elemental Form:
One or more unarmed melee attacks specific to the battle form you choose, which are the only attacks you can use. You’re trained with them. Your attack modifier is +18, and your damage bonus is +9. These are Dexterity based (air or fire) or Strength based (earth or water). If your corresponding unarmed attack modifier is higher, you can use it instead.Corresponding is the keyword here. You attack modifier with the corresponding attack.
Yeah its a bit odd as this wording is only in Elemental From, plus something similar in Aerial Form. Its also the one of the primal battle forms that doesn't have this type of clause
"These attacks are Dexterity based (for the purpose of the clumsy condition, for example)."
Which explains why its is mentioning Dexterity and Strength elsewhere. Its hard to know in PF2 if they are trying to make a special rule just for this, or if this is an explanation that we should apply generally.
But anyway I agree on this so I'm not sure who you are talking to. Or about what?
People in here just can't see the forest for the trees imo.
The forest trees analogy is correct for these sorts of rules discussions as not. But really we are just making different implicit assumptions about the scenario.