Striking handwraps don't add a die to those attacks at all. Property runes are a little ambiguous and debated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope they are silent and there are a fair number of problems
Striking runes on handwraps don't apply ever.
The +1 to hit doesn't doesn't apply normally, but I argue it does if you are using your own attack bonus, not the one in the spell. But some people disagree/don't like that.
It's debated whether other properties on the handwraps apply.
Plus there are a lot of Battle Forms and some of them have special rules.
I don't see a reason why the + to hit wouldn't apply if that makes the unarmed attack higher than the animal form.
Striking runes don't work imo because the spell overwrites certain values with the exception of the to hit if you meet the criteria for it. It doesn't say you may choose to keep your damage if it exceeds the animal forms.
I personally wouldn't allow property runes.
To be honest, unless your player built a strength druid to absolutely maximize their battle forms, then it doesn't even matter. Their unarmed strike attack with proficiency runes wouldn't exceed that provided by the spell.
If they did, you could just rule they get the rune attack bonus to their unarmed strike, which isn't imbalanced. The damage the attacks do are already designed to be competitive with weapons with runes.
Really, it's perfectly fine and functional. There should be no need to respec.
It seems like maybe your player misunderstood the rules, but honestly there's nothing that's going to let him deal as much damage as this incorrectly understood rule because he's given himself an extra damage die.
|
That literally makes no sense with wild shape cause there are only like 2 forms that even have unarmed attacks with a single die, and increasing only those and nothing else is patently ridiculous
It may be patently ridiculous but it would also be quite powerful.
Take a rogue who has multiclassed into druid.
He'll be able to get a LOT of use out of a 1d10 agile claw attack (From, for example, the cat).
When looking at what rules wild shape should follow you ALWAYS have to consider martial classes multiclassing into druid. That is where many (most? all?) the problems lie, not with a straight druid becoming a little more powerful when he bites face.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That literally makes no sense with wild shape cause there are only like 2 forms that even have unarmed attacks with a single die, and increasing only those and nothing else is patently ridiculousIt may be patently ridiculous but it would also be quite powerful.
Take a rogue who has multiclassed into druid.
He'll be able to get a LOT of use out of a 1d10 agile claw attack (From, for example, the cat).
When looking at what rules wild shape should follow you ALWAYS have to consider martial classes multiclassing into druid. That is where many (most? all?) the problems lie, not with a straight druid becoming a little more powerful when he bites face.
Hmm. Now I need to take a closer look at an Investigator/MC Druid build.
The straight Druid doesn't have too many problems as he is normally just using what is in the spell. It is the martial character mulitclassing into Druid that has issues. Because
1) They almost always have a higher attack bonus so the +2 to hit status bonus from Wild Shape actually normally applies at their higher numbers
2) They often do additional damage - which adds
3) They get maneuvers like Attack of Oppourtunity, Swipe or Flurry which work in Wild Shape
4) Arguments about what adds from handwraps matter to them.
5) Battle Form spells are coming through Wild Shape as Focus Spells which scale based on character level. So lower level feats do scale up a bit.
People will argue based on what they like or see as balanced, rather than first on what the rules actually say. (myself included). Balance decisions should get made at the end.
Can a fighter with the druid dedication even get the better versions of wildshape to keep it relevant?
From what I recall if you're not spending the class feats (as a druid) on getting the better forms of wildshape you're ultimately falling behind the power curve.
Handwraps are only used for their potency runes if utilizing -
"If your unarmed attack bonus is higher, you can use it instead."
The polymorph trait element of -
"If you take on a battle form with a polymorph spell, the special statistics can be adjusted only by circumstance bonuses, status bonuses, and penalties."
Doesn't come into play because you aren't using its special statistics but instead your own unarmed attack modifier in place of one. Damage remains tied to the form though as there isn't anything that lets you substitute that.
Also, remember that wild shape gives you a +2 status bonus to attack rolls if you use your unarmed modifier. I keep seeing people miss this.
Can a fighter with the druid dedication even get the better versions of wildshape to keep it relevant?
From what I recall if you're not spending the class feats (as a druid) on getting the better forms of wildshape you're ultimately falling behind the power curve.
Enough for long enough. The form spells themselves go up enough in spell level. The levels are very mixed. The reach and attack bonus are far too good all the way through, AC is so so. If all else fails you still have enough feats in your core class to be good enough at that.
But that's the thing. Additional damage stacks. So flaming hand wraps add to the bear. You have also got a +2 status bonus. A fighter with this was making the party monk look sick. A comparative +4 to hit is just gross.
SO a fighter with Druid dedication.
Fighter 4 Stats S18 D14 C12 I10 W14 C10
1: (fielder's choice, nothing great or terrible)
2: Druid Dedication
4: Basic Wilding (Wild Shape)
Attack when wild shaped +14 (+4S, +4 Expert, +4 lvl, +2 WS, +1 HW)
damage 2d8+1.
Vs. lvl 4 creature. AC of 21 hit on 7, crit on 17.
Average damage on first hit= 9 (.5*10)+(.2*20)
Normal Fighter 4 S18
Attack w/greatsword +12 (4s 4E 4lvl 1Rune)
damage 1d12+4 (2d12 w/ striking not guaranteed at 4, but possible)
Vs. lvl 4 creature. AC of 21 hit on 9, crit on 19.
Average damage on first hit= 5.35 (.5*6.5)+(.1*21)
w/ striking rune=11.9 (.5*17)+(.1*34)
So at level 4 a Fighter with a striking rune (taking into account zero fighter feats) can out pace a Wild Shape Fighter/Druid even without the +2.
A question, what weapon group does the Animal Form attacks fall under? This is very important. The Spell does not list them as a weapon group (note the difference from Monk stance attacks). This means that the Fighter DOES NOT get his boosted proficiency with these attacks. So a level 5 fighter can hit with his Fist (brawling group) at +15 with his Master prof, but when Wild Shaped, he is only attacking with his expert prof, working out to a +15 again.
SO a fighter with Druid dedication.
Fighter 4 Stats S18 D14 C12 I10 W14 C10
1: (fielder's choice, nothing great or terrible)
2: Druid Dedication
4: Basic Wilding (Wild Shape)Attack when wild shaped +14 (+4S, +4 Expert, +4 lvl, +2 WS, +1 HW)
damage 2d8+1.
Vs. lvl 4 creature. AC of 21 hit on 7, crit on 17.
Average damage on first hit= 9 (.5*10)+(.2*20)Normal Fighter 4 S18
Attack w/greatsword +12 (4s 4E 4lvl 1Rune)
damage 1d12+4 (2d12 w/ striking not guaranteed at 4, but possible)
Vs. lvl 4 creature. AC of 21 hit on 9, crit on 19.
Average damage on first hit= 5.35 (.5*6.5)+(.1*21)
w/ striking rune=11.9 (.5*17)+(.1*34)So at level 4 a Fighter with a striking rune (taking into account zero fighter feats) can out pace a Wild Shape Fighter/Druid even without the +2.
A question, what weapon group does the Animal Form attacks fall under? This is very important. The Spell does not list them as a weapon group (note the difference from Monk stance attacks). This means that the Fighter DOES NOT get his boosted proficiency with these attacks. So a level 5 fighter can hit with his Fist (brawling group) at +15 with his Master prof, but when Wild Shaped, he is only attacking with his expert prof, working out to a +15 again.
The Animal form attacks are unarmed. However there is no group specified. This is a feature that is missing from lots of attacks listed in spells and the bestairy. Probably should be Brawling and some may argue that is can squeeze in there. What other group can it be in? None!? One of the Animal Form attacks is listed as Fist so does that one qualify? Fist also has that wording which allows it to include attacks made with other body parts. But yes its another rules gap. Either way it should have a group which is selectable so the proficiency increase can apply. A little bit frustating as the way the errata is specified reads differently to the way that the wording in the Fighter class has been redone in the reissue of the CORE Rule Book.
This is stealth application of errata into the CRB.
Your analysis for level 4 is fine. Though you are comparing an Animal with two hands free to fighter with a two handed weapon.
But it falls apart immediately at level 5 where the Animal form spell ranks and it gets a +5 damage bonus. It gets worse with extra dice and reach as the levls go up. The normal fighter doesn't get anything back that the Animal form does also get till the Greater Striking rune at level 12. Depending on your interpretation of certain rules.
Anyway not saying that it is broken all the way up. It is just there are certain level ranges especially 9-11 that it is comparatively very very strong.
I came accross this before but it wasn't super important because there was nothing but critical specilization riding on it. At lot of those are very minor.
But it is clear from reading on Unarmed Attacks that unarmed attack can but don't have to belong to a weapon group. Which means there is no rules problems with any particular unarmed attack not having a weapon group. So we are not justified in assigning unspecified attacks to any weapon group. Which means that even if Fighters use Fighter Weapon Mastery to specialise in the brawling weapon group, they aren't going to get their extra proficiency bonus with the Unarmed Attacks of most Battle Forms.
That mostly clears up the problem with fighter/druids in particular. though it is still possible to take Martial Artist to get there.
Still lots of rules problems over all. I'd better go back and update my advice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As per the errata, "Any class feature that improves the proficiency rank or grants the critical specialization effect access for simple weapons or a specific set of weapons, that ability also grants that benefit for unarmed attacks."
So when the fighter selects a group of weapons to improve to master at level 5, any group, that proficiency filters down to all unarmed attacks as well, brawling or otherwise.
Read it again but inside Fighter Weapon Mastery as per the updated CRB.
Your proficiency rank increases to master with the simple weapons, martial weapons, and unarmed attacks in that groupTotally different.
As per the errata, "Any class feature that improves the proficiency rank or grants the critical specialization effect access for simple weapons or a specific set of weapons, that ability also grants that benefit for unarmed attacks."
So when the fighter selects a group of weapons to improve to master at level 5, any group, that proficiency filters down to all unarmed attacks as well, brawling or otherwise.
Read it again but inside Fighter Weapon Mastery as per the updated CRB.
Your proficiency rank increases to master with the simple weapons, martial weapons, and unarmed attacks in that groupTotally different.
Even with that stealth Errata, any Fighter using Wild Shape can just grab the Martial Artist Dedication to get maxed proficiency. The vast majority of Fighter feats don't work with Wild Shape so they have a bunch of spare feats.
Fighter 12 Stats S20 D14 C12 I10 W14 C10
1: (fielder's choice, nothing great or terrible)
2: Druid Dedication
4: Basic Wilding (Wild Shape)
6: Fighter Feat
8: Advanced Wilding (form control)
10: Martial Artist Archetype
12: Advanced Wilding (insect shape)
Attack when wild shaped +27 (+5S, +6M , +12 lvl, +2 WS, +2 HW)
damage 4d8+7
Vs. lvl 12 creature. AC of 33 hit on 6, crit on 16.
Average damage on first hit= 25 (.5*25)+(.25*50)
Normal Fighter 12 S20
Attack w/greatsword +25 (5s 6M 12lvl 2Rune)
damage 3d12+8
Vs. lvl 12 creature. AC of 33 hit on 8, crit on 18.
Average damage on first hit= 22 (.5*27.5)+(.15*55)
So at level 12, with the WS fighter having full Master proficiency, it only averages 3 more damage per hit on the first attack.
But that's the thing. Additional damage stacks. So flaming hand wraps add to the bear. You have also got a +2 status bonus. A fighter with this was making the party monk look sick. A comparative +4 to hit is just gross.
I am not sure what you are parsing here
"the special statistics can be adjusted only by circumstance bonuses, status bonuses, and penalties" is pretty clear, a flaming rune isn't a circumstance or status bonus. It cannot adjust the special statistic damage roll.
Polymorphed forms have what they have on the spell unless an exception is called out. And there isn't one for damage.
You can gain the benefit of the potency rune only because it specifically says you can use your unarmed bonus instead of its special statistic attack bonus.
Losing your greater weapon spec and 2-4 damage runes is pretty brutal for a fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"the special statistics can be adjusted only by circumstance bonuses, status bonuses, and penalties" is pretty clear, a flaming rune isn't a circumstance or status bonus. It cannot adjust the special statistic damage roll.
That is totally misleading.
The special statistic that we are talking about here is not the damage roll or indeed the whole damage equation. What the battle form spell specifies is the damage bonus.
However Mark has made it very clear in several posts that additional damage is not a damage bonus.
So yes Weapon Specialization is Additional Damage, and adds to Battle Form Damage.
A Flaming Rune on Hand Wraps causes Additional Damage, and adds to Battle Form Damage.
I know people don't like it. I'm not entirely sure I do. But if you accept the statement from the Lead Designer it is black and white there in the rules. It is not really debatable.
I repeat the link to my long winded discussion of it.
You can gain the benefit of the potency rune only because it specifically says you can use your unarmed bonus instead of its special statistic attack bonus.
I agree but many people don't
Losing your greater weapon spec and 2-4 damage runes is pretty brutal for a fighter.
They don't lose these. Because they are all additional Damage.
Fighter 12 Stats S20 D14 C12 I10 W14 C10
1: (fielder's choice, nothing great or terrible)
2: Druid Dedication
4: Basic Wilding (Wild Shape)
6: Fighter Feat
8: Advanced Wilding (form control)
10: Martial Artist Archetype
12: Advanced Wilding (insect shape)Attack when wild shaped +27 (+5S, +6M , +12 lvl, +2 WS, +2 HW)
damage 4d8+7
Vs. lvl 12 creature. AC of 33 hit on 6, crit on 16.
Average damage on first hit= 25 (.5*25)+(.25*50)Normal Fighter 12 S20
Attack w/greatsword +25 (5s 6M 12lvl 2Rune)
damage 3d12+8
Vs. lvl 12 creature. AC of 33 hit on 8, crit on 18.
Average damage on first hit= 22 (.5*27.5)+(.15*55)So at level 12, with the WS fighter having full Master proficiency, it only averages 3 more damage per hit on the first attack.
Again you are looking at level 12 which is not too bad. Are you try to say that it is not that much of a problem? To be clear I said the problem was levels 9-11, but I'll broaden that to 5-11. You know those levels that most normal games are run at. Though to be fair PF2 makes high level play accessible in a way that it wasn't in PF1. Because high level was just broken before PF2.
You have also forgotten that additional damage is not a damage bonus.
So weapons specailization and the runes that give additional damage not additional weapon dice, do add.
I know you can't just do the maths for it easily as it is situational, but you also need to consider that the normal fighter may, in fact should have a status bonus to hit from somewhere else as well. Is there a friendly Bard or Cleric around?
Even with that stealth Errata, any Fighter using Wild Shape can just grab the Martial Artist Dedication to get maxed proficiency. The vast majority of Fighter feats don't work with Wild Shape so they have a bunch of spare feats.As per the errata, "Any class feature that improves the proficiency rank or grants the critical specialization effect access for simple weapons or a specific set of weapons, that ability also grants that benefit for unarmed attacks."
So when the fighter selects a group of weapons to improve to master at level 5, any group, that proficiency filters down to all unarmed attacks as well, brawling or otherwise.
Read it again but inside Fighter Weapon Mastery as per the updated CRB.
Your proficiency rank increases to master with the simple weapons, martial weapons, and unarmed attacks in that groupTotally different.
Agree.
You should be ok by lvl 10 and also be trading plenty of feats, so it seems more than ok.
I'm confused. It still looks to me like the fighter's proficiency with unarmed attacks would increase, per the general rule, even with all the text quoted. Is a specific cross section of weapons not still considered a group of weapons somehow?
I'm confused. It still looks to me like the fighter's proficiency with unarmed attacks would increase, per the general rule, even with all the text quoted. Is a specific cross section of weapons not still considered a group of weapons somehow?Even with that stealth Errata, any Fighter using Wild Shape can just grab the Martial Artist Dedication to get maxed proficiency. The vast majority of Fighter feats don't work with Wild Shape so they have a bunch of spare feats.As per the errata, "Any class feature that improves the proficiency rank or grants the critical specialization effect access for simple weapons or a specific set of weapons, that ability also grants that benefit for unarmed attacks."
So when the fighter selects a group of weapons to improve to master at level 5, any group, that proficiency filters down to all unarmed attacks as well, brawling or otherwise.
Read it again but inside Fighter Weapon Mastery as per the updated CRB.
Your proficiency rank increases to master with the simple weapons, martial weapons, and unarmed attacks in that groupTotally different.
Agree.
You should be ok by lvl 10 and also be trading plenty of feats, so it seems more than ok.
Unarmed proficiency scaling with your best proficiency is not a general rule, it's an errata that was applied to all classes when it was released. The Fighter's proficiency was later changed to work differently to other classes in the reprint of the core rulebook (AFAIK, I haven't read the updated rulebook).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm confused. It still looks to me like the fighter's proficiency with unarmed attacks would increase, per the general rule, even with all the text quoted. Is a specific cross section of weapons not still considered a group of weapons somehow?
So the odd quirk being referenced here is that 'general rule' you mention doesn't actually exist within the reprints of the CRB. Instead of a blanket clarification, each class got updated individually.
Basically:- Original CRB: Fighters unarmed proficiency never advanced past Expert.
- Errata document: Fighters got unarmed proficiency for free regardless of what weapon group they picked.
- Updated CRB: Fighters get scaling unarmed proficiency in unarmed attacks that are part of their chosen weapon group.
It can be a little confusing, because someone using the original CRB + the errata is going to come to different conclusions than someone using the updated CRB.
The errata document could use some errata.
I haven't read the updated rulebook).
The online rules agree with the updated CRB. I linked it above
I'm confused. It still looks to me like the fighter's proficiency with unarmed attacks would increase, per the general rule, even with all the text quoted. Is a specific cross section of weapons not still considered a group of weapons somehow?So the odd quirk being referenced here is that 'general rule' you mention doesn't actually exist within the reprints of the CRB. Instead of a blanket clarification, each class got updated individually.
Basically:
- Original CRB: Fighters unarmed proficiency never advanced past Expert.
- Errata document: Fighters got unarmed proficiency for free regardless of what weapon group they picked.
- Updated CRB: Fighters get scaling unarmed proficiency in unarmed attacks that are part of their chosen weapon group.
It can be a little confusing, because someone using the original CRB + the errata is going to come to different conclusions than someone using the updated CRB.
The errata document could use some errata.
Well, if they haven't killed it in the official errata document, wouldn't it still apply?
Well, if they haven't killed it in the official errata document, wouldn't it still apply?I'm confused. It still looks to me like the fighter's proficiency with unarmed attacks would increase, per the general rule, even with all the text quoted. Is a specific cross section of weapons not still considered a group of weapons somehow?So the odd quirk being referenced here is that 'general rule' you mention doesn't actually exist within the reprints of the CRB. Instead of a blanket clarification, each class got updated individually.
Basically:
- Original CRB: Fighters unarmed proficiency never advanced past Expert.
- Errata document: Fighters got unarmed proficiency for free regardless of what weapon group they picked.
- Updated CRB: Fighters get scaling unarmed proficiency in unarmed attacks that are part of their chosen weapon group.
It can be a little confusing, because someone using the original CRB + the errata is going to come to different conclusions than someone using the updated CRB.
The errata document could use some errata.
The errata tells you to add it to the CRB. But how they did that in the CRB update, was to put it inside the rules clause in such a way that it has an additional meaning. You can make an argument that the errata is technically correct. Its just confusing.
|
there are a fair number of problems
OhMyGosh thank you so much for this breakdown. I have avoided reading too much into this discussion in hopes that it would eventually be fixed with errata. But as I GM more, I am encountering Wild Shape PCs and want to rule on them fairly.
I will point out though that Escape, Force Open, Shove and Grapple work now. I don't recall whether it's in the Errata or an FAQ, but those are now considered to be "skill checks" with the Attack trait, and not "attack rolls".
So they don't benefit from bonuses to attack rolls (such as bless), and they aren't hindered by wild shape.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
there are a fair number of problemsOhMyGosh thank you so much for this breakdown. I have avoided reading too much into this discussion in hopes that it would eventually be fixed with errata. But as I GM more, I am encountering Wild Shape PCs and want to rule on them fairly.
I will point out though that Escape, Force Open, Shove and Grapple work now. I don't recall whether it's in the Errata or an FAQ, but those are now considered to be "skill checks" with the Attack trait, and not "attack rolls".
So they don't benefit from bonuses to attack rolls (such as bless), and they aren't hindered by wild shape.
I don't think it clears up anything I'm really struggling to see the point of that errata at all.
The rules problem is the text in most battle form spells that says One or more unarmed melee attacks specific to the battle form you choose, which are the only attacks you can use. . I don't see that means those athletics checks aren't attacks anymore. They still have the attack trait. Yes they aren't attack rolls but they are still attacks.
The special statistic that we are talking about here is not the damage roll or indeed the whole damage equation. What the battle form spell specifies is the damage bonus.
However Mark has made it very clear in several posts that additional damage is not a damage bonus.
So yes Weapon Specialization is Additional Damage, and adds to Battle Form Damage.
A Flaming Rune on Hand Wraps causes Additional Damage, and adds to Battle Form Damage.
I know people don't like it. I'm not entirely sure I do. But if you accept the statement from the Lead Designer it is black and white there in the rules. It is not really debatable.I repeat the link to my long winded discussion of it.
Mark's post doesn't support your point though? A flaming rune being additional damage has no bearing, it still adjusts a special statistic granted by the spell.
The polymorph trait doesn't say "the special statistics bonuses can be adjusted only by circumstance bonuses, status bonuses, and penalties", or say "you can only benefit from circumstance and status bonuses".
The polymorph trait specifically says "you can only adjust the forms special statistics with circumstance and status bonuses"
In your words from your other link:
"I interpret it to mean everything mentioned in any section with an introductory sentence including statistics or abilities. Which is basically everything."
Damage calculations cannot by RAW be adjusted by anything that isn't either:
A) Circumstance bonus
B) Status bonus
C) A penalty of any kind
Additional damage is adjusting this damage roll by definition, and the damage roll is a special statistic, by your own admission as quoted above. Can you please provide an example of the rules or a developer suggesting otherwise? (what you linked from Mark has no bearing at all).
The strike/damage section quite clearly says it is one damage roll, not individual rolls that just happen to happen at the same time).
The reason that using handwraps gets around this is because it isn't using the form's special statistics, it is using your own modifier because it is higher (same with the skill bonuses). While using your own modifier you are under no such restriction. There is no provision that allows a damage rune or weapon specialisation damage to adjust the damage roll in a similar way and the form spells specifically prohibit you from using other attacks.
e.g. a level 2 animal form ape would have the special statistics of
AC: 16 + level (ignore your acp and speed reduction)
TempHP: 5
Senses: Low-light vision and scent(imprecise) 30ft.
Speed: 30ft., 30ft. climb
Strike: fist, +9(or your own if higher), Damage 2d6+1 bludgeoning.
Skill: Athletics +9(or your own if higher)
I repeat; any adjustments to these stats have to be Circumstance, Status or Penalty by RAW. A flaming rune is additional damage, it isn't a circumstance, status or penalty bonus and for it to adjust the damage special statistic it has to be one of those three.
If you do have a link to a developer who supports your argument with RAI or a rule that explains why you think the restrictions on adjustments only applies to bonuses please link me though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes they aren't attack rolls but they are still attacks.That makes zero sense.
There is not a distinction between "attacks" and "attack rolls".
They were clarified to be skill checks. They simply have the attack trait.
And as skill checks, you can use them while polymorphed.
What is unclear? Skill checks with the attack trait are still attacks. Just not attack rolls.
Honestly this whole piece of errata is a massive failure. It says it is about clearing up that MAP applies to Skill check with the attack trait. That was always clear, though a casual reader may have missed it.
But it screwed over finesse weapons with athletics traits on them, and it didn't do anything to help with the main problem in Battle Forms.
From a straight damage standpoint, the WS Fighter/MC Druid does more than the regular fighter due to greater damage dice. The drawbacks for WS is: 1) it only last for a minute, and 2) you have to get a 10 minute rest between uses (refocus), 3) one the greater damage dice also requires you to be huge this could limit your opportunities to use WS, that being said you could always just use your unarmed attack, which at least has the same to hit as your battle forms.
The other drawback is that you are likely unable to use many of the fighter feats, particularly ones that reduce action economy. (E.g. Double Slice, Shield Feats (reactive shield, shield stride, etc.), brutish shove, Combat Grab (no hands), knockdown, etc).
It does level off at 12th level. You can get Insect Form at level 12 but it is just worse than Animal Form (4d10+2 vs 4d8+7). You can't get Dinosaur Form until level 16. Plant Form gives 4d8+22, but you can't get it till level 20.
|
|
Well I guess if we're both quoting the exact same passage and coming to different conclusions, so be it.
You say yourself that the Errata is a "failure". Maybe it's your interpretation that's getting in the way?
There can't BOTH be a "skill check" and an "attack roll". They are different Core types of checks. And these are clearly, according to the Errata, skill checks.
So I don't see where the discrepancy lies.
Mark's post doesn't support your point though? A flaming rune being additional damage has no bearing, it still adjusts a special statistic granted by the spell.
Would you also argue battle forms bypass weaknesses and resistance?
Well I guess if we're both quoting the exact same passage and coming to different conclusions, so be it.
You say yourself that the Errata is a "failure". Maybe it's your interpretation that's getting in the way?
There can't BOTH be a "skill check" and an "attack roll". They are different Core types of checks. And these are clearly, according to the Errata, skill checks.
So I don't see where the discrepancy lies.
The issue is individual spells that list "One or more unarmed melee attacks specific to the battle form you choose, which are the only attacks you can use." What this means that even after you make skills no longer an attack rolls, as long as they still have the attack trait, they are attacks and therefor disallowed by the individual spells so skills with the attack trait are still unusable.
|
|
I understand where you're coming from. I really do. But that is the very confusion this FAQ is addressing:
Page 446: Attack Rolls. There was some confusion as to whether skill checks with the attack trait (such as Grapple or Trip) are also attack rolls at the same time. They are not.
They have the Attack Trait. Nobody can argue that. But they are NOT attack rolls. They are skill checks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well I guess if we're both quoting the exact same passage and coming to different conclusions, so be it.
You say yourself that the Errata is a "failure". Maybe it's your interpretation that's getting in the way?
There can't BOTH be a "skill check" and an "attack roll". They are different Core types of checks. And these are clearly, according to the Errata, skill checks.
So I don't see where the discrepancy lies.
Because "Attack" does not mean "Attack Roll". They are different things.
You are fundamentally mistaken when you say they can't BOTH be a "skill check" and an "attack roll". You are missing the point.Check is bascially any d20 roll against a target DC.
Skill check is a check that involves a Skill.
Attack Roll is defined or at least described in the errata by "When you use a Strike action or make a spell attack, you attempt a check called an attack roll."
Attack is defined by the attack trait "An ability with this trait involves an attack"
Grapple is very clearly a Skill Check that is also an Attack, but not an Attack Roll
Battle Forms stops other "attacks" not "attack rolls"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing is that a your AC drops in Animal Form. At level 9, a Wild Shape Fighter has a 27 AC, but with heavy armor and a shield it could be as high as 30. At level 11 WSF goes to 29, but a Fighter hits 33 without a shield.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The special statistic that we are talking about here is not the damage roll or indeed the whole damage equation. What the battle form spell specifies is the damage bonus.
However Mark has made it very clear in several posts that additional damage is not a damage bonus.
So yes Weapon Specialization is Additional Damage, and adds to Battle Form Damage.
A Flaming Rune on Hand Wraps causes Additional Damage, and adds to Battle Form Damage.
I know people don't like it. I'm not entirely sure I do. But if you accept the statement from the Lead Designer it is black and white there in the rules. It is not really debatable.I repeat the link to my long winded discussion of it.
Mark's post doesn't support your point though? A flaming rune being additional damage has no bearing, it still adjusts a special statistic granted by the spell.
The polymorph trait doesn't say "the special statistics bonuses can be adjusted only by circumstance bonuses, status bonuses, and penalties", or say "you can only benefit from circumstance and status bonuses".
The polymorph trait specifically says "you can only adjust the forms special statistics with circumstance and status bonuses"In your words from your other link:
"I interpret it to mean everything mentioned in any section with an introductory sentence including statistics or abilities. Which is basically everything."Damage calculations cannot by RAW be adjusted by anything that isn't either:
A) Circumstance bonus
B) Status bonus
C) A penalty of any kindAdditional damage is adjusting this damage roll by definition, and the damage roll is a special statistic, by your own admission as quoted above. Can you please provide an example of the rules or a...
You are defining a new concept here to justify your position. There is no such entity or statistic defined as "damage calculation".
"Damage Bonus" is specified in the battle form spells. It is clearly a "special statistic" That is clearly only one type of bonus. Probably just falling into the category of other bonuses mentioned in the rules. This is an entity that you plug into the formula we use to calculate the damage. It is clearly not the whole equation.
We are allowed to add or modfiy things which aren't specified in the spell.
Additional Damage is not a Bonus of any type, it is just extra damage that is added after the calculation of the damage.
Sorry but your point relies on you creating a new rules structure. It is simply not justified in any way.
I will grant you that special statistic is not properly defined. I will grant you that the attack and damage formula are not anywhere properly or completely defined.
To be fair the problem is that Additional Damage is mentioned like 50 times in the CRB but nowhere is there a definition, as to what it is. It never appears in the damage equations. All we have is a statement from the designer that it is not a bonus.
So where does it go? What is Additional Damage?
Often classes do additional damage from Rage or weapon specialization
Creatures often suffer additional damage from weaknesses
Items can do it. A Dwarven thrower does 1d8 additional damage against giants. A Flaming rune does an additional 1d6 fire damage.
So it can be of a different type
It seems to be added at the end of the damage calculation when the damage is being applied to the target.
Wierd.