| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
greetings all,
my leshy rogue trickster with druid archetype in my game is considering, at level 16, to get the dragon form spell.
Considering he has an unarmed attack bonus of +30 that would make him take his own attack bonus but the claw damage.
Then I have other questions:
Does Greater Weapon specialisation add to the damage ? Rogues get that on unarmed attacks.
Can he Sneak attack ?
Could he use Instant Opening to make someone flat footed?
Could he use debilitating strike which states that he just needs to hit a flat footed creature?
I feel like RAW there isn't anything agaisn't it and i'm overall ok with it because rule of cool, but I wonder if there's anyone that went through the legal debate over this ?
greetings all,
my leshy rogue trickster with druid archetype in my game is considering, at level 16, to get the dragon form spell.
Considering he has an unarmed attack bonus of +30 that would make him take his own attack bonus but the claw damage.
Then I have other questions:
Does Greater Weapon specialisation add to the damage ? Rogues get that on unarmed attacks.
Can he Sneak attack ?
Could he use Instant Opening to make someone flat footed?
Could he use debilitating strike which states that he just needs to hit a flat footed creature?
I feel like RAW there isn't anything agaisn't it and i'm overall ok with it because rule of cool, but I wonder if there's anyone that went through the legal debate over this ?
I've recently made an Iruxi Ruffian Rogue with Druid Archetype largely designed around a similar play style to what I think your leshy is trying to do. I'm under the impression that things like Sneak Attack are additional damage and do stack with the forms damage -- the form only sets the attribute bonus to damage. Any abilities that work off a strike (or generic hit to flat-footed) should also work as long as it doesn't require the use of a weapon.
I'm less clear about Greater Weapon Specialization, but again, I'd be inclined to allow it since it's additional damage added to the unarmed natural attacks, not changing the base stats of the form itself.
It also makes sense to me, skill is skill, it carries over to your dragon form.
I'm just wondering if there's been a RAW ruling agaisn't it.
If no one can say anything agaisn't it here i'll allow it.
I wouldn't go for dragon form by lvl 16.
Battleforms transform a pure caster into a combatant of the same level, but if you take the form levels after it would just nerf you.
A lvl 16 rogue will have 35 AC, against 34 provided by the dragon form ( not really that bad to be honest ).
As for the attack, you'd move from +29 to +22 from the dragon spell.
The polymorph trait is pretty strict about battle forms
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. 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.) Your gear is absorbed into you; the constant abilities of your gear still function, but you can’t activate any items.So, you won't be able to adjust stats neither by adding weapon specialization nor by using your own bonuses,and so on.
Only Status/Circumstance bonuses and penalties would be applied.
As for perks like class feats or features like sneak attack, I think their intent is to have everything disabled until you dismiss the form ( note that all battle form forbid you from casting spells, and allowing you to just use what the battleform has ).
...
By level 15, using the heightened version as a pure spellcaster, you should have the right stats for your level ( 36 AC and +28 hit )
Actually dragon form allows you to use your modifier if its higher. A Rogue would have +30 at that level, which makes the added damage on claws and jaws (3d10 and 2d12+2d6 and 3d10 on tail) kind of a boon since natural attacks are almost always finesse.
even with the diminished damage of +6 the added die size and modes of movement as well as reach could be worth for a rogue, if they keep sneak attack and class features that don't have the banned traits.
RAW you use the special stats the spell provides, adjusting it only with circumstance bonuses, status bonuses and penalties.
Anything else is equal to the character's normal stats.
IMO this means the damage roll portion of the strike (outside of the afore mentioned bonuses and all penalties). There are people who vehemently disagree and state that additional damage is not modifying the stats, I argue that it is by definition modifying the special statistics provided by the spell.
So by my reading you wouldn't get
- Weapon spec
- Rage
- Sneak attack
- Property rune damage (on handwraps of mighty blows
- and other similar abilities
Handwraps 100% apply to the attack roll IF you are replacing the spell's attack roll with your own (and that doesn't suffer the same restrictions), same with the skill bonus as it uses the same language.
Looking at the math, it gets really powerful for martials if you allow it all to stack, I really doubt that is the intent.
Would be awesome if we had a FAQ button though :P
RAW you use the special stats the spell provides, adjusting it only with circumstance bonuses, status bonuses and penalties.
Anything else is equal to the character's normal stats.
IMO this means the damage roll portion of the strike (outside of the afore mentioned bonuses and all penalties). There are people who vehemently disagree and state that additional damage is not modifying the stats, I argue that it is by definition modifying the special statistics provided by the spell.
So by my reading you wouldn't get
- Weapon spec
- Rage
- Sneak attack
- Property rune damage (on handwraps of mighty blows
- and other similar abilitiesHandwraps 100% apply to the attack roll IF you are replacing the spell's attack roll with your own (and that doesn't suffer the same restrictions), same with the skill bonus as it uses the same language.
Looking at the math, it gets really powerful for martials if you allow it all to stack, I really doubt that is the intent.
Would be awesome if we had a FAQ button though :P
So basically the reading would be that since all class abilities and features are neither circumstance or status bonuses, being nameless, they do not apply ?
Hmmmm... I think I'll block GWS but allow sneak attack and instant opening as well as property runes....
The guy is there one game out of two and i'm curious to see if it'll make him broken or not....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The guy is there one game out of two and i'm curious to see if it'll make him broken or not....
Which is precisely why Paizo should step in and give clarity these rules. I have lost a player to PF2 and the reason they gave was the impossibility of being precise with these rules, because the language was too loose.
I am of the firm opinion that all that extra damage stacks so
- Weapon spec
- Rage
- Sneak attack (but don't forget the conditions for it)
- Property rune damage (on handwraps of mighty blows
is all extra damage and not a damage bonus and can be therefore legally included. That is the key technical difference (Additional Damage versus Damage Bonus) But I understand why GMs don't do that. I'm otherwise on board with Gleeful Grognard.
This problem is getting larger not smaller as the Ancestry Guide added a lot more of these battle forms as ancestry feats.
I've seen a developer on the forums say something to the effect that things like rage worked just fine. Will post it if I can find it again.
Personally, I thing Weapon Specialization would work too. The spells wouldn't be terribly useful otherwise, almost like a debuff even.
I've seen a developer on the forums say something to the effect that things like rage worked just fine. Will post it if I can find it again.
Personally, I thing Weapon Specialization would work too. The spells wouldn't be terribly useful otherwise, almost like a debuff even.
They're a way to get casters to be ... well not near martial levels but in the general ballpark.
However I do agree with you that someone who knows how to fight and grabs one of these forms either through trick magic item or archetype should get a small bonus for his pains over the generic stats.
Also really wish there was an answer for this. I was talking with a player online who was getting really frustrated with his party, who insisted he doesn't even get his item bonus to attack rolls while in dragon rage form. I'm lucky to have a fairly lenient group so far, but I would hate to be out in a position like that.
Also really wish there was an answer for this. I was talking with a player online who was getting really frustrated with his party, who insisted he doesn't even get his item bonus to attack rolls while in dragon rage form. I'm lucky to have a fairly lenient group so far, but I would hate to be out in a position like that.
The text of the rules is loose. However the correct answer over item bonuses is clear, because we can see the balance point. Battle forms spells give attack values almost identical to typical martial characters including their item bonuses. SO ...
If you are using the attack bonus in the battle form spell, you don't add in an item bonus to attack - because it is already in there.
If you are calulating your own total bonus to swap into the battle form as the spells allow you to do, then you do count an item bonus to attack.
The intention is clear when you look at the broad picture:
The Battle Forms spells use the permanent modifiers when calculating their attack number - that is Proficiency Bonus (includes level), Ability Bonus, and Item Bonus.
When you use the Battle Form spells, you can only modify it by the situational modifiers - that is Circumstance Bonus, Status Bonus, and any penalties.
When you work out your own attack number to substitute in place of the Battle Form attack number you therefore need to follow the same pattern - that is Proficiency Bonus, Ability Bonus, and Item Bonus
It makes a whole lot of sense and explains the rule. Use your permanent modifiers, but you can only affect it later with your temporary modifiers.
Any other interpretation leads to double counting of a bonus - which is clearly broken and wrong, or missing out on a bonus - which leads to a whole stack of usless powers that people just won't take.
So well the rule may be unclear the right answer is not.
I totally agree and made many of those points myself for the poster to take to his group, but it didn't help sadly.
|
The intention is clear when you look at the broad picture:
No, it really is not. The language is very, very unclear and reasonable people can and do disagree as to what the rules say, let alone what the intent is.
Don't let your conviction as to what the rules should be blind you to that ambiguity.
And it seems that Paizo has little or no intention of clarifying things.
In a home game the ONLY people who matter are the GM and player.
In PFS expect massive table variation if you play a martial and only some variation if you play a straight druid
The intention is clear when you look at the broad picture:
No, it really is not. The language is very, very unclear and reasonable people can and do disagree as to what the rules say, let alone what the intent is.
Don't let your conviction as to what the rules should be blind you to that ambiguity.
And it seems that Paizo has little or no intention of clarifying things.
In a home game the ONLY people who matter are the GM and player.
In PFS expect massive table variation if you play a martial and only some variation if you play a straight druid
Yes the language is unclear, that is why I had to think about it and work it through. I have been through that process. On this part of the issue I am satisfied that I am correct. Within the obvious limits of the meaning of that word here.
The analysis is here if you want to look at it. I am justifying what I am saying. I'm not only saying I don't like it, or you could be read like this.
I am looking at the balance point in the rules themselves. I am favouring workable or balanced solutions over impractical ones. I am looking at the consequences of the rulings elsewhere. I fully calculate out the numbers for all the Druids WildShape forms and more besides.
Yes I can take a possible or arbitrary reading of a rule and hang on to it out of context. But I'm not.
If you disagree with me that is perfectly fine. Justify your position - I have justified mine.
Paizo haven't addressed this so we have to, if we want to play this game.
The intention is clear when you look at the broad picture:
No, it really is not. The language is very, very unclear and reasonable people can and do disagree as to what the rules say, let alone what the intent is.
Don't let your conviction as to what the rules should be blind you to that ambiguity.
And it seems that Paizo has little or no intention of clarifying things.
In a home game the ONLY people who matter are the GM and player.
In PFS expect massive table variation if you play a martial and only some variation if you play a straight druid
Yes the language is unclear, that is why I had to think about it and work it through. I have been through that process. On this part of the issue I am satisfied that I am correct. Within the obvious limits of the meaning of that word here.
The analysis is here if you want to look at it. I am justifying what I am saying. I'm not only saying I don't like it, or you could be read like this.
I am looking at the balance point in the rules themselves. I am favouring workable or balanced solutions over impractical ones. I am looking at the consequences of the rulings elsewhere. I fully calculate out the numbers for all the Druids WildShape forms and more besides.
Yes I can take a possible or arbitrary reading of a rule and hang on to it out of context. But I'm not.
If you disagree with me that is perfectly fine. Justify your position - I have justified mine.
Paizo haven't addressed this so we have to, if we want to play this game.
This is an interesting analysis but I feel it ommits some things:
First of all having to spend 2 actions to trigger your battle form is a huge action sink in a battle that will last 4-5 rounds, that is not to be neglected.
Second of all the attack bonus is considerably behind.
Third of all, for off-casters (like archetype casters or people using a scroll) the progression is much behind what you have put forth, both in damage and attack.
Therefore in order to facilitate synergy I am of the idea that allowing the classes ''damage trick'' such as studied strike, sneak attack and rage should be allowed.
Allowing Weapon spec however is probably not a good idea as it does break this balance you've illustrated.
This is in the optic of allowing battleforms to be a very minute boost for those martial classes that invested the ressources to go get them, vs a straight up disadvantageous option you should never consider.
If we're going with RAI
I have a question. What's benefits a polymorph char can receive from itens?
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. 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.) Your gear is absorbed into you; the constant abilities of your gear still function, but you can’t activate any items.
What does mean "constant abilities of your gear"? What you receive from a +2 greater resilient Antimagic Soaring Hide Armor?
All these magic bonus? The base armor CA? Nothing?
This is an interesting analysis but I feel it ommits some things:
First of all having to spend 2 actions to trigger your battle form is a huge action sink in a battle that will last 4-5 rounds, that is not to be neglected.
I cover it in the second paragraph under the Balance section. Yes its a major cost which just gets ignored by many people. Often your first round all you get is a simple strike, or move and transform and do nothing.
Second of all the attack bonus is considerably behind.
I can't really answer that without more context as to what you mean.
But yes a single class druid is almost always behind on their attack number unless they are casting a lower level spell. In which cast the rules for ading in their unarmed attack value is about returning to some sort of attack number and is still likely going to be a low value.
Third of all, for off-casters (like archetype casters or people using a scroll) the progression is much behind what you have put forth, both in damage and attack.
Yes if you are a 16th level caster, a 4th level polymorph effect is just about the utility sense and movement. The damage value will be bad, your attack value will be that of you the caster - not great.
Therefore in order to facilitate synergy I am of the idea that allowing the classes ''damage trick'' such as studied strike, sneak attack and rage should be allowed.
They specify a few of these bonuses for a few spells. But the main idea is that Mark says additional damage is not a damage bonus. Therefore it is not specified by the spell, therefore it adds. We can identify the "damage bonus" in the damage formula. But we have no real definition or formula that specifies what "additional damage" is.
Different interpretations of this will give you very different damage totals. But AFAICT all additional damage is allowed by a strict reading of the rule.Of course you still have to follow all the other rules. Sneak attack has restrictions on weapons it applies to, etc etc.
Yes I do which Paizo would clarify this situation. I'd be happy with any resolution. But additional damage is mentioned 50ish times in the rules, and it is not defined beyond the obvious add it on to the damage.
I have a question. What's benefits a polymorph char can receive from itens?
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. 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.) Your gear is absorbed into you; the constant abilities of your gear still function, but you can’t activate any items.What does mean "constant abilities of your gear"? What you receive from a +2 greater resilient Antimagic Soaring Hide Armor?
All these magic bonus? The base armor CA? Nothing?
Good example and thankyou it is much easier when people put in links.
First off most of these abilities are constant and not activated so they just function.
In addition to the rule you have quoted we need to consider the things that are specified in the spell lets use Animal Form and assume we are a basic ape.
So lets look at everything the armour might affect
AC is specified: AC = 16 + your level
So we ignore the AC of the armour. It has no effect our AC in battle form. The +2 item bonus it has is not of a type we are allowed to modifiy what is specified with, so don't.
Resilient (Greater): a +2 item bonus to saving throws
There is nothing about this in the Animal Form spell - so we don't fall foul of the rules on special statistics - so it continues to work fine
Antimagic: +1 status bonus to saves. Not a special statistic - so it works.
Antimagic: Activate as reaction Command. Yes this is a problem and you can't do this bit. Two reasons. The rules you quote say you can't activate any items, and Command requires clear speech - which you don't have.
Soaring: +10 item bonus to flight speed. No your flight speed is specified - you have none. But even if you did you couldn't modify it with an item bonus
Soaring: Activate as reaction Command. Not allowed as above
Hide Armour: There is a line in the spell ignore your armor's check penalty and Speed reduction. OK can do.
Hide Armour: There is a line in the spell ignore your armor's check penalty and Speed reduction. OK can do.
So we ignore the AC armor completely and the line "ignore your armor's check penalty and Speed reduction" so what's apply of an armor. The armor specialization?
Another question, In the case of Barbarian Dragon form. As he uses their own AC and attack modifier. So it receives all these armor runes effects once the battle form now use own AC instead spell AC?
You transform into a ferocious Large dragon, gaining the effects of 6th-level dragon form except that you use your own AC and attack modifier, you apply your extra damage from Rage, and the Breath Weapon uses your class DC.
So the barbarian Dragon Form, if well equipped, maybe the best dragon polymorph in the game? (barbarian AC+runes + barbarian HP + barbarian hit+runes + rage damage)
The Breath applies rage damage too?
Is there anywhere in the rules that indicates "adjusted" in "the special statistics can be adjusted only by circumstance bonuses, status bonuses, and penalties" refers specifically to bonuses and penalties only? I assumed that adjusted meant shifted numerically up or down, not affected by bonuses and penalties in particular. Just because additional damage isn't a "bonus" doesn't mean it's not an "adjustment," as far as I'm aware.
Well additional damage is not a damage bonus so I feel like my hands are tied here.
"Special statistics" is not tightly defined
"Adjustment" is not tightly defined
So yes it is possible to read it in different ways. I choose to include everything that is listed in the spell as special statistics and nothing else. I choose to include numbers listed as the things that can't be adjusted.
I think that is the best position, but it is certainly not the only one. None of these things are well defined keywords.
If you really want to be the devils advocate the rules are unplayable. I'm not trying to do that. I'm trying to work out what the designers meant when they wrote the rules. I don't buy the argument that RAI is impossible to determine. In a specific narrow case that can often be true. But when we have the broader system to look at there are things we can work out.
Do you really want them to write the game in formal logic?
Hide Armour: There is a line in the spell ignore your armor's check penalty and Speed reduction. OK can do.So we ignore the AC armor completely and the line "ignore your armor's check penalty and Speed reduction" so what's apply of an armor. The armor specialization?
Yes
Another question, In the case of Barbarian Dragon form. As he uses their own AC and attack modifier. So it receives all these armor runes effects once the battle form now use own AC instead spell AC?
You transform into a ferocious Large dragon, gaining the effects of 6th-level dragon form except that you use your own AC and attack modifier, you apply your extra damage from Rage, and the Breath Weapon uses your class DC.So the barbarian Dragon Form, if well equipped, maybe the best dragon polymorph in the game? (barbarian AC+runes + barbarian HP + barbarian hit+runes + rage damage)
It is a level 16 feat, so it should be awesome. It has also got some specific rules in the feat itself. So it may not be the best example to extrapolate more broadly on.
A Wild Shape Druid will be using the higher level Dragon Form. So it is pretty good to.
The Breath applies rage damage too?
No. The barbarians rage damage applies only to things that Rage damage normally applies to ie melee Strikes, not Powers. I'd want something a little more explicit than that in the feat before I'd agree with you. Yes I see what you are talking about though.
Further repeating a rule specifically in a power doesn't really mean it is an exception either, they often rehash the normal rules in powers.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still looking for the developer commentary I've mentioned before. So far I've searched all of the developers' posting history for the terms "rage" and "polymorph." No luck so far. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that a developer has stated in no uncertain terms that "additional damage" like that from rage can be applied while polymorphed.
Will keep looking.
EDIT: Think I found it. Sort of.
Here's another thread that specifically discusses the topic of what buffs do or do not apply when polymorphed.
An here's another one discussing whether or not Weapon Specialization applies.
Despite my previous posts in some of these threads, I believe that "additional damage" (such as from rage or weapon specialization) are not in themselves "adjusting the special statistics."
I believe you missed my point.
Adjustment isn't tightly defined, no. I asked the question because the colloquial definition of "adjust" is one that should intuitively apply to additional damage (it is adjusting the damage of the attacks granted by the special form), and I was wondering if you had any other reasoning backing the disinclusion of additional damage from the colloquial "adjustment" category, because it was confusing to me that someone could read additional damage as not adjusting an attack.
I don't appreciate the strawmanning of the position you believed I was taking. It's incredibly disingenuous to assume that because someone is asking for rules to back up a position, they believe that determining intent is useless or impossible. Nor that because they want more consistent/clear rules for things like battle forms, something I'd note you yourself are pushing for, that they must want the whole game to be written in formal logic.
Try not to take things personally. I don't know you from a bar of soap. I'm genuinely trying to anwser questions. All I'm pointing out here is the need to exercise reasonable judgement.
So I took your point and ran off somewhere else... welcome to the internet.
Adjustment isn't tightly defined, no. I asked the question because the colloquial definition of "adjust" is one that should intuitively apply to additional damage (it is adjusting the damage of the attacks granted by the special form)
Precisely you have to choose a scope for the term. I stated what I choose - everything explicitly mentioned and nothing that was not mentioned.
What other option is there?
You say that perhaps we can also include everything to do with the attack and damage calculations. That is everything implied about the battle form.
That may be reasonable. No I can't really outright refute that as an option from balance, because the damage numbers are not as tight as the attack numbers, and they are very conditional. It is just that they are normally more explicit with rules.
They do mention "damage bonus" explicitly everywhere in all the battle form spells. Which is this wonderful term that doesn't appear in any of the formula or glossaries of the game. All we really have is Marks Post see above, which vehemently says that additonal damage in not a bonus.
My assumption is therefore the "damage bonus" is merely the total of all bonuses in the damage formula, because it doesn't include the dice. Further that "additional damage" is not even in the damage formulaes in the CRB it is just added at the end. It is often a different type of damage after all.
I freely admit that this can be a bit problematic. It does seem to be close to reasonable.
The trait doesn't list numbers that can't be adjusted. It lists numbers that can be adjusted, and then mentions anything else "adjusting" the numbers isn't a factor.
That is just semantics. You can always express something backwards. That is a null point.
This edition isn't exactly the best one to look to for exceptions proving the rule, but in absence of any clear rule, I'd like to point to the barbarian's Dragon Transformation feat for help in attempting to determine intent.
The text:
"You transform into a ferocious Large dragon, gaining the effects of 6th-level dragon form except that you use your own AC and attack modifier, you apply your extra damage from Rage, and the Breath Weapon uses your class DC."The word "except" is between two commas, which could imply a boundary on its meaning. Is this a sentence with two lists and a conjuction in the middle, or is it one list? Except is not always a conjunction.
But is that relevant considering they didn't even put a definite article before "6th-level"? We probably shouldn't be analysing their grammar.
Yes my typing and langauge is often terrible.
But this text is not good support for your interpretation.
|
I agree the language is difficult to parse.
But reading Gortle's summary gives me clarity.
Basically, there are three kinds of bonuses: Basic, Special, and Temporary
Basic = Proficiency, Ability Score, Item
Special = things like Rage, "untyped" gained from special feats
Temporary = Status and Circumstance
Polymorph overrides the Basic, then stacks the Special and Temporary (if any) on top.
Do I got the right of it?
Mostly. I'd probaly say
Always on = Proficiency, Ability Score, Item
Temporary = Status and Circumstance and penalties
But the special group you mention are just extra things, and not part of the attack formula. If you consider they are modifiying a special statistic of the battleform then they don't apply, but otherwise they do.
The point "egindar" is making is that the damage total could be a special statistic. So additional damage doesn't add. He has a semantic inference for it. I consider the use of the word damage bonus in the battle form spells to be the special statistic, which I consider stronger direct evidence. But it's not explicit, as the definitions are missing, so I can't rule it out. I'm not going to claim I'm right and he is wrong on that as the ancilliary evidence is just not there to back either position. All I can rightly say is I think the evidence for my argument on this is much stronger.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you have any further thoughts on Dragon Transformation? It seems pretty clear to me that all 3 of those items should be exceptions to the normal rules for battle forms.
The point "egindar" is making is that the damage total could be a special statistic. So additional damage doesn't add. He has a semantic inference for it. I consider the use of the word damage bonus in the battle form spells to be the special statistic, which I consider stronger direct evidence. But it's not explicit, as the definitions are missing, so I can't rule it out. I'm not going to claim I'm right and he is wrong on that as the ancilliary evidence is just not there to back either position. All I can rightly say is I think the evidence for my argument on this is much stronger.
Sadly the actual rules as so poorly defined it is very hard to be sure.
I think that different parts of the game where written by different developers with slightly different understandings of the rules. They thought to emphasize different points. Also Paizo are sometimes learning from feedback.
There are a lot more of these feat based battle forms now with the lost omens ancestry guide. At a glance none of them have this sort of wording, but let me know if you find any more. This problem is not going away.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Polymorph effects don't take away your class abilities except where specifically stated (ie, spellcasting).
Personally, I thing Weapon Specialization would work too. The spells wouldn't be terribly useful otherwise, almost like a debuff even.
This is a bad argument, as this power level seems to be in line with what Polymorph spells give in general.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Polymorph effects don't take away your class abilities except where specifically stated (ie, spellcasting).Polymorph doesn't, while battle form does
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. 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.) Your gear is absorbed into you; the constant abilities of your gear still function, but you can’t activate any items.So, by default, any battleform prevents you from:
- Casting Spells
- Speaking
- Using manipulate actions which require handsFor example, Dragon form would allow you to use manipulate actions, but neither to cast spells nor to speak.
Calling upon powerful transformative magic, you gain a Large dragon battle form. You must have space to expand or the spell is lost. When you cast this spell, choose one type of chromatic or metallic dragon. While in this form, you gain the dragon trait. You have hands in this battle form and can take manipulate actions. You can Dismiss the spell.
Thank you for agreeing and presenting a classic example case of "specifically stated" rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I thing Weapon Specialization would work too. The spells wouldn't be terribly useful otherwise, almost like a debuff even.This is a bad argument, as this power level seems to be in line with what Polymorph spells give in general.
You are going to have to be more specific about power level.
Lets consider various cases with characters using the level 17 Beastkin Animal Shape Ancestry feat to become a TRex:
Base is:
AC 35, 20 temp HP, 15ft reach, +18 attack, damage 2d12+6
A wizard/socerer/druid/cleric using this (best case for his attack number - unlikely)
AC 35, 20 temp HP, 15ft reach, +29 attack, damage 2d12+8
A monk (master in unarmed)
AC 35, 20 temp HP, 15ft reach, +32 attack, damage 2d12+12
A precision ranger (master vs hunted foe)
AC 35, 20 temp HP, 15ft reach, +32 attack, damage 2d12+12+2d8
If it was Heightened to the highest available level (spell level 7) which is what you could do if you got this through multiclassing and taking it as the level 16 Furious Shape feat and not as the ancestry feat. Value includes a +2 status attack bonus:
Base
AC 38, 25 temp HP,20ft reach, +25 attack (no status bonus), damage 2d12+15
A wizard.cleric using this (best case)
AC 38, 25 temp HP,20ft reach, +31 attack, damage 2d12+17
A monk (master in unarmed)
AC 38, 25 temp HP,20ft reach, +34 attack, damage 2d12+21
A precision ranger (master vs hunted foe)
AC 38, 25 temp HP,20ft reach, +34 attack, damage 2d12+21+2d8
Finally A druid instead using a level 17 wild shape into Purple Worm via Monstrosity Shape. which is the default level appropriate power:
AC 39, 25 temp HP, 10ft reach, +31 attack, damage 2d12+22
A typical precision ranger with a great sword at this level will be
AC39, +32 attack damage 3d12+12+2d8 but he is going to have other buffs and so on. The monk will have 4 better AC. A dragon barbarian will be doing 3d12+28 damage
I don't see that adding in specialization damage (which I have done for the classes that get it) is all that unbalanced. It is 2 for casters or 6 points for martials. At this fairly high level and the numbers are quite large. But you are still well under Barbarian damage. These sorts of balance decisions are quite subjective.
These numbers all change a bit when you nudge the levels around as different bonuses come and go. Items and extra spells really do need to be considered. Is a level 17 martial just going to swing their weapon without any other buff - unlikely that they won't have a few other tricks at that point. So comparing them to the basic strike is hardly a reasonable basis.
At this level you would think it is likely that other characters are getting a status bonus to hit from somewhere, so I don't read too much into the +2 to hit. But this can vary a lot, if your party is not handing them out then it will make a difference.
However it is clear that your AC will be a disaster area if you use the ancestry feat - it is really just a utility at this level - you don't want to be facing someone with rolling d20+32 to attack when your AC is just 35.
Criticals hits in a 13. Ouch.
Remember that the beastkin ancestry feat says you can use your own ac instead of the forms.
Remember that the beastkin ancestry feat says you can use your own ac instead of the forms.
Thanks for that. The form is still 9 points of damage down but I won't bad mouth that ability any further. Most of these feats don't have the bonus of keeping their own AC. So check your AC in these forms.
I'd just like to thank everyone for the constructive discussion going on here, it's been very interesting reading everything.
Thank you also gortle for taking the time to math out everything.
I agree that the barbarian framing for dragon form indicates rage shouldn't work, but it is one data point vs the rest of the unclear rules.
I believe that there is a "zone" in the polymorph between permissive reading (i.e allowing all class powers to stack on top) and very strict reading (i.e nothing stacks you get the stats that's it) that will for now unfortunately have to fall within DM fiat.
If any players come here to read this, the main takeaway I'd have is this: check with your DM to see what s/he/they think of polymorph and what should apply based on all the very reasonable arguments made here.
Hopefully, as was mentioned many times, we will not know for sure until an errata specifies it.
Got some other questions:
Speaking & Casting spells
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. 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.) Your gear is absorbed into you; the constant abilities of your gear still function, but you can’t activate any items.Are there battleform ( since it's not a trait, I am having hard time finding things out ) which allows the character to also cast spells?
As for speaking, are all battle form unable to speak? I couldn't find anyone saying that you can. Seems like you are a golem which can only hit or use manipulate actions ( cause many battle form give you hands to perform manipulate actions ). Even "humanoid" forms
Did I miss anything?
Special attacks & Skill feats
Are they allowed on a battle form?
For example, channel Smite requires you to expend a spell slot, not to cast the spell. Would it be ok?
What about for example fighter feats?
Also, what about spells like "Righteous Might" or "avatar" ( the first one only gives you a weapon, while the second one might give you weapon and shield ). Since you will be able to maintain your shield, would it be possible to also get your healing kit stowed, ready to be used for the purpose of battle medicine?
Athletics & assurance
How to calculate the assurance check?
Knowing for example that you have +23, what would then be the equivalent to make use of assurance?
Battle forms can't speak unless they say they can.
A polymorph effect is a battle form only when it mentions "battle form" in the spell or effect's body text.
I don't think anyone really knows how Assurance and athletics interact when in a battle form that substitutes your modifier.
You retain, and can use, any and all class abilities, feats, skills, skill feats, and other abilities you possess that (1) aren't specifically called out as restricted by polymorph or the battle form, (2) aren't hindered by your new physical form, such as picking a lock while in the shape of a snake for example, and (3) has not been replaced by your battle form's stats and abilities, such as having your natural claw attack replaced by the battle form's claw attack.
I hope that helps!
Got some other questions:
Speaking & Casting spells
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. 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.) Your gear is absorbed into you; the constant abilities of your gear still function, but you can’t activate any items.Are there battleform ( since it's not a trait, I am having hard time finding things out ) which allows the character to also cast spells?
As for speaking, are all battle form unable to speak? I couldn't find anyone saying that you can. Seems like you are a golem which can only hit or use manipulate actions ( cause many battle form give you hands to perform manipulate actions ). Even "humanoid" forms
Did I miss anything?
Correct RAW all Battle Forms can't speak or cast spells. Even the humaniods ones like Avatar and Righteous Might.
Some people are going to object to that. So expect some table variation but it is clear in the rules, if a little strange in these cases.Just note that the Humanoid Form spell is not a battle form spell so its not affected.
I go through a lot of problems here
Special attacks & Skill feats
Are they allowed on a battle form?
For example, channel Smite requires you to expend a spell slot, not to cast the spell. Would it be ok?
What about for example fighter feats?
A few have some specifics like requiring a weapon, but generally speaking they work.
Also, what about spells like "Righteous Might" or "avatar" ( the first one only gives you a weapon, while the second one might give you weapon and shield ). Since you will be able to maintain your shield, would it be possible to also get your healing kit stowed, ready to be used for the purpose of battle medicine?
Technically no they are merged into your form, and you get none of them. There is nothing stopping you from putting them down, transforming, then picking them up. As you are still humanoid most GMs will probably let that wok.
Yes these two spells could do with some special rules. I'd expect some table variation.
Athletics & assurance
How to calculate the assurance check?
Knowing for example that you have +23, what would then be the equivalent to make use of assurance?
You know your level and can calculatate your assurance number so I don't see a problem. Use it if you want. Though you may have missed the restriction that you can't use anything apart from the specified attacks. So you can't grapple/shove/trip/escape/force open/disarm while in most battle form spells.
I always allow all uses of Athletics and ignore that restriction here.
Though you may have missed the restriction that you can't use anything apart from the specified attacks. So you can't grapple/shove/trip/escape/force open/disarm while in most battle form spells.
I always allow all uses of Athletics and ignore that restriction here.
I strongly suspect everybody does.
Too many basic game mechanics (like escaping a grapple) cease to function properly otherwise.
As for the attacks, it points out that the you can only perform "those" strikes ( probably preventing the player from exploiting by combining class feats with those already powerful attacks ).
I don't believe this to be true. Among other things nearly all polymorph battle form's reference attacks, not Strikes.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So my Druid PC asked today if he could give his proposed Animal Companion a command while in a wild shape battle form.
I responded that he could not. An animal companion has the "minion trait", which is commanded/invoked using the "command an animal" action which has the "auditory" trait.
You cannot speak while in a battle form, ergo, you can't do it. This is the generally accepted reasoning to the above question.
[Note: Please appreciate that while I am the GM, I am also a lawyer IRL.]
The player then persuades me that the above interpretation is wrong.
Player says his proposed battle form is that of a wolf. His companion will also be a wolf. Wolves communicate effectively enough as a pack to battle all the time IRL, while not "speaking".
Player also notes that while "command an animal" has the auditory trait, it does not have the linguistic trait.. It requires only noise, not language.
When we look to the auditory trait, we see:
Auditory
Source Core Rulebook pg. 629 2.0
Auditory actions and effects rely on sound. An action with the auditory trait can be successfully performed only if the creature using the action can speak or ***otherwise produce the required sounds***.
Making a noise is a very different act than "speaking".
Linguistic
Source Core Rulebook pg. 633 2.0
An effect with this trait depends on language comprehension. A linguistic effect that targets a creature works only if the target ***understands the language*** you are using.
Druid player says "Command an Animal" doesn't require linguistic recognition. Druid need only be able to growl or bark to effectively coordinate with simple commands while in wolf battle form to his wolf companion. Druid can't speak, but he doesn't need to be able to in order to invoke "command a companion". A growl or bark will be enough. Auditory trait is not language trait. Growling isn't speaking.
Honestly? I think the player's interpretation, per RAW, is correct. He has found the loophole.
Moreover, on a common sense basis, wolf to wolf growl and bark seems sensible enough. It's a sound, it's not a word. He's not "speaking" as the term is used in the polymorph conditions, he's merely communicating in a limited way by producing a noise. By way of example, a polymorphed creature in a humanoid battle form might not be able to speak, but he could grunt.
Now, you could respond to the above by suggesting RAW is one thing, RAI is another. Problem is, I'm not even sure that the RAI is aimed at producing a negative result to this question.
While a wolf, to a wolf companion? I think I'm going to allow it.