| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hello!
I spent all last week trying to get an answer on twitter for this question, so I'm going to try one last attempt here.
The question is pretty much this:
Can we get clarification on how abilities that do "Additional Damage" such as:
- Rage Instincts
- Weapon Specialization
- Sneak Attack/Precision Damage
- Elemental Runes
- etc
How would these abilities work with Polymorph Battle forms like Wild Shape, Animal Form, Dragon Shape, etc? I'm not talking about the special versions from things like the Barbarian feat that clarifies you can use your own damage, and the like, but from a default perspective?
Mark Seifter clarified Here that these effects are not Damage Bonuses, but in fact additional damage. Which leaves them in a grey area when it comes to calculating damage.
If we can get official Paizo response to this, you'll not only resolve dozens of threads of concerns (whichever way it lands), but I will also donate 20 bucks to the charity Game to Grow that Paizo had on their blog last week.
Since its may the 4th, I'll end with "Help us Devs, you're our only hope"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we can get official Paizo response to this, you'll not only resolve dozens of threads of concerns (whichever way it lands), but I will also donate 20 bucks to the charity Game to Grow that Paizo had on their blog last week.
Since its may the 4th, I'll end with "Help us Devs, you're our only hope"
I back this as well, I will also donate $20 extra.
Seems like "additional damage" would be fine, but modifying the damage to include something like your Strength modifier would be wrong by the wording of the various battle-form polymorph spells.
But a GM could definitely decide otherwise, of course. Perhaps just ask them before trying to do this.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems like "additional damage" would be fine, but modifying the damage to include something like your Strength modifier would be wrong by the wording of the various battle-form polymorph spells.
But a GM could definitely decide otherwise, of course. Perhaps just ask them before trying to do this.
Yeaahhhh, this isn't so much an ask GM thing as it is something that a lot of people want a ruling on so every GM doesn't have to figure it out on their own. Also not just talking about damage. Battle form in general has some questions about what should and shouldn't be allowed, especially when it comes to abilities a character has that doesn't directly affect one of the special statistics. Though, damage is probably the most pressing one to clarify.
Absolutely Aw3Som3-117, I've seen so many threads on this with arguing back and forth (angry angry arguing in some cases). After spending an entire week tweeting and retweeting at Devs on twitter with zero response, and even more posts on Reddit and the like, I've sorta hit the wall with the thing and just want an answer once and for all.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely Aw3Som3-117, I've seen so many threads on this with arguing back and forth (angry angry arguing in some cases). After spending an entire week tweeting and retweeting at Devs on twitter with zero response, and even more posts on Reddit and the like, I've sorta hit the wall with the thing and just want an answer once and for all.
Isn't likely to happen :-(.
pragmatically, the answer is one of
1) Discuss it with your GM and then decide if you want to play a wild shaper
2) in PFS (or a similar situation where you're switching GMs a lot) decide if you're willing to play with the worst interpretation of the rules and see cases where you get a better interpretation as bonuses. This largely means making a character who is still effective regardless of the GMs ruling. Some characters are affected a LOT more than others. For example, I'd never make a barbarian with druid dedication in PFS because losing rage while wild shaping would be something that I just wouldn't be willing to accept. But not getting the +1 item bonus to hit on a straight Druid? That I can live with.
I mean, the common interpretations I've seen would all lose the item bonus anyway, wouldn't they? It directly affects the to hit statistic given to you, and item bonuses aren't listed as being able to affect your special statistics.
That being said, yeah, I like that approach unless and until we get an errata about it. I have a feeling it'll be in one eventually, but it seems like the policy is to not make official rulings outside of erratas, which is probably a good idea, but means we'll have to wait a while, unfortunately.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People claim that "Your unarmed attack bonus" includes their item bonus from handwraps. Others, like me, argue that "Your unarmed attack bonus" only includes your proficiency bonus and ability modifiers, as the handwraps are not a part of you and are only applied to any unarmed strikes you have, just like how runes on a Sword wouldn't increase your "Sword attack bonus" in general, but only when you use that specific weapon.
This isn't to argue either way, it's just to point out the two sides of the argument.
Ohhhh, I see. I was so glued to the battle form's general rules I didn't realize it was referring to the common line in battle forms that mention being able to take the higher of your unarmed bonus and the new form's unarmed bonus.
I have an opinion on that, but this isn't the place for it XD
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
People claim that "Your unarmed attack bonus" includes their item bonus from handwraps. Others, like me, argue that "Your unarmed attack bonus" only includes your proficiency bonus and ability modifiers, as the handwraps are not a part of you and are only applied to any unarmed strikes you have, just like how runes on a Sword wouldn't increase your "Sword attack bonus" in general, but only when you use that specific weapon.
This isn't to argue either way, it's just to point out the two sides of the argument.
Except your side of the argument doesn't really have any evidence. So it is frustrating that you keep bringing it up.
Yes I know the rules don't say it in black and white. But the balance point of the game is clear and item bonuses do apply when you are working out your own attack number. Really long discussion.
In Summary
1) Battle Forms give attack numbers equivalent to martial characters wielding weapons. So we know what the right balance point is - items need to be included
2) The attack formula is given in the book. You add every kind of modifier exactly once. Any interpretation that says you get to double add or to not add a modifier is suspect. The Battle Form has all the "always on" modifiers factored in (proficiency, ability score, item), and only allow you to add in the "situational" modifers (circumstance, status, penalities) when you use them. If you are calculating your own unarmed attack modifer to replace the Battle Forms attack modifier then you clearly need to calculate it in the same way that they do. Or you end up with an unbalanced power.
The end result is that on this issue the rules are quiet but the actual right answer is obvious.
Yes along with all the other issues mentioned something Black and White from Paizo on this would be very good.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
the actual right answer is obvious.
No it's not. Reasonable GMs disagree. All the arguing is pretty much useless as it is NOT resulting in anything approaching a consensus. The arguments on both sides have been heard and have not been found to be near universally convincing.
I'm NOT weighing in on either side, just saying that anybody claiming the answer is clear and obvious is wrong.
|
|
the actual right answer is obvious.
No it's not. Reasonable GMs disagree. All the arguing is pretty much useless as it is NOT resulting in anything approaching a consensus. The arguments on both sides have been heard and have not been found to be near universally convincing.
I'm NOT weighing in on either side, just saying that anybody claiming the answer is clear and obvious is wrong.
Exactly this. Necroing and reposting these threads isn't helping, and only antagonizing people who have strong feelings one way or the other. I'm sure the devs know of all the arguments already and have an answer all queued up for the next errata or FAQ drop, but are just waiting for the next rulebook to come out or something.
I definitely allow the additional damage from specialization. That's the only thing I know for sure. I generally do not allow property runes to work. Not sure on the rest as the only barbarian form that allows dragon form specifically states rage works with the battle form damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am glad that we can talk plainly about it and share our personal views and such. But, I really wish there was a "Summon the Devs to save us" button somewhere.
Personally, I'm glad people feel so strongly about the game, and do the research for their perspectives. It makes me appreciate the game that much more. It just stinks when we're not able to come to a consensus.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am glad that we can talk plainly about it and share our personal views and such. But, I really wish there was a "Summon the Devs to save us" button somewhere.
Personally, I'm glad people feel so strongly about the game, and do the research for their perspectives. It makes me appreciate the game that much more. It just stinks when we're not able to come to a consensus.
Unfortunately there are too many things people disagree on that an FAQ button would be overwhelmed quite quickly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly this. Necroing and reposting these threads isn't helping, and only antagonizing people who have strong feelings one way or the other. I'm sure the devs know of all the arguments already and have an answer all queued up for the next errata or FAQ drop, but are just waiting for the next rulebook to come out or something.
the actual right answer is obvious.
No it's not. Reasonable GMs disagree. All the arguing is pretty much useless as it is NOT resulting in anything approaching a consensus. The arguments on both sides have been heard and have not been found to be near universally convincing.
I'm NOT weighing in on either side, just saying that anybody claiming the answer is clear and obvious is wrong.
Paizo are not responding to these questions in any sort of reasonable time frame. So I can choose not to play the game, or choose not to use Battle form spells in this way, or try to determine the best answer based on what we know about the game. I'm just trying to provide a workable answer to the community when something is unclear in the rules.
Most of the points listed at the top of the thread are about additional damage - for which we have some satements from Mark that implies that additional damage adds. A clarification would be really good as it seems a bit too strong. I can't really provide any better answer.
But for this particular point about whether item bonuses add when you are using your attack bonus in place of the Battle forms attack number, we can look inside and see the balance point in the game. Because we have something to compare it too. All the Battle form attack numbers.
I've provided a rationale for why my answer is correct, all the other side is saying is - it can be read a different way. Yeah that was where we started. Make an actual point, or let it go. All you are doing is adding to the confusion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most of the points listed at the top of the thread are about additional damage - for which we have some satements from Mark that implies that additional damage adds.
Only the speaker can imply.
The listener infers.What I inferred was Mark’s comment was not intended in anyway to be transmogrified to apply to battleforms.
In fact, I’m certain based upon Mark beginning his statement with “it isn’t” that he was clearly and unequivocally implying do not apply this comment to battleforms.
So yes, we - you and I - are in complete agreement that
the actual right answer is obvious
because the designer even implied that “actual right answer” last fall
bold as axis right thereand you say Paizo is “not responding to these questions in any sort of reasonable time frame” - they’ve been doing it preemptively for months
if you are able to infer all they’ve been implying
fortunately, I’m here to help
cause I grok what they’re slingin
Most of the points listed at the top of the thread are about additional damage - for which we have some satements from Mark that implies that additional damage adds.Only the speaker can imply.
The listener infers.
I said that Mark was implying. Please no correcting semantics, that is just insulting. There are obvious typos in that sentence but it was perfectly clear.
What I inferred was Mark’s comment was not intended in anyway to be transmogrified to apply to battleforms.
In fact, I’m certain based upon Mark beginning his statement with “it isn’t” that he was clearly and unequivocally implying do not apply this comment to battleforms.
Can you fix your quote please that is nothing to do with battle forms or polymorph?
Yes Mark has said that his posts are not official errata. But often they are the closeet that we will get.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Come on people, let's not do another round of this.
Gortle I know you think it is very clear, but it isn't to many people and unless paizo does address it directly your conclusion doesn't work for them.
Both parties can be respectful of each other.
I said that Mark was implying.
No
You inferred there was something more in Mark’s statement than what he actually wrote.Mark - and only Mark - can say if he was actually implying anything more than what he wrote.
With this demonstrated level of lexical understanding, I’m going to say all your interpretations of the written word need to be placed under the
- Requires Verification
umbrella
and this one especially so
Come on people, let's not do another round of this.
Gortle I know you think it is very clear, but it isn't to many people and unless paizo does address it directly your conclusion doesn't work for them.
Both parties can be respectful of each other.
I am being respectful. Since when is asking for a point or any evidence disrespectful?
This is simply a call for people to think.
I get that they disagree. I just would like them to express themselves in a coherent way, with a point that says something slightly more substantial than "I disagree"
Why do I persist with this? Because really they don't have a point. They are just being reluctant.
Yes it is for Paizo to resolve in the end. But until then people please don't be afraid to think it through.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I said that Mark was implying.No
You inferred there was something more in Mark’s statement than what he actually wrote.
Mark - and only Mark - can say if he was actually implying anything more than what he wrote.With this demonstrated level of lexical understanding, I’m going to say all your interpretations of the written word need to be placed under the
- Requires Verification
umbrellaand this one especially so
Wow, what a narrow point of view of the English language you have, that you can't see a rotation and keep moving.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
.
I get that they disagree. I just would like them to express themselves in a coherent way, with a point that says something slightly more substantial than "I disagree"
This is absolute nonsense. People have said why they disagree with you and given strong arguments against you (albeit ones that have not convinced the majority, just like yours haven't).
You're letting your conviction that you're right stop you from seeing the merits in others arguments and just dismissing anybody who disagrees with you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Am I the only one here who cares less about the rules being argued over and more about Gortle changing their profile picture?! It's unnatural!
I saw someone make a post replying to Gortle and got confused for a moment scrolling through the thread wondering why I couldn't find any of their posts...
Wow, what a narrow point of view of the English language you have, that you can't see a rotation and keep moving.
I recommend the OED.
You will find it quite helpful.
I saw someone make a post replying to Gortle and got confused for a moment scrolling through the thread wondering why I couldn't find any of their posts...
I wish that was the only confusing thing in this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Am I the only one here who cares less about the rules being argued over and more about Gortle changing their profile picture?! It's unnatural!
Yes, my strongest disagreement in the thread is that image change. ;)
Wow, what a narrow point of view of the English language you have, that you can't see a rotation and keep moving.I recommend the OED.
You will find it quite helpful.
I recommend Swan's Practical English Usage.
It'll help you understand the narrowness of dictionaries.
I find that’s aimed more for L2 than L1
though now I wonder if that’s a factor in this imply/infer mix up
Am I the only one here who cares less about the rules being argued over and more about Gortle changing their profile picture?! It's unnatural!Yes, my strongest disagreement in the thread is that image change. ;)
Sorry but the main point of a handle is that it is unique. The main reason I choose the picture originally is that no one else was regularily posting using that image. Now someone else is. So I selected another image. Picking from the least used images.
.
I get that they disagree. I just would like them to express themselves in a coherent way, with a point that says something slightly more substantial than "I disagree"
This is absolute nonsense. People have said why they disagree with you and given strong arguments against you (albeit ones that have not convinced the majority, just like yours haven't).
You're letting your conviction that you're right stop you from seeing the merits in others arguments and just dismissing anybody who disagrees with you.
Not really.
I get that many people are not going to be happy until there is a straight forward ruling from Paizo. In a sense neither really will I. We are all in that boat to a greater or lesser extent.
I'm just trying to do the best we can until that happens. If you have a point make it. I'm definitely not trying to shut anyone down. Nor will I accept any call to stop talking. Each time we have one of these threads it is iniitally new people who are asking questions. If it is getting to you move on, and stop engaging in threads you aren't interested in.
No, on this part of the issue people have not said why they disagree with me. Just that they do. Which is OK - but I get that. But I also can't take that seriously.
Cheers
Sorry but the main point of a handle is that it is unique.
So if enough people show up with that avatar, you'll change it? Interesting...
I get that many people are not going to be happy until there is a straight forward ruling from Paizo. In a sense neither really will I. We are all in that boat to a greater or lesser extent.
*raises hand* Welcome friend. Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the unarmed attack bonus is clear. It doesn't say unarmed attack bonus absent item bonuses. It just says your unarmed attack bonus everything that affects it or the battle form's bonus. I follow it like it is written.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People claim that "Your unarmed attack bonus" includes their item bonus from handwraps. Others, like me, argue that "Your unarmed attack bonus" only includes your proficiency bonus and ability modifiers, as the handwraps are not a part of you and are only applied to any unarmed strikes you have, just like how runes on a Sword wouldn't increase your "Sword attack bonus" in general, but only when you use that specific weapon.
This isn't to argue either way, it's just to point out the two sides of the argument.
Well this is the thing. The rules define the total formula being proficiency bonus(includes level), ability bonus, item bonus, circumstance bonus, status bonus, then penalities and other types of bonuses are allowed. But it never actually defines "your attack bonus" or "your unarmed attack bonus".
But you know what, you can work it out from common sense.
Tell me what do people actual do?
Tell me for your magic sword, what do your write down on your character sheet for your attack?
Let me tell tell you - you write down the sum of proficiency bonus, ability bonus, item bonus. Maybe if you have a Bard in your group you might include a status bonus from Inspire Courage. But sometimes you won't use the status bonus. Because the bard goes after you or doesn't have enough actions. So you end up having to adjust it, and probably don't put it down.
In practice it is actually pretty clear. If someone asks you for your attack bonus you are going to give them the number proficiency bonus + ability bonus + item bonus.
What is a monk going to write on his character sheet? Exactly the same. Proficiency bonus, ability bonus, item bonus. But he probably has handwraps and not a magic sword.
Do they really need to define "your attack bonus" in normal cases? No. Everyone just uses it.
It's really only in this rules situation with Battle Forms that we have a problem and need a definition.
So what would a non monk write on their character sheet as a their unarmed attack number?
Proficiency bonus + ability bonus + item bonus.
So why would you need a wild shape druid to do anything any different?
When you look at it like this the Battle form rules that say that you can only modify your attack bonus by "circumstance bonus, status bonus, and penalities" makes a lot of sense.
a) every bonus exactly once. Nothing missed. No double dipping.
b) the attack values including an item bonus line up with the attack values of a standard martial character, if you use proficiency bonus + ability bonus + item bonus. We know that it is the right target number because we have the default attack values in the Battle form spells.
Balanced fair, and what everyone actually uses in practice
So when you say there is another side of the argument. Maybe you just don't count item bonuses. I say why? On what basis? The balance point of that game is obvious. Just think it through.
But you know what, you can work it out from common sense.
While I agree with what you're saying, far too often I see things that are either in the rules or that people post that seems at odds with what I'd call common sense. In this case, I'm sure someone finds it perfectly sensible to do ir in a way other than you presented. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1 Additional thing I'd like to point out that bolsters Gortle's point is the exact wording of the forms when they say you can choose to use your stats instead. They all (or at least all the ones I've looked at) say you can use your "unarmed attack modifier", not your unarmed attack bonus, not your unarmed attack's proficiency bonus, etc. Then, if we go over to the rules on attack rolls we have:
Melee attack modifier = Strength modifier (or optionally Dexterity for a finesse weapon) + proficiency bonus + other bonuses + penalties
An unarmed attack is a melee attack, so your "unarmed attack modifier" is actually laid out very clearly in the rules. Unless someone wants to argue you can't extrapolate from "Melee attack modifier" to "Unarmed attack modifier", which is literally just a specific melee attack.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
since I'm sticking to this druid and not picking up any of the class features I'm not at current sure about, I'm good to go
To me, at least, that kind of sidesteps the whole problem (and is therefore an EXCELLENT solution for PFS or those situations where you don't or can't have a long discussion with your GM).
The reality is that a straight druid who wild shapes is definitely quite viable. As is, say, a cleric who takes up wild shaping as a side line (to cite 2 of my PFS characters).
The issues come up primarily with the martial who wild shapes OR with the druid who multiclasses to try and get some extra oomph to their wild shape.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
since I'm sticking to this druid and not picking up any of the class features I'm not at current sure about, I'm good to goTo me, at least, that kind of sidesteps the whole problem (and is therefore an EXCELLENT solution for PFS or those situations where you don't or can't have a long discussion with your GM).
The reality is that a straight druid who wild shapes is definitely quite viable. As is, say, a cleric who takes up wild shaping as a side line (to cite 2 of my PFS characters).
The issues come up primarily with the martial who wild shapes OR with the druid who multiclasses to try and get some extra oomph to their wild shape.
Generally yes. For a straight druid it comes up when you use a lower level spell for that extra polymorph. Because you haven't had a chance to rest. Much less common, you can avoid most of it, but it does happen.
The problem has been made worse by the APG, as a stack of ancestries can now get Battle Forms.
But you know what, you can work it out from common sense.While I agree with what you're saying, far too often I see things that are either in the rules or that people post that seems at odds with what I'd call common sense. In this case, I'm sure someone finds it perfectly sensible to do ir in a way other than you presented. :P
I do agree which is why we need Paizo to say something.
However if we collected character sheets after a large convention, I think you would find 90% of people would have written their attack bonus down as I described.
I don't have a strong opinion about this -- gun to my head, I'd allow rage additional damage but not item-bonus-derived additional damage -- but doesn't the wording of the exception in the Dragon Transformation feat imply that the additional damage from raging usually counts as an "adjustment" that is disallowed by the polymorph trait?
You... [gain] the effects of 6th-level dragon form except that... you apply your extra damage from Rage
Doesn't the word "except" indicate that this is an exception?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part of me wonders why they don't follow up with an answer to this question at the end of the day. I know that they don't have all the time in the world to be replying to rules questions, but in the cases where there is no consensus, and threads like this always spiral out of control, it makes me wonder if that same lack of consensus applies to them as well.
At this point, I'm unsure if we'll ever see a response from them on this subject, which is a major feelsbad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of me wonders why they don't follow up with an answer to this question at the end of the day. I know that they don't have all the time in the world to be replying to rules questions, but in the cases where there is no consensus, and threads like this always spiral out of control, it makes me wonder if that same lack of consensus applies to them as well.
At this point, I'm unsure if we'll ever see a response from them on this subject, which is a major feelsbad.
Yeah I know all the arguments for not answering rules questions, but I mean two or three a year wouldn't be asking for a lot and it isn't like the designers could possibly be unaware of the issues. Or, hell, indirectly answering by releasing some errata would be even better. With most folks interacting with rules elements digitally, the downsides of a more regular errata schedule really are small.
|
They cannot be a kind of authoritative presence answering questions like this because they already tried that with 3.X and PF1 and it was an unmitigated disaster with customers and fans alike frothing at the mouth to literally debate and insult the Paizo staff who were brave and kind enough to try and chip in.
If they clarify one thing people will expect another, and another, then all of the CRB to be rereleased whole-cloth any time they do errata, and the more often they issue errata the more they have to take people away from other product and layout projects (which actively loses the company money and more importantly TIME).
They cannot give an inch because over the last 15 years they did that and were stretched to the moon and back. If this is something Paizo wants to or CAN find a way to handle it would involve hiring more dedicated staff that does nothing but communicate on social media and with the PFS organized play league in order to first gather all of the questions and issues, distill them down to the most important things, and then after that have multiple meetings with a half dozen or more staff who penned the options (some of whom aren't even employed formally by Paizo now or at ANY point in time) that are questionable. This isn't going to happen unless Paizo somehow figures out an ACTUAL golden goose that can help make up for the razor-thin cost/price margins they already deal with given that the industry hasn't had a significant price increase in years, especially since they give away all of their rules for free...
Don't get your hopes up, just do what I do and make passive-aggressive jabs at the situation by creating your very own...
So. Is there any option of establishing a community based FAQ or Wiki?
Would there be any value in the community trying to come to some sort of concensus. Even if that concensus was grey on some issues?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So. Is there any option of establishing a community based FAQ or Wiki?
Would there be any value in the community trying to come to some sort of concensus. Even if that concensus was grey on some issues?
There is value on the very rare occasions that the community achieves something approximating consensus.
But that happens very, very rarely. To take the subject of this particular thread as an example, many many threads have not led to anything approximating consensus.
There IS also value in the community coming up with a place where the various arguments on a particular subject can be recorded. But doing that in an unbiased way is quite difficult and doing it in a biased way would be worse than not doing it at all.