| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There have been users who have made the "additional damage" argument previously citing that additional damage wasn't adjusting the statistics but instead adding to them, this is something I have disagreed with historically.
This may help clear up developer intent
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 action to Dismiss the transformation gains the rage trait.
If rage was intended to be a part of the elements that can adjust a battleform's statistics, it wouldn't be explicitly called out as an exception here.
Now of course this could be a developer mistake, however it is in line with the literal interpretation of the polymorph trait's text and doesn't result in weird balance issues for martial classes dipping into druid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would this then work for either weapon and greater weapon specialization?
I think you're reading too much into it. It doesn't include weapon specialization or greater weapon specialization, since it only mentions rage, but it does include "your extra damage from Rage", whatever that might be. For dragon instinct your rage damage increases alongside those effects, but they are not one and the same. So by the time you get this feat that would be +16 [insert element here] additional damage from Rage as that's just what your rage does at this point.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand, yes, this is by far the strongest case against the notion that these additional damages are meant to stack in the general case, and if I remember correctly it's been brought up several times before, yet many still remain unconvinced. Personally I'm not sure why this argument among others isn't convincing to some, but to each their own, I guess.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This was well known and commented on in the various "How does Wild shape work?" threads.
Basically, it is unclear if this is meant to be an exception or if it is meant to be redundant words clarifying things. Unfortunately, Paizo does both of these so its hard to know in any instance
This was well known and commented on in the various "How does Wild shape work?" threads.
I have witnessed many of those threads and not seen this particular feat mentioned before. Not saying it wasn't (there have been a LOT of threads), just that I hadn't seen it mentioned. Having potential clarification spelled out like this may help others who search the forums.
How is adding to something not adjusting it?
As I said, I don't agree with people who argue that. But since it is still an argument that persists; presenting information is better than not.
Basically, it is unclear if this is meant to be an exception or if it is meant to be redundant words clarifying things. Unfortunately, Paizo does both of these so its hard to know in any instance
I strongly disagree with this. It very explicitly says that you gain "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."
Except = Exception = not typically the case. Yes, Paizo sometimes reminds us of rules, but I'm inclined to believe they understand the concept of exceptions in the English language. If not, then I might as well throw the rulebook out, because I wouldn't be able to trust pretty much any of the casual language in it, and as many have pointed out before, a lot of rules are written in casual language.
P.S. I don't mind casual language. It's only a problem if you can't trust it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, it is unclear if this is meant to be an exception or if it is meant to be redundant words clarifying things. Unfortunately, Paizo does both of these so its hard to know in any instanceI strongly disagree with this. It very explicitly says that you gain "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."
Except = Exception = not typically the case. Yes, Paizo sometimes reminds us of rules, but I'm inclined to believe they understand the concept of exceptions in the English language. If not, then I might as well throw the rulebook out, because I wouldn't be able to trust pretty much any of the casual language in it, and as many have pointed out before, a lot of rules are written in casual language.
P.S. I don't mind casual language. It's only a problem if you can't trust it.
I actually agree with you. But others don't and so I think the rule is unclear (reasonable people disagree == unclear).
Guess I'm an "other."
I lean towards, additional damage applying. But it is just a lean - the best understanding I can get my head around. I do see the uncertainty and ambiguity. The issue needs clarification and I agree with pauljathome comments on this issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is ambiguous and in need of clarification.
I actually agree with you. But others don't and so I think the rule is unclear (reasonable people disagree == unclear).
Fair enough. Depending on the definition of "unclear" in this context.
It is ambiguous and in need of clarification.
Correction: it is easily mistakable / unclear to some, and therefore in need of clarification. Mistakable ≠ ambiguous.
Example: z + z = 10 could be mistaken as the incorrect statement 2 + 2 = 10 due to the similar shapes, especially if written down by hand. However, when understood and read correctly it simply means that 2z = 10.
That being said, even my correction will, of course, be disagreed with, because otherwise there wouldn't be a disagreement in the first place. My point is simply that 2 people coming to different conclusions doesn't necessitate ambiguity, as one or both of them could simply be misunderstanding an ultimately clear and unambiguous statement. I think that you are misunderstanding an unambiguous statement, you think it's an unclear statement, but that the best interpretation is different from what I see it as, and I'm sure a third person out there probably thinks I'm misunderstanding an unambiguous statement. It remains to be seen which is the case, though, I certainly have reasons why I believe I'm right, and quite honestly I find the arguments of the opposition incredibly lack-luster and unconvincing.