Derailing my own thread here, but what was the conclusion to all those questions back when the game first launched about whether weapon specialization, rage damage or sneak attack damage applied to battle forms or not?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Derailing my own thread here, but what was the conclusion to all those questions back when the game first launched about whether weapon specialization, rage damage or sneak attack damage applied to battle forms or not?
There are a whole bunch of people who will tell you unequivocally that the RAW makes it very clear that it either does or does not work. Depending on who you ask.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really, still not answered? Well I'll be damned.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Derailing my own thread here, but what was the conclusion to all those questions back when the game first launched about whether weapon specialization, rage damage or sneak attack damage applied to battle forms or not?There are a whole bunch of people who will tell you unequivocally that the RAW makes it very clear that it either does or does not work. Depending on who you ask.
And at least a few of us who admit that it is completely NOT clear and up to the GM :-) :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't scale well in what way? AC wise they're practically the same, occasionally higher. Attack modifier for about half the levels there's at least one that's identical and the rest of the levels they're only usually 1 or 2 lower. They give you temp HP and generally have some utility, and give you reach in the majority of forms.
They're actually really close, and arguably situationally already better. The only issue with them is the wording that makes it look like RAW you can't use maneuvers or Escape.
Say you want to use permanent duration of Dragon Form via wildshape and perfect form control. Sounds cool? On the paper. On practice you can use it earliest on level 15, when you would normally get access to heightened version of it. And what would we have on level 15:
AC 33. That's about as much as wizards/sorceress get with +3 explorer outfit. Good enough not to be hammered with critical hit on every single hit. But absolutely NOT to be involved in melee combat... which whole purpose of form is about.Even worse with attack. AT this point your own attack modifier absolutely will be higher than puny +22.
But "hey", will you say, "druids have +2 status bonus, if they using Battle Form via wildshape!" Yeah. And that will bring you just at equal status to those who have unarmed proficiency naturally. More to that, since it status bonus, it WON'T stack with other status bonuses. Specifically Heroism spell. So all those bearers of of master and legendary proficiency can get another +2 to attack from heroism (including martials who multiclass into spellcaster, so don't even need to rely on another divine spellcaster). And you not.Goes so much worse with lower Battle Forms. What if RP-wise i want to stay at bear form, even on higher level?
What if i am wizard/sorcerer, who doesn't even get that +2 status bonus, and only freaking 1 minute duration per spell. "Guys, i am out of both my level-8 slots. Yeah, after our first combat this day. Can we take a long rest?".Can...
Yes... and the take-home here is that casters are not supposed to be able to just use a permanent shapeshift to compete with martials at their own game. That's correct. Insisting that you want the permanent form (which, by design, is not as good at fighting) and then that *that* should be able to compete? Please.
Wild Shape is a focus spell. You can cast it every fight if you like, as long as you can take some time to recover your spells afterwards. If you want to fight in wild shape, you can use *that*. That makes you a psuedomartial who then has a full set of spell slots for things like out-of-combat heals and utility effects. So... maybe you *shouldn't* be able to swing the beef like a "hitting people with things is all I have" martial class.
If you want to be a highly effective combatant that shapeshifts, then I woudl suggest the Barbarian, who comes in your choice of "beast" and "dragon". If those are not adequate to your needs, then perhaps the beastkin versatile heritage can help you. If neither of those is acceptable, and the Druid just isn't enough for you, then the thing that you're waiting for is either the synthesis summoner or the shifter. I'm waiting for those too. You're highly unlikely to get full spellcasting with it regardless - nor should you.
If you want a version of the druid that sacrifices their ability to cast spells for improved wild shape prowess? Well, that's another way to describe the Shifter, I suppose. There are *many* of us waiting patiently for that one (and debating what the best ways to implement it are).
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think it would be neat to be able to have a favored form, and still be viable from 1-20.
To keep up with the math, you have to graduate from wolves to dragons to purple worms or whatever, but sometimes you just want to keep that classic wolf aesthetic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes we have all these different PCs ancestries. That go from level 1 to 20, including shooy, sprites, spiderfolk. But we can't have a wolf.
Well we can with Animal Companions, just not battle forms.
It would be nice if the higher level battle forms were taken for the extra cool abilities, rather than just because the maths of the game stop suporting the classic forms.
If you want to be a highly effective combatant that shapeshifts, then I woudl suggest the Barbarian, who comes in your choice of "beast" and "dragon". If those are not adequate to your needs, then perhaps the beastkin versatile heritage can help you. If neither of those is acceptable, and the Druid just isn't enough for you, then the thing that you're waiting for is either the synthesis summoner or the shifter. I'm waiting for those too. You're highly unlikely to get full spellcasting with it regardless - nor should you.
If you rage, you can't wildshape. If you wildshape then rage, you can't end wildshape.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If flavour is your goal, beastkin is a great option. My wolf beastkin animal barbarian had all the flavour of a shapeshifter, since it is, you know a shapeshifter, and was a bruiser on the front lines with the biting, and the tripping, and the other tripping.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see this as a problem. They're temporary power boosts to get casters close to martials. I fail to see the problem with a permanent version not doing that. When not transformed you're still a full caster.
And yet it is a problem.
And one thing where core system is flawed and you can't really do anything about it. Other then very heavily homebrew it (which likely cause myriad of other unexpected issues), like with D&D 5e.But with PF2e you actually CAN quite easily "reverse-engineer it" and see that base mechanics DOES allow more "fluid" polymorph rules.
And once again, unlike nowadays WotC, Paizo still are often publish new materials. So all they need to do is give a little bit of room for optional extended polymorph rules in future books.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see this as a problem. They're temporary power boosts to get casters close to martials. I fail to see the problem with a permanent version not doing that. When not transformed you're still a full caster.And yet it is a problem.....
You seem to be conflating your opinion with fact. It's a problem for you. It's not a problem for others. As you've suggested if you don't like it house rule it. Alternatively, play another game that allows you to achieve this fantasy.
I'd assume there might be a Shifter class or expansion on polymorph in the future but it's likely to come with heavily restricted casting similar to the Magus or Summoner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to be conflating your opinion with fact. It's a problem for you. It's not a problem for others. As you've suggested if you don't like it house rule it. Alternatively, play another game that allows you to achieve this fantasy.I'd assume there might be a Shifter class or expansion on polymorph in the future but it's likely to come with heavily restricted casting similar to the Magus or Summoner.
It's absolutely far more than "only my problem".
If anything, topics about Battle Form keeps pop up on this forums more often than anything else.| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to be conflating your opinion with fact. It's a problem for you. It's not a problem for others. As you've suggested if you don't like it house rule it. Alternatively, play another game that allows you to achieve this fantasy.I'd assume there might be a Shifter class or expansion on polymorph in the future but it's likely to come with heavily restricted casting similar to the Magus or Summoner.
It's absolutely far more than "only my problem".
If anything, topics about Battle Form keeps pop up on this forums more often than anything else.
I could have worded the second sentence better. I meant to say that it's a problem for some and not for others. There's no indication that it's a problem for the majority. It's still only an opinion that it's a problem and it was stated as if it were a fact.
Topics on battle form being the most frequent posts here is hyperbole. Not to mention that the majority of threads that pop up about battle form are about which bonuses factor into the form (sneak, rage, striking, etc) less so scaling or being able to cast spells.
As someone who has used battle forms quite a bit, they aren't a problem if you build for them. Battle forms do pretty good damage. I've found them to be about right for what they provide. They don't just provide the ability to fight like a martial. They provide mobility, special attacks, extra hit points, and sometimes resistances as well as a substantial size increase in some cases. Battle forms can be very useful.
I'm more concerned with the uselessness of summoned creatures in battle. No matter how much my group tries, they have not been able to make summoning a good viable combat strategy. The creatures they summon are truly too weak to compete other than an occasional gimmick creature to set up a spell attack like the Bone Croupier. They don't scale well for what you fight.
Battle forms are pretty low on the list for spells that require fixes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope that when we get shifters, they are not tied to battleform spells, or if they are they are focus spells. No reason to buff Druids just to give a completely different class nice things, and making bigger and better form spells for the arcane and primal spell lists would do that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not a problem that casters can't tie martials in beating things to death. Temporarily getting pretty close, sure. Tie permanently with the option to just become a full caster again at will? No.I don't see this as a problem. They're temporary power boosts to get casters close to martials. I fail to see the problem with a permanent version not doing that. When not transformed you're still a full caster.And yet it is a problem.
And one thing where core system is flawed and you can't really do anything about it. Other then very heavily homebrew it (which likely cause myriad of other unexpected issues), like with D&D 5e.
But with PF2e you actually CAN quite easily "reverse-engineer it" and see that base mechanics DOES allow more "fluid" polymorph rules.
And once again, unlike nowadays WotC, Paizo still are often publish new materials. So all they need to do is give a little bit of room for optional extended polymorph rules in future books.
It would be nice if there was an option to dump spellcasting entirely in exchange for longer lasting, more powerful wild shape. Ppl who play Wild Order generally do it for the Wild Shape, not the spells. Maybe if spells were better in 2e, that would change, but most spells in this edition are underwhelming at best. Just my own opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not saying that the 2 hybrids are now balanced ( since I hate the + 2 status bonus given to the druid. It should be imo lowered to +1 ), but more that the game feels great with no more powercreep.
You may have missed that the +2 status bonus only applies when using your own attack bonus, which only applies If your unarmed attack bonus is higher, you can use it instead which is just not often or its just a catch up on even levels.
Unless your are a martial multiclassed into a Druid it is not a problem.
Asking for no more powercreep is fine but you are going to have to accept a little as more content is more options will always give some power creep.
PF2 is still extremely well balanced, and bar one monk feat they have noted for errata it is very good at the moment. Paizo have already released lots of extra content and they have done an excellent job at keeping it balanced.
Mountain Stance or that Heaven's Thunder feat?
You admitted yourself the problem exists.
But only in the context its an intractable problem => your expectations are not reasonable.
Also, sometimes the druid pulls ahead and become equal ( or slightly better ) than a martial.So it's a no, no for me.
You are looking at a narrow part or it without considering the entire context. The druids wild shape power are often equal to martials just with the explicit number in the spells (go back and look at previous analyses) The wild shape druid is balanced to normal martial characters on odd levels.
"slightly better" a potential +1 that applies on half the levels and does not stack with every other status bonus out there. Note only plus 1 as you have to be BEHIND to get it.
Plus you aren't considering the 2 action cost.
You are overstating the issue.
Powercreep is almost under control, but I already said that in the post you partially quoted ( the reverse engineering stuff was meant to point out that they had excellent reasons not to make the same mistake a second time.
They are doing a very good job. Its no where near the mess that is 5e which has rebalanced the game with its newer releases.
Yeah, the sixth pillar 16 feat has to go,
??
As for heaven's Thunder, I am not sure I did read it in the proper way... it's just a damage swap?For example, a monk unarmed stride deals 2d6+7, resulting into 14 physical damage. With that feat it would result 7 electric and 7 sonic damage instead?
Unless I am missing something, there are better choices for either the 3rd( or first ) action and a lvl 6 feat.
F
Its a flat add for plus character level damage. It is clearly way out of bounds. I don't know how it got printed.
Why would Mountain Stance need errata now? Heaven's Thunder isn't a monk feat.
Something to do with Alchemist mutagens stacking with status bonus or something. Maybe that change was already made.
Mountain Stance was errata'd to be an item bonus already.
What monk feat is it then?
Is it an archetype feat?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
here's what bothers me most.
And it's definitely going to be worse in the future
That is the large number of static damage adds combiing with Certain Strike.
Yes it is a good power if you are hasted.
It has the Press trait so you can't use it on your first attack of the turn.
You also can't use it with most of the powers that they list as its tied to a particular activity. You can't Certain Strike and a Finisher Strike at the same time.
They are also level and class gated so its very hard to build in more than a couple anyway.
You only get you best circumstance bonus and best status bonus to damage.
Things like Bespell Weapon take actions to set up and are inherently one per turn. Others trigger off rare events.
The generic additional damage bonuses are like +1 good damage for Celestial Strikes. Its not going to break the game.
I'm not seeing it get out of control.
Paizo have been very good at tying the strong features into classes and only letting weaker features out in multiclass archetypes.
PF2 is going to remain very much balanced.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm more concerned with the uselessness of summoned creatures in battle. No matter how much my group tries, they have not been able to make summoning a good viable combat strategy. The creatures they summon are truly too weak to compete other than an occasional gimmick creature to set up a spell attack like the Bone Croupier. They don't scale well for what you fight.
Uhm, about that... remember the times when certain classes had class features as powerful as some classes? Druid's pet vs. Fighter?
Unfortunately, by the very definition, a summon being able to 'hold its own' in combat would be on par with a martial character. So no, unless you want to go the way of 'summons make martial PCs obsolete' again, summoned creatures can't be allowed to be more then 'impromptu flank providers', 'meat shields', 'trap finders' or just decoys.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm more concerned with the uselessness of summoned creatures in battle. No matter how much my group tries, they have not been able to make summoning a good viable combat strategy. The creatures they summon are truly too weak to compete other than an occasional gimmick creature to set up a spell attack like the Bone Croupier. They don't scale well for what you fight.Uhm, about that... remember the times when certain classes had class features as powerful as some classes? Druid's pet vs. Fighter?
Unfortunately, by the very definition, a summon being able to 'hold its own' in combat would be on par with a martial character. So no, unless you want to go the way of 'summons make martial PCs obsolete' again, summoned creatures can't be allowed to be more then 'impromptu flank providers', 'meat shields', 'trap finders' or just decoys.
Its a balancing thing. Still waiting to see what they have done with the Summoner but it seems clear from what we have heard so far its a Summoner in name only. May still be a good class, just not the one I'm hoping for.
Actually summoning could do with a boost, as it currently stands. But that is just my opinion, and I need to play one more. The basics seem right with the trade off in actions. But clearly there is a balance point and that is a decision for Paizo to make. Lets see what they have done.
The best use for summons (imo) is when you need to make use of their unique abilities or they have ranged options.
Using a summon that is 100% immune to the attacks of a foe or has good ranged options is always fun imo.
But yeah, they are tricky to get any real use out of. And certainly not something you can currently build a decent character around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best use for summons (imo) is when...they have ranged options.
If you're just using it for ranged attacks, aren't spells like spiritual weapon or flaming sphere generally better? At least then for your Sustain action you get to use your Spell Attack/DC rather than that of a creature several levels behind.
Unless you dumped your primary stat enough that the creature has higher numbers, or has greater range, or has one killer rider effect, I don't much see the poi--you know what? Never mind. XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best use for summons (imo) is when you need to make use of their unique abilities or they have ranged options.
Using a summon that is 100% immune to the attacks of a foe or has good ranged options is always fun imo.
But yeah, they are tricky to get any real use out of. And certainly not something you can currently build a decent character around.
I find the opposite actually. The best use I can find for them is to stay in melee vs a boss and inflict flat-footed. If it eats an attack or two to get cleared, that's a win.
I find the opposite actually. The best use I can find for them is to stay in melee vs a boss and inflict flat-footed. If it eats an attack or two to get cleared, that's a win.The best use for summons (imo) is when you need to make use of their unique abilities or they have ranged options.
Using a summon that is 100% immune to the attacks of a foe or has good ranged options is always fun imo.
But yeah, they are tricky to get any real use out of. And certainly not something you can currently build a decent character around.
Just tonight I saw the power of summons in a party with Battle Medicine. They stayed in the fight twice as long as a result of a single action.
Just tonight I saw the power of summons in a party with Battle Medicine. They stayed in the fight twice as long as a result of a single action.
You mean, for one full action on the part of a PC, all the enemy had to do was spend a single action (or more) to dispatch the summon! *Gasp* What a waste!
Except... each of those actions was one where the enemy was not attacking a party member, which is also one more action for PCs and summons alike to wail on the enemy. Seems like it wasn't that much of a waste after all. Why, it even sounds like that was a worthwhile investment!
Remember people, numerical superiority is a force multiplier. Even a mere summon boosts your party's effectiveness, and sometimes just having something to help clear/delay mooks helps with taking down the big bad. So yeah, just because a summon can no longer replace a martial character (and again: Good riddance to that), they are far from useless.
Just look up the old summoning guides for PF1 and check what extra help summons can provide other then being bags of temporary HP.
I'm not that interested in escalating stats or tricks to get more oomph out of wildshape as a fighter or stuff.
I'd just like to be able to pick a favorite animal and stick with it for the whole career.
Yeah everyone here seems sensible enough to not want more power out of shifting. Those of us that want more content in future books want ways of making the earlier forms remain somewhat viable (like you do) or just cool themed forms, maybe that offer less "oomph" but more interesting utility.
Boggles the mind that theres a reasonable number of people adamant that pathfinder should never add such things or build on polymorphing beyond what we have already.
I'm not that interested in escalating stats or tricks to get more oomph out of wildshape as a fighter or stuff.
I'd just like to be able to pick a favorite animal and stick with it for the whole career.
Yeah everyone here seems sensible enough to not want more power out of shifting. Those of us that want more content in future books want ways of making the earlier forms remain somewhat viable (like you do) or just cool themed forms, maybe that offer less "oomph" but more interesting utility.
Boggles the mind that theres a reasonable number of people adamant that pathfinder should never add such things or build on polymorphing beyond what we have already.
It's not that I don't want more options. It's that I don't see how they would reasonably fit into the game. Balancing such options - while most likely not impossible - might be a hard thing to do and simply not be worth the effort.
I also think there's like half a dozen or more new Form spells confirmed for SoM. I would assume those come with various additional abilities and may add some much-needed utility to shapeshifting. Paizo probably won't print "more of the same", i.e. Form spells that don't really do much beyond giving you some combat abilities like Animal Shape. There's only so many you can design of those without it becoming utterly redundant (beyond flavor, I guess). There would be no point in shifting into an Ooze if it had the very same abilities and stats as an Animal Form.
Anyway, I don't think there is too much point in discussing this much further without seeing what SoM has to offer.
A druid (or theoretical shifter class) feat investment that allows your forms an elemental resistance, opposing elemental weakness and 1d6 (or 1d4 if agile) elemental damage doesnt sound too far off from what a feat should grant and wouldn't push a druid ahead of a true martial given the range of feats martials have to make them better.
IMO things like that are well within the bounds of power level for investment. Especially if the feat only affected a subset of forms (such as animal forms, insect forms and aerial forms for example, or its effects were limited to spell level 5/6 or lower forms) and the feat itself had a level 12 prerequisite. That would be an ok way of allowing both interesting themes and some scaling for the lower level forms.
Similarly having a level 10-12 Druid feat that allowed you to use your own ac if higher (perhaps only when assuming lower level forms) would also help make your favored forms more long term.
These kinds of feats obviously require investment, so a druid would have to make the choice of adding new forms to wild shape via feats or improving their old ones, but martials wouldn't get access to them due to the level prerequisite and the feats wouldn't make the lower level forms better than newer forms you could get at higher spell levels. They'd be great for allowing a druid that wants a favored form to have it keep up a little and could be used to add some fun flavor and themed utility.
Anyway, they could add that kind of stuff in future books without making anything obsolete or power creeping and at the same time a lot of people would be happy about it.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not that I don't want more options. It's that I don't see how they would reasonably fit into the game. Balancing such options - while most likely not impossible - might be a hard thing to do and simply not be worth the effort.I'm not that interested in escalating stats or tricks to get more oomph out of wildshape as a fighter or stuff.
I'd just like to be able to pick a favorite animal and stick with it for the whole career.
Yeah everyone here seems sensible enough to not want more power out of shifting. Those of us that want more content in future books want ways of making the earlier forms remain somewhat viable (like you do) or just cool themed forms, maybe that offer less "oomph" but more interesting utility.
Boggles the mind that theres a reasonable number of people adamant that pathfinder should never add such things or build on polymorphing beyond what we have already.
I don't think it's actually that hard. The main thing I'm asking for is:
- Instead of using a new "skin" at higher levels, use the same skin.
- Instead of getting bigger at higher levels, stay the same size.
Those are independent; say you were using a level 5 animal form, but your preferred skin was an ape. You would just rewrite the Heightened line:
Heightened (5th) Your battle form is Huge and your attacks have 15-foot reach; or Large and your attacks have 10-foot reach; or Medium and your attacks have no extra reach. You must have enough space to expand into or the spell is lost. You instead gain 20 temporary HP, AC = 18 + your level, attack modifier +18, damage bonus +7 and double the number of damage dice, and Athletics +20.
NPC monsters can be Medium and high level at the same time, and have stats matching their levels. Why not players?
This is a bit of extra versatility and therefore power; charging a class feat for it might not be crazy.
The main extra work this would require would be adding more Heightened entries to lower-level polymorph spells that we want to extend to top levels. But we can look into higher level polymorph spells to see what appropriate numbers would be. If you wanted to know what Animal Form 7 would do, you could just look at Dinosaur Form 7. You need to do a little bit of conversion of "double the damage dice" but that's all not that terribly hard. You could just provide a table showing a dice progression and you'd pick a column appropriate to the base damage of your animal, and scroll down to see the number of dice at a given level.