There are a lot of questions that really need clarification when it comes to battle forms, at least if the threads on this forum are anything to go by, so for the sake of not hopefully not dredging up too much of that I'm not really going to try and answer the question from a RAW perspective, but rather would just like to poing out that from a balance perspective it probably shouldn't, as that makes martials with certain class features that seem like they stack with damage in battle forms much more effective than not only other martials with features that don't stack, but also spellcasters, who obviously are not going to have such features.
Hopefully what I just said isn't controversial, but I have a feeling I'm quickly going to realize that it was, as pretty much everything about battle forms seems to be.
|
I don't believe so, no, and I must concur with Aw3some3-117 on this.
The main reason is that the phrasing for what things you can benefit from is extremely limited by the "the special statistics can be adjusted only by circumstance bonuses, status bonuses, and penalties..." clause.
Now, there can be arguments made that Sneak Attack and other similar abilities should be added because one might argue that the rules are talking about ONLY bonuses and penalties which could/may/do apply to the Battle Forms may be interpreted not as "adjusting" the special statistics (which counts the Attack and Damage numbers applied by Battle Forms) but I tend to think that they in fact are, and due to that they can only ever be modified by the noted bonuses and penalties which "extra damage" or in the case of some other similar abilities "additional damage", is not a part of.
Short answer, IMO, no. Long answer, it depends if your GM interprets the text I quoted as meaning that the restriction only applies to bonuses and penalties or if it is intended to be a catch-all umbrella for EVERYTHING that could ever apply to change or modify the Attacks and Damage they deal while in Battle Form.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course you can sneak attack, provided all the usual conditions are met.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't believe so, no, and I must concur with Aw3some3-117 on this.
The main reason is that the phrasing for what things you can benefit from is extremely limited by the "the special statistics can be adjusted only by circumstance bonuses, status bonuses, and penalties..." clause.
Now, there can be arguments made that Sneak Attack and other similar abilities should be added because one might argue that the rules are talking about ONLY bonuses and penalties which could/may/do apply to the Battle Forms may be interpreted not as "adjusting" the special statistics (which counts the Attack and Damage numbers applied by Battle Forms) but I tend to think that they in fact are, and due to that they can only ever be modified by the noted bonuses and penalties which "extra damage" or in the case of some other similar abilities "additional damage", is not a part of.
Short answer, IMO, no. Long answer, it depends if your GM interprets the text I quoted as meaning that the restriction only applies to bonuses and penalties or if it is intended to be a catch-all umbrella for EVERYTHING that could ever apply to change or modify the Attacks and Damage they deal while in Battle Form.
Yep this is the heart of the rules disagreement. The basic damage equations in the game are sloppy at best, and the terminology used in the battle forms rules aren't used elsewhere, so we really don't know what applies.
Is additional damage, or extra damage, the same thing as a damage bonus?
Its beyond stupid that Paizo haven't addressed this. It shows huge contempt for their community.
I think sneak attack does apply, and should apply.
|
I would think it would apply.
Sneak Attack isn't "bonus damage". That's pretty specifically something with the word "bonus", like Twin ("+2 circumstance bonus to damage"), or Inspire Courage ("+1 status bonus to damage").
Anyone who qualifies can take the Rogue Dedication, including whoever already does the most damage in the game, so I can't imagine that "balance" is a valid argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
as that makes martials with certain class features that seem like they stack with damage in battle forms much more effective than not only other martials with features that don't stack, but also spellcasters, who obviously are not going to have such features.
I mean, doesn't that work both ways? If you make those class features not work, then classes that don't rely on those mechanics end up being "much more effective" instead because they don't lose features in the process.
I'm not really sure that serves a specific balance purpose.
Hopefully what I just said isn't controversial
NGL this reads kind of backhanded. Not sure if that was your intent here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course you can sneak attack, provided all the usual conditions are met.
Yup. Agile or finesse unarmed attacks are one of the valid ways to add sneak attack damage to your strike. So if a Battle Form gives you an unarmed attack with the finesse or agile trait, that attack can add sneak attack damage if it is made against a flat-footed opponent.
Had this question come up in a game involving a dual-classed Rogue/Shadow Sorcerer, the question came up since Aberrant Form has forms with Agile weapons that would qualify but we weren't sure if Battle Forms overwrite features like sneak attack
Since the qualifications for Sneak Attack overlap so much with the qualifications for Devise a Stratagem, I thought you might find this useful for reference.
as that makes martials with certain class features that seem like they stack with damage in battle forms much more effective than not only other martials with features that don't stack, but also spellcasters, who obviously are not going to have such features.I mean, doesn't that work both ways? If you make those class features not work, then classes that don't rely on those mechanics end up being "much more effective" instead because they don't lose features in the process.
I'm not really sure that serves a specific balance purpose.
I'll admit that the martial classes in general are a bit of a grey area in terms of RAW, so I probably should have left that part out, but I thought my point about how it puts casters who use these spells at a serious disadvantage to be a pretty good point. Why would a caster's battle form be objectively worse than the vast majority of martials who pick it up, even at a slightly lower level through a archetype? And why would the barbarian feature that adds it's rage to it be called out as an exception to the normal spell's rules?
NGL this reads kind of backhanded. Not sure if that was your intent here.
Hopefully what I just said isn't controversial
That was not the intent. It's been a while since I've seen one of these battle form threads and I legit forgot what parts of it people disagreed about and was trying to be helpful saying something that I thought was clear and uncontroversial. But apparently I tripped into one of the major conflicts around the topic, which honestly doesn't really surprise me considering how little agreement occurs around these spells' intentions, further showing how much we need clarification. So as to not turn this into the 500th thread that reaches 100+ posts about battle forms this will be my last reply in this thread.
Sorry if anything I said came across as rude or aggressive, but reading back on it I really don't see that being the case. Perhaps it's a case of the implied voice of the text being lost in translation due to being, well, text.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And why would the barbarian feature that adds it's rage to it be called out as an exception to the normal spell's rules?
It's hard to know if that is mean to be an exception or it was put in as reminder text. It's not like it's uncommon for game text to restate something multiple places.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would think it would apply.
Sneak Attack isn't "bonus damage". That's pretty specifically something with the word "bonus", like Twin ("+2 circumstance bonus to damage"), or Inspire Courage ("+1 status bonus to damage").
Anyone who qualifies can take the Rogue Dedication, including whoever already does the most damage in the game, so I can't imagine that "balance" is a valid argument.
So? It doesn't say bonus damage, it says it can only be adjusted by specific bonuses.
As written that is why sneak attack doesn't apply, because it isn't a circumstance or status bonus.This is why barbarians dragon transformation feat has the following line
"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."
I mention this, because the famous forum post that says "rage damge is extra damage not a bonus" is pertinent here.p, as this is tue cornerstone of the extra damage argument.
Simply put, the special statistics are defined by the battle form, they are immutable outside of explicit exceptions, status bonuses, circumstance bonuses and any penalties.
Not saying this is rules as intended. But as far as the english language goes it is what it is, and as far as support for this interpretation goes the dragon transformation feat specifically giving an exception to rage amongst other exceptions is pretty telling.
Edit:
Animal barbarians get around the damage and rage restrictions with animal rage because it specifically tells them to use their own statistics and unarmed attacks.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sneak Attack is not a "bonus", though.
That word has meaning in this game, and that matters.
Right, it is not, I agree with that.
But I'd ask you, "Do you believe that adding extra damage to a damage roll counts as "adjusting" the statistics of that attack?" I would say yes, any feature, function, or effect that would do so much as add a single space, let alone append more damage, would count as "adjusting" the statistics of the damage provided by the Battle Form. I don't think that it matters in the least if the SA damage is or is not caused by being a kind of Bonus that isn't listed, it matters in that applying SA to the attack functionally changes/adjusts the Statistics of the Damage being dealt/rolled which seems to have a wholesale prohibition on it.
This, as others mentioned, is part of why Battle Form, like many other things where they failed to mechanically hard-code and stratify ALL rules, causes some issues with regard to confusion. I try not to be hard on the actual devs and designers as they're human after all, but I really do wish that the company would have hired a programmer to script and code all of the rules for QA testing to be sure that they didn't leave so many questionable and unaccounted for variables that the "code/crunch" of the system cannot functionally digest without needing to have a human step in and apply their own opinion to it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I'd ask you, "Do you believe that adding extra damage to a damage roll counts as "adjusting" the statistics of that attack?"
But it doesn't actually say "statistics of that attack". It says the special statistics can be adjusted only by circumstance bonuses, status bonuses, and penalties. And what are the special statistics? Not entirely clear but statements like Your attack modifier is +9, and your damage bonus is +1 make it reasonably clear that attack bonus and damage bonus are some of those statistics.
So what is a damage bonus? Hard to know but there are a stack of things that are bonuses and modifiers maybe its them, or their total.
Does it include additional damage? I don't think so, cause we know that is something extra and on top and potentially even a different damage type. Its not even clear if additional damage is part of the equation or a whole extra equation/stack of damage we resolve later. I mean it often has die rolls in it which none of the bonuses or modifiers do?
And then there's the whole question of feats like power attack, whirlwind strike, swipe, sudden reversal etc. Etc.
These feats are notable power increases, can you use them while being battle formed ? Do they count as "bonuses ?"
I think a fair understanding, although perhaps not raw, is that basic flat bonuses such as weapon spec do not get added, but martial class "gimmicks" such as edge, sneak attack, rage, power attack, etc. etc. Do.
After all a polymorphes martial knows better what to do to fight than even the most martial minded of spellcasters, it tracks it's their forte.
But there are many who would disagree
(As for the dragon rage thing I read it as being on par with the animal rage feat, they both basically give you another form with almost no modifications to your abilities because they're flavor feats for the morph instinct barbarians, dragon form being slightly stronger because it's a higher level feat)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What about weakness? Weakness increases the damage of an attack, so should someone shapeshifted into a fire elemental not deal bonus damage against someone weak to fire?
Genuinely curious how people feel about that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And then there's the whole question of feats like power attack, whirlwind strike, swipe, sudden reversal etc. Etc.
These feats are notable power increases, can you use them while being battle formed ? Do they count as "bonuses ?"
I think the game would be poorer if such maneuvers didn't work. All these gazillions of options the designers say we have, need to actually be real.
Swipe is more like two attacks - so I don't think it is really modifying the attack just doing it twice, so it likely works.
Power Attack does modify the number of damage die, and the damage die are specified so maybe technically it doesn't. But flavour wise that just seems wrong - so when GMing I would always choose to let it work.
I think a fair understanding, although perhaps not raw, is that basic flat bonuses such as weapon spec do not get added, but martial class "gimmicks" such as edge, sneak attack, rage, power attack, etc. etc. Do.
Yeah that is where I think the right balance point is. I'd include property runes on handwraps as well as everyone can tack those on to their attacks. (not fundamental runes which are already in the numbers)
|
|
The only thing that I belive really grounds what "special statistics" is in the rules is the phrase that is appended to the top of the various Form Spells:
"You gain the following statistics and abilities regardless of which battle form you choose:"
Below which it enumerates the bonuses you get, AC, Temp HP, detail that the damage you deal is what is specifically listed, specific bonuses to skills such as Athletics, among other things. Since it notes that the section below where those things are all listed as being "the following statistics" then my only reasonable interpretation is that no matter what, unless you're dealing with "circumstance bonuses, status bonuses, and penalties" then you do not and can not apply them at all should they interact in any way with the stats listed on the Spell that is being used.
Again, for me, it comes down to is the clause is intended to do one of two things:
1) Bar any changes/additions-to/adjustment-of all Form specific stats other than C bonuses, S bonuses, and penalties. This would stop EVERYTHING from applying to the stats that is not one of the three listed categories of adjustment.
or
2) Bar and changes/additions-to/adjustment-of all Form specific stats that are derived from bonuses/penalties OTHER than C and S alone. This would mean that the limits are only intended to be talking about a very small number of things such as Item bonuses/penalties.
At the end of the day, I don't know what the intent was but my interpretation is generally aligned with #1 as it would have been much easier and take less space to simply say they cannot benefit from Item Bonuses/Penalties but maybe I'm missing another piece of the puzzle yet.
|
I agree with most everybody else that
1) Its very unclear
2) Paizo really needs to answer some of these questions
Personally, I think that I'd allow it. Unless you're at 14th+ level where a rogue can get Aberrant spell you're talking about some spellcaster with a rogue archetype and an extra D6 in those circumstances is hardly going to break the game. The sorcerer is still doing less damage than a martial.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What influences my interpretation is whether or not it is a thing you do with your weapon or a thing you do to your weapon.
You perform a sneak attack by striking a flat-footed target. Your weapon (e.g., claws) aren't changed.
You perform a power attack with your weapon.
You perform precision attacks with your weapon as a precision ranger.
You grant an item bonus to your weapon with the magic fang spell.
The first three seem valid. The last one is explicitly invalid.
What influences my interpretation is whether or not it is a thing you do with your weapon or a thing you do to your weapon.
You perform a sneak attack by striking a flat-footed target. Your weapon (e.g., claws) aren't changed.
You perform a power attack with your weapon.
You perform precision attacks with your weapon as a precision ranger.
You grant an item bonus to your weapon with the magic fang spell.The first three seem valid. The last one is explicitly invalid.
That seems like a good rule of thumb to me.
The Red Cap form (from Fey Form) has a Deadly attack and the Avatar of Kalekot has a Fatal attack. I say that just to add a bit more confusion to this thread!
The Red Cap form (from Fey Form) has a Deadly attack and the Avatar of Kalekot has a Fatal attack. I say that just to add a bit more confusion to this thread!
Thanks SuperBidi! XD
Also most special feat actions demand Strikes, but all battle form attacks I saw formally aren't even 'Strikes', they are 'Melee' or 'Ranged' ('attacks' or 'specific abilities'). =)
A Strike is an action that you do with an attack. It can be unarmed. It has to be an attack roll. So I think that particular issue is alright.
I guess the key question here in general is whether any additional abilities besides listed in a battle form statistics are allowed. If yes - sneak attack works and also most other figthing abilities, including feat special actions. If no, then nothing works, only attacks in statistics.
The rules prohibition is on modifying the special statistics. So I do think it is clear additional abilities not listed are allowed. Assuming they don't fall foul of some other restriction.
I think the only consensus we can come to is that the rules are unclear, unfortunately. Hopefully we can get official clarification at some point, but the rules are not such an easy thing to tweak on something so wide in effect. I would like to caution against blaming individuals (including the authors) for their opinions on the matter.
That being said, I sort of hope that more features apply than don't in this scenario, if only because it allows for more specialization and options for building out a character that utilizes these polymorph effects. The one dangerous thing is that if one particular combination is egregiously strong, it can effectively reduce the options available by forcing you into a particular optimal build. It may not even be a particular ability that exists in the current game, but opening the door means there needs to be an extra lens considered on every ability in the future. I'm sure that's a consideration that needs to be taken into account when resolving this issue.
The Red Cap form (from Fey Form) has a Deadly attack and the Avatar of Kalekot has a Fatal attack. I say that just to add a bit more confusion to this thread!Thanks SuperBidi! XD
The wording of Fatal and the one of Flaming Rune are very similar:
- "the weapon adds one additional damage die of the listed size"- "The weapon deals an additional 1d6 fire damage"
It doesn't help much, though...
The Red Cap form (from Fey Form) has a Deadly attack and the Avatar of Kalekot has a Fatal attack. I say that just to add a bit more confusion to this thread!Thanks SuperBidi! XDThe wording of Fatal and the one of Flaming Rune are very similar:
- "the weapon adds one additional damage die of the listed size"
- "The weapon deals an additional 1d6 fire damage"It doesn't help much, though...
Well at least they put the deadly dice size on Fey Form which they never did on the Tyrannosaurus jaws (I assume it's d12 btw)
I wonder if a GM will let you do weapon specific things with the psuedo scythe the Redcap uses?Note the wording of the SOM battle form spells are different. Typically they say you use the listed damage instead of damage bonus is +1. Yes another undefined natural language expression. Its far from clear what this term means. The majority of these new forms have two types of damage as well. Example Ooze Form the black pudding does Damage 2d6+5 bludgeoning and 1d8 acid. They don't call it out as additional damage. Its just there. Because of resistance, you have to carry the separate damage type totals through the damage equation anyway. Is this new terminology an attempt to include additional damage? I really don't see that it changes anything, as each lot of additional damage is something else. But I'm sure people have different opinions on that.
I'll note that this question affects the Investigator's Strategic Strike the same way it affects Sneak Attack.
I'll note that this question affects the Investigator's Strategic Strike the same way it affects Sneak Attack.
I think that Strategic Strike falls over before this. I don't believe you get to substitute in your Intelligence instead of Strength or Dexterity, simply because Strength or Dexterity modifiers are not part of the attack roll for Battle Forms. Even if you are using your own attack modifier, they have already been substituted out, so they can't be substituted again. The problem is the battle form rules allows you to replace your attack modifer with a calucated total.
Is that too harsh?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do battle forms get sneak attack?
Of course they don't. No battle form grants a character the Sneak Attack feature.