Ok, this is more of a joke than a real rule question. But Ironblood Stance gives you an attack with the Parry trait. If you are in a situation where you can't use that attack (like if you are in a Battle Form and as such can only use the attacks from the Battle Form) can you still benefit from the Parry trait?
Per RAW, it seems that you can. Now, I have hard time deciding if it's an issue or if it's ok.
Stances are unaffected by Battle Forms as far as I recall. You can enter a Stance in a Battle Form, there's nothing in Battle Form preventing that.
The current case is the fact that you have a Parry attack that you can't use to attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Parry as a weapon trait would be modifying the attacks available to the battleform, so, provisionally, no.
That would be an example of doing something to a weapon--adding a weapon trait.
The frog's attack from Animal Form, for example, is a +9 tongue attack that does 2d6+1 bludgeoning damage with the reach 15 ft trait. Giving it the parry trait would alter it.
It is an unfortunately PF2 rules situation where an action (parry) is not a merely action but rather a function of a weapon.
Versus Crane Stance, which grants you a +1 circumstance bonus to AC regardless of the fact that you can't make Crane Wing attacks. However, since you can't make frog tongue attacks in Crane Stance nor make Crane Wing attacks while a frog, being in that stance isn't necessarily helpful.
Posted for reference:
These effects transform the target into a new form. A target can't be under the effect of more than one polymorph effect at a time. If it comes under the effect of a second polymorph effect, the second polymorph effect attempts to counteract the first. If it succeeds, it takes effect, and if it fails, the spell has no effect on that target. Any Strikes specifically granted by a polymorph effect are magical. Unless otherwise stated, polymorph spells don't allow the target to take on the appearance of a specific individual creature, but rather just a generic creature of a general type or ancestry.
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.
Example:
Animal Form can't use manipulate trait actions, and monk stances do not have the manipulate tag.Crane Stance adds a +1 circumstance bonus to AC, so it applies.
Where, as an example of what does not work, being in Animal Form and receiving magic fang does not work because it grants a +1 item bonus to attack rolls.
Animal Form and Fey Form state that you can only use the attacks granted by the form, so Stance attacks can't be used. Stances say that only the attack of the stance can be used, so Animal Form attacks can't be used.
I may have overgeneralized it to all battleforms because I have not read all of the various polymorph spells.
I should have copied the text.
Ironblood Stance states:
"You enter the stance of impenetrable iron, refusing to yield to any blow. You can make iron sweep unarmed attacks. These deal 1d8 bludgeoning damage; are in the brawling group; and have the nonlethal, parry, sweep, and unarmed traits.
While in Ironblood Stance, you gain resistance 2 to all damage. The resistance increases to 3 at 12th level, to 4 at 16th level, and to 5 at 20th level."
So you can use your Battle Form attacks and as such you can benefit from both. It's nice for the resistance.
My question comes with the attack Ironblood Stance gives. You can't use it to attack but Parry is not an attack. So, per strict RAW, you can Parry with it. I just wanted to know how people were seeing this shenanigan.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ne or more unarmed melee attacks specific to the battle form you choose, which are the only attacks you can use.
So you're assertion is that even though you can't use the iron sweep unarmed attack with the Parry trait, you can still take the Parry action? I.e., the stance modifies your form's unarmed attacks to gain the Parry trait? E.g., you use your red cap's scythe or your cat's jaws to Parry.
I don't think that's allowed.
ne or more unarmed melee attacks specific to the battle form you choose, which are the only attacks you can use.So you're assertion is that even though you can't use the iron sweep unarmed attack with the Parry trait, you can still take the Parry action? I.e., the stance modifies your form's unarmed attacks to gain the Parry trait? E.g., you use your red cap's scythe or your cat's jaws to Parry.
I don't think that's allowed.
Yes, per RAW, it works: You have an Iron Sweep attack with the Parry trait, so you can use it to Parry. You can't attack with it because you're not allowed to use any attack but the ones from your Battle Form, but Parry isn't an attack so it works.
But I note that you consider it illogical, that's my main question after all, as I don't think there's a problem per strict RAW.
There are a few ways to approach the question, though in the end tl:dr I'd say you'd be allowed to parry, much like a person in Cobra Stance only making Cobra Fang attacks could still carry a Bo Staff for parrying (though not threaten w/ it at Reach).
First, what's the meta? If it were that your blood were laced with iron, or perhaps arms layered with it so as to provide mini-shields, then yeah, it'd be odd for that to function while otherwise transformed. I could see some colorful campaigns going that route, but for a standard game no. That'd involve Morph or at least Magic and those aren't traits of the Stance.
Thus, Ironblood Stance (and all the others w/o a spell attached to them) is about one's ability, as in it's a matter of skill, not physical form, and you'd retain the skill even if Wild Shaped.
From a rules/balance/mechanics direction, we note that any Battle Form only allows you to make the form's Strikes. As already noted, that's it by RAW, so parrying is okay. By RAI (perhaps) it seems to be a balancing factor on one's offense, not one's defense. One could compare it to carrying a shield (on a form that could reasonably use one); sure, you couldn't shield bash, but you could still Raise a Shield. Or if a polymorphed ape carried a Bo Staff, they could parry, right? It's only the Strike that's limited because that's the only part being balanced.
I could understand (but not support) the argument that Battle Forms also have a major impact on defense for balance reasons, and maybe disallowing defensive boons based on that. But IMO that would nix the Resistance aspect too, since that's not a matter of body modification either, but of the skill & positioning of the Stance too. That's too extreme a reading IMO, but if not allowing Parry I'd think one couldn't allow the Resistance either which IMO uses the same narrative. (I could also see the argument that since AC gets altered, so does one's access to other AC sources, but we're talking a circumstance bonus, which is explicitly allowed by the Polymorph rules.)
But again, I'd allow the Parry trait. I think not allowing other Strikes w/ Battle Forms is purely for offensive balance since it doesn't make much sense in the game's narrative.
ne or more unarmed melee attacks specific to the battle form you choose, which are the only attacks you can use.So you're assertion is that even though you can't use the iron sweep unarmed attack with the Parry trait, you can still take the Parry action? I.e., the stance modifies your form's unarmed attacks to gain the Parry trait? E.g., you use your red cap's scythe or your cat's jaws to Parry.
I don't think that's allowed.
Yes, per RAW, it works: You have an Iron Sweep attack with the Parry trait, so you can use it to Parry. You can't attack with it because you're not allowed to use any attack but the ones from your Battle Form, but Parry isn't an attack so it works.
But I note that you consider it illogical, that's my main question after all, as I don't think there's a problem per strict RAW.
I don't consider the concept illogical (if I really wanted a Monk Magic Warrior with the Magic Warrior Transformation, I could make an argument why my character has practiced his specific style in the form of a lion so the Stance should work); however, the battleform says that you cannot "use" any other attack, not that you cannot Strike with any other attack. Parrying with the iron sweep unarmed attack is, arguably, "using" it. So saying that you're "using" it but not to attack so you can "use" it, I find tentatively illogical.
One could compare it to carrying a shield (on a form that could reasonably use one); sure, you couldn't shield bash, but you could still Raise a Shield.
That's not a good comparison. The shield does not include a clause that says... I realized I never quoted this:
One or more unarmed melee attacks specific to the battle form you choose, which are the only attacks you can use.
Bolded for emphasis.
The shield is not an attack and I am unaware of a Stance that prohibits you from using the Raise a Shield action. However, Parry is a weapon trait attached to a specific weapon. If the weapon called "iron sweep unarmed attack" cannot be used then it cannot Parry.
Or if a polymorphed ape carried a Bo Staff, they could parry, right?
Technically, if your GM agrees that you can hold a Bo Staff while under the effect of Animal Form because Parry has no Traits (specifically, no Manipulate trait). Raise a Shield also has not Traits, so you could make the same argument that an Ape Form could hold a shield and use the Raise a Shield action as you could using a Bo staff. Except in both of these situations, you possess both items, which are not attacks, they're items, that are used in the action (Parry or Raise a Shield, respectively). With the Form spells, you cannot use any other attacks.
To roll back to some other random comments in other posts, neither the Polymorph nor the Form spells say that you can only Strike with your natural attacks. You can use "Attack" actions such as Escape, Grapple, etc, which are Actions, not attacks. You are using your natural attack to perform the Action.
I don't consider the concept illogical (if I really wanted a Monk Magic Warrior with the Magic Warrior Transformation, I could make an argument why my character has practiced his specific style in the form of a lion so the Stance should work); however, the battleform says that you cannot "use" any other attack, not that you cannot Strike with any other attack. Parrying with the iron sweep unarmed attack is, arguably, "using" it. So saying that you're "using" it but not to attack so you can "use" it, I find tentatively illogical.ne or more unarmed melee attacks specific to the battle form you choose, which are the only attacks you can use.So you're assertion is that even though you can't use the iron sweep unarmed attack with the Parry trait, you can still take the Parry action? I.e., the stance modifies your form's unarmed attacks to gain the Parry trait? E.g., you use your red cap's scythe or your cat's jaws to Parry.
I don't think that's allowed.
Yes, per RAW, it works: You have an Iron Sweep attack with the Parry trait, so you can use it to Parry. You can't attack with it because you're not allowed to use any attack but the ones from your Battle Form, but Parry isn't an attack so it works.
But I note that you consider it illogical, that's my main question after all, as I don't think there's a problem per strict RAW.
I now see what you mean. It's true that the wording is "use" and not make. So, yes, I agree with you, now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I now see what you mean. It's true that the wording is "use" and not make. So, yes, I agree with you, now.
I don't consider the concept illogical (if I really wanted a Monk Magic Warrior with the Magic Warrior Transformation, I could make an argument why my character has practiced his specific style in the form of a lion so the Stance should work); however, the battleform says that you cannot "use" any other attack, not that you cannot Strike with any other attack. Parrying with the iron sweep unarmed attack is, arguably, "using" it. So saying that you're "using" it but not to attack so you can "use" it, I find tentatively illogical.While I believe that the devs really intended it like this, I also believe that they did not use 'use' here as a linguistic puzzle. I suspect it's just natural language, nothing else.
Why no other attacks, including 'using'? Just because they evidently like to make things simpler and not combinating too many things at once. So 'no' really means 'no'.
There are several different reasons why they use different wording
a) because its different authors and editors, so they just have used slightly different words to express the same thing.b) because they want the game to not be reducible to simple factors so they like adding in options that work slightly differently. Complexity can be annoying but it can also add to flavour.
c) just for style because its nicer to read in natural language.
d) because they have seen a rules problem so later versions have an improved wording.
IMHO all of these come into play. But working out which is which is near impossible.