In D&D 3.5 and 5th, druids can use weapons while using Wild Shape. In Pathfinder Second Edition, can a druid use weapons while using Wild Shape? Normally, whether or not a druid can do that would not matter at all since most creatures in the Wild Shape list do not have hands at all and so they cannot grab or wield weapons. But I found out that druids can turn into an ape too, and the real life apes do have hands and can use tools quite well. So I thought apes would be the most powerful Wild Shape form since it allows the druids can use powerful magic weapons while using Wild Shape. But then I found out this sentence in the Animal Form spell description: "One or more unarmed melee attacks specific to the battle form you choose, which are the only attacks you can Strike with." Does that mean a druid who transforms into an ape cannot use weapons, even though the real life apes have hands and can use weapons?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Essentially you can NOT use weapons. While wild shaped the only attacks a druid can make are with their wild shapes. They might conceivably be able to use weapons in some bizarre edge case at GM whim (using a sword to wedge a door open, for example).
There is uncertainty whether the to hit bonus on amulets of mighty fists apply but near universal agreement that the extra dice from striking does NOT apply.
There is also huge uncertainty on whether things like Rage, Sneak attack etc etc etc apply. About the only out of druid class ability that there is near universal agreement that it DOES apply is Flurry of Blows from monk.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To clarify, it's because Wild Shape polymorphs the creature into a Battle Form, and those cannot use weapons (even if they have the hands, i.e. an ape). If using Wild Shape for a form that's NOT a Battle Form, then the creature could use weapons, i.e. with Humanoid Form via Thousand Faces. That's the only exception I recall, so not very "wild". :-)
Along the same thought, can a wild shaped druid in a form with hands (ape for instance) use a shield?
Along the same thought, can a wild shaped druid in a form with hands (ape for instance) use a shield?
Up to the GM. Insofar as I'm aware, the rules are completely silent on animals' ability to use interact/manipulate actions; instead leaving it for the GM to determine on a case by case basis.
The musculature and tendons in an ape's hand are very different from that of a human, so they don't grip things in quite the same way (or with the same strength) as humans do. Furthermore, for many apes' the opposable thumb is positioned far enough back on the hand that its tip doesn't even reach the base of the fingers' rear-most knuckle. That would further complicate grabbing things designed for a more traditional humanoid's hands. What's more, their arm muscles and configuration may or may not allow them to lift the shield with the same range as a traditional humanoid. I'm not saying it won't work, but I think there's enough anatomical difference that a GM would be well within their right to say "no" if they were so inclined.
Along the same thought, can a wild shaped druid in a form with hands (ape for instance) use a shield?Up to the GM. Insofar as I'm aware, the rules are completely silent on animals' ability to use interact/manipulate actions; instead leaving it for the GM to determine on a case by case basis.
The musculature and tendons in an ape's hand are very different from that of a human, so they don't grip things in quite the same way (or with the same strength) as humans do. Furthermore, for many apes' the opposable thumb is positioned far enough back on the hand that its tip doesn't even reach the base of the fingers' rear-most knuckle. That would further complicate grabbing things designed for a more traditional humanoid's hands. What's more, their arm muscles and configuration may or may not allow them to lift the shield with the same range as a traditional humanoid. I'm not saying it won't work, but I think there's enough anatomical difference that a GM would be well within their right to say "no" if they were so inclined.
Neither wielding nor the raise the shield action have the manipulate traits (or any traits for that matter) so that rule idea doesn’t apply. The polymorph trait allows for status and circumstance bonuses with shields being the latter. Druids also have shield block as a class ability. Other than the real world issues of limited fine motor skills, there seems to be no in-game reason to say no.
I was hoping there may be a ruling one way or the other.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Neither wielding nor the raise the shield action have the manipulate traits (or any traits for that matter) so that rule idea doesn’t apply.
You need to Interact to draw out your weapon or shield in the first place. Good luck wielding or raising anything if you can't do that first.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Neither wielding nor the raise the shield action have the manipulate traits (or any traits for that matter) so that rule idea doesn’t apply.You need to Interact to draw out your weapon or shield in the first place. Good luck wielding or raising anything if you can't do that first.
True I think you really do need to assume that the form has to be capable of manipulate actions. But there are plently of forms that can are capable for such actions eg Elementals and Dragons.
You also have to deal with the fact that your gear is absorbed into you when you transform. So you will need to drop your shield, transform then pick the shield up again.
I can't see many GMs approving of it.
I wish that Paizo had gated shield use behind a feat or something so that it was controlled.
The interact action! Thank you. One of my players constantly looks for breaks to exploit and wanted to use this as a way to improve his AC and damage reduction in animal form. I could not find a RAW reason that goes beyond “the GM says no”.
To clarify, it's because Wild Shape polymorphs the creature into a Battle Form, and those cannot use weapons (even if they have the hands, i.e. an ape). If using Wild Shape for a form that's NOT a Battle Form, then the creature could use weapons, i.e. with Humanoid Form via Thousand Faces. That's the only exception I recall, so not very "wild". :-)It's not that you can't use weapons, but rather that you are tied to the specific attacks given by the form.
For example, dragon form states
One or more unarmed melee attacks specific to the battle form you choose, which are the only attacks you can Strike with.
but it has nothing to do with weapons, as some battle form ( avatar, for example ) give you also weapons.
Oh. So if a druid assume the ape form, he can still use weapons and shield! It would make the ape one of the best Wild Shape form, I guess, since all the other forms do not have hands to begin with and thus cannot use weapons and shields.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh. So if a druid assume the ape form, he can still use weapons and shield! It would make the ape one of the best Wild Shape form, I guess, since all the other forms do not have hands to begin with and thus cannot use weapons and shields.To clarify, it's because Wild Shape polymorphs the creature into a Battle Form, and those cannot use weapons (even if they have the hands, i.e. an ape). If using Wild Shape for a form that's NOT a Battle Form, then the creature could use weapons, i.e. with Humanoid Form via Thousand Faces. That's the only exception I recall, so not very "wild". :-)It's not that you can't use weapons, but rather that you are tied to the specific attacks given by the form.
For example, dragon form states
One or more unarmed melee attacks specific to the battle form you choose, which are the only attacks you can Strike with.
but it has nothing to do with weapons, as some battle form ( avatar, for example ) give you also weapons.
Actually, no. The point of the thread is that they cannot do that.
So if a druid assume the ape form, he can still use weapons and shield! It would make the ape one of the best Wild Shape form, I guess, since all the other forms do not have hands to begin with and thus cannot use weapons and shields.
No. An ape is both
a) forbidden from making strikes apart from the attack listed in the spell, andb) can't use manipulate actions to draw or even pick up a weapon or a shield.
Since there is no "strike" trait, I believe a "strike attack" is any attack which involves an attack roll
Strike is just Strike. Why would there be a Strike trait? It's an action.
Under this interpretation, Flurry of Blows would be disallowed
Nothing about what you quoted is relevant to Flurry of Blows. Flurry isn't an attack, it's just an ability that lets you Strike twice.
As long as the Strikes you make are legal (i.e. an eligible attack per the rules of wild shape, you must use your Jaws if you turned into a Tyrannosaurus with Dinosaur Form) there's no reason you can't use Flurry, or any other similar ability that allows you to Strike (like Knockdown or Certain Strike, etc. etc.).
Like I'm not even sure where your position is coming from because nothing in the errata even touches upon flurry of blows or anything like it.
|
My line of thought went as follows:
- I thought an "attack you can Strike with" was any "attack" action that involved making a "strike" against the enemy (many attack actions explicitly say "make a strike" or something similar in the description). I thought this was intended to target abilities such as Power Attack.
- The last line used the "grapple" and "trip" actions as examples of attacks that could still be used. Notably, both of these attacks lack any reference to "strike" in their descriptions, which I took as support for the above interpretation.
Rereading the errata, though, you're totally right. The capitalization of "Strike" makes it clear that the Strike action and not some broader category is what's being referred to.
There is another usage of "attack" that goes unmentioned in the attack/attack-roll errata entry: an unarmed quasi-weapon. These are your "unarmed attack," claws, battle form attacks--the things that are like weapons but aren't actually weapons:
You can Strike with your fist or another body part, calculating your attack and damage rolls in the same way you would with a weapon. Unarmed attacks can belong to a weapon group (page 280), and they might have weapon traits (page 282). However, unarmed attacks aren’t weapons, and effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so.
Arguably, the latest errata for battle forms wasn't needed when you take this into account: The only attacks (unarmed quasi-weapons) you can use are the ones from the battle form. You can still escape or use any attack action (action with the Attack trait).
That was probably the intent, yeah.
TBH kind of a super confusing design choice to call unarmed 'weapons' attacks, when attack is already such a codified game term referencing a specific type of action.
Feel like the PF1 term, natural weapon, would have flowed a lot better.