Druid feats and Wildshape

[Camarath]

The entire Alter Self/ Polymorph/ Wildshape inheritance tree is such a contradictory mess that I can only assume that it was made that way on purpose to make the use of polymorph so confusing as to make people give up.

Three cheers for 3.5 using the powers of ambiguity, blatant contradiction, and nonsensical abjuration to put authority and power back where it belongs, in the hands of the DM who has to work out this forsaken mess.

 

[AGGEMAM]

That, and the 3e FAQ answer that you could use Whirlwind Attack with two weapon fighting and the explicit 3.r wording that you can't.

I haven't seen that ruling in the FAQ, and it goes against the normal rules, because a regular attack always means a non-off-hand attack, so no TWF there.

 

[isoChron]

Three cheers for 3.5 using the powers of ambiguity, blatant contradiction, and nonsensical abjuration to put authority and power back where it belongs, in the hands of the DM who has to work out this forsaken mess.

Yep !

[rantmode on]

How many versions of polymorph and wildshape had they tried since the introduction of 3.0 ???
Hmm, not sure...
Polymorph:
-Player Handbook 3.0 /1.printing
-Errata Player Handbook / Dragon-Magazine(?)
-Superseding version in Tome and Blood
-Errata Psi-Handbook 3.0 (similar to polymorph)
-Player Handbook 3.5 /1.printing
Wildshape:
-Player Handbook 3.0 /1.printing
-Masters of the wild (the ONE ! Since not bound to silly polymorph)
-Player Handbook 3.5 /1.printing

And I think I'm missing one ...

Wasn't that enough to learn ??? Why can't they fix it to be a spell that works on his own ?? Now they tie it to Alter Self which generates problems on it's own. I hate these chains. Some think it's logical and one is a better version of another lower level spell but it is a pain to read (wildshape/shapechange see polymorph; polymorph see alter self). No wonder that there are inconsistencies. Now does polymorph give HP due to higher CON ? "No", it never did ! Or "Yes" now it does since it's tied to alter self ?
Poison ? Yes or no ?
Mages as bat's flying near blind into walls since they don't have blindsight anymore ?

*Cooling down ...*

[Rantmode off]

BYE

 

[FrankTrollman]

I haven't seen that ruling in the FAQ, and it goes against the normal rules, because a regular attack always means a non-off-hand attack, so no TWF there.

No, it's fine with the normal rules. You give up the regular attacks - which as you point out is just the non-offhand attacks, and then you gain one attack against all enemies within 5 feet. At that point you can add whatever bonus attacks trigger off of getting an attack - such as TWF, Circle Kick, or Cleave.

3rd edition Whirlwind doesn't make you give up your bonus attacks - so you can be a samurai who whirlwinds with his ancestral daisho and stuff.

3.5, OTOH, does make you forfeit all of your bonus attacks. Opinion is currently divided whether you can even make attacks of opportunity that round.

Regular Attacks = just your primary weapon with all the attacks you get from BAB.

Bonus Attacks= Every other attack you make, whether from speed weapons, Cleave, Two Weapon Fighting, or Expert Tactician.

How many versions of polymorph and wildshape had they tried since the introduction of 3.0 ???

What we keep butting heads against, is that there are really 5 kinds of abilities, not three.

There are Spell-Like Abilities.

There are Extraordinary Abilities.

There are Natural Abilities (all of the Extraordinary abilities which are based upon form)

There are Magical Abilities (all of the Supernatural abilities not based upon form)

There are Supernatural Abilities.

---

The thing is, even though the rules tell you that, for example, the "Natural" abiliites are gained when you transform - the "Natural" abilities are not actually listed seperately from the Extraordinary abilities.

What 3.5 attempted to do was, rather than simply mark up which abilities that were listed as EX were actually NA, and which abilities that were SU were actually Mg - to continue to list those 5 ability typs as three, and then further make you keep track of whether abilities were Special Attacks, Special Qualities, or Class Features.

So now they've divided everything into fifteen different ability types. (For example: something can be a "form based supernatural special quality") Of course, 6 of those ability types (the form dependent EX and SU Special qualities, special attacks, and class features) are indistinguishable from 6 of the others.

So we have nine notations in order to work out fifteen different ability categories - and as far as I can tell this was so complicated that the author culdn't keep track of it as there is no rhyme or reason to why any particular ability is one of the ability rows instead of another.

----

What's so hard about actually labelling the five ability types and then saying:

When you change form you lose all of your (Na) abilities. You gain all of the (Na) abilities of the form you assume.

When you change form you lose all of your (Su) abilities. You gain all of the (Su) abilities of the form you assume if and only if you are using a "powerful" transformation effect (such as Elemental Wildshape or Shapechange).

When you change form you keep all of your (Ex), (Mg), and (Sp) abilities and gain no (Ex), (Mg), or (Sp) abilities from the new form.

---

It's not like we don't know how to write that. Aaargh.

We could then go back and arbitrarily put (Mg) tags on all of the abilities which are horribly ungamebalanced - thereby preventing the Phoenix Duplication exploit that 3.5 Shapechange has.

-Frank