Bear Warriors and templates

[Melcar]

What happens in bear form, if a bear warrior has the Feral and Vild templates? Does he retain hes abilities gained from the templates... like say increased movement speed, fast healing increased claw damage... ect.

Im asking because the gained things from the template does not specify whether its Su or Ex abilities... SO I dont know.

[Kazudo]

Well, the bear form of the Bear Warrior works like Polymorph. As far as I know, Polymorph doesn't allow templates. It has to be an average version. But I don't know specifically and can't recall specific citations since I'm AFB.

EDIT: Now, if the templates are on the person itself, not the bear form, then that's another ball of wax entirely. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

[Immabozo]

Well, the bear form of the Bear Warrior works like Polymorph. As far as I know, Polymorph doesn't allow templates. It has to be an average version. But I don't know specifically and can't recall specific citations since I'm AFB.

EDIT: Now, if the templates are on the person itself, not the bear form, then that's another ball of wax entirely. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

yes, the bear cannot have templates on it. However, if the player has those templates, they should still apply.

[Kazudo]

And that's the case here. Ok, my bad. I think there's a default "if untyped, it's this". Is that Ex- or Su- abilities?

[Melcar]

Yes... the question, which I was unable to formulate, was indeed whether the base creature, lets say human or dwarf, with the feral and wild template would keep the template when shapeshifting into bearform?

I can deduct that the physical atribute increase are kept, but its all the other untyped "bonuses"...

[Segev]

Bear Warrior is weird, in that it applies bonuses to your form rather than setting your stats. If the Feral and Wild templates, or any other templates for that matter, give you racial changes to your stats before the Bear form applies, Bear Warrior still just applies the bonuses it says it does to that (modified) base statline.

So your Epic Pseudonatural Human Bear Warrior with a base 40 Str goes up to 56 when he turns into a Brown Bear.

[Melcar]

Bear Warrior is weird, in that it applies bonuses to your form rather than setting your stats. If the Feral and Wild templates, or any other templates for that matter, give you racial changes to your stats before the Bear form applies, Bear Warrior still just applies the bonuses it says it does to that (modified) base statline.

So your Epic Pseudonatural Human Bear Warrior with a base 40 Str goes up to 56 when he turns into a Brown Bear.

Thanks...

What about stuff like +10 ft movement speed, fast healing, natural armor, greater natural damage and so forth?

[Urpriest]

Thanks...

What about stuff like +10 ft movement speed, fast healing, natural armor, greater natural damage and so forth?

The template modifies the base creature. You apply the template, then you apply later spell effects. Having a template isn't any different from being a nonstandard race in this respect.

[Melcar]

The template modifies the base creature. You apply the template, then you apply later spell effects. Having a template isn't any different from being a nonstandard race in this respect.

Cool... there was just something in polymorph thta said racial Ex was not kept... so that to me was strange. But I guess two things.

1) Bear Form is special in that matter

2) Untyped abilities stays

[Segev]

Bear Warrior presents itself as a template, which has properties that override "as polymorph." The parts that work "as polymorph" are anything not spelled out in the description of the class feature.

[Urpriest]

Cool... there was just something in polymorph thta said racial Ex was not kept... so that to me was strange. But I guess two things.

1) Bear Form is special in that matter

2) Untyped abilities stays


Bear Warrior presents itself as a template, which has properties that override "as polymorph." The parts that work "as polymorph" are anything not spelled out in the description of the class feature.

I assume you mean that in the colloquial sense, not in the game sense.

Regardless, the description says it's like polymorph and then replaces almost all of it. It's unclear whether the other restrictions of polymorph apply, which would include its effect on racial Ex abilities. So any given DM would rule one way or another to answer your question.

[Segev]

I do, indeed. That's why I said "presents itself as," rather than "is." Sorry for the confusion.

[Melcar]

I assume you mean that in the colloquial sense, not in the game sense.

Regardless, the description says it's like polymorph and then replaces almost all of it. It's unclear whether the other restrictions of polymorph apply, which would include its effect on racial Ex abilities. So any given DM would rule one way or another to answer your question.

I think that in the strict RAW sense, when you change into a Bear, you cease to be a human or dwarf, thus loosing all racial perks. I would think though, that you are still wild or feral... no matter the race/type. I still believe its unclear exactly how templates go with polymorph. You cant change into one, but it does not directly say you loose one. I assume that Elminter is still a chosen of mystra even though he changes into a dragon... thus retaining all his chosen abilities/bonuses and only loosing his strictly human racial Ex, because he was no longer human.

I would assume the same applied to a feral wild human barbarian changing into a bear. No?

[Immabozo]

I think that in the strict RAW sense, when you change into a Bear, you cease to be a human or dwarf, thus loosing all racial perks. I would think though, that you are still wild or feral... no matter the race/type. I still believe its unclear exactly how templates go with polymorph. You cant change into one, but it does not directly say you loose one. I assume that Elminter is still a chosen of mystra even though he changes into a dragon... thus retaining all his chosen abilities/bonuses and only loosing his strictly human racial Ex, because he was no longer human.

I would assume the same applied to a feral wild human barbarian changing into a bear. No?

Strictly by RAW, bear warrior doesnt have to turn into a bear to get the benefits. Strictly by RAW, a character gets the bear related bonuses when he rages. In a separate sentence, the book says the a bear warrior MAY turn into the bear. There is no connection, by RAW, that the bonuses are tied to the bear form.

[Melcar]

Another thing that struckme is that, it says under alter self, that:

"You keep all extraordinary special attacks and qualities derived from class levels (such as a barbarian's rage ability), but you lose any from your normal form that are not derived from class levels (such as a dragon's frightful presence ability)".

But also says that: "You do not gain any extraordinary special attacks or special qualities not noted above under physical qualities, such as darkvision, low-light vision, blindsense, blindsight, fast healing, regeneration, scent, and so forth".

So does that mean that if your are a dwarf you loose your racial traits such as stonecunning, darkvision, racial attack bonus against greenskins... etc? Or are 'racial traits' different from 'ex special qualities', and so lets the changed dwarf keep stonecunning darkvision, and better attacks against orcs`?

PS. This means loosing a feat each time a human wizard polymorphs... thats sucks! So not only do you loose your own Ex, but does not gain the new ones...

[Urpriest]

Another thing that struckme is that, it says under alter self, that:

"You keep all extraordinary special attacks and qualities derived from class levels (such as a barbarian's rage ability), but you lose any from your normal form that are not derived from class levels (such as a dragon's frightful presence ability)".

But also says that: "You do not gain any extraordinary special attacks or special qualities not noted above under physical qualities, such as darkvision, low-light vision, blindsense, blindsight, fast healing, regeneration, scent, and so forth".

So does that mean that if your are a dwarf you loose your racial traits such as stonecunning, darkvision, racial attack bonus against greenskins... etc? Or are 'racial traits' different from 'ex special qualities', and so lets the changed dwarf keep stonecunning darkvision, and better attacks against orcs`?

PS. This means loosing a feat each time a human wizard polymorphs... thats sucks! So not only do you loose your own Ex, but does not gain the new ones...

You have to look at the type of the individual ability, either in the glossary or in the description. Arguably, racial skill bonuses and racial bonus feats are both Ex...but my understanding is that the argument is somewhat indirect.

[Melcar]

You have to look at the type of the individual ability, either in the glossary or in the description. Arguably, racial skill bonuses and racial bonus feats are both Ex...but my understanding is that the argument is somewhat indirect.

Personally I have come to the conclusion that Polymorph is badly written. Not gaining scent when changing into a wolf or low light vision when changing into an owl makes no sense, since it might very well be the reason for changing into that animal. There might be some magical abilities one chould not get, but mundane... why not gain those?

Changing from your normal dwarf form, into another dwar would make you loose darkvision... why? When you have dwarven eyes and then get dwarven eyes... why should darkvision go away?

I for one thinks that Polymorph needs some houseruling...

[Immabozo]

Personally I have come to the conclusion that Polymorph is badly written

This would infer that you think parts of D&D are well written.

[Urpriest]

Personally I have come to the conclusion that Polymorph is badly written. Not gaining scent when changing into a wolf or low light vision when changing into an owl makes no sense, since it might very well be the reason for changing into that animal.

It wouldn't be the reason if the spell doesn't grant it, and there are other spells that do grant that sort of thing.



There might be some magical abilities one chould not get, but mundane... why not gain those?

There are lots of powerful mundane abilities, so gaining them all unrestrictedly is a higher level spell effect.



Changing from your normal dwarf form, into another dwar would make you loose darkvision... why? When you have dwarven eyes and then get dwarven eyes... why should darkvision go away?


This is admittedly silly.

[Melcar]

It wouldn't be the reason if the spell doesn't grant it, and there are other spells that do grant that sort of thing.



There are lots of powerful mundane abilities, so gaining them all unrestrictedly is a higher level spell effect.



This is admittedly silly.

Btw... Is it true that by being feral you gane 2 claw attacks, in addition to your normal attacks? Thus giving two pools of attacks?

[Urpriest]

Btw... Is it true that by being feral you gane 2 claw attacks, in addition to your normal attacks? Thus giving two pools of attacks?

Attacks don't come in pools.

Feral grants you two claw attacks, which work just like other natural attacks. If you're not familiar with natural attacks, I can explain them...but if you're not familiar with natural attacks, that's something you should probably have looked into long before considering playing a bear warrior.

[Melcar]

Attacks don't come in pools.

Feral grants you two claw attacks, which work just like other natural attacks. If you're not familiar with natural attacks, I can explain them...but if you're not familiar with natural attacks, that's something you should probably have looked into long before considering playing a bear warrior.

Well without concidering playing a bear warrior I would have no reason to look up natural attacks. Its not the natural attack that led me to bear warrior, but bear warrior that led me to natural attacks.


I know that you can make your unarmed attack your primary and your natural secondary weapons... thus ensuring if you have 2 unarmed attack at +10/+5 then you would also have 2 claws in a full round action.

What I'm unsure of is whether or not I understand the feral template correctly, and that it actually gives two extra attack in a full round action and or what attack bonuses they defirent attack would have - at lets say base +10/+5 +4 str.

From what I can gather, your primary weapons (unarmed) would both be primary thus both having +14 (in our example from above) and then the two claws at - 5 so at +9 both of them. For a total of two unarmed at +14 and two claws +9 in a full round attack action?

Is this correct ?

[Immabozo]

Well without concidering playing a bear warrior I would have no reason to look up natural attacks. Its not the natural attack that led me to bear warrior, but bear warrior that led me to natural attacks.


I know that you can make your unarmed attack your primary and your natural secondary weapons... thus ensuring if you have 2 unarmed attack at +10/+5 then you would also have 2 claws in a full round action.

What I'm unsure of is whether or not I understand the feral template correctly, and that it actually gives two extra attack in a full round action and or what attack bonuses they defirent attack would have - at lets say base +10/+5 +4 str.

From what I can gather, your primary weapons (unarmed) would both be primary thus both having +14 (in our example from above) and then the two claws at - 5 so at +9 both of them. For a total of two unarmed at +14 and two claws +9 in a full round attack action?

Is this correct ?

No. If you have a claw attack and then put a weapon in it, you cannot also attack with a claw. If you are unarmed and using your natural weapons, you do NOT gain iterative attacks based on a high BAB. If you have two claws, you get two claw attacks at full attack bonus. If you have a bite attack, or another secondary natural weapon (tail, a dragon's wing attacks, etc) that is at a -5. If you want to attack with your bite as your main attack, you can, but then your claws become secondary weapon and each are at a -5.

And you do not have an unarmed attack and then your claws, unless somehow you manage to get multiple limbs, some with claws and some without. You have claws. You no longer have "unarmed attacks" you now have "natural attacks"

[Melcar]

No. If you have a claw attack and then put a weapon in it, you cannot also attack with a claw. If you are unarmed and using your natural weapons, you do NOT gain iterative attacks based on a high BAB. If you have two claws, you get two claw attacks at full attack bonus. If you have a bite attack, or another secondary natural weapon (tail, a dragon's wing attacks, etc) that is at a -5. If you want to attack with your bite as your main attack, you can, but then your claws become secondary weapon and each are at a -5.

And you do not have an unarmed attack and then your claws, unless somehow you manage to get multiple limbs, some with claws and some without. You have claws. You no longer have "unarmed attacks" you now have "natural attacks"

If you are a monk, you have unarmed attacks. The feral template says: You gain two claw attacks... It says nothing about negating your normal unarmed attacks... just saying!

[Immabozo]

If you are a monk, you have unarmed attacks. The feral template says: You gain two claw attacks... It says nothing about negating your normal unarmed attacks... just saying!

Well if you are using monk for entry, or even dipping, plus the LA for templates, you are making a late entry into a PrC that already is a late entry PrC.

But sure, I guess you could interchange monk unarmed strikes with a max of two claws. The combination seem underwhelming. I guess I could see it doing decently, maybe? But out of the optimization choices, which run the spectrum, of this class, that is certainly a weak choice.

If you get 3 UA strikes from monk, you'd be at least 8th level (with flurry of misses anyway) And you'd be 10th level before you can qualify for Bear Warrior. 9th and 11th respectively with a +1 LA. And either your UA strike, or your claw will do more damage. So, with rare exceptions, why would you ever use the other?

Also, it's not RAW, but a bear it not doing acrobatic combat and knee-ing and elbowing it's opponent.

[Melcar]

Well if you are using monk for entry, or even dipping, plus the LA for templates, you are making a late entry into a PrC that already is a late entry PrC.

But sure, I guess you could interchange monk unarmed strikes with a max of two claws. The combination seem underwhelming. I guess I could see it doing decently, maybe? But out of the optimization choices, which run the spectrum, of this class, that is certainly a weak choice.

If you get 3 UA strikes from monk, you'd be at least 8th level (with flurry of misses anyway) And you'd be 10th level before you can qualify for Bear Warrior. 9th and 11th respectively with a +1 LA. And either your UA strike, or your claw will do more damage. So, with rare exceptions, why would you ever use the other?

Also, it's not RAW, but a bear it not doing acrobatic combat and knee-ing and elbowing it's opponent.

The buid is Feral Male Shield Dwarf Barbarian 5/ Monk 1/ Fist of the Forest 1/ Fighter 1, Bear Warrior 1, Warshaper 3

So in normal dwarf form he would have two unarmed attacks and two claw attacks in a full round as I understand. The extra claws were in normal form not bear form. I just remember reading somewhere that since unarmed is a natural attack one could choose the unarmed as primary natural (at full attack) and the claws as secundary (at -5)...

[Immabozo]

The buid is Feral Male Shield Dwarf Barbarian 5/ Monk 1/ Fist of the Forest 1/ Fighter 1, Bear Warrior 1, Warshaper 3

So in normal dwarf form he would have two unarmed attacks and two claw attacks in a full round as I understand. The extra claws were in normal form not bear form. I just remember reading somewhere that since unarmed is a natural attack one could choose the unarmed as primary natural (at full attack) and the claws as secundary (at -5)...

no. You get to punch them in the face twice. do you want to use a claw? Or do you want to punch them? One or the other. Not both.

[Melcar]

no. You get to punch them in the face twice. do you want to use a claw? Or do you want to punch them? One or the other. Not both.


I assume you mean Improved Unarmed Strike. (Reason I point this out, you could have meant Improved Natural Attack, which is a whole different feat.)

Same way it effects you in any other form, including your natural form. You can make unarmed strikes (which are completely distinct from claws and bites, as you hopefully are aware) that deal lethal damage and you threaten attacks of opportunity with them.

Since unarmed strikes get iterative attacks, you can use them alongside natural weapons in a full attack the same way you can use a manufactured weapon alongside natural weapons in a full attack. You're familiar with that system, since you're choosing to play a natural attacks user, right?



There's a huge argument about whether or not this is appropriate but this isn't the time or place for it and you were probably in it the last time it happened anyway.


Its from This thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=16868513)


I call upon Urpriest to explane it... please!

[Immabozo]

Its from This thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=16868513)

I call upon Urpriest to explane it... please!

I read the rules here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070327a). people on forums can be wrong.

So are you planning to take the feat to avoid AoO for making an unarmed strike? And you realize that those extra attacks are instead of other attacks, like with a weapon, right? You are right, you get iterative attacks as unarmed. So you can do claw/claw/unarmed at -5/unarmed at -10 with a BAB of 11+

[Melcar]

I read the rules here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070327a). people on forums can be wrong.

So are you planning to take the feat to avoid AoO for making an unarmed strike? And you realize that those extra attacks are instead of other attacks, like with a weapon, right? You are right, you get iterative attacks as unarmed. So you can do claw/claw/unarmed at -5/unarmed at -10 with a BAB of 11+

Thats awesome... Thanks.

[Immabozo]

Thats awesome... Thanks.

You're welcome

[Urpriest]

I read the rules here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070327a). people on forums can be wrong.

So are you planning to take the feat to avoid AoO for making an unarmed strike? And you realize that those extra attacks are instead of other attacks, like with a weapon, right? You are right, you get iterative attacks as unarmed. So you can do claw/claw/unarmed at -5/unarmed at -10 with a BAB of 11+

That's an article explaining the rules, not an article containing rules. Just like a forum post, WotC writers can have the wrong interpretation, tempered by the fact that they can always change the actual rules via errata to coincide with their interpretation if they're confident that it's correct.

That article does say that unarmed strikes do not always require a free hand, but only usually, and that when fighting with another manufactured weapon they are treated as off-hand attacks, neither of which has much bearing on what is being discussed here.

Furthermore, the third article in that series (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070410a) points out that, indeed, a Monk (or presumably another unarmed strike user) can make their full complement of unarmed strikes and then make all of their natural attacks as secondary attacks.

So to go with the example character:

You have a BAB of +11, so if you were just making unarmed strikes you'd make one at your full attack bonus, one at -5, and one at -10. You would then make two claw attacks as secondary attacks, at -5/-5 (unless you had the multiattack feat, which would make it -2). You could also make any other natural attacks you had (bite from bear warrior, tentacles from warshaper), also at -5. Technically, you have to do the attacks in order of highest to lowest bonus (that's an obscure rule from the PHB full attack section, and your DM probably won't enforce it), so it's +0/-5/-5/-5/-10, for one more attack than Immabozo described.

When things get a bit weird is when you try to include Flurry of Blows. Flurry of Blows says that you can only use unarmed strikes and special monk weapons in a Flurry. The controversial part is whether that means you cannot use them in the same full attack in which you Flurry, or whether it just means you can't get a bonus attack with one of them from a Flurry. (Basically, the argument is whether the "Flurry" is the whole full attack, or just the attacks given to you by being a Monk.) The opinion of the WotC article I linked is that, if you use Flurry of blows in a full attack, you can't attack with natural weapons in the same full attack. I've seen other people say that you can, but they don't count as part of the Flurry. I'd ask your DM, and if you can't Flurry with natural attacks you can trade out the class feature for something else (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/1151316).

In terms of Feral, Feral gives you two claw attacks, but doesn't give you new appendages, so if you have claw attacks prior to getting Feral then you take the better claws, they don't give you 4 claws. That's irrelevant anyway, though, because as I said earlier in the thread polymorph makes you give up your original natural attacks, leaving you with just the bear ones.

[Immabozo]

- snip -

the unarmed attack rules are weird. But attacking with US is a bad idea if your not built for it, right? I mean provoking an AoO if you dont got the feat?

[Urpriest]

the unarmed attack rules are weird. But attacking with US is a bad idea if your not built for it, right? I mean provoking an AoO if you dont got the feat?

Yeah, you definitely want at least Improved Unarmed Strike if you want to use unarmed strikes, otherwise the AoOs and lack of threatened area make it a huge pain. More feats for higher damage (or just Fist of the Forest levels or the like) are also nice, though there's no need to go overboard unless you're building for it.

[Melcar]

That's an article explaining the rules, not an article containing rules. Just like a forum post, WotC writers can have the wrong interpretation, tempered by the fact that they can always change the actual rules via errata to coincide with their interpretation if they're confident that it's correct.

That article does say that unarmed strikes do not always require a free hand, but only usually, and that when fighting with another manufactured weapon they are treated as off-hand attacks, neither of which has much bearing on what is being discussed here.

Furthermore, the third article in that series (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070410a) points out that, indeed, a Monk (or presumably another unarmed strike user) can make their full complement of unarmed strikes and then make all of their natural attacks as secondary attacks.

So to go with the example character:

You have a BAB of +11, so if you were just making unarmed strikes you'd make one at your full attack bonus, one at -5, and one at -10. You would then make two claw attacks as secondary attacks, at -5/-5 (unless you had the multiattack feat, which would make it -2). You could also make any other natural attacks you had (bite from bear warrior, tentacles from warshaper), also at -5. Technically, you have to do the attacks in order of highest to lowest bonus (that's an obscure rule from the PHB full attack section, and your DM probably won't enforce it), so it's +0/-5/-5/-5/-10, for one more attack than Immabozo described.

When things get a bit weird is when you try to include Flurry of Blows. Flurry of Blows says that you can only use unarmed strikes and special monk weapons in a Flurry. The controversial part is whether that means you cannot use them in the same full attack in which you Flurry, or whether it just means you can't get a bonus attack with one of them from a Flurry. (Basically, the argument is whether the "Flurry" is the whole full attack, or just the attacks given to you by being a Monk.) The opinion of the WotC article I linked is that, if you use Flurry of blows in a full attack, you can't attack with natural weapons in the same full attack. I've seen other people say that you can, but they don't count as part of the Flurry. I'd ask your DM, and if you can't Flurry with natural attacks you can trade out the class feature for something else (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/1151316).

In terms of Feral, Feral gives you two claw attacks, but doesn't give you new appendages, so if you have claw attacks prior to getting Feral then you take the better claws, they don't give you 4 claws. That's irrelevant anyway, though, because as I said earlier in the thread polymorph makes you give up your original natural attacks, leaving you with just the bear ones.

First of all thanks for the very detailed explanation...

Secondly just so I'm sure, when in bear form, at base atack +11 I would have 3 unarmed attacks + 3 natural attacks... for a total of 6 attacks (without flurry). Now being warshaper.. could that class be used to grow other natural attacks like horms and tail for even more attacks?

Oh and lastly... in bear form. Would I have to do the unarmed first and the natural second or could I use natural first and unarmed second?

[Urpriest]

First of all thanks for the very detailed explanation...

Secondly just so I'm sure, when in bear form, at base atack +11 I would have 3 unarmed attacks + 3 natural attacks... for a total of 6 attacks (without flurry). Now being warshaper.. could that class be used to grow other natural attacks like horms and tail for even more attacks?

Oh and lastly... in bear form. Would I have to do the unarmed first and the natural second or could I use natural first and unarmed second?

In bear form you'd get 6 attacks without flurry, yes. Warshaper lets you grow natural attacks by spending a move action. They don't list a duration, so you can buff up with natural weapons and then use them later in the combat. Since you can only use Warshaper abilities when in a form other than your own, your character would only be able to use them while raging, which limits the amount of time you have to grow new weapons. However, other characters (Druids for example) are in alternate forms for hours, giving them lots of time to grow as many natural weapons as they want. This is sort of ridiculously unbalanced, so most DMs will houserule a limit to the natural weapons you can create with Warshaper. Without such a limit, you can indeed add horns and tails and so forth to your heart's content.

RAW, you do the attacks in order of highest bonus to lowest, so you'd do the first unarmed strike, then the natural attacks, then the other unarmed strikes. That said, as I mentioned earlier, very few DMs enforce that rule.