Housruling Warshaper balance

[Zzachary37]

Hello, so I've been debating with my friends recently about Warshaper & Changelings. They, like some people, seem to think its completely broken, but personally I think it's poorly worded. Wanting to play one, I was thinking of houseruling a limitation on the natural weapons.

You may create or improve a number of natural weapons equal to your Warshaper level.

Does this seem like a balanced change? Or do you think it should be limited to one weapon or change? I was wanting to do a sneak attack based build with Warshaper, basically making multiple natural attacks getting SA damage instead of TWF to get it. Thoughts?

[Fouredged Sword]

Hello, so I've been debating with my friends recently about Warshaper & Changelings. They, like some people, seem to think its completely broken, but personally I think it's poorly worded. Wanting to play one, I was thinking of houseruling a limitation on the natural weapons.

You may create or improve a number of natural weapons equal to your Warshaper level.

Does this seem like a balanced change? Or do you think it should be limited to one weapon or change? I was wanting to do a sneak attack based build with Warshaper, basically making multiple natural attacks getting SA damage instead of TWF to get it. Thoughts?

Well, the standard ruling that I apply is that abilities do not stack with themselves unless they specifically state that they do. This means that when you use the warshaper morphic weapons ability to gain a natural weapon, you get 1 or increase the size of 1. If you use the ability again, you still only get 1 or increase the size of 1. The ability does not stack, so you lose the previous choice.

If you want to increase the stacking from 1 to 5, that's not going to break the class. It's a solid middle tier class, a downgrade for tier 1, and upgrade for tier 4-5, about even with tier 3. Giving it a few extra natural weapons doesn't really change this.

[ComaVision]

Well, the standard ruling that I apply is that abilities do not stack with themselves unless they specifically state that they do. This means that when you use the warshaper morphic weapons ability to gain a natural weapon, you get 1 or increase the size of 1. If you use the ability again, you still only get 1 or increase the size of 1. The ability does not stack, so you lose the previous choice.


This is how I ruled it, mostly because I feel pretty confident that's the intention. I'd probably be more permissible in a higher-op game.

[Segev]

That is a house ruled nerf, I'm afraid. The actual mechanics of the same ability not stacking means that you can't use the same ability to get the same, identical effect. So you can't use an ability that gives you +4 strength twice to get +8 strength, even if the bonus is nameless.

However, you can absolutely cast a spell that gives you one of several effects multiple times to get those several effects all at the same time. They're not stacking; they're distinct effects.

So a Warshaper, by the RAW, can give himself one of every kind of natural weapon that he doesn't already have, and then can raise each natural weapon he has by one size category.

He cannot, per the wording of Morphic Weapons, give himself more than one of any kind of natural weapon; if he already has the weapon, he raises its size. He cannot raise a given weapon by more than one size; if he's already raised it by one size, applying Morphic Weapons again doesn't stack with itself.

So there is a limit, but it's a pretty lax one. You can give yourself a TON of natural weapons.

Again, though, house ruling it to only having one weapon affected at a time is perfectly valid.

[Fouredged Sword]

That is a house ruled nerf, I'm afraid. The actual mechanics of the same ability not stacking means that you can't use the same ability to get the same, identical effect. So you can't use an ability that gives you +4 strength twice to get +8 strength, even if the bonus is nameless.

However, you can absolutely cast a spell that gives you one of several effects multiple times to get those several effects all at the same time. They're not stacking; they're distinct effects.

So a Warshaper, by the RAW, can give himself one of every kind of natural weapon that he doesn't already have, and then can raise each natural weapon he has by one size category.

He cannot, per the wording of Morphic Weapons, give himself more than one of any kind of natural weapon; if he already has the weapon, he raises its size. He cannot raise a given weapon by more than one size; if he's already raised it by one size, applying Morphic Weapons again doesn't stack with itself.

So there is a limit, but it's a pretty lax one. You can give yourself a TON of natural weapons.

Again, though, house ruling it to only having one weapon affected at a time is perfectly valid.

I disagree with this. I read the effect line as a block or statement for any given spell or effect. For spells the rule is explicitly that you cannot stack that way.

"The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm)

I see lots of groups overlook this rules in games. I take this as a guideline to apply to other effects as well. It keeps the layered defenses a little harder to manage.

[Segev]

You're overlooking the key word of "usually."

This word is important, because when combined with "trumps," it implies a specific context: overlapping contradictory effects.

This would apply to, say, multiple castings of polymorph: If I use polymorph to turn into a saber-tooth tiger, and then you use polymorph to turn me into an octopus (and I fail the save or accept the effect without contest), then I am currently in the form of an octopus, because your spell, being later, trumps mine. If yours for some reason ends before mine does, however, I revert to tiger-form, not my own form, since my spell was still active "in the background."

This is the "usual" situation.

The unusual situation, where applying the same spell's varying effects do not actually create any contradiction, does not leave anything to be "trumped" by the later casting. It is unusual because very few effects have varying, non-overwriting outcomes, but Morphic Weaponry is one such unusual power: it creates natural weapons of sorts you lack, and enlarges natural weapons you have. You can absolutely have a claw and a tentacle and a bite; none need override nor overwrite, and therefore trump, the others.

[Fouredged Sword]

You're overlooking the key word of "usually."

This word is important, because when combined with "trumps," it implies a specific context: overlapping contradictory effects.

This would apply to, say, multiple castings of polymorph: If I use polymorph to turn into a saber-tooth tiger, and then you use polymorph to turn me into an octopus (and I fail the save or accept the effect without contest), then I am currently in the form of an octopus, because your spell, being later, trumps mine. If yours for some reason ends before mine does, however, I revert to tiger-form, not my own form, since my spell was still active "in the background."

This is the "usual" situation.

The unusual situation, where applying the same spell's varying effects do not actually create any contradiction, does not leave anything to be "trumped" by the later casting. It is unusual because very few effects have varying, non-overwriting outcomes, but Morphic Weaponry is one such unusual power: it creates natural weapons of sorts you lack, and enlarges natural weapons you have. You can absolutely have a claw and a tentacle and a bite; none need override nor overwrite, and therefore trump, the others.

I see your logic and we will have to agree to disagree. This is a case of ambiguous English and non-explicit rules.

[Andezzar]

You are forgetting that the Morphing Weapon ability is neither a spell nor an SLA. It is a Supernatural Ability, so the spell rules do not apply.

[Immabozo]

Personally, I love the warshaper class. Mix in a little psionics and get the one that lets you meld your weapon into your hands and count as natural weapons AND manufactured weapons, with an increase in their size from Morphic weapons, PA, picking up shock trooper and leap attack, SA damage, with those two feats that I forget that let levels count as also monk levels, and add monk damage to that, maybe war hulk to hit 3 squares, maybe dungeoncrasher fighter for lots of damage, knockback feat for some battlefield control, spirit lion totem(?) barbarian for pounce, frenzy ACF for another attack, bear warrior for a big boost to stats.

There are some serious shenanigans you can do with counting as both manufactured and natural weapons!

Now I want to make this character, haha

[Andezzar]

Personally, I love the warshaper class. Mix in a little psionics and get the one that lets you meld your weapon into your hands and count as natural weapons AND manufactured weapons, with an increase in their size from Morphic weapons, PA, picking up shock trooper and leap attack, SA damage, with those two feats that I forget that let levels count as also monk levels, and add monk damage to that, maybe war hulk to hit 3 squares, maybe dungeoncrasher fighter for lots of damage, knockback feat for some battlefield control, spirit lion totem(?) barbarian for pounce, frenzy ACF for another attack, bear warrior for a big boost to stats.Does it blend? Yes it does. ;)

[Chronos]

One natural weapon of each type is such a lax restriction as to effectively be none at all. We had a thread once listing as many natural weapons we could find. A lot of them were somewhat dubious, but there were still over a hundred. That's easily enough that anything in melee with you is dead, and adding more won't change anything.

[Necroticplague]

And anything that reacts to natural attacks (fire elementals, most oozes, babau's, remohraz, ect.) would have killed you, and anything with DR that isn't /magic would be laughing it's rear off.

[Stegyre]

Isn't monk damage limited to your unarmed strike? While graft weapon makes your (usually-hand-held) weapon count as both manufactured and natural, and the monk's unarmed strike counts as both manufactured and natural, that does not mean your grafted weapon counts as your unarmed strike. What rule or feature are you applying to do this?

[Immabozo]

Isn't monk damage limited to your unarmed strike? While graft weapon makes your (usually-hand-held) weapon count as both manufactured and natural, and the monk's unarmed strike counts as both manufactured and natural, that does not mean your grafted weapon counts as your unarmed strike. What rule or feature are you applying to do this?

Monk damage would apply to natural weapons, like a claw, as in the case of a werebear monk, correct? Or am I mistaken?

Please do not read sarcasm into that, it is an honest question and I may simply be wrong. Contrary to popular belief, I am not perfect.

[Stegyre]

Monk damage would apply to natural weapons, like a claw, as in the case of a werebear monk, correct? Or am I mistaken?
A wearbear monk, in bear form (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/bearBrown.htm), would have unarmed strikes, two claw attacks, and a bite. On a full attack, it could make:

- 2 1 unarmed strikes, using flurry of blows, and taking a -2 on all attacks in this action (and until its next turn);

- if BAB is +6, an additional unarmed strike at an additional -5 (total, -7), and so on, for higher iteratives;

Because a bear is Large, those unarmed strikes each do 1d8 bludgeoning damage, lethal or non-lethal (at the monk's choice) (and of course, the damage is higher if monk level 4+).

- 2 claw attacks, each doing 1d8 piercing and slashing lethal damage, at an additional -5 (total, -7), or additional -2 (total -4) with the multiattack feat, which is pretty much standard for anyone who has a lot of natural attacks;

- 1 bite attack, doing 2d6 piercing, bludgeoning, and slashing lethal damage, also at an additional -5 or -2 (total, -7 or -4)

All of these attacks are augmented by any strength bonus. The unarmed strikes each get the full strength bonus. I cannot find the specific rules reference, but I believe all the natural weapon attacks, when used in conjunction with the unarmed strikes (or any other manufactured weapon) receive only 1/2 the strength bonus, as they are all "secondary" attacks.

[Zanos]

One natural weapon of each type is such a lax restriction as to effectively be none at all. We had a thread once listing as many natural weapons we could find. A lot of them were somewhat dubious, but there were still over a hundred. That's easily enough that anything in melee with you is dead, and adding more won't change anything.
Do you have a link to that thread by chance?

[Troacctid]

A wearbear monk, in bear form (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/bearBrown.htm), would have unarmed strikes, two claw attacks, and a bite. On a full attack, it could make:

- 2 unarmed strikes, using flurry of blows, and taking a -2 on all attacks in this action (and until its next turn);

- if BAB is +6, an additional unarmed strike at an additional -5 (total, -7), and so on, for higher iteratives;

Because a bear is Large, those unarmed strikes each do 1d8 bludgeoning damage, lethal or non-lethal (at the monk's choice) (and of course, the damage is higher if monk level 4+).

- 2 claw attacks, each doing 1d8 piercing and slashing lethal damage, at an additional -5 (total, -7), or additional -2 (total -4) with the multiattack feat, which is pretty much standard for anyone who has a lot of natural attacks;

- 1 bite attack, doing 2d6 piercing, bludgeoning, and slashing lethal damage, also at an additional -5 or -2 (total, -7 or -4)

All of these attacks are augmented by any strength bonus. The unarmed strikes each get the full strength bonus. I cannot find the specific rules reference, but I believe all the natural weapon attacks, when used in conjunction with the unarmed strikes (or any other manufactured weapon) receive only 1/2 the strength bonus, as they are all "secondary" attacks.

Note though that as the natural weapons are not Monk weapons, they cannot be used in conjunction with a flurry of blows.

[Stegyre]

Note though that as the natural weapons are not Monk weapons, they cannot be used in conjunction with a flurry of blows.
You are right. I have included too much. I'll go back and strike it.

[Necroticplague]

Monk damage would apply to natural weapons, like a claw, as in the case of a werebear monk, correct? Or am I mistaken?

Please do not read sarcasm into that, it is an honest question and I may simply be wrong. Contrary to popular belief, I am not perfect.
?
No. A monk's damage progression is only for it's unarmed strikes.

[Immabozo]

?
No. A monk's damage progression is only for it's unarmed strikes.

So "unarmed strike" is different than a natural weapon? I though the difference was only if you did not have a natural weapon, suck as a claw, you had unarmed strikes, if you did, you had natural weapons.

[Troacctid]

An unarmed strike is a special kind of natural weapon that has unique rules and acts in many respects like a manufactured weapon.

[Necroticplague]

So "unarmed strike" is different than a natural weapon? I though the difference was only if you did not have a natural weapon, suck as a claw, you had unarmed strikes, if you did, you had natural weapons.

Yes. An unarmed strike is a specific type of natural weapon, with many properties unique to it. In direct contrast to Natural weapon=UAS, is the fact that natural weapons are considered armed, and thus the attendant benefits (threaten, don't provoke AoO, deal lethal damage). Even if you have natural weapons, you still have an unarmed strike (in fact, all creatures have unarmed strikes. They just usually aren't used/printed in statblocks because there's no point in using them).

[bekeleven]

So I'm the only person that ever says this and I'm beginning to suspect I'm insane, but that monk can also strike with his bite as a primary, then strike with claw, claw, unarmed strike as secondary natural attacks.

[Necroticplague]

So I'm the only person that ever says this and I'm beginning to suspect I'm insane, but that monk can also strike with his bite as a primary, then strike with claw, claw, unarmed strike as secondary natural attacks.

False. An Unarmed Strike is a light weapon, so you would fight like it was one: You would attack with the UAS without penalty, then bite,claw,claw as secondaries. So BaB +7, your attack routine would be
+7 UAS/+2UAS/+2 bite/+2claw/+2claw.

[Chronos]

Quoth Zanos:

Do you have a link to that thread by chance?
Here you go. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?286497-101-Natural-Weapons)

[Immabozo]

huh, alright. Well the monk damage was such a small part of the build!

[bekeleven]

False. An Unarmed Strike is a light weapon, so you would fight like it was one: You would attack with the UAS without penalty, then bite,claw,claw as secondaries. So BaB +7, your attack routine would be
+7 UAS/+2UAS/+2 bite/+2claw/+2claw.

An unarmed strike is a natural attack as well as a light weapon. Therefore you can use it as a secondary natural attack.

[Stegyre]

So I'm the only person that ever says this and I'm beginning to suspect I'm insane, but that monk can also strike with his bite as a primary, then strike with claw, claw, unarmed strike as secondary natural attacks.
It may seem counterintuitive, but the RAW answer is no: a monster's attack entry indicates its primary attack (claw, for the brown bear), and even if it uses one of its secondary attacks for its only attack, that attack is still a "secondary" attack that suffers the -5 (or -2) penalty. (Cite (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm) (look under the "Attack" and "Full Attack" descriptions.)

FWIW, a further ruling on the subject is buried away in the glossary definition of Manufactured Weapons (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_manufacturedweapons&alpha=M): all natural attacks are "secondary" to a manufactured weapon attack, unless the monster description states otherwise.

In sum, any time the wearbear monk uses his bite attack, he has a -5 (or -2) penalty to hit, whether it is his only attack or part of a Full Attack.

[bekeleven]

It may seem counterintuitive, but the RAW answer is no: a monster's attack entry indicates its primary attack (claw, for the brown bear), and even if it uses one of its secondary attacks for its only attack, that attack is still a "secondary" attack that suffers the -5 (or -2) penalty. (Cite (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm) (look under the "Attack" and "Full Attack" descriptions.)

FWIW, a further ruling on the subject is buried away in the glossary definition of Manufactured Weapons (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_manufacturedweapons&alpha=M): all natural attacks are "secondary" to a manufactured weapon attack, unless the monster description states otherwise.

In sum, any time the wearbear monk uses his bite attack, he has a -5 (or -2) penalty to hit, whether it is his only attack or part of a Full Attack.

Oh, reverse those. My point was about the unarmed strike, not the claw/bite ordering.