Dragon Shaper Nerf Discussion

[CookieMonster]

But how does this nerf Clerics?

[RedGiant]

After some objective play testing...

In most ways, this is a hard core nerf. In a very, very few ways, I found my guy(s) improved. Flat AB is markedly higher. I like the two breath weapons on the bronze...very canon and very creative. (Though, I think the gas is mostly useless unless spell fail increases.)

Overall, I think the nerf is abit TOO much, though granted it costs less. If you wanted to ruin monk synergy, that's fine. I don't see their AC as actually being much different with the improvements there though. Mine were still in the 60s after buffs.

Several comments follow:
1) Having a fully armored dragon have no DR whatsoever just feels wrong.
2) True Seeing strip feels also non-canonical. Maybe blind sense, since its certainly a thing in NWN.
3) Taking away the ability to improve combat by feat...even ever so slightly...also seems wrong. Improved crit unarmed should count for something. It is still only a x2 multiplier and a 19-20 range.

I also question the fact that the train has now left the station now on singling out classes which grant superior synergy.

But how does this nerf Clerics?

But seriously, I can make a 27/3 monster. They have excellent synergy. Great AC, insert kama or stave, pick the right domains, poof! Oh...and they can cast implosion too. Druids couldn't cast in Dragon Shape.

This seems abit unfair.



In short, I think the nerf needs tweaked. if you wanted to have an underpowered (comparatively) feat, that's easy to obtain, I could see the trade off. Yet, the current state really pleases no one. All I can see it doing is giving druids a high AB form...with negligible damage. I also think ruining monk synergy sets a bad precedent. I've talked about the trade-offs ad nauseam in other posts that were already quite substantial. IMO, the solution here shouldn't rule out synergy-granting class combos, unless you're going to go right down the line with all the others. There are solutions available which don't require this.

[Hexgoblin]

Given that AB in the 50s, while sporting an AC in the 60s simultaneously skyrockets above that of any warrior build - while you also retain the ability to cast epic spells in said shape, I find myself questioning the objectivity of this playtesting.

For objectivity, I'd first take the neo-dragonshaper to an area, and then let's say, a WM or a barbarian to the same area. I can assure you that the DSer, given the innate flat numbers and summons will fare many times better.

[Wytchee]

[My opinions are invalid.]

[BegoneThoth]

Go through a door, he cannot follow!

Great success!

[Iceborn]

Go through a door, he cannot follow!

Great success!

Honestly, this should have been fixed with the new dragonshape.
The size is probably better as something medium/large rather than colossal, both to kill KD spam and make it actually usable without getting stuck with every stick in the floor.

[Trunx]

1) Having a fully armored dragon have no DR whatsoever just feels wrong.

The "fully armored dragon" part is represented by the AC, just like it's represented by the AC for full plate warriors.

But seriously, I can make a 27/3 monster. They have excellent synergy. Great AC, insert kama or stave, pick the right domains, poof! Oh...and they can cast implosion too. Druids couldn't cast in Dragon Shape.

27 cleric 3 monk is not a "monster." It's not a particularly good build.

[Swords to Rust]

For the most part, dragon shape looks pretty good. No DR at all seems a bit harsh, but managable. My only concern is that the damage seems pretty pitiful. 1d3+29 with no possibility to boost through weapon specialization or other means (power attack I guess). The elemental forms (even air) deal significantly higher damage.

Edit: Nevermind. Just noticed the post where it said they have additional weapon damage beyond what is in the screenshot.

[Diegovog]

3) Taking away the ability to improve combat by feat...even ever so slightly...also seems wrong. Improved crit unarmed should count for something. It is still only a x2 multiplier and a 19-20 range.

Wait, combat feats don't work with dragonshape now? I mean, even blind fight? lol

[Cortex]

Only improved critical unarmed ever worked for dragonshape. Now it doesn't because it's "weapon" is a magic staff. Blind-fight, knockdown, and combat feats unrelated to weapons work as normal.

[Ambigue]

The "fully armored dragon" part is represented by the AC, just like it's represented by the AC for full plate warriors.

Kind of. Most armor gives you a DR%. Not sure if that carries over to the new DS or not, though. If it does, then, OK.

If not, adding basic full-plate levels of damage reduction be an appropriate tweak.

[yellowcateyes]

Kind of. Most armor gives you a DR%. Not sure if that carries over to the new DS or not, though. If it does, then, OK.

If not, adding basic full-plate levels of damage reduction be an appropriate tweak.

That's just an Arelith convention. And it's, arguably, a material property as much as anything else. Normal, unenchanted full plate has no DI.

Armor in 3E is AC. It's called 'Armor Class' for a reason.

[Ambigue]

That's just an Arelith convention. And it's, arguably, a material property as much as anything else. Normal, unenchanted full plate has no DI.

Armor in 3E is AC. It's called 'Armor Class' for a reason.

I'll keep that in mind when I'm playing 3E. We are discussing Arelith, though.

[yellowcateyes]

I do believe it's also called Armor Class in Arelith.

[Iceborn]

Armor class is the combination of factors that may turn a sure hit into a completely harmless glance, a miss, a parried blow or a denying block.
This is the annoying extreme that we have in DnD and Arelith: There is not really a middle ground that represents a hit taken but with damage mitigated short of simply having DR.

The ferrous scales of a dragon represent how hard it is to actually harm one in the shape of AC, rather than DR. The dragonshape is fine having one of the two, rather than both, whilst a real dragon would probably need to have both to be properly mechanically represented.

[Cortex]

From a character perspective, Armor/Natural/Etc AC is the ability to block attacks with your armor, scales, hide or whatever. RDD grows scales, in the form of AC.

Meanwhile, DR is the ability to take hits well, without necessarily having armor, the classes that get it naturally are barbarian and dwarven defender, or extraordinaire characters with 21+ CON.

It can also be argued that AC works as damage reduction... with a cap of 95% damage reduction.

Obviously this works different for monsters, but the above is to show some perspective.

[Ambigue]

I do believe it's also called Armor Class in Arelith.

Yeah. I guess. Good job.

Thank you for reminding me of what I've been missing in the time I've spent away from the community. I think that's it, then. Bye.

[hoshi]

The "fully armored dragon" part is represented by the AC, just like it's represented by the AC for full plate warriors.

Kind of. Most armor gives you a DR%. Not sure if that carries over to the new DS or not, though. If it does, then, OK.

If not, adding basic full-plate levels of damage reduction be an appropriate tweak.

To answer the second part, the % reduction from the armor, shield, and helm slots will transfer over to the dragon form (along with any other properties). So if you had 5% on each type bludgeoning/slashing/piercing then the dragon form would too. Basically there is a "skin item" that the special properties of those slots are placed on that follows all the normal rules for the same abilities stacking on an item (in general the same type doesn't stack with itself on the same item with few exceptions).

[Seven Sons of Sin]

I do believe it's also called Armor Class in Arelith.

Yeah. I guess. Good job.

Thank you for reminding me of what I've been missing in the time I've spent away from the community. I think that's it, then. Bye.

Yellowcateyes was being reasonable here. Discussions of Armor Class and what that means have been long-running questions in DnD with regards to shapeshifting. TBH, I never know what the rules are and it seems there's different ones for different shapes.

I think the problem with balancing dragonshape is that you can't balance armor that a PC takes. Depending how properties merge,you could reasonably expect people to stack DI to the nth degree.

I often wonder if we could make druids formidable if we knew they really couldn't wear metal armor (or anything other than padded, leather, studded leather, hide).

[hoshi]

As far as shapechanging is concerned the "non-magical" properties of the armor are irrelevant. A +3 10% DI padded armor gives the same bonuses to a dragon as a +3 10% DI plate, specifically +3 deflection AC (all magical AC is converted to deflection for the skin item) and 10% DI. Some allow more than the 3 items listed above (armor, shield, helm) but they're still placed on the same "skin" item.

The only way that varies for any shapes is if they allow a weapon's special properties to transfer over as it goes to the "weapon" slot so it is a separate item to stack things on. Only shifter forms with visible weapons follow this model, for example a risen lord or minotaur form.

As for stacking, the only thing I know that stacks with itself on the same item is regenerate (worked for the spell as well in the base game). Arelith has that changed when they redid the regen spells but I don't know if that extends to items. I don't know if regen is part of the artefact matrix, the only crafting source I know of it is a +1 regen helm for druids.