Talk:Dragon shape/Archive 1

Wildshape pre-req
I think we should note when the manual is wrong. In this case, someone will probably come along and change the requirement back to 6x after reading the documentation. We avoid confusion if we note manual errors in the notes section. -- Austicke 07:05, 20 Sep 2005 (PDT)


 * True. -- Pstarky 08:22, 20 Sep 2005 (PDT)

Character sheet anomalies
It should be mentioned that the character sheet shows wrong information about when shifted.

In particular it does not show properly AB which is +4 compared to what shown: +6 AB from claws -2 AB due to size (huge) = +4 AB

It does not properly show the AC, which is -2 AC compared to what shown due to size (huge)

As you mentioned WF/EWF unarmed do not work, but the sheet says they do when calculating AB. EP works normally. "'Weapon focus (unarmed strike) and devastating critical (unarmed strike) do not work for this form.'"
 * By adding the EWF feat into the statement, I've tried to avoid the possible confusion with readers as to whether EWF works the same as WF with regard to creature weapons, for those questioning whether their own intuitiveness is appropriate in this case, seeing as how they are each distinct feats. --Iconclast (talk) 18:32, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Also, dragon shape has +20 dodge AC bonus which counts towards the cap, therefore boni due to f.e. haste, defensive stance, bard song do not affect the dragon shape AC.

Dragon claws are +6 weapons not only with respect to DR penetration. The +6 bonus is applied both to AB and to damage. Hence, your maximum buffing AB capacity is +14 (+20 including STR buffs), or +18 (+24 including STR buffs) compared to what the sheet says for your unbuffed dragon shape AB.

Barkskin works normally giving you +5 AC (maximum bonus at 13+ druid lvl), that being natural armor AC bonus. It does count toward the cap.

Wisdom bonus to AC due to monk lvls, monk bonus to AC and Armor Skin feat are considered natural armor AC not counting towards the cap.

Cheers, Kail (01:11, 5 January 2006)

Requirements
It says on the page, under notes, that the feat "Requires the Shifter prestige class (Hordes of the Underdark expansion pack)."

But it also says that "This is the only Epic Shape feat-choice which is available to Druids without Shifter levels."

Which one is right? -- 169.231.1.197 May 2007


 * The epic shifter shapes are available at shifter level 10 including the dragon shape, naturally you must meet the 30 wisdom requirement
 * Dragon shape is also available at druid level 15, again as long as you have the 30 wisdom 69.146.156.5 18:49, 10 May 2007 (PDT)


 * It's not 15, it's 14. -- 193.213.29.247 September 2007


 * I'm just pointing out this misinformation which I suspect was based on earlier versions of the game (back to 2007). The minimum number of druid levels to get access to the dragon shape feat for a NON-SHIFTER is 18.  I am not sure all will immediately make the connection between Wildshape x6 prereq and the class level it occurs on but now it should be clear even to those trying to decipher the Talk page. --Iconclast (talk) 16:07, June 15, 2016 (UTC)


 * Talk pages should not be trusted sources of information. People can write all sorts of crazy stuff here, and editing someone else's comments is bad form. Consequentially, outdated information is never updated. For example, you are replying to a 9-year-old comment (which I should probably archive), which is dated compared to the 8-year-old patch 1.69. This detail is covered on the main page under "Previous versions". --The Krit (talk) 07:03, June 16, 2016 (UTC)


 * Archiving seems a good idea, TK. The only reason I was drawn to this article was because there was an argument in a small group that had erupted around what these requirements actually were stemming from the discussion here.  Apparently, some readers of the wiki do not spend a detailed search finding the info they need so may grab at straws at times. --Iconclast (talk) 14:15, June 16, 2016 (UTC)


 * Sometimes it's tough to distinguish when "some people" grab at straws because they don't want to read and when they grab at straws because the writing is cryptic. :) In any event, since you're agreeable, I'll archive this in a few days. (It's bad form for me to archive immediately after posting since that's basically cutting off discussion.) --The Krit (talk) 01:38, June 17, 2016 (UTC)

Dragon breath
How many times can the druid use this ability while in dragon form? Harleyquin 15:58, 15 May 2006 (PDT)


 * I figured it out, it's unlimited uses per day Harleyquin 18:07, 15 May 2006 (PDT)

I'm not sure whether the shifter green dragon breath poison is epic wyvern poison or Wraith Spider venom. Could someone help verify which one it is (I've guessed wyvern poison for the article). Harleyquin 12:22, 9 June 2006 (PDT)


 * Since no one thinks my entries actually matter I've tried to do testing myself. It seems my first guess was right and that epic wyvern poison is used. Harleyquin 08:27, 10 June 2006 (PDT)

Dragon breath clarification?
I noticed that this was recently changed to '-4 damage penalty to both DC and damage'. Does that mean the penalty is of type damage? or it should really mean, -4 penalty to damage only? -- Chrominium 09:22, 13 October 2006 (PDT)


 * If you are a druid only, i.e. no shifter class, then the dragon shape will receive -4 penalty to the breath DC 69.146.156.5 18:52, 10 May 2007 (PDT)

Haste stacking?
Someone seems to have change this article to say that haste stacks in Dragon form. It would be interesting if haste stacked in Dragon form when it doesn’t normally stack. I guessing they mean you still get the Dodge bonus associated with haste, which is true but isn’t truly stacking IMO and is irrelevant in this article as the Dragon shape gets 20 dodge AC anyway. I’ll change it back if someone agrees or they can just change it back when they read this. --EmpireGuard 23:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok no one seemed to dispute this so I have changed it from "Properties except for regeneration and haste do not stack. Only the highest AC bonus from armor (armor, shield, helmet) will merge." to "All Properties except for regeneration do not stack. Only the highest AC bonus from armor (armor, shield, helmet) will merge." if any wants to change it back again please just leave a note saying why. --EmpireGuard 02:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Weapon finesse
Version 1.69 should have made weapon finesse work in dragon shape, but I'm not going to change the article without checking this specifically in-game. Anyone want to beat me to it? --The Krit 01:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How did you plan on checking that? Does it even matter? All of the dragon shapes have more strength anyhow, so weapon finesse should never really 'work', with the exception of perhaps a module that's given a dragon extra dexterity. 99.252.182.92 09:05, February 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Since WhiZard removed the note in question over a year ago, I do not plan on checking that anymore. --The Krit 20:50, February 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Just so this discussion has a definitive conclusion, weapon finesse does work in dragon shape (debug mode can show the dex modifier being used in the attack roll). Easiest way to test is using SetSTR or SetDEX debugging commands, in-game it could happen that one is strength drained by a level 40 negative energy burst to for -10 strength and the dragon had before buffed with an cat's grace (for +4 or +5 dex) but not with bull's strength. This would cause the dex modifier to be exactly one higher than the strength, so in general it would be extremely unlikely for the dragon to ever find the finesse feat useful. WhiZard 21:35, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Weapon Specialization
Weapon Specialization: Does this feat work for Dragon shape? User:91.16.49.174 21:01, January 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * I have moved your question from the change log description to your actual submission. The answer is that weapon specialization (unarmed) does not work for creature items (which dragon shape uses).  I have posted a more general answer for these types of questions on the unarmed strike article. WhiZard 21:53, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Claw vs. Bite vs. DR piercing
Since it appears that the +6 attack effect enhancement applies only to the claw attack I assume that the bite attack will not pierce any DR. True? If that is the case and the toon pre-buffed with Stoneskin (for example), would that apply to all attacks ie. claw & bite? Would it have a negative effect on the claw attack (overwriting the +6 enhancement with +5) or would it just be expressed on the bite attack?

(This additional point may have been discussed in another article but I haven't found it yet)... Do the claw/claw/bite attacks always occur in a standard sequence, meaning: Do feats like Flurry of Blows, Divine Power, Haste, Great Cleave... impact the sequence? When I try to trace the progression (in this instance, using a monk progression in the morphed form), the sequence seems to be random but there may be a pattern I just cannot discern. Any info regarding this? --Iconclast 00:25, February 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * You are missing the part where all dragon forms have 40/+6 damage reduction; no stoneskin needed. And see creature weapon (or natural weapon) for the creature weapon attack sequence. (Yes, it is random.) --The Krit 00:54, February 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I may be missing more than that, TK.  I hadn't realized that any shape that had skin DR also had an equal amount of DR-piercing capacity.  I previously thought it was a special effect that only a DR spell imbued.  But, in this instance, it was being considered to impart DR on the bite attack portion that apparently doesn't have the +6 enhancement.  I did reread the notes, though, and found the reference about the bite still piercing DR even without the enhancement (which, as you just noted, is a function of the innate DR rather than of a special enhancement to the bite item) so I guess it is only the attack boost that the bite suffers.  Seems bit of an odd choice for the default attack to differ like that (claws over bite) but I buy it since it is a bear to debug with the randomness in effect.  Thanks for the link! ;) Should have remembered that article by now. --Iconclast 15:24, February 25, 2012 (UTC)