I've been working on a new monster concept to throw at a group I run regularly in a home-game and I figured I'd post what I've got so far to try and get some feedback on it.
Some of my regular group do read these forums, everything will be in spoiler tags.
Lesser Suppressor Swarm:
A strange creature from beyond the bounds of known reality, the Suppressor swarm is a single creature that manifests as a cloud of floating cubes. The cubes seem to distort time, space and logic, and merely looking at them can threaten ones sanity.
The creatures appear to be in league with the Hounds of Tindalos, but whether they are allies or kin remains unknown.
Inspiration: A lot of the initial concept borrows from Alastair Reynolds Inhibitors, although I've mixed in a lot of angle related flavour to thematically fit them with the Hounds of Tindalos (angles of time and whatnot).
Lesser Suppressor Swarm CR 9
While in this form, the Suppressor Swarm has Hardness 8 and the corners formed by it count as valid targets for the teleportation ability of the Hound of Tindalos.
Remember, nothing says the succubus has to be alive for you to benefit from the bonus. Just call instead of summon and pay the succubus to grant you the gift and perform some second task. Make a plan in advance to have your allies casually surround the succubus, and kill it in a surprise round. Boom, no chance of losing the bonus. If that fails, rinse and repeat with a new succubus.
Summoning: A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower, but it is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can't be summoned again.
All that will accomplish is to annoy the succubus.
The succubus with a permanent link through which to manipulate you, and a grudge to be paid.
Umbral Reaver wrote:
There's even a magical item that supports this interpretation.
I'm usually loathe to make "me too" posts, but I also quite like the roles concept. It provides enough guidance to be useful while still allowing room for each character to keep their individuality.
Brilliant idea, guys :).
Hmm, my thoughts would be to use the Average HPs (rounded up) + Caster level, that would make +10 (1d10 = 6, +4 CL) A CL4 false-life item:
2 x 4 x 2,000 = 16,000gp
For +20, I'd probably up the spell to False Life, Greater (2d10 = 11, +9 CL)
4 x 9 x 2,000 = 72,000gp
Well, using the Magic Item Creation table in the PRD / CRB, we can come up with a recommended price. This table is intended as a DM guideline, so the price can be altered if you believe the result to be too cheap or not cheap enough and GMs are free to disallow some items if they believe them to be over-powered or unsuitable for their campaigns.
Presumably, a Ring of False Life would be a use-activated item, likely having a limited number of uses per day. This means we'll apply the following entries from the table:
Now, False Life is a Level 2 spell for Wizards or Sorcerers, giving us a Spell Level of 2 and a minimum Caster Level of 3.
2 x 3 x 2,000 = 12,000gp
Let's assume this ring is usable 1 time per day:
12,000 / (5/1) = 2,400gp
Of course, you can vary the number of uses per day or increase the caster level to improve the effects of the spell. Such changes would affect the formulas provided above.
Is there any RAW advice / guidelines published for determining appropriate spell-like abilities for a monster, given its CR / Hit Dice?
I've scanned the Bestiary sections on Monster Creation / Advancement, and I can't find anything that would give any guidance on an appropriate set of spell-like abilities. Is there any published guidelines that cover this?
judas 147 wrote:
Hmm, if I'm reading that correctly, it can be case as a swift / immediate action (although the spell doesn't specify the trigger condition for taking that immediate action, which is a significant omission).
Presumably, one of the intended uses for this spell would be to cast it in reaction to someone attempting to grapple you (and therefore make it harder for them to catch you / easier for you to escape). Given that textbook Sorcerers and Wizards are pretty weak in grapples, this may give them a fighting chance.
It may also be useful to some gish builds, who can cast it as a swift and still have a move and standard to go pin some poor fool down (+4 from spell, probably +4 from Imp and Greater grapple, decent BAB and strength would make this an effective combination).
Your characters death should be in some way your fault. Killing someone is a descriptive text is just rude. There should be some mistake that the character should be able to eventually deduce that was their mistake. If you are going to finisht he campaign by killing their character is the onyl exception I see to this.
The question here is: Was there any information available leading up to that encounter that might have suggested that casting a few defensive spells might have helped (Death Ward would have allowed you a save, and Spell Resistance would have also have provided you with some protection).
It's a nasty thing to do, but if there were clues (and maybe a few scrolls) left about that would suggest this could happen, then you could have taken some steps to protect yourselves before entering the encounter.
You can most certainly grow claws while Wildshaped, here's the rules text to back it up (found in the Magic section of the Core Rulebook under Polymorph, or found here in the PRD)
While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision), as well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed by your original form. You also lose any class features that depend upon form, but those that allow you to add features (such as sorcerers that can grow claws) still function. While most of these should be obvious, the GM is the final arbiter of what abilities depend on form and are lost when a new form is assumed. Your new form might restore a number of these abilities if they are possessed by the new form.
There might be some controversy regarding whether the slam and claw attacks are trying to use the same limb, and whether that prevents them from being used together in the same round. That's a harder one to rule on though. The relevant rules text, while it seems to imply one limb, one attack, doesn't nail it down precisely either:
It's pretty clear on manufactured weapons / natural weapons using the same limb, but not so clear on how two natural weapons ostensibly delivered via the same limb would work.
To me, that seems to fall in the iffy, ask your GM, area. You could argue that you slam with the elbow / forearm and claw with the hand.
Apologies for the thread necromancy, but I was trying to answer the same question myself and figured it was worth sharing the result.
I suspect I've wasted a feat here, but I wanted to get a second opinion before I wrote it off. I picked Furious Focus from memory, without re-reading its limitations, and I suspect it won't actually work for the purpose I'd intended.
For the sake of background, I've got a Barbarian / Druid (Wolf Shaman) who is built around turning into a dire wolf and raging.
RAW, does Furious Focus negate the Power Attack penalty on a Bite attack if that Bite is my only attack.
First, the limitation, from Furious Focus
Benefit: When you are wielding a two-handed weapon or a one-handed weapon with two hands, and using the Power Attack feat, you do not suffer Power Attack's penalty on melee attack rolls on the first attack you make each turn. You still suffer the penalty on any additional attacks, including attacks of opportunity.
However, if the bite is my only natural attack (and, for a dire wolf it is) then this sentence from the Combat section of the CRB applies (found under Combat - Natural Attacks).
If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.
I see enough here to argue RAI, but RAW, this sentence seems insufficient to allow Furious Focus to work with my Bite attack.
Am I correct, or have I missed something important?
Is it true that you can "take 20" for most disable device checks?
You can only take 20 if there is no consequence for failing the check. However, for many traps failing by 5 or more triggers the trap (see: PRD - Disable Device).
Hypothetically, if the lowest you could get would not trip the trap you could legally take twenty. However, since only the DM will know the trap DC that may not work for you in practice.
To answer the OPs question (how did we get from rogues and traps to clerics...?)
Question is right there in the title. What is it about rogues that makes them the only ones that can disarm magical traps? Why can't a ranger or a bard who have invested some ranks in disable device make a fireball trap safe to pass for the party?
The rules answer is:
This text can also be found in the 'Environment' section of the CRB
Trapfinding: A rogue adds 1/2 her level to Perception skill checks made to locate traps and to Disable Device skill checks (minimum +1). A rogue can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps.
Note that there are archetypes for other classes that do get trapfinding, so it's not strictly rogue only.
The flavor answer is that, since these traps don't operate in a mechanical fashion, they cannot be disarmed using only mundane mechanical knowledge or skill.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
You realize that the enhancement bonus as a shield doesn't automatically get applied to attack and damage rolls too. They have to pay to have it enchanted separately as a weapon as well (putting the price of a +5 defense and +5 offense shield at 75k).
Littlehewy - The rules already cover this quite clearly.
Paladin - Spells wrote:
I did say you could expect table variation, since this trick is so out there that there may not be a definitive RAW answer, and most DMs will find themselves having to improvise on the spot.
Shunted (as per Dimension Door) is another possible ad-hoc ruling you might encounter (thought likely only dealing 1d6 damage in that case, and probably not ending prone).
I'd be curious to see how more experienced DMs would rule on this, if it was thrown at them in the midst of a convention / games day / etc. If you want to know how games you play in would rule on this one, you'd probably need to ask the DM ahead of time.
With respect to a pit created using the Create Pit spell, the answer is included in the spell description.
PFD20SRD - Create Pit wrote:
... When the duration of the spell ends, creatures within the hole rise up with the bottom of the pit until they are standing on the surface over the course of a single round.
Now, I suppose if the bridge was over the pit, the monsters would be forced against the wall. I'm not sure what the absolute RAW answer here is (or if there is one, expect table variation). I can't find anything on immovable objects meeting unstoppable forces in the magic section. The only precedent I can find is that Magic Circles expire if you try to push them against an entity they prevent from entering.However, if ruling on it (and without the benefit of a RAW answer) I'd consider the following points in my decision
Which would lead to me ruling that
This still provides a nice advantage to using this trick, since it puts whoever comes out of the pit at a sizable disadvantage. I'll FAQ this one though, as I'm interested to hear if there is an official answer.
I'm no expert, but I'm inclined to suspect this thread isn't intended seriously.....
EDIT: Just saw the next post. Not sure if this is brilliant satire or I've just misunderstood the first post.
I've only just started looking into this one, but the new Karpenia Dancer archetype (Varisia splat-book) provides an interesting alternative option.
You sacrifice some of the spell-casting ability, but there is some interesting possibilities with the bladed scarf (such as a class ability allowing it to be used for the Steal combat maneuver, and a Magus Arcana to give it 10ft reach..... :)
I've only just started to look at making one for PFS myself....
Actually, I think making it Scimitar only was quite an effective balance choice - why?
Because it's not a light or finessable weapon. That means you can't use it with Piranha Strike and, if you want the option of sacrificing to-hit for damage have to use Power Attack and therefore cannot completely dump Strength.
For a feat that would otherwise make Strength almost obsolete (only relevant for encumbrance purposes, and that can be negated using items as well), I think that's actually quite a clever little trick.
but you could buy two tenticles and then both would have hands...
Actually, you can't. Because unless it explicitly says otherwise you can only take a discovery ONCE
Discovery (Su): At 2nd level, and then again every 2 levels thereafter (up to 18th level), an alchemist makes an incredible alchemical discovery. Unless otherwise noted, an alchemist cannot select an individual discovery more than once.
@Gonn - Because with this shirt, your full plate wearing paladin can reach the BBEG and full-attack on the first round of combat.
Barbarians need to reach level 10 before they get a rage power that can do that (with two pre-reqs)
Ok, what he means is this. Say you have the following:
Your final Strength score would be 22, not 24, as bonuses of the same type do not stack with one another (however, if you were enlarged and received a +2 Size bonus to Strength, your strength would become 24). For references, see PRD - Basics and D20PFSRD - Common Terms - Bonus
Similarly - your normal two-handed damage bonus is a Strength bonus of 1.5 times your Strength. With Overhand Chop you gain a Strength bonus of double your strength.
That particular ability could certainly benefit from a sentence or two to clarify this though.
Honestly, you're expecting a bit much from 3rd level ability that replaces Armor Training 1
That actually sounds like a buff, unless you're multiplying the dice for normal attacks (which is incorrect anyway - it's always your Strength bonus that's multiplied).
Let's assume the following:
Without overhand chop -
With Overhand Chop (adding to Strength only):
Now, if you multiplied both the overhand chop and power attack (which would be nice, but is unfortunately incorrect):
Wild Shape prevents you from speaking in animal / beast form, as the animal itself lacks the vocal chords to speak.
Wild Shape wrote:
However, how does this work if, for example - I turn into a Worg. Worgs are magical beasts that know Common and Goblin and possess the capacity to speak them. I am eligible to take the form of a Magical Beast once I reach Druid level 8 (or Level 6 Wolf Shaman).
Does the restriction against speaking still apply even though the base form is capable of proper speech? (I'm interested in a RAW answer here, as this affects a PFS character I'm currently leveling).
There is one small error that I noticed in the PDF edition:
The Beasts of Bygone Days has the map labeled as being part of the Temples map-pack, however the mushroom cavern is actually a part of the Caverns pack
I'm certainly interested to hear more about this. I mostly play but have been considering trying my hand at GMing as well.
In the process of checking my Certs, I've discovered two that were not entered / recorded. Both of these were scenarios I had previously played on another character.
The replay rules, as explained at the event were that I could play, provided my character had a different faction (he did) but that if the DM felt I had made use of prior knowledge or ruined the scenario for others he could deny me the cert.
From reading the stickies, it sounds like that's not how the replay rules actually work (you can replay if it is necessary to create a legal table, but do not get credit).
I've since played a few other scenarios on that character. I've checked and I can simply deduct the XP / gold / PA without any of them going into negatives.
Is this the correct way to address the situation?
I've been checking the paper certs I've got from conventions against the sessions recorded against my characters and found a few minor issues.
How important is it that I keep the two consistent? - from checking it looks like two of the games for my cleric and one on my rogue don't appear to have been recorded.
If it is important, what's the correct way to go about getting it addressed?
I was issued with a PFS number about a year ago (Eyecon 2010), but never got around to registering the number / my characters on this site.
I've decided to stop being slack and actually register them (they've been in quite a few scenarios since - I have all the chronicle sheets in a binder).
Is there a way for me to recover the confirmation code / otherwise register this number?