So if I shift into a plant or an elemental, am I blind as well? They don't have eyes
With Carnivorous Crystal you would be blind (because you get it's vision which is none and you don't get Blindsight.)
With Immortal Ichor you would get Blindsense (still 50% miss chance) and doesn't require Tremorsense from the Domain which only works on ground. Damage reduced to 6d6 and 1d3 Wis Drain, which is arguably better. Better because it is on a rail (6d6->8d6->12d6) and it has Wis Drain that isn't described with a Ex/Sp/Su ability so it is just part of the base damage.
Either way, Echolocation is the thing to do. But burning a Strong Jaw and Echolocation is a large investment for a combat.
What are you basing this on?
I've got a PFS Cave Druid created just after APG with 5 levels of Fighter/Ranger. If you go with the stance of "I can still use basic vision" you will see a whole lot of table variance disagreeing with you. It isn't fun, so go with the conservative stance and you are happy (but blind.)
special that increases threat range, but it's not stated quite strongly enough to prevent it from applying.
Wild Shape and Beast Shape doesn't mention Razor Sharp as an Ex you get, so your Slam is 20x2.
Are you critting the vital strike damage?
have Improved Vital Strike (requires BAB +11)?
Boo, the bane of quick math and not looking things up is you make mistakes.
I've got this built at 10th, and misremembered IVS at BAB +9 instead of BAB +11. You have 6th Level Druid and the rest are Fighter and Ranger levels.
So 605 on a Crit calculated correctly at 10th or 11th level.
What?!? Can I get a breakdown of that math?
Improved Vital StrikeCritical (20x2)
Improved Natural Attack (Ranger 2nd level Natural Weapon Style)
Strong Jaw (some argue it doesn't stack with INA)
Behemoth hippo is huge (too many Druid levels) but Arsinotherium is the same damage and only Large. But the damage caps at 24d8 damage with Vital Strike. But 24d8 is only 384 + 38 (my base is +19) on a crit.
If the average bard can deal X damage in a round without expending resources, then Weird Words (which does expend resources--Bardic Performance rounds) needs to deal more than X damage.
Sorry, what I sort of mean is that if the Bardic Performance is as good as you describe it is too good.
Weird Words need to deal better damage than an average bard's turn could deal without expending resources
That is the root problem. The damage needs to be limited or expend significant resources otherwise it is a big power up.
The Beard wrote:
weird words ... sneak attack
You would only get the Sneak Attack damage on one attack in the volley.
I apologized, I assumed something that wasn't true. I assumed you had played that character with them previously.
I love it when a bard IC's, but my experience is that most don't. Most try to do melee or ranged damage. At least most of the ones I've played at the same table.
Neume, care to playtest with my version? No damage and no attack, just a save or be dazed (or nauseated)? DC = 10 + 1/2 Bard + Cha Fort Save for 1 round and uses 1 round of Bardic Performance and doesn't end Inspire Courage (but you would need Lingering Performance to not have IC end.)
looking at playtest reports, like Neume's, to see what the feedback from that is.
His may not be the best reports, as it is coming from a high level Bard who has been using the ability in the original form with the unintended boost of allowing multiple strikes to the same target. So to be fair, it is lowering damage from 140 to 200 to down to 24 damage.
There is going to be understandable unhappiness from GM and players both in that situation.
I also read it as "make close to this".
To be clear, I'm advocating no damage (no attack roll) and simply a Save or Debuff effect. Not a rider.
This ability still rolls 30 dice
Either that or you have no concept of what is or is not 'strong'.
None of them deal 80% of optimized Archery damage. None of them even deal direct damage (only indirect by adding + to hit etc.)
I have no clue what you are talking about.
It isn't important, I was talking about how people wanted to build characters around the ability before the redesign.
Nice points! Thanks
1) This alone has value, significant value. Is it worthwhile? I think so. Personally I think if you have an ability that doesn't last, uses performance rounds, and you retain Inspire Courage then you should be able to use the instantaneous ability without breaking IC.
2) I don't think the powerup of damage and debuff is acceptable.
3) Back to our old problem, so this flatly isn't very likely to happen at all. The whole old problem is "attack to hit and save for half" and we won't be going back there.
4) Switch to a save, 10 + 1/2 Bard + Cha is fine, no attack roll. No damage. Just debuff.
5) 1 performance per target if harsh at 1 round duration (Daze or Nausea) or 1 performance per target if minor (shaken etc) at 1d6 rounds.
6) If it has a save it must not be a ray.
7) I think 30' is fine, upping it to Close range would much more range. There are very few area spells below 6th level that have more than 30' range. I'm curious why you feel the range should be increased at little or no cost? I guess if the save was for Shaken then range wouldn't matter. But if the save is for Daze then the range matters a lot.
8) I'm fine with up to 10 based on rules set in above answers.
10) Depends on if it blocks lingering or not. I prefer it doesn't.
11) It uses rounds or is limited to 3 per day.
12) We are back to the major power up world. Switching from DR to Sonic is a huge boost.
13) SU abilities ignore SR.
It is true that I share PDT's view on what is 'good damage'.We also disagree whether or not they have made any strong combat abilities.
THank you all, And while the 5' diagonal is still hated by myself, I do see your ways of doing it, and hopefully this won't completely screw me over again.
I'm not yet sure I understand how you got screwed by 5 ft step or how you think you are able to avoid it now.
I don't agree with you, but since you say it's clear, then tell me, what is the casting stat in question?
I wouldn't say it is "clear", but I'd still go with the spell method and use the spell as if cast by the Druid:
10 + Beast Shape level + Wisdom modifier
You only have proficiency with that weapon. So if you take Longsword, you can't buy a +1 Longsword and use it. You can only use that specific non-masterwork weapon.
You could pay the spellcasting Masterwork Transference (?) to make it masterwork and then enchant it.
does not have the "Special: You can take this feat multiple times for different weapons" that Weapon Focus has.
When this is not present, you explicitly can not take the feat more than once.
I hate when the rules state things that are hopelessly exploited...
Use Hex Grids
Agreed. I make it 7.071067811865475 feet.
I was waiting for someone to bring this up. If you "must" be accurate, then 7 won't do.
10' reach, then you can only hit guys in the closest diagonal, but not one diagonal out further.
They took that line out, yea. It makes for awkward Reach behavior. I seem to recall a thread that did a poll and most people just use the 3.5 extension anyway. Also you need to worry about approaching over that diagonal and officially that one 5 ft square provokes because you go from 15 ft to adjacent and "pass through the 10 ft square" on the way.
No, I don't think the Thundercaller is "WAY too good" I think the Sound Striker needs to be equal to the Thundercaller as a 'bardic performance damage dealing archetype'.
Ok, I didn't ask what you thought of Thundercaller. I asked if you were aware you are asking for something you have all but been told you won't get. Apparently you are aware.
Afterwards I asked the table what they felt and everyone - including the GM said I should change my character for next week's game.
Three times have I had a player want to be a Sound Striker in games I've ran or played since the book was printed. All three times it was made clear the ability is an AoE and not Single Target ability. Only the "role player" party face guy took it anyway and the other two picked a non-Bard "damage dealing" class instead.
So I have the opposite experiences of yours. Where the players all rejected the "blast for good damage frequently" Bard. It is interesting that people pick out the Sound Striker for this "job" and not Thundercaller. I've yet to have a player want to play a Thundercaller.
Let me say if it has to be as weak as Scorching Ray, then I'd rather it inflict a status than bother trying to deal damage.
I think getting to the Scorching Ray from the PDT redesign might be hard to do in a balanced way.
I also think delivering a status instead of damage would help this ability be better, but few are interested in talking about that and would rather talk about how to get to "deal enough damage to be impressive" instead.
RAW ignores this by not having a definitive answer to the problem.
I think it is answered.
You only need to pay 5 ft for the first square.
You can take a 5 ft step.
So diagonal 5 ft steps are valid and RAW.
Except they want to replace the non-combat ability with a 'weak' combat ability. Many of the things they've replaced suggestion with, are strong combat abilities.
Strong but not damage.
I did a lot of math on Scorching Ray in this thread earlier, and frankly it is way better than the PDT proposal. Therefore, I don't think it will every be something they would sign off to do.
I do like you idea of a daily limit, like 3/day or similar.
To be honest, I think the "1 word per performance" could be traded for a daily limit.
This spell is broken, and not in the "omg op" way.
So does this match the way I understand it?
It sticks to all creatures in the area (even if they move out) and doesn't have effect on new creatures entering the area?
BTW we probably all know this, but there is table variance in the "new guys get to make a save when entering" question. About half the table GM's I regularly play have different stances.
I didn't read the text, so I'm unsure why there is confusion. Unless the ability makes for confusion.
On a charge you make a single attack.
Trip can be swapped out for a melee attack.
Grab is only something you can do on a weapon (or ability) with Grab.
You need an ability that grants Grab to unarmed strikes.
Rake is an ability that triggers on a previous event. Complete the event, get the rake.
I've been wondering, would magical knack allow you to increase the caster level of the quinngong monk's SLA caster level? It's for a multiclassed quinggong build.
There is no definitive answer that all GN's will be made happy.
You don't have a caster level, but you have SLA that use your level as their caster level.
Some will say that it adds to the SLA caster level, others will say it is a no-op.
There is no RAW right answer.
If you do it for PFS, then know it will probably have table variances.
I have a Sunder Master PFS character and this is what I use:
Inanimate Object is an object not worn or held (attended) by a PC or NPC that is not a construct or otherwise capable of acting (like Intelligent Item.)
For this reason I don't use the Maul or any of the other abilities and weapons that deal additional damage to "inanimate objects."
10 baddies, or about 17 points each. I'm just... underwhelmed.
They are not happy with the ability to be used as a single target potent ability or something that can be used every round of combat for good damage.
So we end up with something that isn't all that effective.
This is why I'm advocating for something that isn't damage. Something that could maybe be effective. Like a Fort save or be dazed for 1 round that uses the same number of bardic performance rounds.
Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:
awesome and balanced can be made out of the theoretical idea of the Sound Striker.
I think that is a tall order if damage is the end result. There is just too far a void between where some want it to be ("awesome") and where it was supposed to be ("minimal AoE effect") to bridge.
Odd design choices there PDT.
I'd actually call it consistent. None of them deal damage (even mediocre damage.)
This again falls back to my idea of "Fort or daze for 1 round" idea. Non-damaging thing that can be combat effective.
convert performance rounds into what is essentially a direct damage spell.
Which turns into 30 new 2nd level spell slots if it is Scorching Ray damage level with 1 round per use.
Secondary natural attacks are at -5 unless you have Multiattack, which the base creature might have but the druid doesn't.
So if you are a Monk/Druid with IUS for 2 attacks, and you take Large Octopus (1 bite and 8 tentacles) your sequence would be:
Aspect of the Gorilla doesn't apply to natural attacks without Feral Combat Training. Even with FCT, AotG should use the unarmed strike damage track (based on level), not the weapon damage chart (based on size). And since the player isn't actually becoming Gargantuan or Colossal, I wouldn't apply Strong Jaw's doubling clause, but rather stick to the tables.
Animal Aspect is a polymorph spell and size increasing spells don't function ... enlarge person & animal aspect don't stack.
To summarize:Aspect of the Gorilla: Can't use with Enlarge Person (Demonic Bulk); Can't use without Weapon Focus/Feral Combat Training; Doesn't increase Natural Weapons but the Unarmed Strike from 1d3 to 1d4.
Net Moving is 1d8 (base) + 1 size (INA) + 1 size (Demonic Bulk) + 2 size (Strong Jaw) = 6d6
still a nerf ... not needed.
wants to nerf the ability ... wash my hands of this entire thread, re-write the class for my home games, and call it quits.
Can we work together to get some sort of agreement on the new ability? It is only a nerf if you read the original (unclear) ability as allowing single target focusing. In the mind of the PDT this proposed version is a boost.
PDT made it clear the intent was for it to be an AoE and not single target, so the new wording will make that clear.
I think it is far more likely they believe the RAW covers their position, but someone said "there is no RAW for this" and the only logical next response for a developer is "ok fine it is an unwritten rule, happy?" (well without all the snarkieness)
Where is the unwritten part?
I often find that the "no RAW support" rejections are when we take narrow meanings of a rule and don't consider what the rules mean.
So I think a lot of your "unwritten rules" concept are actually "written rules" that some people apply way to narrowly.
You can't do multiple bardic performances per round, so it already limited.
I think the round cost at 2-6 for most activations is fine. But to make that cost less there should be a trade off in power (less damage or targets or something similar.) Same goes for pushing the scaling to /2 instead of /4.
The DR issue is a balance factor. At almost 34 % of monsters compare to less than 2 % for sonic. Taking away the DR for Sonic should have a cost, in damage or targets or whatever.
It isn't a two handed weapon, but It may have some limitations that make it similar.
And if so, that makes that power pretty awesome.
To confirm, it shouldn't get a save for Save: None spells.
Is the rough goal to make Weird Words about as useful to a Sound Striker as the above abilities are to their archtypes?...
There is also:Archivist, Demagogue, Sandman
I think the rough goal is to replace Suggestion with something combat usable, but to consider that Suggestion isn't combat useful and the resulting power of Weird Words should reflect that Suggestion isn't strong and the Bard's role isn't damage.
Your 4 and my 3 Archetypes all have things that replace Suggestion that are not very strong. But Weird Words is most of it's strength out of the gate and gets slightly better (the PDT reword version) over levels. So it is already better than anything I can find that replaces Suggestion in other Archetypes.
I think the fact one ability is too good, shouldn't mean that all future abilities should be equal or better.
If that were true, then there would be nothing but power bloat as all new abilities would be as good or better than older ones.
When you take a Standard Action to do an attack action in the form of Vital Strike.
the people who are writing these characters in aren't the core "developers", they're just writers.
Except for when they are the Core developers?
B2 has Soulbound Doll which are Constructs with Rage.
No, Kazaan and Sarcasmancer are absolutely correct
I've been in this debate before, I just don't agree with Kazaan, Sarasmancer, and you.
I also don't see a problem with the Moral bonus to STR being applied to someone immune to moral bonuses, as it isn't applied to the ghoul but to the ghoul's STR.
Anyway, this is something each individual GM will have to make a ruling. The whole developer side seems to contradict Kazaan (and etc) viewpoint.
another dev post to give some direction, we're just spinning our wheels.
We now have some direction!
not only would he no longer be a sound striker, he would no longer be a bard.
Did you take Sound Striker for the ability to deal significant damage? Worth taking the class with this Archetype?
I think it is clear, that the direction we should discuss is far away from being a "go to" ability to be able to deal damage.
To claim that a "morale bonus" is not a "morale effect" is the kind of errant pedantry up with which I shall not put.
You are alone in this.
There are dozens of examples of Ghoul and Plant Barbarians with Rage stat blocks.
So to claim that a Undead Barbarian can't use his Rage to gain a Morale bonus to a stat is "errant pedantry" at it's finest.
That immunity is for things like "run away from combat" type things.