As Pathfinder is an exception based rule set, how about you show me the rules stating explicitly that you can do it? Again the rules for flurry are similar but not the same as the TWFing action. Because they aren't the same, you can't arbitrarily switch the two, and so you are unable to push MWFing into the Flurry.
They both are "applied" but as mentioned only the best numerical amount counts towards your AC. The lower value is overwritten.
Using a shield to attack normally makes you lose the AC, but that doesn't cause you to no longer take the ACP, at least nothing in the shield bash write up says that. Using the shield "as a weapon" doesn't negate the penalty, and penalties stack as a general rule. If you were just "holding" the shield instead of wielding (aka using) it, the ACP wouldn't apply.
The shield master build is considered "cheese" by some due to the benefit normally applied to one weapon of the sword & board TWF style (the shield) being applied to both weapons when dual shields come into play. It is "cheese" because the benefits are slightly better than if you were dual wielding "normal" weapons. I want to say the penalty of -2 is ignored when making attacks with a shield, but it has been awhile since I've looked at it.
Well what is it, TWFing exists so you get ITWF/GTWF attacks or it doesn't exist. It states extra attacks as if ITWF or GTWF, not just a static additional attack(s). Just like the initial write up states as if the TWF feat.
You really seem to be picking & choosing where you get things applied. Any time someone is doing that dance, they are almost always bending/breaking rules. Flurry grants something like TWFing, because it isn't TWF you don't get to swap in MWF for flurry per the special line. If you want MWF, you can take the feat, but you would be unable to apply the special flurry rules/conditions to MWF.
They are not the same.
It would work that way if it were a ranger, because your get the actual feat. Not some ability that is similar to the distinctly different feat, like Flurry.
Taking it further, flurry isn't dependant on limbs or weapons. A monk with 20 arms is the same as an armless monk. The ability specifically states 1 additional attack, like if you had TWFing. Monks unarmed strikes are made with any part of the body. Multiple limbs make no difference to the Flurry.
That is what I thought, but given the OP mentioned wording that allowed it, I figured I've missed something since I last read it.
TWF and flurry are positively not the same. They may be similar, but similar does not mean equal and interchangeable. There are things that happen when doing one that don't happen when doing the other. There are things that can be combined with one that are unable to be combined with the other.
Beyond that, the feat TWF doesn't cease to exist and do what it does because you have four arms. Flurry outlines specifically what it allows you to do and makes reference to an existing ability for mechanics and easy of use. It doesn't grant you TWF, it grants you an ability similar but not the same as TWF. Incidentally, there is no improved or greater MWFing, so your argument starts to make less sense. Your 4 armed monk would never get any more attacks from flurry ever. They never get the ITWF/GTWF because TWFing doesn't exist when you have 4 arms, and there are no additional feats for MWFing.
The main sticking point against your interpretation is that flurry isn't TWF, it refers to it for some of its mechanics. Flurry is not the same as TWF, they are not interchangeble. Just because of the reference doesn't mean you get to put TWF in its place whenever you like, as you are doing here. In a home game, if your GM let's it fly cool. But I'm sure it would never make it in organized play.
I was thinking of something similar to the Defiler while playing Skulls and Shackles, sounds like a good theme for a pirate. If I were to play as a Strix how would grappling with my hair work while flying?
It probably wouldn't, weight limit would prove difficult to deal with. Best case you are 5' over them/adjacent with "normal" reach. That still puts you within melee range of opponents.
Also I believe there would be a bonus on the opponents check as you are moving them into a dangerous situatioon (falling), but I'd have go read all the grapple rules again to be sure. That is if you have the physical strength to fly with the opponents total weight with gear on top of you/your gear.
I'm in the middle with the fluff of PrCs. Having a back story for it gives it some direction, an idea of how it fits into the world in general. And honestly for every person who ignores the given fluff there will be another for whom the fluff gives an idea or start point for something new in their world, fill in a missing niche. Just about all the people I play with will tweak given PrC "organizations" to fit their world, but very few out right strip it totally. As long as the fluff doesn't completely misrepresent the mechanics of the class, it is useful.
Writing up a complete world is time consuming, a job not everyone can do or invest the time they might want to. I believe more people will welcome fluff, even if they have to alter it a little bit for their world, than be annoyed that it is there at all.
The class is more than consistent damage, it is extra damage without limitation (sneak attack) at range versus a touch AC. Every round of every minute of every hour of every day.
Then we add utility to the class.
Scribe tattoo is awesome, look up crawling tattoos. Read it, then read it again. Expanded Knowledge just became your best friend. Find nasty powers that target REF saves (Ectoplasmic Cocoon, anyone?). They are denied that save from the crawling tattoo after it makes a successful touch attack. Start the combat from stealth, send the tattoo in and because it is the surprise round no AoO (normally). Body Adjustment means you just became a battle field medic. Someone drops? Send a Tattoo over to heal/stabilize them.
Swift Trigger insight + Trapmaker? Booby traps or contingencies up the wazoo (yay folded traps!). Summoning Pattern.... The possibilities are scary. Essentially instant kill scary for a room with multiple nasty reset-able traps, which were really cheap due to efficient trapsmith and buffed with empower trap. Steal Pattern could be insanely useful, if only for the denial purposes, and you can take that from the get go.
Evasion is always good, some people dip to other classes for it. Improved Evasion insight, even better.
Hidden Pattern, hide in plain sight without limitation rolled into a class skill bonus with a class that has skill points to spare. You'll be making your rolls high enough to hide.
Rapid Defense, potentially a life saver. Free action bump to your AC for those unexpected things (like an arrow trap that you somehow failed to notice and walked past). Even better, that attack that *just* hit you, didn't. That crit that almost confirmed, didn't. Free action that can be used when it isn't your turn.
You don't even need to think far outside the box to come up with nasty things to do. The class is Macguyver incarnate. If you cannot think outside the box (not an insult but a statement) the class will be lackluster. If you can, it has A LOT to offer.
I don't think that this is particularly a problem that needs to be addressed. It is potentially a problem anytime a character multiclasses. A little bit of planning will keep you from making redundant choices, it shouldn't require hand holding in the class design.
I know this has been asked before, and the only answer I got was in James Jacob's "Ask Anything" thread, where he said to use your effective druid level as the CR. I've got that exchange printed out and paperclipped to my Nature Oracle's mount's character sheet.
I'd still be careful with that, some of the paizo crew have stated they'd run things a certain way in the past, which led to some people taking it as "official" answers which might have been contradictory to other rules/faqs. It then blew up and it was said that unless it was errata'd/faq'd/actually stated to be official, these were just individual opinions on how they'd run it. It's probably a large chunk of the reason we have the faq system in place now.
To be fair, you should be asking your DM, not the boards, because of the ambiguity. We can give your reasonable arguements for and against, but we won't be running the game or have final say on it. The rule set doesn't allow for what you want in a strict reading as has been mentioned. Pitch the idea to the DM and see what they say.
The ability being a Sp could probably fall under the stacking rules, meaning two people who use the same ability on the same target don't get the sleep effect, they get a prolonged staggered effect (as the first one would end before the second one).
If used on a creature staggered from some other source it would be put to sleep, given the duration of the ability there is no reason to say the ability doesn't stack with itself, as it would end before the character could reapply it.
I honestly haven't got a problem with the ability as it stands, characters that do this are basically one trick ponies who are probably screwed once SR comes into play (as SP abilities are subject to SR).
You are unable to do this without some specific rules allowing it. When a creature ends its movement in an "illegal" square (such as in a large creatures space) they get "bumped" out of it when their movement/turn ends.
The Aegis class from DSP could replicate power armor fairly well. Though if they are looking for something along an AI, you'd probably better off doing an intelligent suit of armor with animate object as a SLA.
Any table that takes issue with alignments is already house ruling things about them regardless. They (the authors) are just following in the steps of what already exists and working in the established framework. Not quite sure this is the place or product to start pushing for changing the alignment system of the game.
In theory everything can be made powerful or useless; a corner case where something can be made to sound overly useful is nothing new. Nor is it a sign of a problem with the rules. And if you read the polymorph subschool, you'll see the RAW says GMs get final decision on what happens in such situations. Like deciding the rock isn't a valid target for Dominate, seeing as there is no mind to affect because of the special circumstances involved with Baleful or Poly AO.
The short answer, you are a rock. You have no mind or physiology, you can't sleep. Or think for that matter. These are things that make no difference to a rock. So while you may be a humanoid type, you are still a rock. Type is irrelevant.
How is that against the FAQ? The FAQ says nothing about the skill, it states use the worse of either for DC's or spell slots or pearls of power.
Captain Emberwrath wrote:
At first level it is overpowered, it counting as your 20th level... it is completely not worth it. It isn't broken, it is the main "problem" with templates, nothing in this game is "balanced" or equal at every level. Static bonuses and abilities will be weighed more heavily at certain level ranges, less so at other ranges. Set the adjustment too high and the template is worthless or close to and never gets use. These are basic design principles, and it surprises me how many people cry "broken" at them.
In my games I allow it. I just use the adjusted spell level as the new DC for the spellcraft check. Not sure if thats RAW though...
This would be RAW, a meta'd spell would be the final adjusted spell level and increase the DC appropriately. This means someone could fail to realize a meta'd spell is being cast due to the higher DC. You could counter that maximized fireball with a regular fireball BUT you might not know what spell you'd need to use because of the higher DC.
Try actually reading the rules, the important part is quoted in my last post.
Making a full attack requires taking a full round action...
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.
Edited: Arcane Pool (the ability the OP asked about).
Well then we have our FAQ and the spell does affect every unarmed strike made. RAW it would preclude Arcane strike (faq states spells) but RAI is fairly obvious and I would allow it if I were running.
Steven Morgan wrote:
Wrong about what?
The only reason it work that way is if it were from a Greater Magic Fang used on all natural attacks or an Amulet of Mighty Fists which a monk or unarmed strike specialized character would make heavy use of.
@ Original poster, please actually read the pertinent rules and what similar abilities do to come to a decision instead of taking the short cut of what people think it should do without any backing besides "it works this way" and nothing else in the forums. Your GM will thank you. As I mentioned before, unarmed strikes are a tough issue and there are several FAQs regarding them in various forms. It is a headache but unarmed strikes are not all equal, which you will see once you do some digging on the subject.
No, the spell states one natural weapon OR unarmed strike. As in one of multiple unarmed strikes. Magic fang would need to be cast twice to ge the effect on two fists, the spell states one fist is the target of the effect.
Your certainty is unfortunately completely incorrect, actually read the spell instead of going off what you think it does.
Magic Fang wrote:
Magic fang gives one natural weapon or unarmed strike of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. The spell does not change an unarmed strike's damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.
Notice the singular, not plural, usage.
Unless there is some hidden verbage in the magus ability that I'm not seeing, it's effect is a singular weapon. A fist is a weapon that you can make an unarmed strike with. One of your two fists gets the effect barring special rules or stated exceptions.
Obviously if there is errata or a FAQ that states otherwise I will concede the point. I haven't seen anything in my searches.
I'm not 100% on where it might be written out in the rules but I'm with the GM on this one. Unarmed strikes tend to be a little on the tricky side because they aren't a descreet item, but a catch all term for multiple possible "weapons." If you look at spells like Magic Fang, it calls out having to choose a natural weapon, which means you would need multiple castings for multiple natural attacks. This makes the intent obvious, one attack per effect use. If the arcane pool ability had wording to the effect of all weapons of the selected type gained the bonus, I might see an argument, but it doesn't.
Your example doesn't cause the attacks to stack, you have two seperate actions occuring very close in time during the round. A standard action, then a completely seperate swift action.
My guess would be that, the clause would come into play when something like a contingency spell occurs. Damage enough to kill you and a contingent heal going off. If the damage occured first you could die and the heal would be wasted. But seeing as the effects occur cumulatively, the contingent heal would occur at the same time so you don't "die" from the damage before the heal occurs.
Red Ramage wrote:
I think his point is just because something can be "logically" explained in such a way, doesn't mean the explanation being made is valid.
1st round: Use standard action (have move & swift to play with).
Not quite sure how this is problematic as written, again.
Red Ramage wrote:
No it doesn't, it applies to the metagame mechanic we use to determine if the IUS/natural attack hits. It "augments" the attack roll if you are going to explain it in such terms, which would be incorrect to state. That it adds to the die roll doesn't mean it is an "effect", it just means the mechanics work in such a way that a total modifier is the sum of several parts.
Red Ramage wrote:
Technically a spell causes an "effect." If you cast a spell on an invalid target there is no effect (as the spell fails to do what it was intended and wasted). If cast on a valid target the spell creates an effect, typically the effect augments the target increasing its effectiveness (in this spell's case better to hit and damage).
Normally the Magic Weapon spell needs to target a weapon, not a part of a creature. FCT makes the natural weapon it was taken with an exception and can gain the effect of the spell that it wouldn't be able to.
Read the spell, you cannot target natural weapons with Magic Weapon, but you can unarmed strikes. It isn't allowed in PFS already. FCT makes an exception to this rule, as its effect is allowed on US.
Red Ramage wrote:
Off the top of my head...
Magic Weapon, which cannot be used on a natural attack "normally" (Magic Fang would be required). But it can be used on an unarmed strike and so the wording allows it to be used on a natural attack when the character/creature has FCT for it.
I'm going to have to say DD is a poor choice for this character. Anytime you can quantify a PrC's "pros" to anything you can buy items to get, or cast spells to gain... It is a bad trade if it doesn't help you be spectacular in some way.
From the little bit you've said about the character:
The debuff to AC is worth +4 to STR (for to hit purposes), the -2 to hit is significantly better than +2 CON in most cases (no damage > more HP), the save debuff is better than +2 INT (-2 saves is like a +4 INT for the DC). Natural armor can be gained via spell or item. Breath weapon is the same. Wings the same (or hex). Blindsense the same.
Look at this guide (particularly the Melee Transmorgifist) Hexcrafter Guide. Tweak it to your liking.
If 3PP are allowed, take a look at the Soulknife and/or Aegis (possibly into Metaforge). No casting to the Soulknife, the Aegis can get a little bit of "casting" via stored power stones (essentially scrolls). The Metaforge is a PrC that combines both of them. Both classes excel at being versatile however, which seems to be what you are looking for.
Incidentally this means you would lose the HP gained from the PrC as well.
This makes losing requirements significantly more punishing than in 3.5 where you retained at least some of it.
Red Ramage wrote:
I guess it is a shame you aren't one of the designers... I mean heck you've got it all figured out and apparently have the right answer for everything.