I asked this question in my summoner build advice thread here. Thought it might be more likely to be answered in this board.
Basically the original bestiary ability Grab as well as the Eidolon's evolution state that it works against creatures up to one size catagory smaller than the user.
Bestiary 2 updated this ability stating that Grab works against creatures up to the same size as the user.
This was later errata'd for the Bestiary, but no such change made it to the second APG printing. Was this intended or an oversight?
Well it's either Half-elf or Gillman for race. Really, the main thing I'm looking for are feat critiques or any must have evolutions, etc.
Possible lvl 13 Eidolon build if I go half-elf for the bonus evolutions
22 Evolution points
Climb, Tentacle (2), Bite (improved for 1.5 x str damage), Grab, Swallow Whole, Large, Huge, Scent, Keen Scent.
Might swap out scent and keen scent. Also, climb might not be necessary once I learn overland flight.
Does the update on grab which makes it work for creatures up to the same size apply to the Eidolon evolution as well?
For feats I was thinking: Power Attack, Step up, Following Step, Step up & Strike and Intimidating prowess.
Starting the Skull & Shackles soon. Working on a melee summoner build. I want the Eidolon to be a sort of horror of the deep that climbs aboard from the water to assist in combat.
For my race I'm considering a Gillman which would make an aboleth-type Eidolon appropriate. Other options include half-elf or demon-spawn tiefling.
20 point buy so stat build will look like this assuming Gillman:
First level feat: Arcane strike
I plan to use a spear in combat, though I may choose a trident or other thematic weapon if I go half-elf.
Future feats would look something like this:
3:Extra Evolution or Craft Wondrous Items if no-one else takes it.
Eventually making him huge and giving him grab and swallow whole.
Anything wrong with this build? Any must-haves that I'm missing?
My suggestion for Kensai Katana using your spread:
Str 20(16 + 2 human + 2 Belt)
AC will be 27 without the Monk's robe. If you take the 13k from that and bump your ring and amulet to +2 you're at 29. If you take the time for a mirror image before combat, you're sitting pretty well in the defense department. You now have the 2 feats from Dervish Dance to spend how you see fit.
Three levels of Horizon Walker choosing astral plane terrain dominance, and you're Dimension Door-ing at 9 with any class.9: Dim. Agility
11: Dim. Assault
14: Dim. Dervish
15: Dim. Savant or Maneuvers.
Personally, I think all the Dimension chain feats with the exception of Agility should be Combat feats. If you can convince your GM of that then you can take two levels of fighter after 3 levels of walker and get:
For a 15 level build I'd probably do something like Rogue 6/Horizon 3/Fighter 2/Rogue 10 for an advance rogue talent and 5d6 sneak attack on your dimensional flanking, or Rogue 6/Horizon Walker 3/Fighter 5/Rogue 7 for 4d6 sneak attack, Weapon Specialization, and Weapon training 1.
It does not damage living creatures and heal undead simultaneously since the beta playtest I don't think. You have to choose one. likewise with positive energy you cannot nuke undeads with the same channel as u heal the living.
He can channel negative energy to harm living creatures and target himself and heal from it.
He can channel negative energy to heal undead creatures and target himself and heal from it.
He's not trying to do both at once, just saying that he has both options and that both heal him.
Since people seem to have missed it...
Umm... nothing in Vital Strike says it can only be used if you have iterative attacks. Limiting it from natural attacks is arbitrary and not anywhere supported by the rules. I think your Wild Shaping druid and your biting barbarian would be disappointed with your adjudication.
Oliver McShade wrote:
Actually, I don't know what that is, just remember the descriptions from an ancient lit class I took.
Very well could be myth, but who knows? The rumor had to come from somewhere.
Well obviously if there's nothing in the way then there's no problem, lol.
Feel bad for the poor busty ones though.
Until a variant is added, there are no unmounted versions of the cavalier. You don't have to build around mounted combat, but you'll get no use from some of the class abilities.
You do get bonus feats through cavalier, but they are few and far between.
I think for a bodyguard type you might want the Stalwart Defender PrC after your first few levels of cavalier.
Really? That's rough. You talk to your GM about it? So far we've had a good mix of combats. My character really shines in the mounted combat ones, and is still effective in the encounters where other PCs take the spotlight. Sounds like your GM either didn't bother modifying some encounters to give you a chance to use your specialty, or was afraid letting you use your mount would be unbalancing. Shame, really.
How, exactly, does extra perf. fuel IC? The book says you can use IC to fuel inspire courage, but bardic performance cannot fuel commands.
As to power attacking with a 2h weapon, I'm not sure I'll be doing that very often. With my lowish hp I need to keep my AC high. Plus, if I really need the damage output of a 2her I can just grip my longsword with both hands and get the 1.5 str and power attack.
Thanks again for the suggestions. I think I am going to go BH. The only thing I'm really still up in the air about is whether to waste a feat or two on boon companion, or waste my cohort on a mount. I'm eventually going to need a flying mount anyway, once we're higher level. A griffon or pegasus would be nice to have. A humanoid cohort has so much more utility, though. Any thoughts on what the better choice is?
Thanks for the insightful reply.
Was toying with taking bard 2, but I think I'd prefer to wait until I finish Battle Herald up to get complex commands ASAP.
I don't have huge hp so mounted I usually use RBA with a lance to good effect and skirmish as opposed to slugging it out in melee. Off the mount I'm using sword and board for the most part. Have a masterwork longsword with a flail some javelins and longbow as backup weapons.
I know I can't stay mounted 100% of the time, but I'm actually enjoying playing a true cavalry type. Fighting on foot is a last resort.
My current planned feat progression is this:
1 Cav 1:Mounted Combat, Ride-by Attack
The rest I'm not sure on. Extra performance sounds okay, but I can't use it and command at the same time and performance requires a Standard action to activate. I kind of feel like I won't be using all my rounds of bardic performance, even on a full day of fighting. I could be wrong though.
Not sure whether I should try to specialize in a secondary fighting style, go for defensive feats or what. TWF for shield bash sounds fun. I was also thinking about weapon focus/dazzling display/shatter defenses line.
We're playing pathfinder only material so no Spell Comp. That said, not really sure what to take for my limited spell selection. Comprehend Languages and Unseen Servant fit thematically. Most other stuff seems like it will be worthless due to low caster levels and spell DCs.
Theocrat Issak wrote:
They stack for the purposes of Inspire Courage regardless of whether IC is being activated by command or bardic performance.
I've been agonizing over whether to go into this prc or stay full Cavalier.
My character is the current baron in our Kingmaker campaign. As a Cav 4 his stats are Str 16, Dex 12, Con 10, Int 14, Wis 8, Cha 17.
Feats: Mounted Combat, Ride-by Attack, Spirited Charge.
Things I like about BH:
Flavor - very much fits this characters role as the inspiring leader
Things I don't like:
No mount progression - I'm on the mounted combat feat track so this one hurts
Some possible workarounds:
Burn two feats on boon companion or burn cohort slot on a stronger mount.
Any ideas on how to make this build more functional or suggestions for feats/equipment to help maximize it's potential? I've already made some sub-optimal build choices for RP purposes, but I don't want to find myself hating my character in combat for being useless.
also... some things are just so fricken common knowledge it would seem cruel and weird to me to make PC's have to roll to know it. Like werewolves and Silver
I disagree on this point, especially with lower level parties. You need to make a knowledge roll to even know what a werewolf is. The players aren't playing in a modern age full of movies and nationwide book printings. Information not available locally is just not available without study and/or travel.
Characters getting bit by a werewolf better hope one of the party members was a bookworm (or ranger/druid). Otherwise, what's the point?
Rules as written: Slam is a natural attack. Natural attacks are not unarmed strikes and do not qualify creatures for feats that require improved unarmed strike. What part of the body is doing the slamming has no bearing on the type of attack.
That said, when I GM I allow natural attacks to qualify for those feats because it just makes sense. If I want a monster to be able to take improved grapple and it has the grab ability, I'm not going to make it take imp. unarmed strike. Same for my players and their animal companions.
First, I didn't put forward the arcana pool to be used for spells, just a resource to use for your arcana instead of spell slots with some additional benefits. I'm pretty ambivalent about the idea of using them for spell replacement.
Second, I see where your getting at regarding wanting unique flavor for the class. I just don't care for the arcana piggybacking on spells. It doesn't make a lot of sense. Why would casting black tentacles give you a bonus to your AC? To fit, the bonuses would have to be thematically similar to the spells cast, and that would take a lot of work.
I could maybe see having a different arcana effect based on the school of spell cast, but still I'm not sure it's an elegant solution.
First, regarding the attacks. A horse can attack. They have a bite and two hoof attacks. A combat trained horse will have the attack trick so no need to push the animal.
Second, running the mount into a door is plain stupid. Ask him if he'd try to open the door by running face first into it. Now if he wanted to pull up in front of the door and have the horse rear up and kick it open, that would make more sense.
You should check out 3 resources. A) the mounted combat rules in the core rulebook pg.201 B) Handle Animal skill entry pg. 97 C) the horse entry in the bestiary pg. 177.
Remind them that Diplomacy just make people more friendly towards them. In a court situation friendship is not part of the equation, the judge is going to rule based on the laws of the land, as that is his job. However if the PC had foresight he should have taken profession Lawyer (which he should consider when they break out of jail) which could have allowed him to get osama off the hook with that Nat 20.
1st, nat 20 on skills is not auto-success.
2nd, the dc to get out of that kind of crime should be pretty darn near two hundred. Sounds like there were lots of witnesses. Even if a player found a loophole in the written law, it's unlikely that a small town court would let them free. This is Golarion, not the modern world. People don't get off on technicalities unless the judge is in their pocket.
I wouldn't let them off the hook. They are lucky to be getting off without torture.
I wouldn't Deus Ex Machina the execution either. Rolling up new characters is it's own fun, and the players learn a valuable lesson about actions and consequences. If you remove the consequences, the gameworld loses any feeling of realism. The players need to realize their characters are part of a reactive world, and the people they share the world with have the same desire to live as their characters do. They just became psycopathic, heartless killers in the eyes of that town. I'd have the children of the guardsmen in the front row at the execution throwing rocks.
Abraham spalding wrote:
Neat idea. I'd drop TWF and go with a dwarven waraxe and maybe throw in weapon focus or Spell Focus (Evo) to offset either the low hit chance or low save DCs.
Also, what self respecting dwarf would be without stone call?
BAB: 9/4 CMB: 16 CMD: 28 AC: 25 (+7 Armor, +2 Dex, +1 Deflection, +5 Natural)
Fort: +15, Ref: 6, Will: 9
d20 +17 to cast defensively
Attacks: (power attack in brackets)
Full Attack: 19/14 1d8+12 +1d6(fire)
Full Power Attack: 16/11 1d8+21 +1d6(fire)
Spell Combat: 17/12 1d8+9 +1d6(fire)
Power Attack Spell Combat: 14/9 1d8+15 +1d6(fire)
4 - Greater Invis
3 - haste, lightning bolt, stinking cloud, Elemental Aura
2 - Scorching ray, Darkness, Acid Arrow, Stone Call
1 - Enlarge Person, Shield, Shocking Grasp, Grease, Hydraulic push
0 - Acid Splash, Detect Magic, Ghost Sound, Mage Hand, Spark
+1 Morningstar imbued to +2 Flaming
+1 Breastplate, Ring of Protection +1
Potion of cure serious, Pearl of Power (1st level), Brooch of Shielding
Arcana: Familiar (toad), Concentrate, Empowered Magic
I'm aware, I was just referring to the OP which described the player failing his check to cast defensively, losing the spell AND taking an AoO.
Beek Gwenders of Croodle wrote:
Do you mind using a morning star instead of a mace? They are very similar weapons and boggards start with WF(morning star).
Even after applying ability adjustments for class levels, It's going to have trouble with it's spells unless you give it the advanced template.
So you're looking at an advanced boggard with 10 Magus levels.
Str 15, Dex 9, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 11, Cha 10
Add Class level (+4 +4 +2 +2 0 -2)
Str 19, Dex 9, Con 16, Int 12, Wis 9, Cha 12
Add Advanced template
Str 23, Dex 13, Con 20, Int 16, Wis 13, Cha 16
+2 from Class Levels
Str 24, Dex 14, Con 20, Int 16, Wis 13, Cha 16
Feats: toughness, weapon focus (morning star)
1 ability focus (terrifying croak)
Terrifying Croak DC 17
Dazzling Display Intimidate check of +23 (10 ranks + 3 CS + 3 CHA + 7 STR)
40 more skill ranks to drop in stealth, perception, spellcraft, etc.
Out of time, so I'll check out gear and spells later.
The +1/4 Attack sounds nice, make it +1/4 BAB and you have an option to boost the Magus to something like a full BAB Class.
1/4 BAB is very interesting, but I doubt it would get implemented. People would want that option for their clerics and other 3/4 classes.
Might be a neat houserule option for all classes, "add 1/4 to your BAB, this cannot increase your BAB higher than your character level." This might be a little too overpowered compared to the other options, but I don't think it's much better than getting another spell each level as a sorcerer.
The best usage would be for helping monks and rogues and the like qualify for some of the higher BAB requirement feats out there like that +16 bab feat in the scorpion strike chain that monk's could never get otherwise.
It wouldn't be that much to manage. Most pathfinder character sheets out there have both sections for spells and for tracking misc points (rage rounds, ki pool, bard song, etc.)
Personally I think the magus should be an int based spontaneous caster which would do away with some of the bookkeeping, but that's an argument for a different thread. ;)
Wow. Not at home right now but checking the SRD I don't see it either.
No idea where that came from, but it's how we've always played. Maybe the fact that you can't cast spells with a somatic component when grappled blurred the line for me somehow.
I'll check again when I'm home, but at the moment it looks like I was dead wrong.
is there a ruling in pathfinder or anywhere that tells what kind of action it is to switch which hand you're holding a weapon in? what about switching two at the same time, such as a sling and a pick?
Moving from one hand to the other is a free action.
If both hands are full, I don't think there's anything RAW against it, but as a GM I'd call for a DC 10 reflex check since you're either tossing them in the air or awkardly fumbling them or risk dropping one. I'd also allow no chance of a drop if you take a full move action.
Spells without a somatic component never provoke AoOs.
Still spells have no somatic components so they don't provoke.
Silent Spell and the eschew materials feat have no effect on AoOs.
Dorje Sylas wrote:
Let him eat scrolls and wands. A set pool limit would be interesting, but the actual resource expenditure should be drawn from expendables in some fashion.
Or combine the ideas. Set pool of points, but can replenish pool by sacrificing slots.
The problem with eating wants is scaling. A 50 charge wand of lvl 1 magic missile is cheap.
I don't think that would work. As you mentioned, when holding a charge you lose it as soon as you cast another spell. If you want more spells stored, you can still have your weapon enchanted with spell storing.
Okay, it seems that it's becoming very apparant that the magus is going to be spellslot starved. To many class abilities (read: all) involve burning a spellslot.
I suggest giving the magus an arcane pool, similar to a monk's ki pool. Let them use that to power their arcana instead of spellslots. You could also do something similar to monks giving a benifit to having points remaining in the ki pool... maybe +1 force damage as long as 1 point is remaining, either increasing or adding different bene's at higher levels.
Elemental fist improves if you're of the 4 winds flavor of monk. Just as Punishing kick improves with hungry ghost and stunning fist improves with vanilla.
You need to check the Polymorph spell type description listed before the Spells list in the Core Rulebook. There are quite a few changes in how polymorph spells work, and wild shapes follow those rules.
Edit: Looks like you deleted the post asking where the info regarding losing armor in wild shape is located.
The problem with tolerating the player's actions is there is no good reason NOT to roll in front of the GM unless you're cheating. If the issue is wanting to plan your character before the group meets, there are online methods of certifying dice rolls.
Most groups are not ideal for rolling stats. It takes a certain kind of non-competitive mind-set to be okay with playing a poorly rolled character. Point buy is fine, stat arrays are fine, even the suggestion of rolling the stats then pooling the results and letting each character choose whichever set they want. All of these ways guarantee fairness. This guy obviously has a competitive nature and wants to have a set of stats to ensure he can perform well. There's nothing wrong with that. The problems are that the stat rolling system is really bad for that kind of player, and cheating is the wrong way to deal with it.
My suggestion is drop the stat rolling system and go with point buy or one of the other "fair" options mentioned in this thread.
james maissen wrote:
Flavor-wise, he's a kid who was raised on the streets, abandoned by his parents. Due to his freakish looks (patches of black scales and draconic horns) he was shunned and rejected by the people of his town. He lived by stealing and scavenging through refuse until a strange man found him, took him away from the town into seclusion and began training him to tap into his inner powers. The man himself is a green dragon disciple. I look at it as a rare group of monks with latent draconic power which they train to bring forward.
The concept is to play a darker themed monk focused on power. Mechanically, I want him to be a purely destructive force in terms of combat. That's why I'm trying to maximize strength and thus damage potential.
Speaking of which, can you flurry with a temple sword if you're wielding it 2-handed? If so, that would probably trump unarmed simply due to the multiplication of this character's massive strength.
Edit: regarding those house rules, they are very reasonable, but I'd like to stay within the RAW. Thanks for the suggestions.
Yes, much more fitting IMO.
Personally, I would allow a feat to eliminate the disorientation penalty to attack, the idea being that with practice he's going to get better at fighting upside down. Maybe even let the feat extend the time inverted by giving an effective +4 to con for purposes of staying conscious inverted.
Either way, where you're at is a lot better both for the player's enjoyment and for verisimilitude.