It only really matters whether it has 2 slams or 3 available if you use the fast zombie variant... normal zombies can't make full attacks, they are limited to one move or standard action only.
I agree with hapless mage that the zombie template is not meant to add slam attacks if the base creature already had one (simply because it wouldn't matter at all given a zombies permanently staggered condition)... I think the wording is more a problem of not accounting for the fast zombie variant when writing up the template.
in the end whether you give a fast cave giant zombie three slams on a full attack or four slams on a full attack it would probably not be enough of a change to adjust its CR any further... so just pick one and go with it.
Damocles Guile wrote:
Heh - I don't think even paralyzed foes get a penalty to Reflex saves... but if you're shaken or sickened you do.
paralyzed creatures are helpless... a helpless character has a dex of 0, so their dexterity modifier is -5. Thus a paralyzed character at best has a much worse chance of making a reflex save then when he is not paralyzed.
I have finished voting, but have decided not to reveal my picks until the final day of voting this year, in an attempt to stave off swaying the voting process... people thinking stuff like "Joseph Kellog seems to have enough votes already that he should make it through with out my help, so I am going to vote for Adman Blanchard instead because even though I hated his archetype I loved his item and would like to see what he can do in the next round"... (note that I just used those names as examples, it is not indicative of what I thought of their archetypes).
here is a list of some items that I really liked that didn't make the top 32
Relativistic Boots (step into the future)
in fact, it specifically says you can target the creature normally.
Yeah, I responded to that it means that you don't have to guess target a 5 foot square and hope the displaced creature is in it (the normal process of targeting a creature with full concealment) instead you can just attack the creature (with the 50% miss chance), also you can target a displaced creature with ranged Target: spells (something that you normally can't do to a creature with full concealment) because target: spells require line of sight.
look at it this way, blur prevents sneak attacks, displacement is a more powerful version of blur, ergo it should prevent sneak attacks as well.
I dissagree... the spell says as if it had total concealment. So it should be treated as such accept for the fact that it can be 'targeted normally' (ie you don't have to try to guess what square it is in).
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and does everything as if it were a duck it should work like a duck unless the rules specifically say otherwise (ie. unless rules flat out state 'displacement does not prevent a rogues sneak attack' or some such).
It doesn't it is inferred from the invisibility modifiers in the Attack Roll Modifiers table (Table 8-5) which notes that in addition to +2 to hit with melee or ranged attacks your opponent is denied his or her dex bonus to AC... no place in the rules does it say such for a character attacking from (non total) concealment.
sure as long as the opponent is flat-footed or the rogue is flanking the opponent... concealment doesn't grant you the ability to deny your opponent their dex bonus simply by virtue of having it (as opposed to total concealment such as invisibility which does grant that perk).
(note that in the case of obscuring mist, the opponent would have partial concealment from the rogue as well, which would mean that no sneak attack was possible).
Well it means that the creature is going to stay grappled and take the damage each round for a minimum of 4 rounds if it fails its initial will save... and like all spell combinations it is going to be situational... don't cast it on golems or giants then (although assuming that a rod is not used, the min caster level for a dazing black tentacles means that the tentacles CMB is +20, easily affecting hill giants, flesh, wood, and ice golems, and having a better than 50% chance of working on stone, fire and frost giants and clay golems.
If cast on a group of 6 Hill giants (a CR 13 encounter), each tentacle would need to roll above a 3 on d20 to successfully grapple a giant, inflicting 1d6+4 damage and requiring the giant to make a will save (with its whopping +3 to will saves) or be dazed for 4 rounds, each of those rounds it cannot attempt to escape from the grapple, so it automatically takes the 1d6+4 damage and must will save again or reset the daze to 4 rounds from that save...basically any hill giant from the group that is grappled (80% chance) and that fails its initial will save (chance will vary by caster, but likely at at least gonna happen 80% of the time) is very unlikely to ever get free taking the full 15d6+60 (112.5 average over the course of 15 rounds, enough to kill a hill giant)...
How would it work with black tentacles?
So if a foe is grappled and takes the damage he needs to make a will save or become dazed for 4 rounds (seems simple enough), the next round since he is dazed, the foe doesn't get a chance to try to break the grapple, so he automatically takes the damage and has to will save or be dazed (with a failure simply adding more duration to the daze to a maximum of four rounds after the last failed save). This could potentially happen to every creature in the area of effect at the time of casting or that enters it during the spells duration.
Are you talking about pellet blast here? The spell specifically states that DR applies to its damage. This is a case of the specific (spell description) overriding the general (DR section).
Based upon the art work (not always the best way to go, but basically all we got given the minimalistic descriptions in the Pathfinder Bestiaries) a barghests hybrid form is more animalistic than a lycanthropes, which are still bipedal in hybrid form I believe, whereas the barhgest is apparently not.
hmmm... must ponder the whirlwind ending question...
non-flying creature stuck: it would seem so, the will simply get carried along with the whirlwind unless the elemental chooses to eject them, but remember they can still take actions, including attacking the 'whirlwind' (air elemental) that is holding them.
uhm... if you use acrobatics to move through a threatened square by making an acrobatics check (DC = opponents CMD) you move at half speed (ie threatened squares count as two each, assuming there is nothing else at play that also lowers speed such as difficult Teriann)... if instead you beat his CMD by 10 or more you can move through those squares at your full normal speed (again, assuming there is nothing else at play that also lowers speed such as difficult terrain).
Not all uses of acrobatics force you to move at half speed while doing them.
in goblin form yes and no...
Armor specifically for hybrid form? I'd probably say yes it would cost double...
As for a shield in hybrid form I'd say see Grick's ideas about weapons above.
Now I have a different Barghest question.... how come the greater barghest's crushing dispair and charm monster DCs are the same as the normal barghest even though its charisma is 2 points higher?
I'd say not necessarily, since whirlwinds have a limited a duration and end after the time limit runs out... I'd say that if the elemental wanted to end the effect early they could do so as a standard action (similar to dismissing a spell) but if the whirlwind time limit expires it just ends (not an action on the elementals part).
it is not specifically spelled out for you... I figure the designers must have thought that it was obvious from reading the construction sections (and it was more obviously spelled out in the 3.5 Monster Manual, but the wording was changed around a bit in the Pathfinder Bestiary and the obvious bits sort of got lost).
most of the examples use two words... but yes... "kill him/her" while pointing at a specific person should cause the undead to attack that person until he or she is dead, then stand there and wait for other orders... of course if you said "Fight" then the skeleton or zombie would probably just attack who ever was closest to it.
continuing to play devil's advocate here....
"standard armor" has nothing to do with it... the eidolon ability says "armor of any kind"... armor of any kind would also include non standard forms of armor would it not?
mage armor provides an armor bonus... there for it could be argued that it is indeed armor of a kind... bracers of armor could be considered the same, as could a robe of the archmagi (which provides an armor bonus).
barkskin provides an enhancement bonus to a natural armor bonus (ie functions completely differently than mage armor), and thus is not pertinent to the discussion at hand.
given that normal trees and shrubs can't moveof thier own volition, they have strength and dexterity scores of 0. The awaken spell accounts for this by telling you to use the characteristics of animated objects of the correct size... ergo an awakened large sized tree would have the str and dex of a large sized animated object (in this case 22 str and 8 Dex).
Feats can't be taken more than once unless they specifically say that they can (and even then it is often with other limitations such as weapon focus must be taken with a different weapon each time, etc.) Shaping Focus has no language indicating that it can be taken more than once... so the best air elemental you will beable to do as a 4 druid/16 barbarian would be medium sized.
:::shrug::: I could see it ruled either way and be fine with it. but if it came up at the table while I was GM, yes he would be dazed if he chose not to make (ie autofail) his saving throw.
Technically nearly all saves are optional... you don't have to save against a fireball if you really don't want too for instance... and in such cases I would let the daze automatically take effect.
Burning Disarm: if the creature made its reflex save and dropped the object with out taking damage, they would not be dazed. if the creature was denied a reflex save against the spell (because of a locking gauntlet or such) then they could make a will save to avoid the daze.
Burning Magic: I would say no, the extra damage would not trigger dazing spell in this case, as the creature is taking damage indirectly from being on fire, not taking damage directly from the spell again.