The equivalency rules you mention are for a monk of the empty hand using weapons as improvised weapons. They are specifically for that archetype, and the GM need not follow such rules for other characters or for such a monk using non-weapons as improvised weapons.
Are you sure that it is not simply restating the rules for improvised weapons?
For very indirect, circumstantial (but still somewhat relevant) evidence, I want to bring in the improvised weapon mastery feat:
improvised weapon mastery wrote:
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties for using an improvised weapon. Increase the amount of damage dealt by the improvised weapon by one step (for example, 1d4 becomes 1d6) to a maximum of 1d8 (2d6 if the improvised weapon is two-handed). The improvised weapon has a critical threat range of 19–20, with a critical multiplier of ×2.
The damage dice referenced in it start with the base damage dice of a medium creature's light hammer, and despite the fact that it says that it goes to a maximum of 1d8, two handed weapons get 2d6. This might be a reference to the fact that the analogous weapons, a club and a quaterstaff, have the same damage dice.
And anyway, are there any other equivalency rules to go by?
Well, you could become a Sable Companion Marine. This archetype trades off your first favored terrain (not too much of a loss) and locks in your choice for animal companion. That choice is rather nice though: a hippogriff. Yes, a large, flying mount. It has decent enough stats and natural attacks too.
Really though, the choice of animal companion is not as vital for a strix as other rangers (assuming you are using archery). A TWF ranger would want a wolf or leopard, in order to trip and slow down opponents in order to get full attacks off, and an archer typically chooses a horse since it can do the moving for him while he just full attacks. But you are in the air, and you have less to worry about.
Look into flight related feats though, especially hover, since flying is hard. The hover feat allows you to stay in place midair without having to make a skill check. Wing over is good too since it allows you to make a free turn without having to make a fly check once per round. Flyby attack is also useful if you want to do melee, since it allows you to use a standard action (usually an attack) during any point in your move action while flying.
Otherwise, just look in the guides section and look for the typical choice of feats for your style.
Oh, I remember seeing the break down for this once. Can't remember where it is exactly in the rule books though. So for the 'reasonable match' weapon thing, it is compared to these three weapons: light hammer, a club, and a quaterstaff.
So pick the weapon that the item is closest in size to, and use those stats (try not to get too much into details like how you are smashing people to death with a jagged piece of glass; changing type is more a GM decision, and PFS would frown upon that; just use bludgeoning). There are further rules about the size of light, one handed and large, but same problem for sources as above (I know it came up with discussion about tiefling tails though).
Anyway, here is the breakdown: light weapons are two sizes smaller than you (so tiny usually), a one handed weapon is one size smaller than you (small usually), and a two handed weapon is the same category as you (so medium usually). Obviously, the listed sizes move up and down with the character's size.
If you are a cave druid, why not take the cave domain (the terrain one for druids, not the earth subdomain). It gives you tremor sense. By the time you can become a large ooze, you could see out to 60 feet. At level 10, you can at least see far enough to do your charge....
On that note, you might also want long strider on at all times...
But yes, it could be workable. Not the most efficient form, but anyone that plays a rogue should know the addictive quality of all those dice.
Fighter also have the advantage of getting more out of power attack, since they hit +16 and+20 BAB. So that would put their attack and damage bonuses at the same place.
But yes, a dervish is on with the full martial classes that get "anytime" bonuses to their attack and damage. I prefer comparing them to barbarians though, since you can only perform so much per day. Obviously it would be hard to compare them to paladins or rangers since they are so conditional.
Of course, due to those battle dance bonuses applying to each and every hit, they have a large advantage when it comes to builds with a lot of hits (TWF, archery) rather than the one handed one weapon style of dervish dance. But then again, rage's strength bonuses and the power attack damage of both barbarians and fighters can get that x1.5 due to two-handing. So, everything added together, it is kind of 6 of one, half dozen of the other, although others might disagree.
I think there is enough incentive to use a quarterstaff even if you do not take that feat. This stems from the fact that it is a double weapon.
Besides the fact that they can be used for TWF, double weapons have the advantage of still being two handed weapons. You can choose whether to use them as such, or as one one-handed weapon and a light weapon (obviously you can't do both at once, or switch at one point in your attack routine). So, when you can't use TWF (due to not being able to use a full attack), you can just two hand it to get 1.5x power attack and strength bonuses.
This is major for a TWF build, since the question of "what to do when you can't get in a full attack" is one of the reasons why it can deal less damage in practice than a two-handed build. This might be enough to make up for the poor critical stat.
But this is like how a longspear is one of the best simple weapons since it is the only reach weapon in that category. Obviously other double weapons are better usually, but they often require a feat investment. If you play a half-orc or dwarf, you would obviously go with the racial double weapons they have. But quarterstaff master might be a decent option if you are willing to invest the 3 feats.
Just suggesting a way to make an "eidolon adventurer" that allows a free creature that has the advantages of being an evolving monster. I'm sure that some would quite enjoy the experience of playing as a monster facing monsters without the hassle normally found in the two character nature of the summoner class.
But I can somewhat understand how the player wants to play a hard working smith, but cannot find the time to do that within the average adventure party.
Also: whoops, didn't notice that the unfettered eidolon already had a mechanics for increasing its natural armor and str/dex. It seems fairly much in line with the base statistics table, at least at the earlier levels where it would be more sorely missed. With the better BAB and hp from more hit dice, the extra point of str/dex and +2 natural armor would not be too troublesome.
Why not skip the middle man and just make it an unfettered eidolon? A link to the bestiary entry can be found right: here. This is an eidolon without a master (usually due to a freak occurrence when the last one died). This has advantages and disadvantages for the eidolon.
The immediate advantage is that, if you allow it to build up racial hit dice instead of levels, then it gets full HD compared to a normal version. This means it has full BAB, the normal number of level up feats, more HP, and skill points. The disadvantage is that it doesn't get as many evolution points or available evolutions (the difference is small, and most of the good combat evolutions are available). It also obviously lacks a master with one of the best spell lists in the game.
Of course, there would also be some problems that need houseruling. The first is that it could easily be banished with a spell and just be gone. Another problem would be that it would not normally be possible to resurrect it. But both of these could be easily solved if you simply switch its type from extraplanar outsider to native outsider (which, due to the fact that this type is for creatures that "have mortal ancestors or a strong connection to the Material Plane", it can be easily handwaved as part of the unfettering process).
You might also want to keep the increases to natural armor, strength, and dexterity from the eidolon's base statistics board since it might end up weak in comparison to the PC's otherwise. After that though, it should be somewhat close to balanced, due to the loss of some evolution points and the summoner's spells, but the addition of full hitdice and the benefits that brings.
Overall, this solution allows the player to play an eidolon, but avoid both the dangers of having a vulnerable summoner and the difficult logistics needed for that long distance relationship that has been suggested. Whether you want to allow the party to keep a forgemaster NPC for magic item creation is up to you.
Another common type of ritual might be fasting and sleep deprivation. I vaguely remember that it is sometimes used when trying to do thing like communicating with spirit animals.
It also seems like enough of a simple and un-flashy ritual that you could see a ranger do it. You could even explain it in character as not so much a ritual as a stack out in the woods and slow attempt at wild empathy. The fact that it is in fact a ritual might be lost of a ranger.
I am mostly going with this idea since it seems like enough of a thematic punishment for a whiny player. Punishing a player is usually not a good idea... but I think DM_Blake showed us the oh so torturous process involved with the ritual.
But blahper's explanation bring to mind of a ranger in full armor yodeling and flapping his arms like a chicken for hours on end. So part of me wants to go with that.
You argument that it first counters, and then further dims does not make much sense either. That means I could cast continual flame in an area of darkness, counter it, and then increase the light level to bright. Counter means that neither spell works according the FAQ you cited.
By this logic, one should never bother trying to counter a magical source of light. Darkness seems overpowered if it can both cancel a magical light of the same level and continue to function.
Overall, I'll admit, that I have a poor grasp on all this spell specifics, but I am starting to feel that the writers didn't either. It certainly is not very intuitive at least. So I am stepping out of this frequent post argument. The whole edit thing we were doing there for a minute got complicated. So adieu.
Found it and was writing about it before your post (I know where the FAQ section is, I just find it a bit hard to navigate, since it is done by book, and I didn't initially realize 'diametrically opposed' was a specific term that could be used for a search)...but it still doesn't make much sense. Do you mean that I would have to cast continual flame on the spot to prevent darkness? That seems...a bit obtuse. I am glad I stick to martials.
So, does continual flame have any real use then other than as a mere torch?
Ok, I'll admit, I mostly play martials and have little experience with light conditions, so my experience is a bit iffy.
Still, the continual flame suggestion at least prevents the opponent from lowering the light level, and it is a rather cheap, one time purchase that replaces torches. If used on something small enough, it could be hidden and kept on your person for emergencies. It is useful for classes that lack the light cantrip (such as our paladin friend in the original post).
EDIT: I am not that familiar with the FAQs concerning spells either, and that page can be a bit hard to navigate. Link? EDIT2: Found it...but it still doesn't make much sense. Do you mean that I would have to cast continual flame on the spot to prevent darkness? That seems...a bit obtuse. So, does continual flame have any real use then other than as a mere torch?
Someone needs to re-read continual flame.
Continual Flame wrote:
Light spells counter and dispel darkness spells of an equal or lower level.
Bolding mine...but this does bring up a weird problem....Which rule do we go with?
I'd imagine that it would just counter and leave light levels at their original level. Which might still be a huge advantage to the opponents if you could only see in the first place due to the torch-like light of the flame.
*Reading the title* *prepares movie announcer voice*:
Paying a random NPC wizard to cast continual flame on a necklace or something is a nice, 110 gold option (50 material+ [2nd level spell x caster level 3]x10) that works for everybody else until things like greater darkness comes around.
Well, you could always go Rosetta with it and just say that you have a novel written in several languages (aquatic creatures just love Douglas Adams from what I hear)
Yeah, it can be a bit strange, but examples of this can be found even within the default options.
For example, tieflings can learn either Abyssal or Infernal. But where do they learn it? The best guess I can come up with is a vague curiosity about their origins.
That would be a simple enough excuse for an adopted dwarf, wishing to someday interact with others of his race.
But the main reason many take the style is due to crane wing followed by a riposte. The bonuses to defense are just nice side benefits that have far less restrictive rules on its use. Still, I feel that the RAI, and the fairly simple interpretation of RAW I mentioned, would be against using crane wing in the suggested manner.
Sorry that the magical weapon I brought up didn't help you out too much jfkg306.
While it certainly does not prevent you from enjoying the better use of defensive fighting due to crane style and riposte (I mean, up to +4 AC at the cost of just -1 on attack rolls? That seems fair enough; also good if you have to use total defense while closing in, since that is up to +7), I think that the fact that crane wing says that you can only use it "when you have at least one hand free and are either fighting defensively or using the total defense action", it means you have to do the 'fighting defensively' part with a hand free.
Otherwise, you are completely circumventing the fact that you need a free hand. Also, moving your hand on and off your weapon is a free action, so you can't do it outside of your turn (as far as I am aware), so the 2 handed riposte is out.
On a sidenote: I seem to remember that there is a magical weapon, a katana called "The Blade of the Sword Saint", that actually works around this problem. It allows you to treat it like you are unarmed for the purpose of feats (calls out deflect arrows, but the mechanics are similar enough), and you can flurry with it.
My other concern is about the various feats and such available to them. Many of them have the language "available to were[x], [skinwalker y], and those take associate with [x or y]". While this works sometimes in the form of teamwork feats (since not everyone in a party wants to play a half were tiger at once), but it just seems vague.
It is like how I kept on hearing about all those catfolk raised by half-orcs, that learned the secret art of having teeth the size of steak knives. Too easily exploitable.
While I also enjoy variations, I kind of like the idea of starting with a core and building from there, like with the aasimar, tieflings, and dhampirs.
Also, I kind of find it troublesome that a portion of a race's stats are locked and have to be activated. Otherwise, you have to deal with massive social stigma and penalties to charisma checks (yes, I know that a lot of this board likes to dump charisma down to 5 and never speak; I am not in that group). Oddly, this even extends to intimidate, which means that entire feat chains and builds are invalidated for them off the bat.
After hearing some of the antipathy towards tieflings (or any of the nonhuman-like noncore races; I am kind of antsy about the term 'pseudo-humans' even). Essentially, I feel like a GM will begrudgingly allow a skinwalker, but then punish the choice quite heavily. And, due to the fluff and how much of the race is tied into the shape change (both their stats and most of their racial traits), that it would be hard to simply hide the fact (especially since they take -4 to cha skills, including disguise). But can you avoid changing shape without crippling your character? While this can of course be an interesting character hook, does this typecast them into this role?
Yes, that is quite true, and it may well be a good enough justification to take it (as well as skipping the most often complained about feat in these boards until after the GM's toys get iteratives.)
Still, it brings up the fact that the style feats are written from the assumption that you are going to take feats sequentially in the chain. There might be other oddities depending on the style you choose. This is just general advice for anyone interested in using MoMS this way.
That is the general consensus and interpretation, from what I've seen. If you took snake style at level 1, for example, you could go straight into snake fang at level 2 and skip snake sidewind.
Note: not all styles work well when you use this method. Taking crane riposte without crane wing would mean that you can make a counter attack when you take an action you cannot perform. Double check on those kinds of details first.
Yeah, using a 20 point buy, it easily comes out to:
Fairly standard, and enough to be 'decent' at melee and magic.
The stat bonus spread for a fetchling is rather good and easy to work with outside of divine casters (which makes sense, since it is the most common set of bonuses for non-core races, with fetchlings, catfolk, ifrits, and two different tiefling types; might be more, but not looking it up)
Well, since they do not have any penalties to relevant stats (since will is a good save for a magus), and bonuses to one secondary or primary stat as well as a dump stat, it is not too hard to work with a fetchling. Just a quick look at a strength build, and it only ends up with one CHA less than if I used the same methods on a human. A dex build would end up the same, but with one point more in the primary stat. But this is just me using my methods, and you might find different preferences.
Sadly, the best spells that come to mind for a 'shadow' feel, shadow conjuration and evocation, are not on the magus list. Too bad, since those spells are so versatile. Why the bard gets them and the magus doesn't is beyond me (well, besides the stronger focus on deception and illusion)
Whether you can take an archetype after character creation is usually up to the GM, but due to the fact that you want to switch right before there are any major differences, it might be easier to argue for.
Oh, too bad you missed the chance to use a more thematic replacement with a scizore. I suppose the pata has better stats though.
If you are going with the gladiator archetype for fighter, human might be a good choice, since it has the advantage of getting an extra skill point, allowing you to keep your performance up.
Evil Subtype wrote:
This subtype is usually applied to Outsiders native to the evil-aligned Outer Planes. Evil Outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields are evil-aligned.
I only quoted the evil subtype, but all four should have similar language. Essentially, demons and the like are formed both from the soul(s) of aligned mortals as well as the material of their plane (which is also aligned). So, if they go through the incredibly difficult chance of changing alignment (which is hard since, again, they are thoroughly infused with that alignment), then they still retain the plane material that went into them. This is much like how a tiefling or aasimar cannot change their physical nature.
Of course, that is not to say that the shift into a different planar creature is impossible. I mean, several high ranking devil were once celestial creatures, and I am sure that the Abyss would be more than happy to 'help'. But this is usually due to an outside force (Asmodeus giving a 'job offer', the Abyss tainting someone because they are there or some dark ritual,....hard to imagine any forceful switches to good though) acting upon the aligned subtype creature, rather than a natural transformation within itself.
But that is not to say that there wouldn't be natural transformations. But this is more of a twisting of their original nature than a complete shift to a different one.
I wonder what Norgorber's followers are. Some kind of NE assassin...things?
Well, officially he has the daemon subdomain... But his worshipers can be any evil or even true neutral. He even has good relations with a couple demon lords (according to "Price of Infamy" at least). And I doubt that a deity devoted to deception, espionage, and assassination would be picky about allies (read: tools), and would actively seek out a variety of them.
How about genies then? They are elemental outsiders. While they do tend to have alignments, they are not alignment subtypes. So when an Efreeti goes around being Lawful Evil, that isn't because they have an inherent bent towards it, it is just because of cultural norms. Sure, their outsider status does have an effect on their personalities, but it is more about being hotblooded than anything with morality, since they are creatures of fire (ok, terrible-barely-a-pun, but still, it is hard to word it any other way).
One: How is the cutlass "not good"? It is the same as a scimitar as far as stats, so it is one of the best one handed weapons in the game.
Also, this is something you might want to look into: Sword and Pistol. This allows you to use a pistol in TWF without working about attacks of opportunity as long as you have a weapon in the other hand. Unfortunately, since pistols are one handed weapons, you might want to switch to some light weapon for the melee one, such as a dagger or face -4 to all attacks. I know, disappointing.
If I had to go with the purest theorycraft for this concept, I might be tempted to with gunslinger 1/alchemist 2/ fighter x. Gunslinger is fairly obvious, since it gives the advantages of proficiency and deeds. alchemist comes in since, if you want to weild a blade and pistol at the same time, you face the problem of reloading. Alchemists have a discovery for getting an extra arm (or maybe a tentacle?). Fighter...because a lot of feats are needed to do ranged and twf at the same time. Now, you might complain that this does not seem very pirat-y...but being a pirate is a job. Do you really need something that just has 'pirate' labeled on it? A pirate is based upon his actions, not a certificate.
Anyway, it might sound a bit MAD to combine alchemist and gunslinger, but it is not too hard to just put in a small amount of point into INT and WIS (since you are only using low level extracts and keeping grit mainly to cover misfires). So this seems like a sufficient 20 points spread: STR: 14 DEX: 18 (16+2)CON: 14 INT: 12 WIS: 12 CHA: 7. I kept strength a bit high for power attack and carrying capacity.
No, normally crits have nothing to do with rage rounds.
Half-orcs do get a feat called Gore fiend, which gives 1 round of rage back if you crit or your are crited upon. But that would actually benefit more from the 18-20/x2 weapons than from the x3 or x4.
Anyway, besides that, I do not know of any other way to get rage rounds back through crits. If there are, then it certainly is not a standard feature of rage, and comes from specific feats/class abilities of some archetype/item/etc.
Edit: Whoops, you talked about decreasing? No, I do not know of anything that would cause that. I mean, it would be a massive nerf to barbarians otherwise.
wait, what is the caster level on that SLA? I read the description, but I am unsure whether it meant using your shadowdancer level as your caster level, or your over all character level. This is important, since your bonuses from arcane strike rely on caster level.
Traits tend to be a poor choice for this trick, since they all use 'Highest Caster level attained or cl 1'. Nice for divine casters, but otherwise it only gives you a +1 to damage, ever. But assuming you use character level for that shadowdancer SLA, it might do well to allow earlier access.
Are there any monsters on the summon list that have swallow whole? That seems like the most convenient method, and would work well for nonwizards that can use summoning, such as summoners, clerics, and druids, all of whom lack prestidigitation. If there is a good monster for this, and summoned creatures take the body with them, then this would be a good general purpose solution.
Actually, what happens if a druid uses swallow whole and then turns back to their base form? Does the body shrink or disappear? If he turned back into a creature that can use swallow whole, could you cut the body out then?
Well, since one FAQ said you can use the same weapon for all your hits, then you could just buy the one brassknuckle. That would leave the other hand free for spells or crane style. But.... SLAs lack somatic components, so they would be unaffected by the brass knuckles. Unless I am misunderstanding something about the qinggong archetype.
As Are said, the brass knuckle no longer does the unarmed strike damage thing it seems, so you might just be better off with the cestus instead (from the same source as brass knuckles; basically a spiked glove with the stats of a dagger). It doesn't have the same inconvenient language as the brass knuckle, and only affects precise work like disable device.
Also, the sohei archetype actually can use the ki strike (which is what allows unarmed strikes to bypass DR) through their weapons after they get that weapon training for it.
Well, the ability to cast spells like you are using a class has its own weight (whether there are actual class levels, or they just "cast spells like an xth level y"). Summoning just happens to be a rather efficient use of that resource.
Mike Franke wrote:
Ooo... thinking about it, a summoner (the class) can be rather troublesome since they have summon monster spells as SLA's (so they are basically silenced and stilled). So, combined with the fact that they have invisibility on their list, a summoner could easily use guerrilla tactics by summoning from stealth and just leaving (or I am off base with that detail).
But, when it comes to xp, you do not necessarily need to actually take down the opponent, do you? As it has been said, summoning is considered part of the caster's CR, and forcing an enemy to retreat is still a victory.
So while you should definitely reduce the experience gained from the skirmishes, experience should still be rewarded since you fought against the summoner's forces. It could be an interesting way to stretch out a small enemy group across several challenging encounters in a day. Just a handful of summoners could make an entire dungeon with their resources.
Hmmmm... I am going to go bard with this. I say this since they have the option for both performances as well as arcane strike. Both help with your damage, but the latter actually makes all your attacks count as magic, so you can get away with cheaper disposable chakrams (with silver and cold iron to help cover other types of DR). The Dawnflower dervish archetype in particular allows for double bonuses from inspire courage, which actually allows you to keep pace with a barbarian as far as bonus to hit. Arcane duelists get arcane strike as a bonus feat though (as well as several other nice bonuses)
Although, thinking about it, to do it well would take a ton of feats (quickdraw, TWF, ranged feats, arcane strike), so fighter might be better. What is PFS's stance on using SLAs as the casting prerequisite for arcane strike? I know that a FAQ about Spell-Like Abilities, Casting, and Prerequisites lends credence to this trick, but I am unsure how it would actually play out trying to use it. Has anyone ever tried it? If it does fly, just go fighter and take something with a racial SLA (since they keep a caster level equal to your level)
Puck Norris wrote:
You have to actually *block* with a buckler for it to be useful in real life. You may not need proficiency but the animal needs to be awakened at least or otherwise intelligent (INT>2) or he's just flinging it around like a plate, it would have more chance of being used in an accidental shield bash.
Well, luckily the original post mentioned that it was a paladin mount. That means an int of 6.
Although, I second Mojorat's concern about how this became a mount, since only the beast rider cavalier (and maybe orcs or half orcs with a feat also, confusingly, called beast rider) can get dinosaur 'mounts', rather than animal companions. And even then it is mostly restricted to quadrupeds. Is this house ruled? And are you sure you want to try your GM's patience with an armored, shielded dinosaur if it is by their say so?
Neither do masterwork ones, since that removes one from the ACP. Heck, it could take a masterwork light shield. So if you are working with magical items, there are no proficiency problems outside of arcane spell failure until try to use quickdraw or heavy shields.
Well, this is a rather good question. The best answer I can give you is that, due to the fact that the paladin, cavalier, and mounted fury barbarian (& etc.) mount features give wolves (or riding dogs, which should be similar enough at medium size) as a default option, then they are likely the standard mounts within communities of small sized races.
For what qualifies as 'exotic'...well, an easy definition would be any animal that is not a standard option in the various mount class features. So horses, ponies, camels, riding dogs, wolves, and boars are standard mounts. Anything else is not commonly used as mounts by any of the common races, so they are considered exotic.
My question is how bound does one have to be before they are 'helpless'. I am going to assume that the legs are either bound, or made a nonfactor (such as a person tied to a tree by their arms and torso).
This comes from the fact that there are plenty of actions that could be used without free arms. Movement is obvious, but you could also attack if you used kicks or maybe if you had a bite attack. Also, what about spells without somatic components? In any of these cases, being tied up might be a mild inconvenience.
Poisons would probably work since most medieval poisons tended to be acidic, which is what does a lot of the damage. That, combined with the fact that you are close enough to a regular living creature that you might have a circulatory and respiratory system (insuring that this nasty stuff gets everywhere rather than just doing a bit of superficial damage to the outer surface), and you can easily justify poison working.
Also, some poisons might just be magic. So there is that good old "just cause" clause. Otherwise, yes, as the other people have said about the actual mechanics.
Onispawn tieflings are another choice to consider. They have decent enough scores (Str +2, Wis +2, Cha -2), and they can take a trait called "Superior Clutch", which gives you +1 to damage for using over-sized weapons. So they are well suited for this archetype.
The other advantages come in the form of things like a decent set of resistances, a lack of light sensitivity, maybe a prehensile tail and faster charges if you get the right alternate traits, etc. Plus, their spell like ability is the use of alter self once per day, which can either serve as a nice little buff (going medium gives you +2 str) or as a disguise for a short period of time.
I also remember that, due to a FAQ about spell like abilities, spell casting, and prerequisites, the SLA they get counts as having arcane spell casting. This means that they qualify for Arcane strike. This means scaling damage to all attacks at the cost of a swift action...which a barbarian would hardly miss. I am not positive on whether that has changed or not, but worth looking into at least.
But even a short sword only does piercing.
But I must ask: how much of a problem is this? The description allows you to use crossbows instead, and even that hardly needs to be functional. So just think of this as a weird spear that is in the close weapon group that costs 40 gp (5 for bayonet, 35 for light crossbow).
Hypothetically which Bard archetype makes for a better melee fighter? (Archaeologist or Dawnflower Dervish)
I never understood the idea of a synthesist dip. I mean, your fused eidolon's hp is based upon summoner level, and the temp hp goes first, right? So wouldn't a dip mean that you get natural attacks for a couple of rounds while in melee and then they disappear for the rest of the day? That is hardly something you can base a build off of.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
You could dip two levels into ranger and grab the Natural Attack combat style, which nets you Aspect of the Beast. If I recall correctly, Aspect of the Beast gives you a set of claw attacks regardless of your race.
I mostly focus on 'races with bites' since the bite/claw/claw combo is pretty much the standard by which natural attack builds are judged. It allows you to maintain a good hold on damage until you get in the range of levels 10-14. This is because, as a general principle, you should have more natural attacks than iteratives in order to surpass the problems they generally face.
Do you mean main hand and off hand versus primary and secondary natural attacks?
No, those are completely unrelated subjects. Your off hand is not just some substantially weaker limb, it is just the nature of balance for TWF and maybe due to the typical difficulty of swinging two metal objects around with coordination leading to a slight preference (a lot of power comes from the hips, which might be used to handwave the effects)
Primary natural attacks are simply ones you use your full BAB and strength bonus on. This include things like claws (on either hand), bites, stings, etc. Secondary attacks are just awkward things like hooves that, while tough enough to deal damage, are still to hard to use effectively, so they get a -5 penalty and only half strength. Technically, when you swing a sword around, all natural weapons become this awkward and thus become secondary.
Besides that one principle of mixing where all natural attacks become secondary, you can generally think of natural attacks and manufactured attacks as in separate worlds. They have their own separate rules, and even when mixed they do not really interact that much.
Unless you mean the question of "which hand is my off hand?". In that case, I differ back the the "your left hand is not some shriveled, t-rex arm" statement. If you are not TWFing, then it doesn't matter which hand you use. I am unsure, and highly doubt, that mainhand is set as either your left or right either (although when that would come up is beyond me too)
Hypothetically which Bard archetype makes for a better melee fighter? (Archaeologist or Dawnflower Dervish)
Level 9. Yes, 3 levels after ranger or fighter, and 1 after a rogue. If you do not use haste at least, which the bard gets at level 7.
Natural attacks can be nice, but hardly the only way to go with this. I like keeping options open. Not every campaign has a place for skinwalkers, although you are hard pressed to find a table without a place for a human.
For example, another path for a natural attack build would be a 2 level dip into ranger with a race with a bite.
well, we do not know how they are getting in energy attacks. This could be a spell caster, or maybe a barbarian or eidolon (both have options in class to deal energy damage for a nice little boost to damage).
Still, I suppose that is good general advice for weapon choices, since there is always something that will get around an energy type, but weapon enhancements get around DR if it is strong enough. There is also the argument of damage versus bonus to hit.
Thematically, I would imagine that electricity would be the choice usually against water, but I doubt that is universal.