Horn of Geryon is a neat adventure with different locals the pcs have to go to (all on an island). Can definitely inspire plenty of location based mechanics from this adventure alone. (I don't recall what company produced this one.)
There's something a bit odd about this.
A creature like a tendriculous can grab you either with tentacles or bite.
Looking at discussions here, though, a creature can only grab you once.
However, Swallow Whole talks about you being grabbed in a specific way (i.e. mouth).
If a tendriculous grabbed you with a tentacle, can it then also grab you with its mouth, though it still only counts as one grab (i.e no more extra damage or anything, just you now qualify for being swallowed)?
On the next round, does it have to decide what it's holding you with, or can it hold you with tentacles and mouth at the same time (even though you only have one grappled condition)?
Or does being grappled mean you qualify for being swallowed whole regardless of how you were grappled?
I take the point about the odd numbers.
Looking at total raw stat bonus, with the "13" build you get +7 levels 1-3, +8 4-7, +9 8-11, +10 12-15, +11 16-19 and +12 at level 20.
(Assuming you use your stat bonus to even out the odds)
If you even it out a bit, i.e. 12, 12, 14, 13, 13, 14, then you are +1 better up to level 11, the same from 12 to 19 and one worse at level 20.
So in terms of sheer stat bonus power this is actually a better build.
Evening it out one more is worse than the above but better than the "13". ie. 12, 12, 14, 12, 12, 15 puts you +1 better up to level 7, then the same up to 15 and then one worse from 16 to 20.
P.S. Note, however, the "13" requirements for many feats might counter-argue this.
@nate - I did read your post, yes, and I see what you mean. Having said that, Summoners are one of the few classes that I haven't really tried to get to grips with.
@Pupsocket - the "where it counts" is indeed the issue, and about how much more important it is to be where it counts as opposed to elsewhere.
This is also about whether you maximise strengths or minimise weaknesses.
In my group, for example, we have found that having optimised fighters with bad will saves is a liability for the party, because at some point they end up confused or dominated and turned against us.
Is it really better for a fighter to have STR 18 WIS 7 as opposed to STR 16 WIS 13?
(or WIS 12 and +1 on some other dump stat)?
Sure, the argument will be more favourable with CHA with fighters, but I still wonder whether how much sense there is in eeking out that final +1 stat bonus when it's costing you +3 somewhere else.
Thanks for the replies.
It intrigues me that this is considered such a poor choice for a 20 point buy.
After all, if at 20th level you end up with all 14s, your +12 raw stat bonus total is the best it could possibly be, and this is the only way to do it.
It should be the best possible allocation of stats - if we could just find the right build ...
And ... sorry to go on :-)
If the Jumper feat only applies when you use the mount's acrobatics to jump rather than your own ride skill, then you'll end up doing better if your mount has a lower acrobatics than a higher one.
In other words, with a standing jump over that chasm, if you're ride is 11 and the mount's acrobatics is 10, then the DC is 20 (i.e. you need a 10). If the mount gets better at jumping so that it's acrobatics is now 12, you would have to use your ride check instead and the dc would be 40 (i.e. impossible)!
I think I've just convinced myself that the Jumper feat *has* to apply regardless of whether its your ride or your mount's acrobatics that gets used.
Another thing which is odd about this whole leaping thing is that if you fail you fall off your mount.
What happens to the mount?
Is the idea that you should look at both the acrobatics result of the mount and your own ride check, so that the mount may well get over the chasm or whatever it is you're leaping but you fall off in the middle?
For example - 20' chasm, DC 20 jump. You have a ride check of 5, the mount an acrobatics of 10. You roll a 10. Does the mount make it across but you end up down the chasm, or do you both end up down the chasm?
It's a marginal case but you could argue that the benefit comes to the animal if it's jumping (using its acrobatics) but not to you if you're getting it to jump (using Ride).
With a leap Ride maneuver, you use the animal's acrobatics if that's lower than your ride, which bizarrely could suggest that in that case the Jumper feat does apply, whereas otherwise it doesn't.
Horsemaster's saddle is in Ultimate Equipment. It costs 12K.
When you are mounted, you're not adjacent to your mount.
IMO, 12K plus one feat, or one feat for you, another for your mount, in exchange for no movement AoOs is *very* good.
Compare with Dodge and Mobility for +5 AC to AoOs.
I'm not sure about flavour. I think the point is that you watch your colleague's back when he moves and he watches yours when you do. I can't see how you could both do it at the same time. But this is all more IMO.
Would someone mind giving me an opinion on my Jumper question, BTW? I've just bumped it up.
Well, IMO, first of all I think that "gaining the benefit" means gaining the feat. After all part of the benefit of having the feat is the way that you help others, and I think that if the intention was that it shouldn't be the case then the wording wouldn't have relied on this sort of semantic ambiguity.
Secondly, I don't think Escape Route works with your mount when you're moving together because neither of you is moving within each other's space. Relative to each other, you're both stationary.
I think the mask's useless as a lying device because it is plainly visible. People wont bother with sense motive, they'll just refuse to listen to you until you take the thing off.
The +5 Feint, however, is very useful, and as has been said already I think the price is very generous for this feature alone.
Quick Draw with quickdraw shield
combat round goes:
1) free action to put away shield
Although druids and the like replacing their animals sounds cool, don't forget that they arrive untrained - i.e. they will only have their free tricks.
There is no such thing as a light club or a two-handed club, and a greatclub isn't a club (with particular reference to Shillelagh).
You can't AoO something swimming past you if you are on land unless you have Freedom of Movement because they get improved cover from you (+8 AC!)
Zombies lose their special attacks (e.g. zombie Giant Squids cant constrict).
You're missing the general bit about polymorph spells.
"While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision), as well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed by your original form. You also lose any class features that depend upon form ..."
Do you then apply the same logic to all of the vampire's template based abilities (e.g. natural armour, DR, ER, fast healing, etc)?
Or is it just the type-based abilities?
I actually came back to this because I was wondering whether a doppleganger would lose its natural armour when it changed shape.
That's when I realised that "change shape" specifically specifies that "most" physical qualities are retained - which is totally different to polymorph.
Wildshape, incidentally, is not change shape, AFAICS.
P.S. Had the debate about template on another thread some while back. I think it might depend on the nature of the template - whether it was "soul" or "form", IMVHO.
Since I'm not getting a lot of joy getting this answered, a bit of further research unveils this:
Change Shape (Su) A creature with this special quality has the ability to assume the appearance of a specific creature or type of creature (usually a humanoid), but retains most of its own physical qualities...the creature does not adjust its ability scores (although it gains any other abilities of the creature it mimics).
It doesn't say which physical qualities are retained, but it does seem to suggest that change shape trumps the polymorph rules so you don't lose all your form related abilities.
However, if you get concealment, everything you're carrying gets concealment too. Is that not so?
Or is it the case that someone could, say, steal or sunder something you're carrying without worrying about concealment?
If what you're carrying *does* get concealment from these feats, then you should too if you're being carried by your mount.
I would have thought ....
Sheathing a weapon is a move action that provokes an AoO.
Next step is dropping an item.
From all the reading I've done on this board regarding drawing and sheathing wands, although it is possible to remove the AoO from drawing it (via Handy Haversack), putting it away is another matter entirely, and no one has ever suggested that it's any easier than sheathing a weapon.
I'm not sure about this tying it and dropping it. What would happen while it was flapping around at your side, and how easy would it be to retrieve it.
Oh, right. Thank you.
This one was only 1 month old, mind you, when I cast "animate thread" on it.
It still hasn't been answered. I didn't ask about tail-slaps or about wielding a weapon or a shield with your hair, I asked about using it as your free hand to cast spells.
I think I'm right - but I'm surprised no one's answered.
I don't think this question was answered.
Normally a magus using spell-combat uses:
hand (A) to cast the spell
With prehensile hair, we know we can't replace hand (B), but we could replace hand (A). That would mean we could use:
hand (A) to hold a shield
Isn't that right?
And although I take the point of wand of shield, at higher levels 5000gp buys you a +2 heavy steel mithril shield which you can wield without shield proficiency in hand (A). This is the same as the wand but forms a basis for further enchantments.
Great product (just got mine).
However, only one pawn was mounted, and that was actually the pawn for the camel (it's funny how pathfinder assumes that a camel isn't a camel if it hasn't got a saddle on and, preferably, a rider).
Anyway, might a suggest a "mounted npc pawn pack" for sometime in the future?
I take your point, but this is a supernatural ability.
We are visually, after all, pretty complicated, so if magic can produce a perfect visual copy why shouldn't it be able to do so with respect to the other senses?
Furthermore, if the ranger changes his brand of soap or gives up smoking, he would still largely speaking smell the same - at least, I can't imagine an animal companion rejecting him for this reason.
You can use google to find examples of people using the terms:
P.S. This philosopher from MIT coins the term "perceptual appearance", which I rather like :-)
Does it make you sound like them?
Would only fool deaf people if that wasn't the case.
I wonder whether the word "appearance" solely means "visual" appearance?
One possible definition from the Online Dictionary gives it as:
a. The outward or phenomenal manifestation of things