Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

theoposite's page

7 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


For those in the camp of it functioning like the spell, why is it that Wild Shape cannot be dispelled or countered? Is is not that the ability transcends the power granted by the Spell itself?

A supernatural ability's effect cannot be dispelled and is not subject to counterspells.

To me, this is the main argument that the Polymorph rules hold above the Spell DC rules.

In a session, there was a character that was covered in Green Slime as per the description below which caused the character in one round to sustain 12 damage to his "objects/items";

A single 5-foot square of green slime deals 1d6 points of Constitution damage per round while it devours flesh. On the first round of contact, the slime can be scraped off a creature (destroying the scraping device), but after that it must be frozen, burned, or cut away (dealing damage to the victim as well). Anything that deals cold or fire damage, sunlight, or a remove disease spell destroys a patch of green slime. Against wood or metal, green slime deals 2d6 points of damage per round, ignoring metal's hardness but not that of wood. It does not harm stone.

As such, with no save on this personal damage to his items and surely none on his non-magical items, most everything would be destroyed. It is very possible that this particular effect would destroy everything anyway.

In the description of Magic Items, I am wondering if the PRD that quotes the following which may apply here under Damaging Magic Items:

Magic items should always get a saving throw against spells that might deal damage to them—even against attacks from which a nonmagical item would normally get no chance to save. Magic items use the same saving throw bonus for all saves, no matter what the type (Fortitude, Reflex, or Will). A magic item's saving throw bonus equals 2 + 1/2 its caster level (rounded down). The only exceptions to this are intelligent magic items, which make Will saves based on their own Wisdom scores.

As such, I suppose the questions are as follows:

(1) Does the "-even against attacks from which a non-magical item would normally get no chance to save" supersede the language to reference physical attacks and not just magical attacks?

(2) If (1) above's answer is "yes it does", would the damage from Green Slime be covered under this provision even if the character was entitled to no save to avoid the trap?

(3) If the intent of the Damaging Magic Items intends that in circumstances such as this one, each magic item would have a chance for a save to prevent the damage, how would such a save be determined? Which save would apply (though fort sounds the most logical) and how would the DC be properly calculated on something like a Green Slime Trap(CR4)?

At the end of the day, this question is more about the durability of Magic Items and/or their ultimate weakness to certain attacks.

I am much more curious than anything else as to the guidance that might have been previously given on this board or as to interpretations that would clarify when Magic Items should be allowed/not allowed saves. As such, I am specifically interesting in rulings, errata or anything that might define this.

Thanks in advance for you wisdom. Green slime is terribly nasty stuff and an amazing adversary to any character!!!

The only question/issue I have with an overwhelming portion of the posts on this thread is that some have made the inference that the Full Attack is a simultaneous action or an action that happens together (such as the two claws coming down at the same time).

While I don't disagree (or agree) with this interpretation, I am just supremely curious at how many of those particular people would immediately abandon that logical argument if that same bite/claw/claw monster could drop an opponent with the first two hits then take a 5 foot step then take that last attack against another foe.

Trying to interpret the mechanics of the game and the physics of the game I fear sometimes lead to metagaming. If you assume those attacks are simultaneous or part of series and you take a full round against a PC, then it shouldn't matter if the first two hit and bring the creature below 0 or below 10 or below 100, that third attack per your action should already be reserved to follow through.

However, if you assume that attacks are meant to follow more the rules and less the physics, then you are more likely to let the creature drop and move to another prey.

I know in my opinion, I prefer as a player to have the option to break up my full attack if the first or second attacks hit. If that first attack is a critical, I want to be able to call the bite a standard action and maintain my move. And it is by that same game play that as a DM I would not take the final attack. Even steven between player and non-player. How can my monster know that downed creature is 1 HP more for total death or 15? How many more attacks should I make to be certain without a check and should I waste another round to be sure? What if the first hit was enough to render them unconscious... my simultaneous full attacks should now waste a potential move to finish two claws against him as opposed to dealing with others?

Just curious as to this scenario and any thoughts those that speak of the iterative attacks in a full attack as simultaneous and "wasted" if not used. Seems to me it shouldn't matter if there is an adjacent foe or not with the logic that is out there...but it is.

I agree with the answers posted here and it is exactly as I suspected.

I guess my initial confusion Anguish is in the wording of the feat. If the feat read "treat your special size modifier for CMB/CMD as if one category large, your carrying capacity as one category larger and ...", I would have had no confusion.

However, it is words to say "...treat your size as one category larger for the purpose of calculating CMB, CMD..." As I appreciate it, CMB, for example, is calculated to be 'Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier.'

As we all know, increases in size changes Str, Dex, Con, Natural Armor and other hosts of things (especially with Wildshape's spells that define it). If you read it too technically, increasing size might change the Strength modifier AND special size modifier.

That is not what I thought it did, but perhaps under a too technical reading, I wanted to be certain I wasn't misreading it.

Glad to hear I was understanding it correctly though.

As always appreciated, even without posting, this boards insight is greatly helpful. Thanks

This feat is taken from Ultimate Magic

Powerful Shape
Your wild shapes are mighty and muscular.
Prerequisites: Wild shape class feature, druid level 8th.
Benefit: When in wild shape, treat your size as one category larger for the purpose of calculating CMB, CMD, carrying capacity, and any size-based special attacks you use or that are used against you (such as grab, swallow whole, and trample).

Not to give just a unwanted bump to my own thread, but...

I am beginning to wonder whether this confusion of mine is completely misplaced or if the answer is so yet to be determined that no one is willing to take a shot at it?

I am hoping for a little clarification and interpretation from this board on how this feat might be applied.

Powerful Shape
When in wild shape, treat your size as one category larger for the purpose of calculating CMB, CMD, carrying capacity, and any size-based special attacks you use or that are used against you (such as grab, swallow whole, and trample).

The major question refers to what falls under that word SIZE when doing the calculation.

For instance, lets use the specific example of a Huge Elemental Wild Shape being equivalent under the purposes of this spell as a Gargantuan Elemental. I think when you look into the monster advancement and the Core, it is clear that you are entitled to Size Bonuses for CMB/CMD from Huge to Gargantuan of +4. (This can be found in Combat Section or Monster Advancement.)

However, CMB/CMD both utilize Strength for instance. Simple size change from Huge to Gargantuan per the tables is +8. I cannot grasp whether this +8 should be covered under then Feat's intention or outside of its scope. See Monster Advancement-Size Changes.

I lean toward outside the scope because under the Wild Shape rules, or rather the spells that govern them, size increases are different between Elementals and Animals and Plants all of similar sizes. The Wild Shape rules are not bound (though maybe indirectly are built directly from) to the Size Change rules per the Bestiary.

Obviously, going from Huge to Gargantuan is a big deal, for Improved Grab it can be a significant bonus to avoid being able to be held or to be able to hold a larger creature than otherwise; it is helpful to have the Size Bonus to the specific CMB/CMD per the tables; but it would be undoubtedly additionally beneficial if the calculation of the CMB/CMD also was governed by the increase of Str/Dex under the Size Change tables.

Thanks in advance. Your opinions, input and discussion are greatly appreciated, from this very long time lurker...first time poster.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.