Why go Eldritch Guardian?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 131 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Protoman wrote:
Started playing a greatsword-wielding eldritch guardian in Rise of the Runelords with a fox familiar. His Int and Cha are too low for Evolved Familiar feat and I'm considering Spirit's Gift. However, would Vital Strike be a worthwhile feat investment now that it'll apply to the medium fox's single natural attack: 1d6 bite?

For the fox. No. That is 1d6 extra damage. Maybe if you can get strong jaw (but I cannot entirely justify the resources used).

For the fighter? Maybe, especially if you can get lead blade spells or impact on the weapon.

I would still aim for coordinated charge though (which kind of makes a vital strike build go to waste, since you do not have to worry about move/full attack logistics anymore).


StabbittyDoom wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

Also, your familiar gains your armor proficiency :)

Heavy Armor Prof. wrote:
Special: Fighters and paladins automatically have Heavy Armor Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it
That language is not used for martial weapon prof. though, sad day.

The distinction that proficiencies are not feats was done in a 3.5 rules clarification.

I see no such reason to think proficiencies are not feats in pathfinder.

I see no reason why we should've ever treated them different. And in my home games, I don't. Though this is the first case I've seen where it might actually matter.

There was a spell that would let you turn one feat into another in 3.5

Obviously you wouldn't want a caster to transform the fighter into some sort of infinite feat beast (which would have mattered in 3.5, and no the new feat did not have to be one you would have qualified for when you got the old feat).

As a remember, elves were useful for this spell because their extra weapons explicitly came from feats.

Liberty's Edge

Rhedyn wrote:
StabbittyDoom wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

Also, your familiar gains your armor proficiency :)

Heavy Armor Prof. wrote:
Special: Fighters and paladins automatically have Heavy Armor Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it
That language is not used for martial weapon prof. though, sad day.

The distinction that proficiencies are not feats was done in a 3.5 rules clarification.

I see no such reason to think proficiencies are not feats in pathfinder.

I see no reason why we should've ever treated them different. And in my home games, I don't. Though this is the first case I've seen where it might actually matter.

There was a spell that would let you turn one feat into another in 3.5

Obviously you wouldn't want a caster to transform the fighter into some sort of infinite feat beast (which would have mattered in 3.5, and no the new feat did not have to be one you would have qualified for when you got the old feat).

As a remember, elves were useful for this spell because their extra weapons explicitly came from feats.

So basically, the spell was written poorly and should've specified that only feats taken as general feats could be swapped, but it didn't. And instead of fixing the spell, they "fixed" proficiencies.


May be relevant.

FAQ wrote:


Fighter: Can I learn a new fighter bonus feat in place of one of my armor proficiency feats?

No. Despite wording in the Armor Proficiency feats, fighters (and other classes) have a class ability that grants proficiency in those armors--it doesn't actually grant those specific feats. Therefore, the fighter's ability to learn a new feat in place of another feat does not apply to these proficiencies.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Throne wrote:

May be relevant.

FAQ wrote:

Fighter: Can I learn a new fighter bonus feat in place of one of my armor proficiency feats?

No. Despite wording in the Armor Proficiency feats, fighters (and other classes) have a class ability that grants proficiency in those armors--it doesn't actually grant those specific feats. Therefore, the fighter's ability to learn a new feat in place of another feat does not apply to these proficiencies.

It's a good thing I have taken the policy to ignore paizo FAQs.

They are subject to change. They don't actually clarify the rules since FAQs is how paizo adds hot-fix errata.

You poor PFS people though.


Rhedyn wrote:
StabbittyDoom wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
FrodoOf9Fingers wrote:

Also, your familiar gains your armor proficiency :)

Heavy Armor Prof. wrote:
Special: Fighters and paladins automatically have Heavy Armor Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it
That language is not used for martial weapon prof. though, sad day.

The distinction that proficiencies are not feats was done in a 3.5 rules clarification.

I see no such reason to think proficiencies are not feats in pathfinder.

I see no reason why we should've ever treated them different. And in my home games, I don't. Though this is the first case I've seen where it might actually matter.

There was a spell that would let you turn one feat into another in 3.5

Obviously you wouldn't want a caster to transform the fighter into some sort of infinite feat beast (which would have mattered in 3.5, and no the new feat did not have to be one you would have qualified for when you got the old feat).

As a remember, elves were useful for this spell because their extra weapons explicitly came from feats.

One could gain infinite feats with those spells through other means. From what I could see the deal with elves was that they provided a limited enough number of bonus feats that more DMs would allow the trick to work where as infinite feats were much less likely.

Liberty's Edge

Throne wrote:

May be relevant.

FAQ wrote:


Fighter: Can I learn a new fighter bonus feat in place of one of my armor proficiency feats?

No. Despite wording in the Armor Proficiency feats, fighters (and other classes) have a class ability that grants proficiency in those armors--it doesn't actually grant those specific feats. Therefore, the fighter's ability to learn a new feat in place of another feat does not apply to these proficiencies.

Yeah, this is dumb. Just say "you can't retrain proficiencies granted by your class". Done. Fixed. But they have a bad habit of trying to claim they were totally right all along so that they don't have to call it eratta, and this leads to some pretty silly rulings.

Oh wait, but they didn't even have to do that, because they could have just said "you can't retrain a bonus feat not granted through that particular Bonus Feat class feature". Also fixed, and is neither eratta nor silly.

Consider /this/ FAQ thoroughly ignored.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think it's an entirely appropriate and justified FAQ/rules change.

Go ahead and ignore it and I will show up to your table with a fighter proficient in 3 weapons and 50 extra feats.

Class proficiencies were never supposed to be feats. Some editor just flubbed early in the book's making. The developers corrected this error. And thank goodness for it too!

Liberty's Edge

Ravingdork wrote:

I think it's an entirely appropriate and justified FAQ/rules change.

Go ahead and ignore it and I will show up to your table with a fighter proficient in 3 weapons and 50 extra feats.

Class proficiencies were never supposed to be feats. Some editor just flubbed early in the book's making. The developers corrected this error. And thank goodness for it too!

Obviously I ignore it with the caveat that you cannot retrain class-granted proficiencies.

"You never go full retard." - Tropic Thunder

EDIT: I should probably specify that I ignore because I don't like have two entirely separate concepts for the same exact thing. Fewer rules is better sometimes.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Isn't that kind of splitting hairs though, Stabbity?

Liberty's Edge

Ravingdork wrote:
Isn't that kind of splitting hairs though, Stabbity?

To be honest, many of the feats are overvalued and shouldn't be so granular. I merged all that crap down into the 3 armor proficiencies, 1 shield proficiency, simple weapon (1 feat), martial weapon (1 feat), and left exotic as-is but give classes with explicitly listed exotic weapons the "Weapon Familiarity" feature with them (like the racial ability).

In short, a lot of the problems with retraining these sorts of things stem from over-valuing proficiency, not from the retraining rule itself. But short of that, it's also easy enough to say "these can't be retrained" as a quick patch.


lemeres wrote:
Protoman wrote:
Started playing a greatsword-wielding eldritch guardian in Rise of the Runelords with a fox familiar. His Int and Cha are too low for Evolved Familiar feat and I'm considering Spirit's Gift. However, would Vital Strike be a worthwhile feat investment now that it'll apply to the medium fox's single natural attack: 1d6 bite?

For the fox. No. That is 1d6 extra damage. Maybe if you can get strong jaw (but I cannot entirely justify the resources used).

For the fighter? Maybe, especially if you can get lead blade spells or impact on the weapon.

I would still aim for coordinated charge though (which kind of makes a vital strike build go to waste, since you do not have to worry about move/full attack logistics anymore).

Hmm I probably won't get reliable access to lead blades with my current party and impact is just too expensive.

Coordinated charge is considered a must for me. I just gotta find 2 teamwork feats that I'll find cool/nifty and still count as Combat feats; I was sad to discover a good number of the fun ones like: escape route, shake it off, stone dodger, and stealth synergy aren't Combat feats.


A Valet familiar has all your teamwork feats.


Abraham spalding wrote:
A Valet familiar has all your teamwork feats.

Well, there is the 'pounce for everyone' option people wanted. It just requires a lot of feats (eldritch heritage or improved familiar bond, plus prerequisites) and for you to throw a cat an the enemy's face first. Truly the most noble feat.

It also effectively gives you access to at will prestidigitation (since the duration is an hour, and it can be cast 1/hour). As arguably one of the best 3 level 0 spells, that is rather nice.


Valets are great for my old caster-crafter oracle character, but for my eldritch guardian, it's hard to say "no" to the mauler for a decent combat buddy.

If I get Weapon Focus (greatsword), is the familiar stuck with the greatsword choice or would it get Weapon Focus of its own choice?


Greatsword, I believe, since to get a different Weapon Focus you have to take the feat again. To me at least that says that each Weapon Focus is its own distinct feat.


Protoman wrote:

Valets are great for my old caster-crafter oracle character, but for my eldritch guardian, it's hard to say "no" to the mauler for a decent combat buddy.

If I get Weapon Focus (greatsword), is the familiar stuck with the greatsword choice or would it get Weapon Focus of its own choice?

Oh, yeah, for the fighter archetype, mauler is much better. I mean valets are a the so called 'ghetto' option for everyone else trying to do the coordinated charge trick.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mauler is nice, but with the double share I still rather like valet, especially since fighters don't have arcane caster levels and the revised FAQ about spell-likes came out.

Personally I like the goat as a familiar for the fighter, as it is small and starts with strength 12.

Other considerations would be to take some barbarian levels.

Sympathic Rager
Warleader's Rage
Amplified Rage

Are nasty feats to be passing on to a familiar.


Hmmmm...I think I found a perfect cooperative charger- the Rhamphorhynchus.

This tiny pterosaur has an ability called 'sudden swoop' that allows it to avoid AoOs for moving through enemy squares during a charge (and a +2 to damage; not that important for our purposes, but it is there).

With a boost to initiative to you(a +2, which is not the highest, but still rather nice) and natural access to evasion, this little guy can serve well for leading a charge.

Also, if you have it take the mauler archetype, it can serve as a flying mount for smaller characters (you could do undersized mount... but I would not trust its ability to carry a medium character with a strength of 10 in its battle form before the scaling strength boosts are added)


Faelyn wrote:
Issac Daneil wrote:

A Mauler is always assumesd for this build. It's contributing ability, Battle Form, comes online at lvl 3, and since the feats thing only came in at lvl 2, you essentially have to deal with being a lvl 1 fighter from lvl 1 to 2.

Which....has always been easy. Your a Figher. even without feats, hit the Kobold/Zombie/Wolf with your Greatsword and your 18 str. Hey look; enemy dead.

As you level up, your familiar (I found Fox to be the best w/o improved) gets higher Str then you. I then used the feats Evolved Familiar to give it Claws. (3 Natural Attacks with 22 Str; and it has your BAB so it's MORE accurate then you.) I also took Spirit Gift to give it either DR 5/ Adamantine, or Fast Healing 1. You can change Spirit Gift's benefit each day, so feel free to experiment.

Hell; if you were light weight enough, you could take Undersized mount, and ride your familiar into battle.

On a side note, I like to take a level of Tattooed Sorceror with this, so that I can get Tattoo form for my familiar, and some social skill. You could become a decent Spy, keeping your secret weapon; your familiar, hidden until you need him.

Done right, it makes the fighter probably one if, if not the best Paired Fighting class.

Isaac, out of curiosity, at which level are you looking at the 22 Strength for the fox? By my figuring... Fox won't hit 22 Strength until 15th level. Base of 9 + 2 Battle From + 4 Size Increase = 15... you then need another +7 bonus gained from Increased Strength which you won't reach until 15th level.

The fox is a tiny creature, and the size increases in the universal size chart for monsters has it gain 8 points of strength when it goes from Tiny to Small to Medium. Then, the Battle form gives it 2 Str. I was using a Human with Eye for Talent to give him +2 to Str at creation, and at lvl 3, the Mauler Familiar gains +1 to str

So, it's 9 (Base) + 8 (Size related, but not called a Size bonus) + 1 (Mauler's lvl) + 2 (Battle Form increase) + 2 (Eye for Talent) = 22


Protoman wrote:
lemeres wrote:
The mauler archetype for familiars has a unique feat that you can sub in for one of the base familiar's feats. It gives +2 hp per effective hit dice, which puts it on par with a d8 class at least. So that can keep them from getting squished.
Actually, that feat, Mauler's Endurance, is supposed to be taken by the master.

Sorry if I didn't imply that; I do know that.

Familiars don't gain any feats except their 1st one (They gain HD related benefits from your HD, not by increasing their own, so they always have 1 HD).


The confusing part is that there are feats familiars can switch out their normal feats for (such as familiar focus) and then there are familiar feats taken by the player character which alter familiars.

I get the balance issue (I mean, the feat we are talking about takes the familiar from 'eh' to 'decent in melee'; other feats can have similar implications, such as figment's fluidity being 'get +8 to whatever skill') but it is still confusing


Do familiars get feats based on their HD?


Issac Daneil wrote:

The fox is a tiny creature, and the size increases in the universal size chart for monsters has it gain 8 points of strength when it goes from Tiny to Small to Medium. Then, the Battle form gives it 2 Str. I was using a Human with Eye for Talent to give him +2 to Str at creation, and at lvl 3, the Mauler Familiar gains +1 to str

So, it's 9 (Base) + 8 (Size related, but not called a Size bonus) + 1 (Mauler's lvl) + 2 (Battle Form increase) + 2 (Eye for Talent) = 22

Mark Seifter clarified that Battle Form follows the polymorph rules so there isn't a benefit from small to medium.

So a fox would be:
9 base + 4 size + 1 mauler level + 2 battle form = 16. 18 with Eye for Talent.


Rhedyn wrote:
Do familiars get feats based on their HD?

Nope.

Sovereign Court

Rhedyn wrote:
Do familiars get feats based on their HD?

They don't. Mostly why Eldritch Guardian actually does something unique for the fighter, making a combat familiar by giving all combat feats from all sources. Beastbonded witch I guess is the other archetype which gives feats to familiar.


Thank you, Protoman, for linking that for Isaac. The fox still has one of the best strength boosts for the mauler, just not as high as you were thinking.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Protoman wrote:
Issac Daneil wrote:

The fox is a tiny creature, and the size increases in the universal size chart for monsters has it gain 8 points of strength when it goes from Tiny to Small to Medium. Then, the Battle form gives it 2 Str. I was using a Human with Eye for Talent to give him +2 to Str at creation, and at lvl 3, the Mauler Familiar gains +1 to str

So, it's 9 (Base) + 8 (Size related, but not called a Size bonus) + 1 (Mauler's lvl) + 2 (Battle Form increase) + 2 (Eye for Talent) = 22

Mark Seifter clarified that Battle Form follows the polymorph rules so there isn't a benefit from small to medium.

So a fox would be:
9 base + 4 size + 1 mauler level + 2 battle form = 16. 18 with Eye for Talent.

And Mark Seifter would be wrong. Not only is there is nothing in the rules that support his interpretation whatsoever, but his clarification in this case actually creates more problems and gray areas.

Liberty's Edge

Ravingdork wrote:
Protoman wrote:
Issac Daneil wrote:

The fox is a tiny creature, and the size increases in the universal size chart for monsters has it gain 8 points of strength when it goes from Tiny to Small to Medium. Then, the Battle form gives it 2 Str. I was using a Human with Eye for Talent to give him +2 to Str at creation, and at lvl 3, the Mauler Familiar gains +1 to str

So, it's 9 (Base) + 8 (Size related, but not called a Size bonus) + 1 (Mauler's lvl) + 2 (Battle Form increase) + 2 (Eye for Talent) = 22

Mark Seifter clarified that Battle Form follows the polymorph rules so there isn't a benefit from small to medium.

So a fox would be:
9 base + 4 size + 1 mauler level + 2 battle form = 16. 18 with Eye for Talent.

And Mark Seifter would be wrong. Not only is there is nothing in the rules that support his interpretation whatsoever, but his clarification in this case actually creates more problems and gray areas.

What problems exactly? I see no problem with it following standard polymorph rules. The extra line in there is just to point out a rule many aren't aware of as they are always small or medium and thus unaffected by it.

It's also fairly bold to outright declare a designer "wrong", though it would be fine to call them out on bad choice of wording.


Ravingdork wrote:
Protoman wrote:
Issac Daneil wrote:

The fox is a tiny creature, and the size increases in the universal size chart for monsters has it gain 8 points of strength when it goes from Tiny to Small to Medium. Then, the Battle form gives it 2 Str. I was using a Human with Eye for Talent to give him +2 to Str at creation, and at lvl 3, the Mauler Familiar gains +1 to str

So, it's 9 (Base) + 8 (Size related, but not called a Size bonus) + 1 (Mauler's lvl) + 2 (Battle Form increase) + 2 (Eye for Talent) = 22

Mark Seifter clarified that Battle Form follows the polymorph rules so there isn't a benefit from small to medium.

So a fox would be:
9 base + 4 size + 1 mauler level + 2 battle form = 16. 18 with Eye for Talent.

And Mark Seifter would be wrong. Not only is there is nothing in the rules that support his interpretation whatsoever, but his clarification in this case actually creates more problems and gray areas.

Well his clarification was more of a, "Darn I totally meant to put the words 'polymorph effect' there for the archetype I wrote. My bad, peeps."


Protoman wrote:
Issac Daneil wrote:

The fox is a tiny creature, and the size increases in the universal size chart for monsters has it gain 8 points of strength when it goes from Tiny to Small to Medium. Then, the Battle form gives it 2 Str. I was using a Human with Eye for Talent to give him +2 to Str at creation, and at lvl 3, the Mauler Familiar gains +1 to str

So, it's 9 (Base) + 8 (Size related, but not called a Size bonus) + 1 (Mauler's lvl) + 2 (Battle Form increase) + 2 (Eye for Talent) = 22

Mark Seifter clarified that Battle Form follows the polymorph rules so there isn't a benefit from small to medium.

So a fox would be:
9 base + 4 size + 1 mauler level + 2 battle form = 16. 18 with Eye for Talent.

Since when was there no benefit for polymorphing from small to medium? I'm pretty sure that, if a Gnome casts Alter Self, she gets a +2 size bonus to strength.

EDIT: Never mind, just read the post and looked at the quoted table. Not sure how I've never seen that before, herp. Shame, I was really looking forward to having an epic battle goat, but it doesn't seem like there's any reason to not use the fox for this.


So, which size ruling would you use in pfs? Or just how official are Mark's comments?


Arachnofiend wrote:
Protoman wrote:
Issac Daneil wrote:

The fox is a tiny creature, and the size increases in the universal size chart for monsters has it gain 8 points of strength when it goes from Tiny to Small to Medium. Then, the Battle form gives it 2 Str. I was using a Human with Eye for Talent to give him +2 to Str at creation, and at lvl 3, the Mauler Familiar gains +1 to str

So, it's 9 (Base) + 8 (Size related, but not called a Size bonus) + 1 (Mauler's lvl) + 2 (Battle Form increase) + 2 (Eye for Talent) = 22

Mark Seifter clarified that Battle Form follows the polymorph rules so there isn't a benefit from small to medium.

So a fox would be:
9 base + 4 size + 1 mauler level + 2 battle form = 16. 18 with Eye for Talent.

Since when was there no benefit for polymorphing from small to medium? I'm pretty sure that, if a Gnome casts Alter Self, she gets a +2 size bonus to strength.

EDIT: Never mind, just read the post and looked at the quoted table. Not sure how I've never seen that before, herp. Shame, I was really looking forward to having an epic battle goat, but it doesn't seem like there's any reason to not use the fox for this.

That's from the spell, the polymorph table is for when you use a polymorph spell on something smaller than small or larger than medium, you change it's stats before applying the stats from the spell. Meaning if you enlarge a huge creature it's str goes down rather than up.


Melkiador wrote:
So, which size ruling would you use in pfs? Or just how official are Marks comments?

Go with Mark's polymorph ruling. That's probably as official as we're ever gonna get for a non-Core RPG book.

Polymorph effect was intended to be in the mauler's write up, as the battle form is a magical effect so should be using the polymorph rules. Well I believe so anyways. Anyhoo it's to be treated like the other polymorph effects such as wild shape or lycanthropy.

The monster advancement rules is more permanent changes to a monster either at creation or to make an existing creature permanently bigger/stronger, and the intention is that that isn't the case with mauler.


Protoman wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
So, which size ruling would you use in pfs? Or just how official are Marks comments?

Go with Mark's polymorph ruling. That's probably as official as we're ever gonna get for a non-Core RPG book.

Polymorph effect was intended to be in the mauler's write up, as the battle form is a magical effect so should be using the polymorph rules. Well I believe so anyways. Anyhoo it's to be treated like the other polymorph effects such as wild shape or lycanthropy.

The monster advancement rules is more permanent changes to a monster either at creation or to make an existing creature permanently bigger/stronger, and the intention is that that isn't the case with mauler.

But we don't do that other times when things are missing from the text. Like how the shield champion doesn't have proficiency in shields.


That's because the shield champion is a clear case of writing that makes it unproficient (and other issues that I won't get into). That case isn't missing text, but rather the wording for the archetype currently falls under current FAQ rulings that they aren't proficient with shields as weapons.

In the case of the mauler, it isn't clear which system is to be used, and the developer made an outright no-doubt statement that it is polymorph rules to be used when the mauler uses its supernatural effect battle form. If the writing indicated at all to use the monster advancement rules and THEN Mark had made his polymorph comment, then PFS would be stuck with monster advancement rules until his ruling goes into a blog or FAQ or the Additional Resources or Compton/Brock puts up a statement in the forums.

Also, table variation may occur when people don't know about the polymorph ruling, but a medium fox with 16-18 Strength at level 3 is easier for a PFS GM to take in than a medium fox with 20-22 Strength and the power attacking barbarian is going, "What the F?"

Designer

Protoman wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
So, which size ruling would you use in pfs? Or just how official are Marks comments?

Go with Mark's polymorph ruling. That's probably as official as we're ever gonna get for a non-Core RPG book.

Polymorph effect was intended to be in the mauler's write up, as the battle form is a magical effect so should be using the polymorph rules. Well I believe so anyways. Anyhoo it's to be treated like the other polymorph effects such as wild shape or lycanthropy.

The monster advancement rules is more permanent changes to a monster either at creation or to make an existing creature permanently bigger/stronger, and the intention is that that isn't the case with mauler.

Despite wishing I had explicitly called it out as a polymorph effect in my turnover, I'm actually still pretty flummoxed that anyone would try to use the monster advancement charts. I mean, as you say, you don't use them for any other effect in the game other than advancing monsters (and, for instance, the monster advancement charts for damage dice suggestions don't track with the chart for effects that increase damage dice). The "normal" adjustments referenced in "(this stacks with the normal Strength adjustments for increasing in size)." were the polymorph ones, and, as others here have surmised, I only even wrote that parenthetical as a reminder (since most people I've seen in games don't remember to apply the extras when using polymorph effects on weird sized critters).


Mark Seifter wrote:
Protoman wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
So, which size ruling would you use in pfs? Or just how official are Marks comments?

Go with Mark's polymorph ruling. That's probably as official as we're ever gonna get for a non-Core RPG book.

Polymorph effect was intended to be in the mauler's write up, as the battle form is a magical effect so should be using the polymorph rules. Well I believe so anyways. Anyhoo it's to be treated like the other polymorph effects such as wild shape or lycanthropy.

The monster advancement rules is more permanent changes to a monster either at creation or to make an existing creature permanently bigger/stronger, and the intention is that that isn't the case with mauler.

Despite wishing I had explicitly called it out as a polymorph effect in my turnover, I'm actually still pretty flummoxed that anyone would try to use the monster advancement charts. I mean, as you say, you don't use them for any other effect in the game other than advancing monsters (and, for instance, the monster advancement charts for damage dice suggestions don't track with the chart for effects that increase damage dice). The "normal" adjustments referenced in "(this stacks with the normal Strength adjustments for increasing in size)." were the polymorph ones, and, as others here have surmised, I only even wrote that parenthetical as a reminder (since most people I've seen in games don't remember to apply the extras when using polymorph effects on weird sized critters).

And there we have it folks. Straight from the horse's mouth. Also I are that a familiar having a 22 strength at level 3 is redonkulous. Even combat animal companions don't have that high of strength.


To be fair, a familiar with 22 strength means "I do 1d6+9 damage with my natural attack". That's pretty good at level 3, of course, but not out of line and certainly not better than a pounce kitty.


I didn't think my misunderstanding would cause this much of a ripple. How flattering.

Either way, I accept Mark Seifter's choice, not as someone interpreting existing rules, but as the creator of the topic in question. I would want my intentions understood and followed through on, regardless of alternate interpretations.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Protoman wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
So, which size ruling would you use in pfs? Or just how official are Marks comments?

Go with Mark's polymorph ruling. That's probably as official as we're ever gonna get for a non-Core RPG book.

Polymorph effect was intended to be in the mauler's write up, as the battle form is a magical effect so should be using the polymorph rules. Well I believe so anyways. Anyhoo it's to be treated like the other polymorph effects such as wild shape or lycanthropy.

The monster advancement rules is more permanent changes to a monster either at creation or to make an existing creature permanently bigger/stronger, and the intention is that that isn't the case with mauler.

Despite wishing I had explicitly called it out as a polymorph effect in my turnover, I'm actually still pretty flummoxed that anyone would try to use the monster advancement charts. I mean, as you say, you don't use them for any other effect in the game other than advancing monsters (and, for instance, the monster advancement charts for damage dice suggestions don't track with the chart for effects that increase damage dice). The "normal" adjustments referenced in "(this stacks with the normal Strength adjustments for increasing in size)." were the polymorph ones, and, as others here have surmised, I only even wrote that parenthetical as a reminder (since most people I've seen in games don't remember to apply the extras when using polymorph effects on weird sized critters).

In 3.0 and 3.5 everyone used that table for all size-changing effects unless something more specific said to do otherwise. Like in Pathfinder, it was basically the only available source for size-changing rules. I don't see why it would be any different in Pathfinder, which is known to have rules scattered all over the place; rules that tend to effect things outside their spheres (take the rules for stacking bonuses for example, though they are in the Magic chapter and are written in that context they nevertheless effect all things, not just magical spells and items). What did you think we would default to? Especially since your archetype says nothing about Polymorph and would be incredibly weak under your interpretation. Even with my interpretation, they are hardly optimal, instead just being good enough to carry their own weight.

Also, the table you recommend isn't really appropriate as it doesn't even cover all of the different sizes of familiars out there.

So, there you have it, several reasons why I will never abide by your suggestion short of official errata.

(Make no mistake though, I absolutely do appreciate all of your hard work and clarifications.)


Ravingdork, isn't it enough to know what the designer intended, and decide that the option is or is not what you want? It's not even 'his interpretation', as you put it: it's his creation.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Not when it breaks the creation, doesn't make much sense in the context of the rules, and generally lessons the game's fun, no, it's not nearly enough.


I leave you to it then

Designer

I have always been in favor of gaming groups getting together and deciding to play however they like best, no matter what that may be and regardless of what the exact ruling may be. Heck, give them even more Strength if your group likes. This is the General Discussion forum and not the Rules Forum, after all.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You're just too awesome, man. How on earth did you get to be so awesome? Is there, like, an awesome pill you take each morning or something?

If it were Sean, he probably would have lambasted me over some imagined slight.

Designer

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

You're just too awesome, man. How on earth did you get to be so awesome? Is there, like, an awesome pill you take each morning or something?

If it were Sean, he probably would have lambasted me over some imagined slight.

I admit, when I first came to this thread, I was at first mildly annoyed with your earlier post that seemed to be saying I was wrong about what I wrote, but what I usually do in cases like that is pause a moment and realize that tone and wording don't carry our meaning perfectly over the internet and that I've seen from your posts before that you can sometimes be a bit blunter than you intended; that you probably meant it to be stated a little more mildly in that my ruling was not the best one for getting across the idea of the archetypical mauler for your group (Shelyn knows, as this thread proves, I myself sometimes get my wording a bit wrong too, even in a freelance turnover!). At that point, it became easier to see what you were getting at. Sometimes we all fail at Diplomacy checks, Sense Motive checks, and all kinds of other checks, but there's also just so much awesome out there in this hobby of ours that we all share, that I like to focus on our commonalities and all the cool things most of all!


I'm glad that people are being cool about this. I admit, I get a little defensive of peoples' creative right, often more so then I should.
Sorry to anyone I may have put off


So now that we've got that settled, what are all the best options for a Mauler? Other than a Fox, the other big standout to me is the King Crab. Slightly less strength than the Fox, but it comes with a slew of other options like grab on its claws. The water dependency is basically irrelevant, 12 hours before it starts suffocating isn't even worth worrying about.


The Goat still isn't bad, other than the lack of attacks. Something with pounce is probably going to be better every time though.

51 to 100 of 131 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why go Eldritch Guardian? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.