Celestial_Chameleon's page

Seems like you need to be half-plant half-elf.

If you notice there already exist half-construct and half-undead. You and your GM just need to come to an agreement on what is acceptable for a half-plant. The other half is generally humanoid, and you could just select elf.

Personally I'd go with something like:
•Half-Plants have the low-light vision racial trait.
•Half-Plants get +2 to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms).
•Half-Plants are immune to paralysis, poison, polymorph, sleep effects, and stunning.
•Half-Plants breathe and eat, but do not sleep, unless they want to gain some beneficial effect from this activity. This means that a plant creature can sleep in order to regain spells, but sleep is not required to survive or stay in good health.

For 5 race points. It's similar to the half-undead type, though the immunities are a bit stronger maybe. However those effects are less common and less debilitating than energy drain effects.

Yeah I like that idea. I'm looking for a mix of the two so the half plant thing sounds good. I mainly wanted the Elf race, but with a few plant themed traits. Was thinking of a spellbinder wizard with the water arcane school.

OK so, a DM I have is starting a new campaign after our 3 year long one ended a few weeks ago. He wants us to use the race builder and create a non standard race, as in, not humanoid. Now this poses a problem for the simple fact that most racial archetypes require a humanoid sub-type to qualify for.

I can't seem to find any rules for it, but is there anything stopping a Plant type creature, from getting the Elf sub-type? Normally I think those sub-types are for humanoid only right? I wanted to make an offshoot of the Elven race that embraced druidism so much that they became plant creatures, but retained their Elven heritage, thus the Elf sub-type. Would this break anything in a dramatic way? My DM will most likely let me do the combo, but I wanted the opinions of the community at large on the matter. Thank you in advance. ^_^

PS: I hope this is posted in the right area. If not let me know XD

Just took a quick look through. I like the material so far but one thing I have noticed is that there is no actual stats block for a Aasimar racials. Was this an oversight? I can't find it anywhere and the book doesn't point towards another system. For instance, do we just assume they use the regular pathfinder racial stats? If I am missing something please let me know as I really like your books. Have bought all of the race ones so far =P

Ok what about going with human, taking racial heritage(dwarf) and then taking the Forgemaster archetype for cleric? Feats at first level would be racial heritage and skill focus engineering (for eldritch heritage later) then at level 3 take EH to get myself a familiar(valet).

By level 5 I would have two sources of "half building time." From Valet and from forge master with regards to metal or stone items. Which results in only needing 25% of the time normally required to craft if my math is right. half it then half it again etc. The DM did say we wont have a ton of time to spare between outings so crafting speed would be ideal.

Forgemaster requires that I take the artifice domain and also has Int as a preferable stat so my skills wont be to horrible. Human would also help out skill wise.

What do you think?

PS: I took a look at the magus and the bard archetypes and they just seemed off to me. I am not sure why. Wont be using them I know for sure.

He actually suggested the idea lol. He knows how to use the race builder as he uses it a lot for when he actually plays. That and most of our party is elves and he is a slight bit racist towards them. He has a thing for dwarves XD So no worries there haha

So while rummaging my way through the race builder, I found a nifty 1 point trait that gives me a slight bonus on disable device but also states that I am proficient in any weapons that I craft myself. I am tossing the idea of creating a "half-dwarven" race and make it have a penchant for crafting as well as a minor bonus to social settings as the human half would help offset the dwarf gruffness =P I will take a look at the soul forger and impossible bloodlines today.

I had not found the Arcane builder discovery yet. This is intriguing. I did stumble across the "valet" familiar archetype which can assist in crafting. giving ya a bonus as well as cutting the time needed to craft an item by half. Might be an interesting venture. He would only focus on arms and armour though tbh.

I would like to keep it to Paizo. The DM is relatively new and I don't want something he will have to check the rules for a lot. He said stick to Paizo so I will do that. I was thinking of the Dwarven Forgemaster Cleric. It sorta fits what I want. Though I think I will go human and take racial heritage to qualify for it as I don't wanna play a dwarf(nothing wrong with them though!)

Hey folks. I am curious, is there any class or archetype that focuses on building its own armour and weapons? I am thinking something like the artificer from 3.5 but that it gets bonuses for using the arms and armours it creates. I just have this idea for a character that is supposed to be the best at making swords or armour, similar to how Hitori Hanzo was a legendary sword smith in the kill bill series. Just looking to get bonuses for using his own stuff.

If you know of any races/classes/feats or traits that would give bonuses like this or allow for some pretty nifty crafting bonuses that would be swell. I am going to keep perusing the SRD until I find something or reach the end of the internet. XD

My take on the matter is this. Lycanthropy is a curse-like effect, transmitted like a disease. Until the "first change" occurs in a lycan, it is a disease. After that its clear that it can't be cured like a disease any more. That being said, it wouldn't be a true curse as you can't just use remove curse to turn that snarly puppy-man into a human again. Its got a sort of dual nature IMO.

That being said, I don't see why a lycan can't be an undead. Technically the shape shifting is a biological function, but this game is about suspending disbelief in the pursuit of forging a narrative. One of my favourite ideas for an undead lycan was a were-hyena that got turned into an intelligent ghoul. Hyena's are natural scavengers and the ghoul aspect would only amplify this. I mean what's not to like about a 9 foot tall hybrid of hyena and man with an intense hunger to eat the flesh of the fallen?

As for if the shifting still happens, I don't see why not. Undeath is a mockery of life in most cases, so I think it would still be able to shift, but of course it would be a twisted undead version instead.

And yes I am sorry for the thread necro. This is a subject I find interesting and couldn't find another thread about it. Figured i would use this handy one that is already made. =P

Thanks a bunch! I talked with my GM and he likes the idea of being able to retain racial variant classes, but didn't want to do it for free. Instead he settled on the minor cost of a trait. He used one of the traits in your book as a base. Basically when you take the trait you choose one racial variant class that you qualified for before becoming a Lesser Ghoul. You retain your ability to advance in that one racial class. Sort of like a retained memory I guess. I think a trait is an acceptable cost. In any case your book is superb. Definitely going to be using it for a long time. =P

I know this is probably going to be a silly question but: Does becoming one of these playable ghouls restrict you from continuing in your previous races racial class? For instance if I was a Feral Child(Human druid variant) and at level 3 became a ghoul, would I still be able to advance in that class as if I were still a human or am I screwed? I just don't like the idea of having to multi-class if I end up becoming one of these corpse nibblers.

Aside from that, I absolutely love this book. This is a great race. My favorite thing will be playing a good character with this Pseudo-Template. Righteous aims but a dark secret etc. Well done guys!

You guys are completely correct. I had it mixed up. It was fate's favored I was thinking of. Thanks for helping me out guys! ^_^

Hey folks.

At some point or another I remember seeing a trait somewhere that increased the benefit you get from a morale bonus by 1. For instance, if you had a morale bonus of +2 to strength based checks, it would instead be +3 with this trait. I cannot for the life of me remember what it is called or where it is from, or even if I am just going absolutely crazy and just thought it up. Any help in finding this trait or proving my insanity would be much appreciated.

One question I do have though is, the bleeding attack feat. Does that bleed happen every round until healed or is it a one time damage bonus that counts as bleed damage so it ignores DR?

Is it more important to have the Ninja class, or Ninja flavor?

What races are available?

Any of the core races are available.

And I understand that Ninja = Rogue. There is just enough flavor split between monk and rogue that I tend to just refer to ninja as a seperate class(though I know its not).

Since I am not going for outright total damage in combat im not worried about getting twf or flurry. The build focuses more on the poisons and getting a few pressure points in.

As for dipping and flavor, I would rather be ninja and nothing but. I don't really like dipping all that much. I play a class because I like what it has, not what I can frankinstien together with 3+ classes from a miriad of dips.

Edit: After looking at my post it seemed rather stand-offish. Totally wasn't meant to be. I just tend to regurgitate stuff like a robot.

Hey guys, I am going to be joining a campaign that one of my friends is running and I decided to roll a ninja. I am very smitten with Monk/ninja/rogue so I decided to try and play a monk/rogue hybrid and settled on the ninja as it had a lot of the features from both that I liked. The general Idea is to make a ninja that uses unarmed attacks and relies on avoiding attacks in melee and following up with a counter attack, thus the snake style chain. The build will also focus a bit on poisoning, hence Addar Strike. This is the first 10 levels of progression I have thought of. It isn't meant to be super optomized.

Human

Str 10
Dex 16(lv 4 and 8 stat bumps here)
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 14
Cha 14

Feats:

1:Improved Unarmed
1H:Addar Strike
2(Combat Trick): Weapon Finesse
3: Snake Style
5:Skill Focus[Sense Motive]
6(Style Master Trick): Snake Sidewind
7: Bleeding Attack
9: Snake Fangs

Ninja Tricks:

2:Combat trick for weapon finesse
4:Shadow Clone
6:Style Master trick for snake sidewind
8:Pressure Points
10:Unarmed Combat Mastery

Since ninja gets a lot of skills natively, the character will play as a skill monkey for the most part. During combat the main tactic is to pop shadow clones to increase the chance of an enemy missing me. The focus is more so debilitating poisons, flanking, and pressure points with sneak attacks. The shadow clones will help with snake fangs later, and Addar strike effectively doubles the doses of poisons I buy/make. The build doesn't revolve around invisibility like most ninja builds I see. More or less a ninja you cant touch, but in plain sight. As for skills, I take what I need to meet pre-reqs and then have plenty of left overs for many other skills. If I really needed more skills I could use the favored class bonus for it, but I think HP would be prefered as dancing around in melee even with clones is risky stuff.

As for items, the important ones I can see would be Monk's Robes, Stat boosting Items, Necklace of Mighty Fists, Headband of ninjutsu, other defensive items etc.

Do you guys think this build will be able to perform well enough to contribute a half decent amount to my party, or is it absolute garbage? Suggestions would be swell. :)

Bump. Anyone able to shed some light on it? In particular I wanted to make the carnivorous flower companion take the racer archetype. Thus the question.

Ok it is 3:30 in the morning and I am at work and quite tired lol. I have tried looking through the forums to find the answer to my question, but have come up empty. Can the animal companion archetypes introduced in the animal archive be applied to the plant companions that a treesinger has? I mean looking at it I don't see any glaringly obvious balance issues.

I'm asking as there are people that will argue that "Except for the companion being a creature of the plant type, drawn from the list below, this ability otherwise works like the standard druid's animal companion ability." does not mean it is an animal companion and only acts like one, therefore trumping some rules that would effect an AC, like my question etc.(I have a few in my group that like to argue things like this until they are blue in the face)

Any help on the matter would be swell. Cheers! =)

That's a shame. It's a really good scenario.

Maybe you could go to a nearby convention? I don't know how easy that would be for you.

I live in Fort McMurray, Alberta. The closest con I could go to I think would be held in Edmonton which is 5 hours south of me. It wouldn't be a simple venture for me sadly. :(

I think the boon you are referring to is a reward on a chronicle sheet rather than a separate boon like the ones given out at a convention or games day. As such it is not tradeable.

A boon is tradeable if it comes on an individual sheet. It is not tradeable if it is part of a chronicle sheet for a scenario or module.

Thanks for the clarification. Was just curious as I could really use the axe beak mount flavor wise for a character, but my group(only one around) doesn't plan on doing that module again since they wont get any credit. So i am kinda hooped I guess.

OK. So I tried looking for the answer through the search feature, but all I got was a flood of "trading X race boon for Y race boon" threads.

My question is, can other boons be traded? For instance, My friend just got the boon for being able to use an axe beak as a cav/ranger/samurai/non druid etc. He has no use for it and wants to give it away to me. Is it legal to do so? Seems like racial boon trading is legal. Does it extend to non race boons?

Ximen Bao wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

Having your snake use the Grab or Constrict actions would require you to Push it as a Move action using the Handle Animal skill.

Why would having it use its modes of natural attack require a push check rather than an attack trick check?

Maintaining a grapple is its own special action not covered by the handle animal skill. Since there is no trick, you have to use the Push option which is the catch-all for actions not covered by other tricks. It's the same as a paladin having to use the push action to have his mount lower its spell resistance if he wants to apply a buff.

Sorry for slight thread necro, but I don't think what your saying is correct. The "attack" trick tells the animal to attack/harm/kill the target you choose. It does not say "this has to be a natural attack" Therefor a snake will try to constrict and grapple the target to attack it/kill it. This is all fine and dandy, but I do not know how the ride checks would be happening when your snake is coiled up in a writhing mass after it engulfs its prey whilst grappling it.

Celestial_Chameleon wrote:

...

The Idea is to make a support based healer/buffer with good mobility due to riding around on a mount. Once 3rd level rolls around I would be getting a thrush familiar for delivering touch spells(cure spells mostly).

I think this is where you will get the most grief from GMs.

So how is my mobility any worse than any other mounted class? On top of that, deliver touch spell works on all touch spells, including cure spells. It doesn't diferentiate. If anything its weaker than me running up to touch them or using reach spell as they can kill the familiar.

Regardless of if it goes on the mat or not, it clearly says I can have a familiar on top of my class granted pet for combat.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

I wouldn't say wrong but definitely running into that murky area of dm interpretation. Your mount may or may not be participating in combat by providing you with a movement rate

Using the mount to move would be combat imho, especially since it will counter lame curse's penalty.

Thats the point of the horse. This lame old man doesnt want to walk everywhere. Im also using it to make a bigger disparity between mounted benefits and foot slogging.

1) You can either use the horse or the familiar in combat, not both. Which ever one you choose, you can not gain ANY benefit from the other. Ie. If you choose the familiar you are not longer mounted and now will have to walk.

2) BUY animal archive! If you have a large animal companion, the the feat narrow frame is a must. This feat lets you squeeze without most of the penalties. Now you can take that horse into 5ft corridors and not worry.

I am pretty sure i can have both. The last line says i can have a mount, and or familiar on top of my class granted pet. In this case i get my familiar on top of my class granted animal companion, which is just there to ride on. As for animal archive, i have it and love it! Narrow fram and stable gallop are the first two feats my horse is going to take. Also, the horse will have the totem guide archetype, and the familiar will have the valet archetype.

Yu know what would be cool. Your horse would have an int of atleast 6. IS you can put ranks in any skill or give it an ioune stone. Give it rank in linguistics and you could consult your horse about languages.

I think that woul dbe hilarious to say "hey let Wiblur look at those markings he may be able to know what they say. Yes yes yes that might be right Wilbur. Wilbur has dechipered the langauge and said ti means..."

To a lessor effect you could get sense motive since his wis would be 12 and see if wilbur trusts'em.

Haha yeah. I love quirky things like that. I'm gonna be chatting up a storm with my horse and bird lol.

I also just realised that due to scaling of eldritch heritage, I wont get to deliver touch spells with my thrush till character level 5. But boon companion at that level would also net me speak with master, though im thinking that it wont really be needed as the thrush can speak any language I want. Common being the obvious choice so I can use it as a messenger for the party.

Well I know a handfull of adventures your mount would need to sit outside cause it can not fit or not allowed as you mention. So when you play those adventures it is sad you spent those resources on a mount and it is sitting someplace waiting for you. Also I have seen people invisible their mounts into areas they should not be allowed in. But size will be an issue. Also a ladder you need to climb would be rough on your mount.

Yup. Im willing to live with those limitations. Eventually I can magic my mount anywhere, but for the first little bit it will be tough. But creative solutions are awlays fun.

The trouble you may encounter is your horse will be left out in many adventures since it is large. If you rely on a mount I would pick a small character and get a medium mount so it can fit everywehre.

I am in love with the dual cursed oracle. I think the extra revelations and misfortune are amazing. You could also take haunted or legalistic as a second curse. Haunted has some awesome spells you get. Blackened limbs if you plan to never use weapons to attack.

Keep in mind misfortune can be used on allies too if they are within 30'.

My min maxer side would also say to dump str more since you are a caster and you have a mount carry your stuff. Plus you are an oldish guy you can have a lower strength

I might do that with the strength dump like you say. It would fit his character too. I got the mount to take the narrow frame feat specifically so it could go where the rest of the party goes indoors(so long as its socialy acceptable) and not suffer all of the penalties of being in a tight fit.

I wouldn't say wrong but definitely running into that murky area of dm interpretation. Your mount may or may not be participating in combat by providing you with a movement rate

Wouldn't the "non combat" mount im allowed on top of my familiar technically be a combat pet then? =P

As I understand it, you can't have both a familiar and a mount at the same time. Only one combat companion per player (this excludes any mundane pack animals and such).

Instead of being human, you could be an Aasimar and pick up the Scion of Humanity alternate racial trait, so you can still qualify for the Huntmaster feat. Spend your Favored Class Bonus on the special Aasimar oracle option to increase your level by 1/2 for calculating the benefit of one of your revelations (choose the bonded mount). Then at 3rd level, take the Celestial Servant feat to give it the Celestial template. By 4th level, you'll have an effective druid level of 7 for your mount, plus he'll have DR, SR, energy resistances and a smite evil. Mmm...

From FAQ:

How many animals can I have at any given time?

During the course of a scenario, you may have one combat animal and as many noncombat animals as you like. Noncombat animals (ponies, horses, pet dogs, and so on) cannot participate in combat at all. If you have so many noncombat animals that their presence is slowing a session down, the GM has the right to ask you to select one noncombat animal and leave the rest behind. A summoner's eidolon is considered an animal companion for the purposes of counting combat and noncombat animals. If you have more than one class-granted animal companion (or eidolon), you must choose which will be considered the combat animal at the start of the scenario. In general, a mount, a familiar or mundane pet, and your class-granted animal(s) are acceptable, but more than that can be disruptive.

The last line indicates that I can have a mount and familiar so long as it doesnt cause to many headaches. While the bonded mount may use the animal companion stats block it is essentially just a mount for him, thus its the same as using a regularly bought horse just with more durability. Correct me if im wrong.

So I had a character on the go before for PFS, but due to bad book keeping on my part I have decided to just make a new character instead of trying to solve the massive head ache of paperwork I would need to do to fix the old one. Was just wondering if I could get some imput from you guys to see how well the build will work thematically as well as mechanically.

Human Enlightened Philosopher Oracle
Nature Mystery
Lame curse

Str 10
Dex 10
Con 14
Int 14
Wis 14
Cha 16

Revelations:
1st - Bonded Mount[Horse with totem guide animal archetype]
3rd - Nature's Whispers

Feats:
H.Bonus - Huntsmaster[Horse]
1st - Skill focus(knowlege[Nature])
3rd - Eldritch Heritage(arcane)[Chose Familiar]

Bonded Mount Feats:
Stable Gallop
Narrow Frame

The Idea is to make a support based healer/buffer with good mobility due to riding around on a mount. Once 3rd level rolls around I would be getting a thrush familiar for delivering touch spells(cure spells mostly). Flavor wise, he is a wizend old mage who doesn't focus on the big flashy explosions of the younger generation. Instead he focuses on subtle yet effective spells(buffs/support). Think of Gandalf from LoTR if he could cast healing spells etc. As for his reason for joining up with the society, he has waited a long while and has decided that one of the best ways to learn more about the world is to actually traverse it. So he joined up to adventure across the land, learning new secrets about the world and its denizens.

I only went to level 3 so far. Would you have any suggestions for the current build and perhaps afterwards? I think he will be fun to play as is, but learning what others have done is also great. =)

Most of the list isn't worth looking at, so I wouldn't worry about memorizing it.

I vote you pain the normal panda red myself. Giant armored raging 'red' panda with warpaint? Yes please! Real red pandas like Claxon said are closer to rodents if I remember right. Not so amazing for war machines.

I think I'm gonna go with a beefy red wolf. Wolves are all around and the trip will be nice. That and later I can use it as a mount out of combat.

Celestial_Chameleon wrote:

LazarX wrote:

PFS... no. Home campaign... ask your GM if red pandas exist.

Just curious why it wouldnt work in pfs. Not trying to challenge, just legit wondering what prevents it.

Reskinning doesn't fly in PFS. You want a red panda in Golarion... you're going to have to dye it. And it will be a sad panda.

Regular pandas are so ugly uhg. Time to find a new companion. Maybe a roc or axe beak. If both of those wont work thrn ill go with the good old bear. :-P

PFS... no. Home campaign... ask your GM if red pandas exist.

Just curious why it wouldnt work in pfs. Not trying to challenge, just legit wondering what prevents it.

Is there anything in the rules preventing me from making my buddy a red panda instead of a black and white one? Same stats just a different color and slightly different shape that doesnt affect any mechanics. The red panda fits the color/theme im going for on my mad dog barbarian. If this is acceptable, would it work in pfs as well?

Desidero wrote:

Sounds like you want the Deadly Dealer feat.

Deadly dealer?

Oh wow I just saw that feat. It's perfect!

Sounds like you want the Deadly Dealer feat.

Deadly dealer?

Celestial_Chameleon wrote:

So I was tossing around the idea of creating a character themed around gambling, but never has "weapons" on him. It struck me that unlike normal weapons, improvised ones don't seem to scale well.

They're not supposed to. Improvised weapons and the feats that build on them, are meant to let you pull Jackie Chan maneuvers in appropriate Chan-like scenes, mainly beat up on the bully with something you pull from your surroundings, not to cheaply give you I win maneuvers by stacking mechanics you use with standard weapons. It's meant to be a tactic in reserve, not the standard go to for a martial or even semi-martial character.

Why make archetypes that focus on it then? One of the two I know of off the top of my head is a full martial class. Fighter. The other being a semi, being monk. And this isn't a means to grab an I win button, this is to create a character theme. If I wanted to just go for power I'd just use a regular weapon.

So I was tossing around the idea of creating a character themed around gambling, but never has "weapons" on him. It struck me that unlike normal weapons, improvised ones don't seem to scale well. Eg: very unlikely to find a +2 flaming speed chair leg in a random dungeon. So I got to thinking. How can I make them temporarily better? Enter the Magus.

Here is where my real questions start.

1: Can a magus use his arcane pool to enchant an improvised weapon he just picked up?

2: If #1 is true, how would that work with a deck of cards? Would I enchant the deck and then each of the 52 cards would count as a thrown weapon? Making it so that for the fight I can toss +1 flaming cards etc.

3: If #2 works, what would be the action to "draw" a card? I'd assume free as you would hold the deck of cards in your hand, and throw with the other. Drawn like ammunition essentially.

Any help on the matter would be primo. Just hoping I can make something like this work because it would be crazy fun to play a gambling mage that can make a card explode in your face.

@ mplindustries

If the devs don't agree with something they should tell you instead of let something like this go on indefinitely, wasting people's time arguing about it. I don't believe that the devs would purposely let something hang around like that. All it takes is a quick post detailing if it is allowed or dis-allowed. The whole garbage of " Maybe they don't want people to stop arguing semantics because they actually meant the semantics they used?" is ridiculous. If they meant what they said already then they would clarify it by saying its working as intended etc. That is what this forum is for. clarifying unclear rules.

I doubt the Dev's will. (not that I object either way).

Some things are just going to be somewhat vague. Some folks think the rules emphatically say X, some folks think it says Y. There's really no reason for the dev's to come in and tell either group they are wrong.

Work it out for and with your group and play accordingly.

-S

See my problem is, I want to play PFS format and if this stays as a house rule, its going to get ridiculously annoying when one DM says no, and another says yes. Assuming DMs can make house rules in PFS format. I just don't like the idea of being limited in one group, and not in another, hence why a flat ruling across the board would fix that.

I wish one of the devs would just swoop in and just make it an across the board ruling for all of pfs and the like that beast shape can make different sized animals from the ones in the bestiary etc. That way we can just put this topic to rest. It is obviously not game breaking, provides more RP and customization, fills in gaps for quality of life, and again doesn't break the system. Most people already run with the assumption that you can make bigger/smaller animals. Devs just need to make it an official thing so people will stop arguing semantics.

Eric Clingenpeel quoted the relevant text. Everything is there:

no templates

no advanced versions of a creature.

Bolded mine. The creature has to exist in the first place; where do I check that? I have a look into Bestiary I-III.
There does not exist a huge wolf as an animal in any of the Bestiaries. The only way of getting a huge wolf is to advance a Dire Wolf by following the step-by-step instruction found here or to

PRD wrote:

When advancing a monster by adding racial HD, you should start by deciding what you want the monster to become. In most cases, this means merely a tougher, stronger version of an existing monster. Note the desired CR of the new monster. This is also the point at which you should decide whether the creature is going to increase in size. As a general rule, creatures whose Hit Dice increase by 50% or more should also increase in size, but GMs should feel free to ignore this rule if warranted by the individual creature or situation.

Emphasis mine.

This is how by advancing a monster you can increase its size. This is also what is explicitly negated for wildshaping by the rules Eric Clingenpeel quoted.

How's that rule outdated and no longer needed?
The new wild shape rules were written as such to keep the shape changing happening simple (every change is explicitly stated; if it's not on the list, you do not get is as a PC using a polymorphing effect) and to specifically avoid the bloat and power creep which took place in 3.5 with every new monster published in an upcoming Bestiary and which added to the mythos of CoDzilla (same goes for why the summoned monsters available via [i]summon XYZ[i] spells are not modified with new Bestiaries).

Ruyan.

It is not needed anymore because the way that the polymorph spells are written, you cant creep your power up. Each spell/effect has specific parameters. 3.5 didnt have that, so you could template the heck out of something to get all of the whacky abilities. With the current state of polymorph spells, you just simply cant do that, even if the no template clause were removed. Even if you could grossly template the hell out of an animal, in the end its up to the player to not be a dick, and up to the DM to fiat rediclous things.

Right. No templating. Templates don't work with wild shape. You'd just deal a huge bite.

Medium 1d6
Large 1d8
Huge 2d6
And you'd only get the adjustments listed in BSIII

Thanks man. Cleared up everything. :-) all this mess because i didnt understand quite how BS worked lol.

Bbauzh ap Aghauzh wrote:

Its a little more complicated than all that.

You don't just turn into a wolf. You turn into something that looks like a wolf, with some of the wolf's abilities (dependent on what level of Beast Shape is being used, which is dependent on the level of the Druid.) The Beast Shape spells detail exactly what the Druid gets. You get ability bonuses and penalties to Strength and Dex, you get a natural armor bonus, and you have to modify your AC and to Hit for size if you change sizes.

Start adding a template, and you then also have to add and/or subtract the template changes. Especially Giant template, which requires you to make another size change.

I think its a bad idea to allow for templates in PFS.

I think the point Azten was trying to make is that technically you don't need a template to just do what the spell says for different animals of different sizes (all the bonuses are outlined in the Beast Shape spells). If a GM was making an encounter with a "Huge wolf" he would take the stats for a Dire Wolf, and add the Giant Template to it. A Druid wanting to Wildshape into a "Huge wolf" however, would just look at the line in Beast Shape III

Quote:

Huge animal: If the form you take is that of a Huge animal, you gain a +6 size bonus to your Strength, a -4 penalty to your Dexterity, and a +6 natural armor bonus.

and apply the listed stats to a Wolf.

I don't think ANYONE will disagree that you can use wildshape to turn into a Medium Wolf, and a Large Wolf. If you look at the differences between a Wolf, and a Dire Wolf (Large Wolf), you will find that the STR, DEX, Armor, etc do not match the bonuses gained by Beast Shape II.

Using Beast Shape II to become a Large Wolf, gives you +4 STR
Dire Wolf is +6 STR compared to a Medium Wolf
"Giant" template added to a Medium Wolf (to make it Large) would give +4 to STR

Using Beast Shape II to become a Large Wolf, gives you a +0 CON
Dire Wolf is +2 CON compared to a Medium Wolf
"Giant"...

So assuming i am familiar with a wolf and i have beast shape 3, i can turn into a huge wolf, using the huge size mods from BS 3 for stats and i would also deal bite damage as a huge wolf etc? No templates needed? I ask because there is no "huge" wolves but im getting from you guys that i can be a huge creature soley due to BS 3 stating i can be a huge animal etc.

Celestial_Chameleon wrote:

Eric, that is the point of the faq. That limitation that you just listed specifically prevents the use of templates yes, but that being said it is an out dated rule and is no longer needed. If not for the sheer lack of possible animals(aside from dinos) you can shapeshift into, it needs to be removed or an exception made so at least the eagle shaman and to a lesser extent the other shamans and even a generic druid can use the animal they like or are themed after as their main shapeshift and not have it useless. I mean that limitation you listed specifically prevents the eagle shaman from assuming roc form which is a class ability. They werent granted the ability to shapeshift into a gargantuan animal as there are no beast shape stats for that. Thus the only way to shapeshift into a roc as per their class feature is to bump the size down, which according to said polymorph "rule" is not legal.

The point of a FAQ is to ask questions about how something works. What you're doing is trying to get the devs to change how something works.

Faq is also for fixing broken things. But if serephimpunk's interpretation is how beast shape works then nothing was broken to begin with. Asking a dev to change something if it is broken is not a bad thing. Fixing something is never bad. I am trying to get something fixed so it works properly. But again if serephimpunks interpretation of BS is how it works by raw then this thread is moot and i can just end it.

Celestial_Chameleon wrote:

I like your interpretation of the beast shape spell. If that is how it works by RaW then there would be no need for this entire thread. Is your interpretation the way paizo sees the spell working as? If so then id be happy as a clam and i could play pfs and not havr to worry bout the templates. :-)

I can quote you RAW where it says you can't combine templates and polymorph effects. Can you show me RAW in beast shape where it says the animal chosen needs to exist in the Bestiary?

You sir get +5 internets. :-)