Cynis_Kaden's page

Okay everyone seems to be going off on random tangents about this question...to the original poster I say this , your question is valid and since there is a finite amount of modules a character can play before he retires its even more valid.

The only ones who can truly tell us why no retroactive application is allowed are the developers.

Now there is absolutely no reason I can see why this cant be allowed , it would be fair to everyone and would require a simple note on your latest cert at the end of a mod to correct, that all being said I ask the devs at this point... if its so trivial an adjustment and doesnt matter as most people on this thread say then.... why not just allow it and save the PFS all the heartache?

Dennis da Ogre wrote:

Argothe wrote:

You don't need to use Dazzling Display, you only have to take it to get access to Shattered Defenses. You can take a move action and then use a standard action to intimidate a single opponent into shaken status. If you beat their counter check by 5 or more the target is shaken into the following round meaning once your first attack hits you now have two full rounds to full attack with each additional attack producing sneak attack precision damage.

You are correct that this combo doesn't start to pay off until level 9 whereas Improved Feint can start to pay off as early as level 3. It would be nice, however, if the rogue had more than one feat tree option for setting up sneak attacks.

I do think it's good to have options, and this is a good option but I think improved feint is still going to be the preferred route for most rogues. By 9th-11th level rogues start getting better access to magic and improved invisibility which sort of defeats both these options.

In a game world where rogues have easy access to improved invisibility, why don't opponents have easy access to one of the many options available for detecting invisibility?

Why even worry about this feat or your 9-11 rogue maybe having access to improved invisibility, when you could just be a ninja and have it built into your class by level 8? Answer: You dont.

In Pathfinder society I play an elf wizard (Conjuration) Teleportation Subschool

Being able to design a combat around your specific school is pretty hilarious, tacticly speaking with greater spell focus and well say a 22 intelligence or so by level 8 I sling out an Auqeous Orb which requires dc 21 reflex saves or owns like the entire fight in one or maybe two rounds.

Other spells this school sports are the pit spells, their funny, the key to them is environment change, though not my favorite.

Of coarse, Teleportation of all kinds especially that awesome school ability set.

some awesome spell choices...
Cloudkill-
Web-
Glitterdust-
Solid Fog-
MVP goes to Auqeous Orb though.

Believe it or not I actually choose to sacrifice invocation and also Divination in favor of being the super controller, it seems far more powerful than some sort of nuke machine, and divination while of coarse useful requires a few things the most glaring is preperation, think about it, you kind of need to know you want to be able to cast it, perhaps its just my playstyle but anytime theres anything more than a simple det magic involved I always want to go away and scry it later or some such thing, never on the spot. But Ill let you decide.

Not listing anything from ultimate magic but there may be more spells there as well.

I'm going to call you out on one of your lies here and now.

This thread is labeled Vanishing Trick = Obnoxious AND Overpowered.

Obnoxious: annoying to deal with.
No big deal here. A guy getting to go invisible whenever he wants does sound annoying.
Overpowered: for the cost you get more out of it than you have any right to, and it unbalances the game somewhat.
Because if it doesn't unbalance the game, this is important, b]it isn't overpowered[/b]. Period. Saying otherwise is to contradict yourself.

The fighter's weapon training mimics spells that you can also stack on it, to make things worse feats also stack on that. Magic Fang, this is probably the worst example.
The Barbarian's rage mimics a spell, gets better than that spell could ever hope to be, and it starts better that spell. Rage.
The Bard's performance mimics a spell, gets better than that spell could ever hope to be, and it stacks with that spell. Prayer....sorta, though it can actually mimic several spells instead of just one, which makes it even better than that.
So on and so forth.

The ninja getting to use a 1st level spell, only better than it could ever hope to be, is not an unusual thing, it's just part of the class, and your job as a GM is to deal with it one way or another, even if it's the worst possible way: disallowing the class.

Let me offer a Dm's Perspective, If it were me dealing with this, first of all I do feel its to good, and wouldnt allow it lol. but that statement aside since its not relevant...

First Understand that many times the melee support classes ,which is undoubtedly what the ninja/rogue is, are damage mitigators. From my perspective as a dm this means a couple things...ie measured response.

1) The ninja may be safe a great majority of the time, true, that aside where is the damage going he may otherwise have suffered?
Well if its me probably the next most eligible target, spellcaster etc.

2) If I cant see you there a couple of considerations you may not be making, for example enemy spellcasters for the most part arent stupid and wont hesitate to even the playing field, why not even the playing field with a simple deeper darkness, or fog effect? Or any number of responses. Or I can cast fly and invalidate you.

3)Lastly we must consider environment, speaking from experience... either your in a home campaign and your gonna get booed out the door if your build doesnt match the table power level, or your playing organized play and if you have the coolest toys at the table you have to explain everything you do in intimate detail = to players at table + gm # of times because for some reason they have all forgotten how to read english. :)

Anyways there you have it.

You cant mix invisible and shadow clones, it doesn't work if the clones are invisible xP

Lol oh shut it, it just means that you and your team of 1d4 +1 shadows pop out of invisibility to make my order of operations even more defensive, like shenobi. BAMF!

*Ninja Vanish*

Cynis_Kaden wrote:

And If I cant answer that question , and I cant, then theres something wrong with the ninja.

... or there's something wrong with the rogue, which is what some of the wizard comments upthread were about. If the ninja exploits these tricks and ends up contributing on an equal basis with the wizard, cleric, druid, and barbarian, then the ninja is spot-on. If they all eclipse the rogue, well, then there you go.

Or, as someone said upthread, "don't nerf the ninja; buff the rogue."

On the flip side, if the ninja is actually outperforming a wizard or cleric or barbarian across a large level range (which I do not for a second believe at this time, but would be willing to re-evaluate if enough evidence were provided), THEN we could consider the ninja to be "overpowered."

Incidently You cant compare ninja to anything but rogue, to do so is like comparing apples and firetrucks,(same color different purpose) ie barbarians do damage, so do ninjas but we cant take it, they can... so to sum up this paragraph we really should only compare to a rogue.

Comparison is simple, I do not believe that anyone will be able to make an argument that a rogue is in any way more valuable than a ninja currently that I cannot counter.

As we have access to all the same things effectively the bonus powers are so glaringly in the favor of the ninja due to positive effect , I look at the ninja and read VT then i realize im losing evasion , and I dont care at all...

Then I realize I can do all the same things as a rogue, I can still take trapfinder, still locate and disarm traps , ultimately I replace the rogue because normally what we as players do is weigh the choice of class based on role/effect , I can do the rogues job, but he sure as heck cant do mine, thats the problem I have with the ninja.

To be me the rogue has to get a 7th lev wizard ally, for me to fill his role, I have to dedicate a single talent. Thats a huge difference for a simple role reversal, making ninja amazing.

Cynis_Kaden wrote:

Though you have to admit its alot funnier if you do it like this,

first round of combat, strike however you need to then go invisible, to of coarse enjoy all the defensive applications, then on following round the procedure is simple.

1. Move wherever you want
2. Strike oppenent however appropriate (ie full attack or single whatever)
3. Go invisible again.

So after round one each leading attack would include your sneak attack damage and you would still always benefit from the defensive properties of invisibility.

Thus we discover ninja is way to good. LOL.

Works even better with shadow clones a acrobatics master, plus if you don't need AM you can pop a Ki for an extra attack. Really it has nothing to do with VT, this is just how the ninja class was meant to operate.

Oh! I didnt even think about that , if you did want to make my formulae even more defensive you could essentially sacrifice your entire first round to setup, pop shadow clones, go invisible then move to your best setup locale.

Round two , attack then go invisible, etc.

This sounds really ninja like but I think the biggest issue with ninja is I look at it, ans assuming they print it this way I think to myself...

"Hey self, Why would I ever play a rouge again?"

And If I cant answer that question , and I cant, then theres something wrong with the ninja.

P.s. btw my current pathfinder party dream team is like 4 ninjas exactly as weve been talking about, A cleric with the trickery domain and a fae/ghost dual blood sorcerer with invisibility of both types, because it make me laugh, so very much. :)

Cynis_Kaden wrote:

A couple of points Id like to make , there is absolutely nothing ineffiecient about a combatant attacking from invisibility if hes a two weapon fighter , so again id agree with Erik here, dont forget to calculate the bonus you get from attacking from invisibility. Im sorry I just dont see how its inneficient to always be guaranteed your sneak attack and gain free bonuses to hit.

I would say rather the one and only weakness to sneak attack is activating its use, and the power that only requires a (swift) action guarantees it goes off every time, thats huge.

The issue being discussed is based on the OP's assesment of the character 'always' being invisible. If you are spending most of an encounter with vanishing trick then you are not full attacking. To make BEST use of vanishing trick you have to move so the enemy doesnt know where you are. I am not saying vanishing trick isnt an awesome or useful ability. I am disputing the OP's actual position, that vanishing trick is overpowered and obnoxious because the dm cant readily deal with it.

Either the character is full attacking and thus not staying invisible (you still gain a bonus ofcourse but not what the OP is talking about) or you are going invisible, sneaking around, attacking and going invisible again. The ninja is capable of either, but not at the same time.

Though you have to admit its alot funnier if you do it like this,

first round of combat, strike however you need to then go invisible, to of coarse enjoy all the defensive applications, then on following round the procedure is simple.

1. Move wherever you want
2. Strike oppenent however appropriate (ie full attack or single whatever)
3. Go invisible again.

So after round one each leading attack would include your sneak attack damage and you would still always benefit from the defensive properties of invisibility.

Thus we discover ninja is way to good. LOL.

Cynis_Kaden wrote:

I think I missed something, Why cant I full attack from greater invisibility? Or are you refering to standard invisibility?

Yes, we're talking about the standard invis granted by Vanishing Trick. You can use it with a TWF full attack, but only the first attack is going to get the SA bonus (unless of course you're flanking anyway).

Agreed , and to that point I say I dont see much difference between a ninja of 7th lev and below and an quivalent rogue except rogues get evasion at lev 2 not 12 lol

I guess they had to take something away from our boys cause that 8th level jump in power is freakin amazing.

Kolokotroni wrote:

If you wanna say the ninja has more tools, and more versatile tools then the rogue? I am on board with you. My point is that using vanishing trick is incompatable with what is the ninjas best method of attack (two weapon fighting in a flanking position). He cant make the best use of both at the same time. So his overall ability to hurt things goes down (hence inefficient).

Except that his ability to hurt things doesn't go down (unless for some reason he decides to rely exclusively on hitting things when invisible) since, again, he can still flank and TWF whenever convenient. What actually happens is that his tactical options go up (which means that he inflicts damage in more circumstances and can put the damage where it will be more effective).

Yes, he can't do TWF full attacks while invisible. But invisibility does help him get into flanking position more easily for those TWF full attacks,and it certainly in no way detracts from his ability to do them. Now he just has more options when flanking isn't convenient, or when striking harder to reach targets (albeit for less damage) would be more efficient/effective (as it frequently is in the case of casters and ranged attackers).

I think I missed something, Why cant I full attack from greater invisibility? Or are you refering to standard invisibility?

Kolokotroni wrote:

If you wanna say the ninja has more tools, and more versatile tools then the rogue? I am on board with you. My point is that using vanishing trick is incompatable with what is the ninjas best method of attack (two weapon fighting in a flanking position). He cant make the best use of both at the same time. So his overall ability to hurt things goes down (hence inefficient).

Except that his ability to hurt things doesn't go down (unless for some reason he decides to rely exclusively on hitting things when invisible) since, again, he can still flank and TWF whenever convenient. What actually happens is that his tactical options go up (which means that he inflicts damage in more circumstances and can put the damage where it will be more effective).

Yes, he can't do TWF full attacks while invisible. But invisibility does help him get into flanking position more easily for those TWF full attacks,and it certainly in no way detracts from his ability to do them. Now he just has more options when flanking isn't convenient, or when striking harder to reach targets (albeit for less damage) would be more efficient/effective (as it frequently is in the case of casters and ranged attackers).

A couple of points Id like to make , there is absolutely nothing ineffiecient about a combatant attacking from invisibility if hes a two weapon fighter , so again id agree with Erik here, dont forget to calculate the bonus you get from attacking from invisibility. Im sorry I just dont see how its inneficient to always be guaranteed your sneak attack and gain free bonuses to hit.

I would say rather the one and only weakness to sneak attack is activating its use, and the power that only requires a (swift) action guarantees it goes off every time, thats huge.

Ok I think forgotten trick is way too OP since with it you can have vanish or any other trick that you want, in fact I will be multiclassing my ninja with other OP combinations from now on!

This always happens in the I think this is over-powered threads...

I have seen a couple of good arguments, from ability to deal damage, to comparison with spellcasters,etc that seem to indicate the power is not too powerful.....

How about the limitations
1. self only
2. costs ki (limited)
3. it very inefficient for combat
4. versus mooks or 1 BBEG

Trol... ;)

How about the limitations

2. costs ki (limited)(truth, but as this may be limited its not so limited that I cant be invisible when it matters,it just pushes me into a management decision, which is easy,(if combat looks good do not use ki),so this point is irrelevant)

3. it very inefficient for combat (not to argue every single point but I think it being a swift action by virtue of its applied intention makes it VERY combat efficient, if im missing your point here please explain)

4. versus mooks or 1 BBEG (Really it doesnt matter that much damage with decent to hit modifiers are gonna put down mooks or a big baddy , I dont think it matters.)

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Erick Wilson wrote:

Answer: Those that are not patently absurd.

Answer: He is not a True Scotsman.

Cute, but an inaccurate reference as I have not requalified any statement I have made thus far in order to accommodate for new information that rendered the statement unfactual. Now, are you done? Would you like to actually make a point? Propose a counterargument?

Erik my brother my man my friend, lemme help you out, what all of these people wanna know if ya jive is why the ninja is the mack daddy of all that you claim, I understand you I sympathize with you and I wanna help explain because quite frankly if they cant see it (might be that vanishing trick problem ;P ) then well help them to.

here is the recipe

(mild issue but) Vanishing trick being a swift action, awesome.

Okay so obviously the first time I get an action im greater invisible, nice.

second im an 8th level ninja with a 4d6 sneak attack. for the sake of argument well use a 20 point buy like pathfinder society.

str-10 (who needs str damage or to hit when I can weapon finesse and im adding +4d6 to every attack guaranteed)

dex-22 (hell even humans can get here these days)

con-12

int-7

wis-10

cha-14

If I were pure combat this is my build, so my ki is good, obviously we take extra ki and were off. (this is assuming lev 4 and 8 stat boosts are in dex)

So this is what I think Erik is trying to say, the ninjas can combat build say in this human example, I still get an awesome amount of skills , I can still take trapfinding to be a good rogue, Im still invisible when it matters through proper Ki management, and im doing (say with combat trick applied at lev 8 for that second off hand attack) 4 attacks around , even with no magic on weapons or spells on me other than the vanishing trick itself of coarse I can deal out 20d6 of damage a round, probably wont hit with all four but...

Shoot my main attacks are at

Main + 12

Main +12

and then 2 secondarys at +7 , again no magic mods or invisibility bonuses applied here. You can all do the math.

Fundamentally its the fact that I really dont have to sacrifice anything from my rogue parts that makes this crazy, a few skill points maybe, otherwise what do I lose? And so all roleplay arguments aside this is clearly pretty abusive.

i cant believe this post is still going. But damn would i like to hear some designer oppinions on this.

Especially the rake as part of the charge thing, as in my reading you are only allowed to rake if your bite attack succeds and you succefully grapple during the pounce. This is ofcourse still very good, but albeit a bit weaker than the other interpretation.

It also makes way more sense if we look at a real life lion. Considering the rake attacks is the back claws, then it would only ever use them even when charging, if it actually had a bite/ grab on the victim. Atleast thats what animal planet tells me (probably not that reliable)

Still flagging this for FAQ though

Pounce definition, heres what pounce says...

"Pounce (ex) When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability)."

Let me put it this way , this says im rolling to hit 5 times with a pouncing lion, and quite frankly if you want to give me a free grapple with the possibiity of attacking with the rakes if I hit, If I were the druid player in question I would take that ruling every time with a smile, because in my personal opinion you have made this more powerful with that.

1)I never said or implied that you came back to "natural" biped form when going from one wildshape to another. I did say that one effect ended and another began. In that split second where you stopped being a foam horse...

Okay if your not implying that there is a shift back and one form ends and another begins as you say then it seems to me the transition is seemless, all previous gear melds as the spell states and were done here.

The rules point put your type does not change. He is not an animal. The item points out to work it must be affixed to hooves.

The rules do not give a damn you are tying to loophole. You do not have hooves, the items do not function. The shoes must be affixed and outward. Once they meld they are no longer affixed to hooves. {also you crippled yourself, but that is besides the point}

Unless you can point me to the page that says you may ignore trigging action of an item you need hooves. You can not wear them on your boots to make them work, what you are trying to say the spell allows would allow you to do such.

As to the belt, well the belt must be worn, the shoes must be placed on hooves {and I assume walked upon or we have em on the 'On your belt" issue}. They simply are not the same thing, one boots stats if worn,the other gives you movement if shod on hooves.

simply put the item itself requires hooves to work.

I understand what your saying, and all im saying is its a constant effect item and per polymorph no longer needs to be worn to gain the effect. Polymorph in fact removes the requirement of wearing the item within its text.

Cynis_Kaden wrote:

Okay Paizo Core Rulebook page 51 Wildshape section, paragraph 1 , which defines what he/she must do to use the power:

"Wild Shape (Su): At 4th level, a druid gains the ability to
turn herself into any Small or Medium animal and back
again once per day. Her options for new forms include
all creatures with the animal type. This ability functions
like the beast shape I spell, except as noted here. The effect
lasts for 1 hour per druid level, or until she changes back.
Changing form (to animal or back) is a standard action
and doesn’t provoke an attack of opportunity. The form
chosen must be that of an animal with which the druid
is familiar."

So here we see that he may activate the wildshape with these restrictions and per this paragraph he does meet the requirement of activating the wildshape from whatever...

I think hes reading the bolded section as you have to turn into the creature and back again before you can use a second wildshape. If I were a GM in a home game this is exactly how I would interpret it, in order to remove all the confusing judgment calls the other way is now bringing to the table. However by RAW, it still doesnt seem clear and could be interpreted as either meaning, at least the way I am reading it.

If that is the case I would not support that argument the sentence in reference...

"At 4th level, a druid gains the ability to
turn herself into any Small or Medium animal and back
again once per day"

...says you gain the ability to shift and shift back, it doesnt indicate you have to shift back to any particular form in order to shift again, rather it means you can shift back to human form without expending a use of the wild shape ability.

Cynis_Kaden wrote:

No im afraid this argument is incorrect.

No it is not. You can not use wands if you can not trigger them, the shoes must be on hooves. If they are not on hooves they simply do not work.

You no longer meet the triggering effect requirement for said item. You can try and say it does still meet the requirement but this is simply false.

You simply no longer meet the trigging condition of the item.

Okay now your attempting to say your right without sighting any sort of reference, please dont argue aimlessly, you are saying he does not meet the "triggering effect".

However to clarify my point further I am not "trying to say" anything I am pointing out the rules not my opinion of them.

#1 Polymorph states that items worn in the previous form meld into the new one and continue to function as long as thier effect is a continuous one, this is something contained within the polymorph ruleset.

#2 Again I pose the question contained within my previous post, Are you saying the Belt of dex would cease to function? Its the same idea your trying to present about the horshoes, so defend your argument by referencing why polymorphs gear stipulation on melding does not apply or further more how my belt example and your horshoe example are different dont just say im wrong.

I would encourage anyone else with feedback on this idea to speak up if they feel my argument is incorrect

Cynis_Kaden wrote:

What it does say within the wording of the power is that the druid activates it and shifts into a new form, there is no restriction that says the druid must stop shift back to his original form and then shift to a new desired form.

Within the printed limitations of wild form I see no reason why they cant , because the statement of "The druid may change" and any subsequent reference in the power does not somehow create the need for him to be in his original form.

- He is still a druid of the appropriate level.

- He still has uses of the power left.

Since he still fulfills these two basic requirements and the power says he can use it, there is no reason to believe he cannot do this.

And Further I sighted a page # in the hopes you might quote a rule or make a reference in regards to your argument, so to clarify, please do so.

Like I said above, apparently our page 51s are different, I cited three different passages you couldn't find and because I can't find your quotation, "The druid may change" anywhere in my Core Rulebook.

Please indicate where to find any mention of changing directly from one form to another.

Okay Paizo Core Rulebook page 51 Wildshape section, paragraph 1 , which defines what he/she must do to use the power:

"Wild Shape (Su): At 4th level, a druid gains the ability to
turn herself into any Small or Medium animal and back
again once per day. Her options for new forms include
all creatures with the animal type. This ability functions
like the beast shape I spell, except as noted here. The effect
lasts for 1 hour per druid level, or until she changes back.
Changing form (to animal or back) is a standard action
and doesn’t provoke an attack of opportunity. The form
chosen must be that of an animal with which the druid
is familiar."

So here we see that he may activate the wildshape with these restrictions and per this paragraph he does meet the requirement of activating the wildshape from whatever form he is in at the time because the power does not set down any other requirement.

Now personally I wouldn't worry about it as a GM after all Shoeing a horse takes considerable time and isn't something you're going to do on a regular basis in the middle of an adventure as well as something of the rule of fun kicking in too from my perspective.

Agreed completely he should be made to pay for the shoeing cost per adventure assuming a party member isnt a blacksmith or some such thing...Excellent point Sir. :)

The horse shoes may or may not meld, but they Need hooves to function. They simply do not work unless they on on hooves. Or they would work in backpacks or on belts. The items itself says "when affixed to hooves" If they are not on Hooves they do not work.

This example is poor in my opinion. heres why...

I Fully agree that it does indeed say "when affixed to the animals hooves" here is the question, since they were attached to his hooves and then he wildshapes away from that form and into another which now does not have hooves, by your definition the horshoes would cease to function because he no longer fulfils that requirement.

I dont think so ...as wild shape stipulates that the items of continual effect still work when melded into the new form.

A further example:

You dont have it on your waist anymore when you go from druid to animal but you still get your Belt of dex which states clearly "Grants the wearer" by your logic he is no longer "the wearer" of the belt... in this scenario in fact all continuous effect items state something similar so by your logic nothing would work in animal form, and then of coarse what was the point of the developers making such a reference in the polymorph effect.

No im afraid this argument is incorrect.

What it does say within the wording of the power is that the druid activates it and shifts into a new form, there is no restriction that says the druid must stop shift back to his original form and then shift to a new desired form.

Within the printed limitations of wild form I see no reason why they cant , because the statement of "The druid may change" and any subsequent reference in the power does not somehow create the need for him to be in his original form.

- He is still a druid of the appropriate level.

- He still has uses of the power left.

Since he still fulfills these two basic requirements and the power says he can use it, there is no reason to believe he cannot do this.

And Further I sighted a page # in the hopes you might quote a rule or make a reference in regards to your argument, so to clarify, please do so.

[b]Question Three: Should Absorbed Items Remain Absorbed?

Researching the rules as written, I find the following reference in the PRD: About Transmutation Magic:

When you cast a polymorph spell that changes you into a creature of the animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin type, all of your gear melds into your body. Items that provide constant bonuses and do not need to be activated continue to function while melded in this way (with the exception of armor and shield bonuses, which cease to function). Items that require activation cannot be used while you maintain that form.

This passage’s wording supports the idea that items meld at the time a spell is cast (or wildshape first assumed). A later passage places some limits:

You can only be affected by one polymorph spell at a time. If a new polymorph spell is cast on you (or you activate a polymorph effect, such as wild shape), you can decide whether or not to allow it to affect you, taking the place of the old spell.

This passage indicates that one can only benefit from the effects of one polymorph at one time. The merged gear from a previous polymorph effect (wildshape, in this case) would be a benefit from that previous effect and would not remain absorbed. Since it does not fit the current form, it would thus fall off.

A couple of things I would like to touch on here...

There is a large list of assumptions being made we need to clear up. Sir Wulf has referenced some very important things I.e. the rules surrounding polymorph and choose to believe it or not they all support the druid player in question.

"You can only be affected by one polymorph spell at a time. If a new polymorph spell is cast on you (or you activate a polymorph effect, such as wild shape), you can decide whether or not to allow it to affect you, taking the place of the old spell"

This is indicating the effects of the spells do not stack and that only one form may exist at one time, VERY important distinction and also clearly in reference to the forms themselves, not the items that they may meld with them. what this says is you effectively may not have the swim speed of a fish and gain the fly speed of a bird.

Now just because this druid is going from one form of animal to another doesnt mean that there is a split second where they are not the horse and also not the lion, that would indicate a shift back to human form which im afraid just isnt true. This is a poor justification that does not exist within the rules of wild shape. What does exist is truly quite simple.

#1 No wild shape benefits are stacking here the player is in fact losing all benefits of horse and gaining all benefits of his new lion form.

#2 I see no reason to believe the horshoes fall off in fact the polymorph rules specifically cover what gear melds into the new form and what gear does not. The Horshoes clearly fall under gear that melds into the form.

#3 Lastly I would like to say this, I understand why you want it to work this way , its lame and frankly I think its abusive.

Abusive but correct. The horseshoes meld into the new form and function as the player believes.

mln84 wrote:

Regarding the horseshoes question:

I have almost no experience with druids (was out of gaming for a long while and then none played in our game), so this might be an accepted thing, but does wildshape let a druid change directly from one animal to another? To me, it says you can turn into an animal and back to normal so many times per day. But I get that this just might be one of those things that "everybody knows because we've been doing it for years".

Hmmm. I think everyone is assuming (I know I did) that change into an animal or back is just fluff text rather than rules text. The rules text being contained in beast shape. However, a strict reading does not reveal anywhere it says you can change from one animal to another.

There is no assumption of any kind here, you have a number of times per day you may shift. when you choose to enact a shift is up to you and can absolutely be performed while already in a form other than your base form. This type of very basic question should never really provoke a rules discussion, though I would encourage you to read the section regarding Wild shape.

Pg. 51 paizo core rulebook , According to the Wild shape power the druid may change shape and do so within the listed limitation of her level etc. But there is no mention of needing to be in her base form to activate another Wild Shape.

3) No, the gear you are wearing as a humanoid when you change to another shape via wildshape merges. The gear you put on once wildshaped typically falls off when you are no longer polymorphed. Polymorph effects don't stack, only one can be in effect at a time, so the gear you are wearing when you are a horse drops off when you activate wildshape again (old effect ends, new effect begins). Your humanoid gear stays merged and you have a new form with the gear you had equiped in the old form laying on the ground around you.

Would you mind sighting your source of this idea...im just not seeing anything about the gear falling off, no implication in the polymorph rules or the wildshape ability.

Boldstar said:

Please reference page 461 paizo core rulebook, Armor section, paragraph 1 sentence 2...and I quote...

"Magic armor bonuses are enhancement bonuses, never rise above +5, and stack with regular armor bonuses."

Additional powers are defined further on page 462 as "special abilities"...please reference the polymorph rules and note that no such special abilities are removed. As such the rhino hide maintains its damage bonuses on the charge.

Regarding the horshoes...

I think one change in perspective that would help in determining whether or not the horseshoes work. Ask yourself, do I as a GM beleive they would work if he turned into a beaver, a snake or a bird? What about a fish? Paws are not hooves, so if they work for a lion, they should work for any wildshaped animal form. I think it unlikely that the designers planned for a snake or fish or bird to use horseshoes of speed. It seems that the issue is clouded by the fact he changed into another quadruped from a horse. If he changed into a plant creature, would they still work, or an elemental? By that logic, he could change into an elf if hes human and retain their use as well.

I don't believe this was intended to be a wildshape haste device at all, but rather allow PC classes with mounts as Animal companions to perform extraordinarily. It also says "animal" not creature or outsider, or fey, so technically a nightmare or centaur could not wear then either. I seriously doubt that even a druid in horse-form was intended to wear them by the description.

My apologies red but I must dispell this thought imediately , this is not a question of intention, thi is at its core a rule argument , no one here will argue that this is a rules lawyer move or a cheesy idea, we need to reference pages or site some sort of functional argument.

I think we have beaten to death the idea that if this were presented at a home campaign it would be laughed off the gaming table, rather than arguing intention please disprove it.

And so again I say this...

here is the question, since they were attached to his hooves and then he wildshapes away from that form do they cease to function? I dont think so as wild shape stipulates that the items of continual effect still work, another rules example would be that you dont have it on your waist anymore when you go from druid to animal but you still get your Belt of dex which states clearly "Grants the wearer" in fact all continuous effect items state something similar so by your logic nothing would work in animal form.

And to take it a step further and arguing against your Intension based point of view, (As per my belt of dex example) Why would the developers have written this ability into the polymorph rules if items not intended for the resulting form would the just not function anyway.

Okay. Easy ruling on the armor. If you are looking for a literal reading of the rules, it says that all bonuses for armor and shields cease to function... All bonuses. It doesn't say all bonuses to ac. So, by the letter of the law, any kind of bonus (including the charge bonus) would fail.

But it doesnt say all bonuses , if it did this interpretation would carry wieght... it says, "all Armor Bonuses" in reference to the AC bonus magical armor gives you, then goes on to specifically state that the continuous effects will continue to operate, hence the argument.

Okay a couple new points of interest.

1) Rhino hide issue, At this point I understand your point though I dont agree , We can obviously argue this till were blue in the face with no result, it would be helpful if we had a developer ruling. :)

2) Horseshoes of speed issue, I have to agree that it does indeed say "when affixed to the animals hooves" here is the question, since they were attached to his hooves and then he wildshapes away from that form do they cease to function? I dont think so as wild shape stipulates that the items of continual effect still work, you dont have it on your waist anymore when you go from druid to animal but you still get your Belt of dex which states clearly "Grants the wearer" in fact all continuous effect items state something similar so by your logic nothing would work in animal form.

3) Pounce definition, heres what pounce says...

"Pounce (ex) When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability)."

Let me put it this way , this says im rolling to hit 5 times with a pouncing lion, and quite frankly if you want to give me a free grapple with the possibiity of attacking with the rakes if I hit, I will take that ruling every time with a smile.

1)Fortification armor works 100% of the time. It is designed to activate every time a critical hit or sneak attack affects it's wearer and it does that every time. Whether it blocks the damage or not isn't it's power, merely that it constantly grants the fortification effect to it's user. That is what makes it a constant effect, it requires no action on it's wearers part to use it.

2)This is where we are disagreeing, I'm of the opinion that because there is a standard action involved in getting the effect to work that fulfills the requirement of making it use-activated. You seem to be of the opinion that since it doesn't state you must use X action to use this ability then it's a constant effect. Both aguments seem to have merit but only one of them can be right, until a Dev weighs in we will have to agree to disagree.

Hello there Sir_Wulf :)

okay @ Mathwei ap Niall

1) let me show you something ...

Rhino hide armor works 100% of the time. It is designed to activate every time a charge attack affects it's target and it does that every time. Whether it adds damage or not isn't it's power, merely that it constantly grants the +2d6 damage effect to it's user. That is what makes it a constant effect, it requires no action on it's wearers part to use it(Notice any similarities to the by the quote from you posted above?)

My example here is an attempt to show you your argument is circular and does not support itself, I disprove your example by showing you further proof, IF in fact the fortification armor in this example is not use activated as YOU claim and instead provides a blanket effect because of this sentence.

"Whenever the wearer is hit by a critical hit"

Then by the same token why can the rhino hide not be a blanket effect if you gain benefit from this one.

"Whenever the wearer makes a successful charge attack"

2)And here you are attempting to apply rules from one section of the book to another...you say and I quote...

"I'm of the opinion that because there is a standard action involved in getting the effect to work that fulfills the requirement of making it use-activated"

however in an earlier post you said this...

"Activation: Usually a character benefits from magic armor
and shields in exactly the way a character benefits from
nonmagical armor and shields: by wearing them. If armor or
a shield has a special ability that the user needs to activate,
then the user usually needs to utter the command word (a
standard action)."

-first off there is no such command word needed for rhino hide , no support for this argument there...second the standard action requirement is directly qouted by you to be tied to the activation of the item not to the action that might benefit from it, Im sorry sir but you have disproved your own theory.

Okay so far the majority consensus seems to be this.

1) Rhino hide does grant the +2d6 damage per attack but we dont neccesarily like it.

2) The horshoe trick works but we think its kinda dumb and cheesy.

3 and Pounce functions for all 5 attacks on the charge.

So essentially when we focus on just the rules, It works.

I havent seen any arguments to disprove the theory yet without any of the fluff or intension arguments that is.

So those who think druids can absorb multiple sets of gear are perfectly ok with a lvl 20 druid absorbing infinite amounts of gear? as they can wildshape at will. I can't wait to roll up a druid in your game.... no need to buy much upgraded gear when i can just stack as much as I want. And I can wear all types of gear, for any type of creature I can turn into no matter my current form!

Okay first off,

The number of times you ploymorph is not relevant at all, the polymorph WILL by virtue of its function always absorb all gear that meets the criteria from the previous form so how much gear you absorb is up to you and what you choose to wear...

And secondly,

And there again there is no limit to what you could then wear but as the Magic item Rules do in fact state quite clearly that you may have only one functioning magic item per slot that your character has, it wouldnt take much of a gm to figure out how to handle that situation.

From the magic section:

"When you cast a polymorph spell ... all of your gear melds into your body. "

Note that melding occurs when you cast the spell, not when the spell ends. Polymorph spells have no effect when their duration ENDS. So he polymorphs into the horse, puts the shoes on. Then when the spell ENDS (when he takes human form) the horseshoes are on the ground at his feet.

If things melded into you when ended the effect you could polymorph into another form then meld all your items into your body and run around naked getting all the benefits of the items even though you have no active spell.

Do we as Gms have the right in organized play to arbitrarily say a magic item doesn’t work in said fashion?
GMs have an OBLIGATION to run the rules in the way that makes sense to the game and their local group. The rules are intended to be read and interpreted by people with brains and judgment, not applied blindly. Hyrum and Mark KNOW this and have said specifically that GMs are the ultimate arbitrators about these rules questions in local games.

#1 The question is not if he keeps the horse shoes in human form thats irrelivant to the current discussion we wish to know if he keeps them while forming from horse while wearing the shoes directly to lion , he never becomes human to clarify.

#2 Thank you for the clarification but we are aware of that, The fact that we step into role as the game master implies it, my comment was meant to provoke reaction and if we are meant to take that much authority over the game during society play then so be it, then we need to hash it oout here so we come to common understanding.

In this weekend's game, I discussed these issues further with the druid's player. He stated that using "absorbed" horseshoes of speed has been discussed before on the Paizo boards and the developers supported it as legit.

I couldn't find any such discussion: Have you guys seen one?

It seems to me these three issues are very clear and almost everyone has strayed from the original question including to a very large extent sir wulf that posed the original question.

Let me first say that I am not going to entertain any of the comments on game balance because quite frankly none of its balanced or in the spirit of fun or even particularly fluffy, if that’s your question then more power to you, and as a GM of extensive experience I would simply tell this player to play something else in whatever home campaign he is playing.

In organized play however we as GM's do not have that luxury so lets focus up this thread....DOES IT WORK? YES OR NO? These are the pertinent questions that sir wulf has posed. And so we attempt to disprove the players opinion of how it functions, to educate the player that it does not work that way, we point out page #'s and advise on how to do things in the correct manner...and If we cannot...then im afraid we must admit the player is correct.

#1 the rhino hide trick, Okay the only reason this possibly may not work is if you believe that the rhino hide is use activated, this is what I like to call a grey area and I believe we should get a ruling on it because it is the only part about it that’s in any way unclear. Otherwise unfortunately due to the wording of rhino hide im afraid +10d6 on the pounce while again unbalanced and truly unfortunate is a reality.

#2 The horse shoe issue, I can see why people don’t want this to work and again yes its lame and not in the spirit...however I have poured over the rules and assuming that the society is using the polymorph rulings here on these very discussion threads, and they are, and assuming horseshoes are a constant effect item, and they are, and finally assuming the player is a horse wearing said horseshoes and then uses an ability that polymorphs him into said creature(lion) then im afraid this to works as such to grant the lion form the bonus movement.

#3 finally the issue of pounce is mute and completely clear...assuming you actually read pounce that is.

Do we as Gms have the right in organized play to arbitrarily say a magic item doesn’t work in said fashion? Even if overpowered? Sir Wulf raises an interesting point where he says he will honor only the +2d6 for one attack, and in a home campaign I quite frankly would do the same...but the point many of you are missing is...this is not a home campaign. This is very interesting indeed because from an organized play perspective you need to take into consideration wealth expenditure vs. intended effect, for example, would the player have spent that money on something different if he had known about your house rule ahead of time? Very Likely, and knowing of your house rule after he showed up to your game day doesn’t change the fact that the rhino hide if on some old log sheet and cant be changed, just offering some devils advocate perspective gentleman.