Dagwood96's page

Playtested the feats-- everything went well. I'm going to use them in my main game now, thanks for the advice guys!

Damn it, I got the flu. I had to cancel the session, and now have to wait three weeks until we have time to play again.

I've already made the prestige class, so it's done and dusted already. If he prefers an archetype, he can say so, although I'd have to work out what to swap out for what.

I've not played with a map for years. I used to, but I couldn't afford the different figures, and didn't have the inclination to make them.

Now it's almost the same story-- I never have the time to write out a full adventure, so most combat encounters are just a list of enemies I wrote down in a few minutes (probably even during the session). The whole tactical layout is made up on the fly.

I still use cover, concealment, difficult terrain and that sort of thing, but we generally use a more narrative approach to combat. I've found describing exact distances and terrain features slows down the game too much.

From time to time we use a simple sketch if I make a complex dungeon layout (something I've avoided doing since we went mapless), and there's the occasional discussion, but combat goes well enough that I wouldn't think of going back to using maps regularly.

I'll likely head in a similar direction however if the feats turn out to be too powerful.

So, as you can see, I've tried pretty much everything at this point. I'll try to balance the feats as best I can; if they don't work out, I've already made a more spell caster-oriented version of Mammoth Rider, and anyone who is more martially inclined can take Mammoth Rider.

I've already talked about Mammoth Rider, and he doesn't want it, for the most part because there's no spellcasting advancement for the class.

I'll bear all of these ideas in mind, the play-test is organized for next Sunday.

We'll see. I'll talk about it with them tomorrow.

Okay, so what about having skill focus (handle animal) as a feat, with handle animal checks for huge and gargantuan animals made at a +5 DC.

I'd also require Endurance to be taken by the companion.

I don't want to put many more requirements, just for the sake of simplicity.

That's true, I'll have a play around with it.

Sure, I'll take your word for it. Summoners are one class I don't have a lot of experience with.

For now, I've put the statistical changes suggested by Lady-J, and I've thrown in skill focus (knowledge nature) as a tax. We'll try that out.

It may be that it's too powerful (especially with +6 to str and con at gargantuan), but it has it's own drawbacks, and I can always tone it down it if gets too much.

Okay, I'll bear that in mind.

The reason why I'm staying away from Animal Growth is simply because my player wants the size increase to be the "real thing". Permanencied Animal Growth is certainly an option (and one I've mentioned), but if the player wants to go that route that's entirely up to him.

When it comes to my group, they all have carte-blanche (within reason) when creating their characters, and I have to keep up and provide a decent sandbox for it all. I've always played by that philosophy, and despite the nightmares it sometimes lands me in, the players always enjoy it. I consider it a nice challenge.

Alright. Thanks everyone-- I'm not expecting an apocalypse: I'm pretty good at unorthodox play-styles as far as Pathfinder is concerned, and I'll let you know how it all goes.

Tomorrow I have a normal session, and I'll organize the 'test' session for next week. My sessions are always about 10 hours long, so we'll be able to do plenty of combats and maybe get back to the main campaign as well.

@Lady-J Do you recommend an empty 'tax' feat, or one with an actual use, such as Iron Will or something similar?

In short, I've got a player who wants an adult roc as an animal companion, and I said I'd try to accommodate him (thinking it was an interesting idea). Both of us were very new to Pathfinder at the time, and (several years later) it's finally gotten around to the point where I have to put my money where my mouth is.

If you're wondering why it took me so long, I've had multiple groups since, and am now playing with the same person again.

What I haven't included in my post here is about 2 paragraphs of warning the players away from Huge or larger animal companions, but it's there and they can make what they want of it.

Practically, the druid is set up where he wants to be. He (normally) lives as a hermit in a mountain range where a bunch of rocs live, and he's a member of a druidic order that exists in part to stop the rocs from getting out of hand. There's enough large prey around to keep the rocs satisfied.

I've always controlled the animal companions in our group, and I'm not expecting a size increase to change this.

As for sleeping, that's whatever my player wants. He should have enough money that hiring out a barn won't be an issue by level 10, and sleeping in the mountains will be fine in the Isles (where the party currently are)

I'm mostly just concerned about getting the crunch right at the moment. The rest of the practical issues will either solve themselves or require the players to take some initiative.

These issues will be a lot more pronounced when they leave the Isles, but my group are a resourceful lot, so I have faith in them.

Alright. It's going to be a while though-- the feat (and prestige class) are both for level 10. The party at the minute is level 4.

I'd really like the opportunity to properly play-test this stuff, but I'm studying Engineering at the moment so I only really have Saturdays off.

I've already talked with the player in question, and, against all common sense, this is what he wants-- a permanent, gargantuan adult roc. I've already warned him about all of the baggage that comes with it.

EDIT: Of course, I can just turn around and say 'no' now, but I thought I'd give it a shot first.

The prestige class I've made is 5 levels long, and essentially takes away 2 levels of spell casting and 1 wild shape advancement, in return for a stronger size increase (basically applying the giant simple template). I would however like the ability to have really big companions open to other companion classes as well, hence the two feats.

Yeah I can deal with it. I've already made a prestige class, but I also wanted to see if feats would work.

Hi everyone,
I've got a druid in my group who wants his Roc animal companion to be gargantuan, and so I've decided to make a feat chain for it. What do you think? Are they too weak, too strong?

Improved Animal Companion
Prerequisite: Animal Companion (or similar) feature with an effective druid level of 10, large animal companion.
Benefit: Animal companion becomes Huge by application of the following statistical changes:
Str +2, Dex -2, Con +2, increase size 1 category, increase damage dice for natural attacks 1 category.

Greater Animal Companion
Prerequisite: Improved Animal Companion, effective druid level of 15
Benefit: Animal companion becomes Gargantuan by application of the following statistical changes: Str +2, Dex -2, Con +2, increase size 1 category, increase damage dice for natural attacks 1 category.

I'm worried about the fact that the size increases will confer natural reach on the animal companion (10 ft and 15 ft), and also the +3 increase to CMB that comes with the Greater feat. I'm also not sure whether I should build in a natural armor bonus to counteract the AC decrease due to size, or increase the str bonus to +4 to counteract the -1 to attack with the Greater feat (although this would exacerbate the CMB issue).

These feats will be available to every animal companion that meets the pre-reqs, not just Rocs.

Thanks in advance.

I'm with you on that. Its the second question that needs answering now.

At the risk of sounding thick (been starting threads left, right, and centre recently), can someone clear up dragon crush attacks please?

My first question is, does the dragon have to make a CMB check against each PC to maintain the pin? Or just make one, and each PC compares their CMD against it?

My second question is, what actions can a dragon take while maintaining the pin? Is it like a normal grapple where it can also choose to inflict damage as part of the check(on top of the usual crush damage)? Or does maintaining the pin deny the dragon this?

Personally, I think the answers to these are:
1) The Dragon must make a CMB check against each PC in the pin.
2) It doesn't work like a normal grapple-- the dragon cannot attack or use its breath weapon while maintaining a pin. Its just that in a normal grapple, the controller doesn't have to refresh the pin every round, so I'm unsure.

However, I want to check how everyone else runs this.

Thanks.

EDIT: There's a similar thread on EN World, but that's 3.5, so isn't that helpful.

Yeah, I see what you mean now. So, what's the overall consensus? Are there any improvements or changes I should make to keep it balanced? Should I dump the lot and go back to normal grappling rules? Or do you think it will work fine as is? I GMed a session on Friday, but no-one grappled, so I didn't get a chance to see the rules in action.

Thanks, Ciaran. I hope the application of feats should counter the monster empowerment using my version of the grapple rules.

I know the ability to use one-handed weapons will take some edge from the PCs, but from what I know of medieval grappling, it was developed for when the fighting became too close to use normal weapons. Thus allowing players to attack normally with longswords, or axes, and in some cases even bastard swords, seems too odd for me. Such weapons need room to be used effectively.

Obviously PC grapplers will use the same rules, and have an advantage over other enemies.

I'm sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you again on some points. First, the intent of greater grapple is to perform two grapple actions, without needing the extra check.

From Greater Grapple.
"You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to grapple a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Grapple. Once you have grappled a creature, maintaining the grapple is a move action. This feat allows you to make two grapple checks each round (to move, harm, or pin your opponent), but you are NOT REQUIRED to make two checks. You only need to succeed at one of these checks to maintain the grapple."

I'm not requiring an extra check to strike someone I've maintained a grapple on. Only to attack outside of the grapple. If they attack outside of the grapple, they cannot do anything inside the grapple, apart from maintain it.

As for the squares, I'm playing without a battle mat, so that isn't a concern for me.

Thanks for the continued advice, however.

Maybe we're reading the rules differently. It wouldn't be equivalent to giving the grappler greater grapple-- he must make the check to maintain the grapple, but cannot damage the target, move them or pin them if they choose to attack outside the grapple. It effectively adds another grapple option, but with an extra check.

I appreciate you can attack outside the grapple when you are being grappled, but being the grappler takes that option away, as maintaining the grapple is a standard action.

I'm not touching the controller part of the grapple, so as you said, that bit's fine. It is an auto hit in grapple, at least as I'm reading it-- crb says you can choose to inflict damage, not make an attack. The attack is part of the standard action check to maintain the grapple.

I still think trying to use a longsword or such is awkward in a grapple-- a shortsword would be a better length.

Still, its nice to see another's opinion on the matter. I suppose what I'll have to do is test it out in a session, and if its broken, I'll change it back.

In my games, I'm contemplating running running grappling and pins a little different from RAW. First, I want to have it so that you can only use light weapons in a grab (instead of light and one-handed), and also so that, if an opponent puts you in a pin, escaping from the pin puts you in a grapple, instead of freeing you completely

Also if the opponent pins you and rolls badly on the maintain check, it swaps to grapple instead of them completely letting go.

Finally, I was going to allow the grappler to make 1 attack outside the grapple in place of a grapple action (damage, move, pin ect.), if they wanted to. The attack outside the grapple would be a normal attack (roll against AC), and the auto-hit inside the grapple as normal.

Does this sound ok? I have yet to implement it, making grappling a bit stronger. However, I don't want to make it completely OP, or alter the balance when it comes to constricting enemies.

Thanks!

Edit: My suggestions take some of their meat from 3.5. I think that as they worked in 3.5, they'll work in PF. Obviously you all have more experience than me though, so let me know if I'm wrong.

I see. I suppose the other thing I can do is to make them lvl 2 warriors, and give them minimal equipment. Then they'd have the same CR as equipped lvl 1 warriors. That'd create some desperate men for me to use.

I see. I'll just use the table as a guide, and give the npcs a realistic amount of equipment and gold.

Thanks again.

That's true for the bandits, then. What about goblins? As I've said, they barely have any equipment. The default goblin has 1 npc class (I think it's warrior but don't hold me to that), giving them a cr of 1/3, by both the CRB and the Bestiary, which is fair. Where does the rest of the gold go though? A leather armour and wooden shield don't add up to 130 gp, as is given in the CRB for protection.

Thanks for the fast reply and advice.

So I'm trying to write up some bandits to ambush the PCs in the woods. Simple enough. They're each human warrior lvl 1, giving them a CR of 1/3. However, for bandits, they get a horrendous amount of gold. 260gp total for gear, personal items, and gold?

Also, does that apply in the same way to every monster without racial HD. For example the default goblin in bestiary 1. Their gear isn't up to much-- leather armour, light wooden shield, short sword, short bow +20 arrows-- but surely that must leave at least 100 gp not spent. Don't tell me the average goblin is meant to have a few potions and a good 40 gp on their person!

I know this is up to GM's discretion, but even RAW, it seems a bit much. Am I missing something?

So, in bestiary 1 there are rules and guidelines for monster creation. If I wanted to make a new animal, are there any rules for making an animal companion version of it?