DeZrog's page

I wanted to clarify the interaction of Magic Vestment in this thread, because I looked around in several places, checked RAW for Magic Armor, and there are some posts that say that magical armor gives extra armor bonus, which is untrue.

The "magical" part of magical armor is an "enhancement bonus", not an armor bonus, so it doesn't stack with Magic Vestment's enhancement bonus. Enhancement bonuses don't stack with each other, but there's a special exception for shields and armor:

Magic Armor bonuses are enhancement bonuses, never rise above +5, and stack with regular armor bonuses (and with shield and magic shield enhancement bonuses).

Shield enhancement bonuses stack with armor enhancement bonuses.

However, Magic Vestment also gives enhancement bonuses:

You imbue a suit of armor or a shield with an enhancement bonus of +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5 at 20th level).

You also cannot use Magic Vestment to give armor special abilities unless the spell specifies it specifically (which it doesn't), because you can't create a suit of armor with special abilities without also adding at least +1 enhancement, which doesn't stack with Magic Vestment.

A suit of armor with a special ability must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.

However, if the armor's enhancement bonus is less than the enhancement bonus provided by Magic Vestment, then you would take the greater of the two bonuses, meaning that if Magic Vestment gave +2 enhancement, and the armor's existing bonus was +1, then you get the better enhancement bonus of +2 (but they don't stack to +3), but the special abilities would still be available.

Because I've seen confusion elsewhere in posts, here's the full answer of why Magic Vestment bonuses don't stack with magic armor bonuses:

RAW for Magic Armor

The "magical" part of magical armor is an "enhancement bonus", not an armor bonus, so it doesn't stack with Magic Vestment's enhancement bonus. Enhancement bonuses don't stack with each other, but there's a special exception for shields and armor:

Magic Armor bonuses are enhancement bonuses, never rise above +5, and stack with regular armor bonuses (and with shield and magic shield enhancement bonuses).

Shield enhancement bonuses stack with armor enhancement bonuses.

However, Magic Vestment also gives enhancement bonuses:

You imbue a suit of armor or a shield with an enhancement bonus of +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5 at 20th level).

You also cannot use Magic Vestment to give armor special abilities unless the spell specifies it specifically (which it doesn't), because you can't create a suit of armor with special abilities without also adding at least +1 enhancement, which doesn't stack with Magic Vestment.

A suit of armor with a special ability must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.

However, if the armor's enhancement bonus is less than the enhancement bonus provided by Magic Vestment, then you would take the greater of the two bonuses, meaning that if Magic Vestment gave +2 enhancement, and the armor's existing bonus was +1, then you get the better enhancement bonus of +2 (but they don't stack to +3), but the special abilities would still be available.

I wanted to clarify the interaction of Magic Vestment in this thread, because I looked around in several places, checked RAW for Magic Armor, and there are some posts that say that magical armor gives extra armor bonus, which is untrue.

The "magical" part of magical armor is an "enhancement bonus", not an armor bonus, so it doesn't stack with Magic Vestment's enhancement bonus. Enhancement bonuses don't stack with each other, but there's a special exception for shields and armor:

Magic Armor bonuses are enhancement bonuses, never rise above +5, and stack with regular armor bonuses (and with shield and magic shield enhancement bonuses).

Shield enhancement bonuses stack with armor enhancement bonuses.

However, Magic Vestment also gives enhancement bonuses:

You imbue a suit of armor or a shield with an enhancement bonus of +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5 at 20th level).

You also cannot use Magic Vestment to give armor special abilities unless the spell specifies it specifically (which it doesn't), because you can't create a suit of armor with special abilities without also adding at least +1 enhancement, which doesn't stack with Magic Vestment.

A suit of armor with a special ability must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.

However, if the armor's enhancement bonus is less than the enhancement bonus provided by Magic Vestment, then you would take the greater of the two bonuses, meaning that if Magic Vestment gave +2 enhancement, and the armor's existing bonus was +1, then you get the better enhancement bonus of +2 (but they don't stack to +3), but the special abilities would still be available.

Did someone mention Poison? I think that's actually a type?

See the 2nd table listed under Natural Attacks for the damage dice progression.

Although, this doesn't make any sense to me, either, as the progression in the top chart is 2d8 to 4d6, but 2d8 to 3d8 in the bottom chart... (if you read the FAQ it says to go up 2 steps on the bottom chart for each size increase). I guess 3d8 is functionally equal to 4d6?

It looks like wouldn't get the acid damage. If you compare to elemental body, that spell specifically mentions getting the burn ability. Acid damage is not something mentioned in the beast shape spells, so I think you would only get the other benefits of being an ooze. Not sure how much sense it makes to turn into a giant glob of acid and then do normal damage, but this is pathfinder; things don't have to make sense.

But it DOES say that you gain the natural attacks, so if those acid attacks aren't listed as "Ex" or "su", wouldn't you get them?

For example, on a Galvo (magical beast)?

Whereas a Black Pudding DOES show the ability as (Ex)...

I'm asking because I couldn't find this answer anywhere...

Nobody has mentioned a Beast Talisman or at least I don't think so. It is expensive but in many ways better than an amulet of Mighty Fists. Deserves to be better known.

Beast Talisman doesn't allow you to bypass material-based DR (e.g. cold iron or adamantine). It says so in the last line of the item description:

The bonus does not allow the wielder’s natural weapons to bypass damage reduction, except for DR/magic.

... although I will agree that just front-loading damage is a way to get past DR...

"You have DR 5? Take 6d8+14 damage... you felt that, right?"

DeZrog wrote:

Do Animal forms with DR also grant you DR? Or they don't because it's an "ability" not listed in the Beast Shape description?

I can't find this anywhere online... but there are hints saying that people DO grant DR to their animal forms.

The OP understood things exactly correct. To your question DeZrog, you have to look at the description in the various polymorph spells and/or Wildshape ability. There is usually a description of perks, bonuses, or abilities that you get on the front end. These are applied to any shape or form you assume with the spell/feature. After that description, there is a list of specific sizes or types of creatures you can become. In that list, you'll see an additional listing of various animal abilities. Regardless of whatever a real/normal animal/monster can do, you only get the abilities of the animal that match that part of the spell description.

So, specifically for DR. You get a set amount for the use of the spell, regardless of the base creatures natural DR. Sometimes it's better, but often Wildshape is squishier than a real animal, unless you build to be a melee type Druid.

So unless it strictly says DR in the ability list, you don't get DR? I was wondering if it was more like a racial trait or a melee attack ability (i.e. a characteristic of the form)...

The Polymorph section seems rather vague about it:

While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision), as well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed by your original form. You also lose any class features that depend upon form, but those that allow you to add features (such as sorcerers that can grow claws) still function. While most of these should be obvious, the GM is the final arbiter of what abilities depend on form and are lost when a new form is assumed. Your new form might restore a number of these abilities if they are possessed by the new form.

Do Animal forms with DR also grant you DR? Or they don't because it's an "ability" not listed in the Beast Shape description?

I can't find this anywhere online... but there are hints saying that people DO grant DR to their animal forms.

MultiClass Dip:
I personally prefer 1st level as Barbarian for the +10 movement speed and 12 starting hp... but then you're stuck wearing a Breastplate. You DO get other goodies for the Barbarian, though, including skills (Perception as a class skill)! If you want to go to L2 Barb, you also get uncanny dodge and a rage power (but it delays your Fighter feats), or go Invulnerable Rager archetype and get DR 1/-- at L2 Barb.

If you can use the Unchained rules though... things can get simpler for your combat calculations.

Racial Traits:
As a dwarf, I also like the alternate racial trait Rockstepper (instead of Stonecutting), to avoid very-annoying difficult ground in some situations. However, if your DM loves dungeons with stone traps, then you're forced into Stonecutting, pretty much.

If you want to Craft, take the racial trait "Craftsman" instead of "Greed" for the +2 to craft stone or metal items (like armor).

Another racial trait is Iron Within, which can be a better general (although 1/day) replacement for Hatred and Defensive Training, which are both very situational. Again, you might want to ask your DM for what kind of monsters you might be facing, and if he's thinking of a thematic-monster type of campaign.

It just occurred to me: why wouldn't the Fighter (or anyone usually wearing more than light armor) just carry a Potion of Mage Armor and put it under their pillow with a dagger? +4 armor bonus is better than nothing, and for a Move action, that's pretty decent.

Armored Kilt can be okay, but if you don't have a mount or a magical way of carrying extra weight, it's pretty darn heavy to carry more armor around.

Of course, if your DM doesn't track encumbrance, then the Armored Kilt is better as long as you have access to Adventurer's Armory.

I've also heard of suggestions to create Wondrous Items such as the Magical Sleeping Bag that allows you to sleep in full armor...

A lot of this discussion also presumes that your party doesn't use Rope Trick every night, as soon as the Wizard can obtain it. You can't put your horses inside the Rope Trick space, though... at least, not easily.

I just noticed that among the Pathfinder Heavy Armors, the protection ranges from a +7 armor with a +1 Dex bonus, to +8/+0, to +9/+1. What happened to +8/+1, or +9/+0?

Okay… I know what you’re saying: “Who cares?” – as soon as the heavy-armor-wearer can afford it, he’s going to buy Full Plate, with the +9/+1 characteristics.

Well, true. But shouldn’t there exist some variety in-between?

Agile Full Plate
Heavy Armor
Cost 1100 gp; Weight 45 lbs.
Armor Bonus +8; Max Dex Bonus +1; Armor Check Penalty -6
Arcane Spell Failure Chance 40%; Speed 20 ft./15 ft.

Agile Full Plate sacrifices a bit of protection for a bit more mobility. While not as easy to climb or jump in as Agile Half-Plate, the armor nevertheless allows a bit more mobility for short bursts (such as combat), as well as the amor check penalty for Climb checks and jump checks is reduced by 1 (masterwork and mithral versions of this armor reduce this penalty as well as the normal penalty).

Three-Quarter Plate
Heavy Armor
Cost 1000 gp; Weight 55 lbs.
Armor Bonus +9; Max Dex Bonus +0; Armor Check Penalty -7
Arcane Spell Failure Chance 40%; Speed 20 ft./15 ft.

Three-Quarter plate adds a bit more armor to Half-Plate, without the perfectly-balanced design of Full Plate. While not as easy to move in as Full Plate, the armor nevertheless packs on a bit more physical protection.

=======

I posted this on my own site, if you want to check out other articles (no ads).

Zrog (DeZrog)

Honestly, these people aren't worth playing with, IMO. If you can't have a frank discussion, as players, that the name-situation is getting ridiculous, and that most people will give at least a nickname upon first meeting, and FOR SURE after surviving a life-or-death experience together, then you need to seek out a different group of players and a different DM, ESPECIALLY if the DM won't intervene.

I would probably start with (as player): "Listen guys, maybe this name-thing and lone-wolf character idea has been fun for you, but it's not fun for me, and I think it's gone on long enough. Can we agree to switch gears and be a cooperative party from now on?"

If they say "no", or start arguing that they can play how they want, then you've got your answer - leave the group and find people who play well with others. I get that you like to game, and sometimes a group is hard to find, but you're heading down a path of continual frustration.

IMO - it's a DM's job to make sure people are having fun, and dismissing the jerks from the gaming group. If he's not willing to do that (or if he's one of them), you need to leave the group.

EDIT: I WOULD NOT stoop to their level and try to get "even" in-game, unless you enjoy that kind of thing. By posting here asking for advice, I imagine you're not this kind of person. Escalating interpersonal conflict using in-game inter-character conflict will NOT end well, and won't accomplish anything.

Sorry to hear about your personal issues, but I think that's another reason to leave the group - you don't need any more crap to deal with.

I made this helpful table, because I thought it was inconvenient to have to read every entry in the Eidolon Evolution list to make a low-level Eidolon:

Summoner Evolutions by Level Requirement

Zrog

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the holy trinity (quadnity?) of Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric is actually, now, one of the poorer combinations, because there is NO overlap between each highly-specialized class. You lose one player, or one party member is killed, and your party is so much weaker. Instead, why not use classes like Ranger or Barbarian, instead of Fighter, who are almost their combat equals, have more skills, more versatility, and can fill other roles at need?

While I realize that not everyone likes to multi-class, adding a level or more of rogue to a lot of classes is far better than having a dedicated pure-rogue. Cleric can be good "pure", but dipping into cleric also provides backup or minimal amount of heal that can get a party back on their feet, etc.

A lot of people are also getting fuzzy-wuzzy about this, and stating that "fun is all that matters", and etc. We all know this, but I suppose it's nice to remind people now and then.

It seems to me that the point of this thread is to explore the traditional roles vs. the options now available, when considering party structure, and whether the DM should feel obligated to alter encounters to fit the PC class mix, or whether those PCs should find creative ways to use their class mix to defeat traditional encounters.

I'd also like to point out that since there IS a DM running the show (i.e. this is a dynamic game, not a pre-scripted video game), what is "essential" is really up to the DM and the players, since the DM creates the encounters, thus defining the problems that need to be solved, and the players have to overcome those challenges.

As examples, the players may find that given their "style" of combat or approach to the game, they NEED a healer, because no one is really good (or likes playing) a battlefield-control character, or a diplomatic character to "talk things out". You may have a DM whose monsters don't negotiate, attack on sight frequently from ambush, and usually have high stealth. This latter approach would force the party into combat no matter how clever they were.

Also - who says you need a healer? Proper battlefield control, and the application of the "15-minute adventuring day" (i.e. PCs don't press on but rather rest after each encounter, even if it means days of natural healing), actually removes the necessity of a healer (although it's still very inconvenient). As DM, you can encourage PCs away from that approach, or you can let the party get by without a healer by this adjustment of tactics (at least until they get healing potions or a CLW wand).

PS - Shoutout to Roberta: your posts are cunningly crafted pieces of trolling. I am still amazed how many people take those posts literally. Oh - and get off my lawn! ;-)

I personally believe you could easily add a non-combat bonus feat every level on a fighter where they don't get a bonus combat feat, so they could TRULY be feated out, and things like the save feats, skill feats, and so on could be part of their 'non-combat pool', and that would round them out pretty good. It would also make up for their skill point discrepency to some degree...Perception doesn't need to be a class skill so much if you've Skill Focus and Alertness for +10 at level 10.

==Aelryinth

I wonder if the problem isn't with the Fighter class and its skill selection, but with the skill mechanics as a whole.

Way above in this thread, someone pointed out that before skills even existed in D&D, you just made an ability check. When skills came along, your ability didn't matter nearly as much as your skill rank. This increase in bonus meant that suddenly, to give meaningful challenges to skilled characters, the unskilled characters couldn't do it except with a very-exceptional roll, if at all! THEN, they decided to have "class skills", so that anyone could train any skill, but you got an even BIGGER bonus if it was your class skill!

This means that anyone with few class skills and few skill points really can't do much with skills, even if your ability score was decent (e.g. Dex on a Fighter).

Also - why armor check penalties on skills? Isn't the movement speed penalty enough? Whose skills are penalized the heaviest? Fighter. Who needs heavy armor the most? Fighter. Who has the least skill points to try and offset this big penalty? Fighter. Why? Just because we don't want people to be able to acrobatics/swim/climb/sneak in heavy armor? How is this any fun? (okay, it's realistic, but it still sucks in gameplay).

Zrog

Zrog wrote:

- Weapon Finesse bonus applies to Disarm and Dirty Trick combat maneuvers (so high-Dex rogues can still do these high-finesse moves)

Weapon finesse DO work with disarm/trip attemps and with most dirty trick.

Doesn't say anything about that directly in the manual itself, but the errata clears it up:

Manual says:
"Benefit: With a light weapon, elven curve blade, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.

Special: Natural weapons are considered light weapons."

and the errata says:
"If I have Weapon Finesse, can I apply my Dex bonus to my combat maneuver checks instead of my Strength bonus??
It depends on what combat maneuver you're attempting. Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon to perform the maneuver, and therefore the weapon’s bonuses apply to the roll. Therefore, if you're attempting a disarm, sunder, or trip maneuver, you can apply your Dex bonus instead of your Str mod on the combat maneuver check (assuming you're using a finessable weapon, of course). For other combat maneuvers, you use the normal rule for determining CMB (Str instead of Dex).
The Agile Maneuvers feat applies to all combat maneuvers, not just disarm, sunder, and trip, so it is still a useful option for a Dex-based creature that uses combat maneuvers."

Is a Dirty Trick using a "natural weapon"? I would probably argue that given the current rules, you need "Agile Maneuvers" to get Dex to apply to Dirty Tricks, which IMO is just a feat tax on Rogues.

I also wanted to note that mistakes made by a caster are often a lot more punishing than those made by a Fighter. Perhaps this is part of the balance...

So... a summary of possible solutions to the Lack-of-Options problem outlined in this thread:

1) Fighters get 4+Int mod skill points / level
2) More class skills for Fighter (Heal and Perception suggested, at minimum)
3) Bravery applies to Charm and Compulsion effects OR give a second "good save" for fighters (probably Wil save)
4) Remove or reduce prereqs for Combat Maneuver feats, or have one prereq for all of them that isn't based on a non-fighter ability score.
5) Eliminate Int requirement for Combat Expertise (i.e. remove the "ability tax" the fighter must pay for this feat)
6) Allow feats to scale into their Greater equivalents with level, rather than by having to spend more feats (i.e. if you have TWF, you get Improved TWF at level X).

Other possibilities (some for rogues too):
- Weapon Finesse bonus applies to Disarm and Dirty Trick combat maneuvers (so high-Dex rogues can still do these high-finesse moves)
- Combat Expertise also gives +4 AC vs. AoOs triggered by combat maneuver attempts, similar to how Mobility works with movement, in addition to its normal effects.
- Give rogues a second good save (I would say Fort, given the rough-and-tumble image of the typical rogue, but whatever suits)
- Allow some feats to be taken twice, and stack (such as Iron Will) or the following:
- Feats that improve saves give +4 to that save, rather than +2 (Greater Fortitude, Lightning Reflexes, Iron Will). This allows non-combat feats to shore up the massive disparity between saves for different character types, at the cost of a feat, thus allowing feats to shore up weaknesses rather than boost strengths (which is more typical).

Nerfing the Casters:
- Reduce durations, or don't allow durations to increase by level in an unlimited fashion (i.e. similar to how Cure Light caps out at +5, cap spell durations at 5 levels above the level when you get that spell).
- Have some spells that imitate other class features give a BONUS to doing that task, rather than automatic success (i.e. knock = +10 Disable, Spider Climb = +10 climb, Invis = +10 stealth instead of +20, etc).
- Don't allow bonus spells slots for high attributes (and don't lynch me for suggesting it). Casters get enough benefit from their primary stat as it is.

My Own Thoughts and Comments

- Knowledge skills never used to exist. Monster stats were gained by hard experience and a "character monster log" rather than "the DM tells you because you made your check". You as DM do not have to give out information you don't want players to have, just because they made a check.

- the DM, being the ultimate arbiter, should be able to design a challenge even for the most powerful caster, while still giving Fighters a chance to shine (and not necessarily in every encounter). Most campaigns can usually be balanced for the party in question by encounter design and what types of magic items are allowed to be created/given as loot/found by each character. I realize this was not the point of the thread, but it speaks to what many are criticising re: the power imbalance.

- If you have players that are truly that intelligent, they probably also want to be challenged, even if their characters are miniature gods. Work with them to create the kind of campaign that suits you and all your players. I bet that people who put the thought into designing severely-OP wizards are having tons of fun (and are probably overcompensating for how squishy they felt at level 1).

- "Classic D&D" has ALWAYS had wizards start weak and end strong, and Fighters start strong and end weaker. This is what you sign up for when playing the game known for years as "D&D". Attempts to change this have radically altered the feel of the game (e.g. 4e). Some of us are okay with the original paradigm.

- Skill checks never used to exist. Mess with skills, change them around, do whatever you need to so that they fit with how you want them to work in your campaign. At this point, I doubt "pathfinder 2" will be released, so unless you want to jump into 5e, welcome to "adding houserules" as the solution.

- This game is designed with a built-in referee, meaning that house rules can be the order of the day. This means that you can guide the game dynamically based on player preferences, player skill levels, and apparent imbalances.

I thank all the contributors to this thread for their thoughts and warnings about imbalances that I may yet encounter, and suggestions about what to do about them. I understand why people want to see these things fixed in the manual, so we will all have a place to look up rules and not have to wade through 1000 forum posts to find the answers to the problems that many of us run into re: balance.

EDIT: A very old suggestion/method to nerf highlevel casters and boost low-level casters is to give every spellcaster "casting energy points" with which to cast spells, instead of spell slots. It costs a number of points equal to the spell level to cast the spell, and the spellcaster gains these points about as quickly as hitpoints (d6+casting attribute / level). You can adjust the #points / level as you see fit, and should probably start at max-roll at first level (i.e. 6+intmod at 1st level, whatever). This method was devised before Sorcerer existed as a class, and is mainly aimed at the Wizard class.

Option: Once the caster is out of casting energy, he can burn hp at double or triple rate to cast more spells (i.e. 9th level spell = 18 or 27 hp).

What I'm having issues with, in terms of understanding the Wild Shape, is that certain animals have different damage dice from what's listed in the Natural Attacks by Size table.

Examples:
Black Bear (Med): Bite d4, claw d4, claw d4 (instead of d6 bite per table)
Boar, Common (Med): Gore d8 (instead of d6 per table)
Eagle (Small): d4 Talons (instead of d3 per table), and d4 bite (same as table)

Thoughts? I was thinking that the animal might have been designed with an Improved Natural Attacks feat, that wasn't actually listed. How does this fit in with having your druid turn into stuff, and actually getting the benefits (or penalities) he's entitled to? From my examples above, there's no reason to turn into a boar instead of a bear if the boar only gets a d6 Gore attack instead of the d8 listed in its profile, especially when the bear gets a BETTER bite attack if you use the table instead of the profile.

I was also a little concerned that druids could turn into a Medium-sized "Giant" animal, and get WAY better damage dice, but I read somewhere that "Giant" is considered a template, and that druids can't use "templated" creatures as their wildshape options.

Tinalles - thanks for taking the time to put together the PDF and making it available online. Very clear, very useful.