Imaria's page

In Pathfinder Unchained's Automatic Bonus Progression, there is a discrepancy between the table and text's description for mental & physical prowess for the 18th level.

The chart indicates that the 18th level gives "mental prowess +6/+4/+2 or +4/+4/+4, physical prowess +6/+4/+2 or +4/+4/+4". Straightforward enough. But the text for both mental and physical prowess ends the same way:

At 17th level, she chooses a third (mental/physical) ability score to gain a permanent +2 enhancement bonus.

There is no textual mention of an additional 18th level increase.

Now, it certainly seems like the text would be wrong here, because the Legendary Body & Mind gifts raise the bonuses to +6/+6/+4. It costs two gifts to take, but it raises the stat array by +2/+2 if we assume the 18th level increase is supposed to exist. Without the 18th level increases, it would represent a jump from 17th level's +6/+2/+2 or +4/+4/+2. That's a +4/+2 or +2/+2/+2 jump, which would be a pretty big leap.

I remember there used to be a rule "text trumps tables" that came up in 3.5, but I only now realized I can't find any parallel in Pathfinder. RAI, I think the 18th level increase is supposed to exist. But is there a defined RAW interpretation for this?

I've seen it justified as "even objects get Reflex saves, so they must also factor for luck". Agreed on the -5 Dex mod, but some weird characters could succeed. Hell, a natural 20 on a save is an auto-success.

But if a successful save implies movement, it shouldn't work of the subject can't move. Doubly so if they can't move because they're anchored in place.

Looking further, there are a number of ways this gets complicated. Paralyzed characters also get Reflex saves; not sure how that's supposed to work either. Normally even objects get Reflex saves, but this situation makes that nonsensical.

It feels like Wall of Stone is the problem. If a character cannot move, it shouldn't get a Reflex save against entrapment. Any spell like this (Forcecage also comes to mind) doesn't make sense otherwise.

Actually, the master stroke of this combo was to cast Cloudkill after the Tentacles, but before the Wall. Truly brutal stuff. But anything that dangerous needs rules questions quashed long before you try it.

Assume you have a character who been hit with a casting of Black Tentacles. They were successfully grappled, and now cannot move from that spot.

Before they break free, Wall of Stone is also cast. As per the last paragraph of the spell:

It is possible, but difficult, to trap mobile opponents within or under a wall of stone, provided the wall is shaped so it can hold the creatures. Creatures can avoid entrapment with successful Reflex saves.

Wall of Stone is cast in such a shape that it entirely encloses the Black Tentacles field, which the character is the centre of.

Being grappled doesn't prevent Reflex saves. Nothing about Black Tentacles does, RAW. But if someone made the Reflex save against the Wall... then what? It doesn't prevent the Wall from coming into existence around the Black Tentacles; it's just to avoid being inside the entrapping space. But Black Tentacles is supposed to prevent any movement until you beat the grapple.

So what happens? Does Wall of Stone lose the Reflex save somehow? Or if not, what happens on a successful save?

More than just the reach/size ratio, though, this is wondering about creatures that have reach above and beyond the "typical" reaches given on that chart, like the Giant Octopus (which apparently has a reach of 10ft/20ft with a tentacle, not 15ft/30ft like I said in my first message. Oops! But the essence of the question remains the same.)

But is the extra reach a trait of the creature (and therefore would have to be explicitly given by the polymorph spell in question) or a trait of the natural attack (and therefore is already granted by the portion of the polymorph subschool quoted above)?

By my perspective, polymorph grants both the natural range AND natural weapon range of a creature, the same way that a human with a spear has 5ft of natural reach, but their weapon grants them 10ft. And since polymorph grants the natural attacks of a creature, it would be treated like giving a weapon along the same rules as any other weapons. It even calls out giving proficiency, furthering the interpretation that a "Tentacle" is still just a type of weapon.

(Oh, and believe me, the FAQ button has been pressed!)

"Extra Reach" is not part of the natural attack, nor is it an ability specifically defined by the polymorph spell. Therefore, you don't get it.

But reach IS considered an inherent part of every other weapon that has it, and reach is not called out as an Extraordinary, Supernatural, or Spell-Like ability. There is no listing for "Extra Reach" under Monster Abilities in any Bestiary index, unlike Grab, Swallow, or other such abilities that are called out as part of the Polymorph exclusions.

So I suppose my question is, why are you so sure that reach is not considered part of a Tentacle, when it would be an inherent part of a Spear or Whip?

Is there any rules that can be referenced for that? It's become a point of contention as to what is or isn't part of a natural attack.

I've seen threads touching on it, but nothing close to a definitive answer.

The simplest, least complex example involves using Beast Shape II to transform into a Giant Octopus. As part of the polymorph subschool, it has the following to say in regards to natural attacks:

In addition to these benefits, you gain any of the natural attacks of the base creature, including proficiency in those attacks. These attacks are based on your base attack bonus, modified by your Strength or Dexterity as appropriate, and use your Strength modifier for determining damage bonuses.

Now, for a Giant Octopus, its reach entry states: 15 ft. (30 ft. with tentacle)

That's not listed as an (Ex) ability, a Special ability, or anything else. It's just mentioned under Reach, that its tentacles reach 30ft.

So if I use Beast Shape II to become a Giant Octopus, do I get 15ft or 30ft of reach? The polymorph subschool is pretty exclusive about "If the spell doesn't say you get an ability, you don't get it." But is that extended reach part of its natural attacks? Or is it considered a special ability, and you can only Beast Shape into a stubby octopus?

GM here, had a situation where someone managed to disarm a "big bad" of his hilariously powerful weapon, used a power that up'd their Strength for a single strength check, and tried to Break the weapon.

Problem is, I can find NOTHING that was even a vague guideline for what the hell the DC should be. I got lucky given the timing, and stopped the session mid-attempt, but I'm going to need something to come back with.

A +5 Adamantine Greatsword, by my math, should have the following stats:
30 hardness (20 for adamantine, +2 for each point of enhancement)
63 hp (10 base for a two-handed weapon, plus an extra third for adamantine. Then +10 for each point of enhancement)

But I can find NO Break/Burst DCs for any weapons, let alone adamantine ones, let alone enchanted ones. I'd ballpark a basic sword at DC 26, equal to "Burst chain bonds". But I have no idea how to adjust that DC up for its other properties.

Is there anything, spells or rules, that I could use for precedence?

Imaria Prime wrote:

Looking at dwarven stonecunning, I noticed Pathfinder's version omits a line found at the end of the d20 version:

d20 SRD wrote:

A dwarf can also intuit depth, sensing his approximate depth underground as naturally as a human can sense which way is up.

Can you explain this omission? I know I could simply house rule it back in, but its removal makes me wonder why it was necessary to take out that ability in the first place.

That's a choice Jason made. I can't explain it. My guess is that he felt that ability was too boring and/or shouldn't be limited to dwarves, but that it should be a Knowledge (dungeoneering) check.

Dwarves get way too many racial traits anyway, though.

Looking at dwarven stonecunning, I noticed Pathfinder's version omits a line found at the end of the d20 version:

A dwarf can also intuit depth, sensing his approximate depth underground as naturally as a human can sense which way is up.

Can you explain this omission? I know I could simply house rule it back in, but its removal makes me wonder why it was necessary to take out that ability in the first place.

Looking at dwarven stonecunning, I noticed Pathfinder's version omits a line found at the end of the d20 version:

A dwarf can also intuit depth, sensing his approximate depth underground as naturally as a human can sense which way is up.

Can anyone explain this omission? I can simply house rule it back in, but its removal makes me wonder why it was necessary to take out that ability in the first place.

Here are his responses in another thread.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Couple of quick points here.

1. Exotic does not mean better. Yes you have to pay a feat to use it in most circumstances, but that is just not exactly how these are designed. Some do offer some nice benefits, but that is by no means the rules. Exotic means rare and unusual first. That means that some of them are not the "best" in-game mechanical decision your character can make.

Major, major disagreement here. If I have to spend a feat on it, then yes, it should be better. Name one other feat that just adds "Wacky" to your character.