Thanks guys! You all definitely answered my question!
Search Posts
So, I ask this to a lot of players, and in all honestly, not a single one of them ever gives me the same answer. When wild shaping, you apply the size modifier of the creature you are shaping into. Size categories, and thus their bonuses to Stealth, CMB, CMD, and AC, seem mutually exclusive to me. So basically the question I have involves wild shaping from a creature with previous size bonuses to another shape which also has size bonuses. From gnome race description:
A large creature instead gains -1 to AC, -1 to attack rolls, +1 CMB, +1 CMD, and -4 Stealth. OK, now the question: Do you remove/reverse previous size bonuses before applying new ones? In other words, would a gnome wild shaping into a large creature have a net 0 bonus to AC, because small size grants +1 and large size grants -1, and likewise for other things effected by size? Or would the gnome have a net -1 AC, because the old size modifier is first removed (-1 to cancel out the +1 bonus) and then the new one is applied? Thanks in advance for any responses clarifying this.
OK, addendum: While rooting around another part of the forum, I found this, which is apparently a bloodline ability granted by the sanguine sorcerer bloodline: "The Blood Is the Life (Su): At 1st level, you can gain sustenance from the blood of the recently dead. As a standard action, you can drink the blood of a creature that died within the past minute. The creature must be corporeal, must be at least the same size as you, and must have blood. This ability heals you 1d6 hit points and nourishes you as if you’d had a full meal. You may use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier." This should have been the blood drinker feat. Just throwing that out there. Going to ask my GM if he'll agree to house rule this as a feat I can take with a dhampir character.
First: If you take the fangs racial trait, you gain a bite attack. This is not evil. Bite away. But if you also take a feat to drink blood, that's evil. This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Second: The definition of intelligent is one of those things that's conveniently easy when governed by rules but actually isn't. Would your party eat a dolphin? Or any animal that can be selected as an animal companion and taught tricks? Because guess what, that's evil. These are intelligent creatures. Third: "OK," you say. "But if I eat a dolphin, it's not ALIVE when I eat it." Again, drinking blood is essentially a minor addendum to biting. The drinking itself causes no pain, just the bite. But biting by itself is not evil. Divide by zero anyone? Fourth: The blood drinking rules provided by Paizo in general are pretty lame. I'd be more than happy to have a dhampir that kills animals and drinks their blood for health, or that feeds afterwards. But feeding on animal blood is, in Paizo's mind, impossible, and feeding on blood from a freshly dead creature requires an entirely new feat. Not to mention that you are required to take a feat for each separate humanoid type you want to feed on. So if you wanted to make this a useful mechanic you use, you'd have to blow somewhere around 8 feats collecting them all. I'm trying to get my GM to agree to some house rules, but IMHO, what blood-drinking for a dhampir should be is an easier way to regain HP for a class that gets dealt damage from positive energy and cure spells. In that regard, it completely fails.
In terms of the Mysterious Stranger, I agree that it;s relatively weak, but there is one hack they can do, and do damn well. Dead Shot allows you to make your full BAB's worth of attacks and deal cumulative damage with a single bullet, allowing you to do so with Muskets, which do 1d12. Focused Aim, allows you to add your CHA mod with the stipulation that it multiples along with Dead Shot instead of being added. So, assuming you got 4 attacks per round, you had perfect CHA, and hit with every shot, you're looking at 4d12+20. That's not counting a crit, which would be 16d12+20. The max damage potential for this attack is over 200.
So, it looks like MS really is just intended as a convenient double dip for CHA-based characters. Hmm.
Perhaps, the way the rules were intended to work is, pistolero's pistol training counts as gun training would for every one-handed firearm. Which would mean those weapons cannot be selected for further training, as they are already considered to have been selected, via the pistol training ability?
I know about the MS/pistolero thing already. This is only somewhat related. Mostly, what I want to know is, does anyone else think the MS is severely underpowered? I am not posting this only as a gripe, but if anyone can point out a strong advantage I missed, I would appreciate it. The luck bonus and deed replacements are OK. Nimble is defensive, so this seems like a 1:1 swap. The CHA instead of WIS for grit doesn't have an obvious advantage to me, other than maybe complimenting a RP character. True, it might help with point buy, but WIS is useful enough on its own that this doesn't seem like a highly favorable trade. And then there's stranger's fortune... And in a flawless sweep of it's hand, the MS loses much of its capability to deal damage, compared to any other archtype except for maybe gun tank. You lose the ability to add bonus damage based on your DEX mod at lvl 5 (which also slowly increments at later levels) in order to ignore a number of misfires up to your CHA modifier per day. I understand you lose quick-clear, so this kind of makes up for that, but there's something wrong here. Stranger's fortune never increments. So already, you lose, outright. But the MS also never gains an innate damage to bonus. Sure, ignoring misfires for weapons is OK, but if you look at Musket Training or Pistol Training, they both state that at a certain level (which is high, I know, BUT) you don't misfire with that weapon type at all. Ever. The deed you gain to add damage output instead costs grit to use, and even though it multiples with dead shot, it also never increments and still seems exceedingly lackluster. Am I missing something? - Addendum: As for the pistolero misprint issue, I'm not convinced it isn't RAI. Sure, as written, you'd get 2xDEX bonus damage, assuming you're using your gun training on pistols. But comparing musket master to pistolero, the musket master gets a bonus feat the pistolero does not, essentially making reloading just as fast as pistols, but for the higher-damage outputting muskets. Factor into that that pistols, depending on type, have half the range increment and do almost but not quite half the damage, and the two seem almost even to me. EX: we'll say DEX mod for the example is 2.
Regardless, I would love a clarification or revision from Paizo on this. As Ultimate Combat has been out so long without a word one way or the other, I'm guessing it's not coming though.
In the Pathfinder Campaign Setting (and maybe other sources as well) there is an item called perfume, exotic which adds a +2 circumstance bonus to diplomacy checks. The item descriptions says that perfumes come in vials which contain 10 uses, but the pricing for said item is listed as 100gp/dose (not per vial). So, my question is, does this mean 1 vial, containing 10 uses is 100gp? Or does a single use cost 100gp, meaning a vial of 10 uses would be 1000gp? I know this seems like a very basic question, but the language is unclear. Any help is appreciated!
Oh, awesome, this is exactly what I was looking for! Thanks! Look here for the table headed "Creature's Original Size"
Hey, I had a weird question about wild shape that I wanted to ask and felt it might be too open for me to pull an answer from the text. So, when using wild shape, you apply two modifiers, the actual modifiers for the beast shape spell stats and modifiers for size if the size of the creature you become is different than your original size, correct? But let's say, with the ARG coming out recently and all, that you're not a medium or small creature and you are still using wild shape. I remember an errata someone mentioned about apply a size modifier to these non-Medium or Small creatures, but aren't you applying a size-mod anyway? I guess my question is, when a non-medium or small creature is wild shaping, do you modify their size to be medium, then apply the beast shape and size modifiers? Or is there some other way this is supposed to work?
Our campaign was kind of difficult in so far as "where do you draw the line between a power player and just some one who likes combat?" I ended up quitting the sessions and being kind of turned off by it because eventually our game degenerated into no RP at all and all focus on combat. I see a lot of mention in this thread about the game being story or 'theatrics' first and action second, and I have only had few instances where that was the case. In a situation like this, would anyone consider those players power players, even though they aren't doing traditional min-maxing? (Although one of our players was a former GM who was knowledgeable enough about the system to min-max a bit.) As far as an answer to your question, instead of just adding another: You might be surprised how far a little thievery can go. One thing I think works really well and also tests your players limits is to put them in a situation where they lose their equipment for some reason or another. May not work as well with casters, but if any of you are familiar with the region of Golarion surrounding Alkenstar, there are mana wastes. Coming up with a well thought out reason for a min-maxer to lose his or her equipment (temporarily of course) or for a caster to have their powers temporarily weakened I think is a great exercise in seeing how well they get on with just their wits.
Oh, so, on the subject of Druids, I had a heck of a time figuring out the stats and such for wild shaping, as you have to take into account the actual spell effects, as well as size modifications, etc. I found this calculator online, which as far as my number crunching has been concerned, is accurate. Thought it might be helpful to some in this thread still playing a druid char.
Yeah, animal companions do a lot. Not even just level adjustment, but later on you get spells to increase their size, their natural armor, give them magic attacks, and so on. I had a pet viper in one of our campaigns, and we went toe to toe with a dragon. I increased it to a large sized creature, used atavism, gave it energy resistance, damage reduction, natural armor, the works. It went after that dragon like a champ, probably got the most hits off on him too.
Personally, I'd be for immortal creatures not accruing bonuses or penalties for aging. part of the reason is on account of magical aging spells. Like, if you take benefits but no penalties from aging, you can just get your sorcerer buddy (or whatever class can cast aging spells, I don't honestly recall) to age you over and over until you have astronomical Wisdom. A lot of abilities like the Druid's Timeless Body specifically state that upon gaining the ability, they are no longer effected by magical aging for this reason. Maybe there can be some kind of story reason for this? I mean, if you know you have an eternity to learn something, would that really encourage you to buckle down and study hard? Immortality doesn't really have a mechanical factor unless you're going to allow the mental skills to rise per age category. Even then what's an age category for an immortal creature?
I was thinking along those lines. Like, maybe they don't die of natural causes, but certainly of poison, disease, and of course physical injury. There was a post to the 3.5 section of the WotC site which talked about mortality vs immortality, but the post pretty much said it's up to whoever is GM to decide how it works and if fey fall into that category. So, I guess as many of you said, I should ask my GM. ;) Thanks for the feedback all! Depends on your fey. In D&D 4E Eladrin are basically a fey player race. As far as I know there's nothing in Pathfinder about all fey being crazy and they follow normal rules, so if you want to cheat death you have to do it like everyone else. Get someone to raise you. So I would guess that they in the best case simply don't age. (An old nymph would be a strange thought.)
Oh wow, I did not know that the ARG had a fey PC race in it. Might have to pick it up after all. I guess some of my concern was about the different ways fey can be portrayed between 4e / 3.5e / Pathfinder. Some thread I was reading in here claimed that fey creatures had no soul, which to me seemed like it would prevent them from being raised from the dead. Things like that, where how normal mechanics work for them might be called into question.
Hey all. I've been working for a bit on a custom race which is a fey creature, but the more I research -- on messages boards like this one, in game content, and on other, non-related lore websites -- I question whether or not fey can be player characters? There can be seemingly helpful fey, like the brownie. But there are also evil fey. But aren't fey creatures supposed to be crazy and obsesses with asserting their dominance in the prime material plane? Or at least preserving the areas of it they hold? The other question I guess I had was, fey are supposedly immortal, are they not? So how would this translate to a PC? Do they mean immortal in so far as Tolkein elves where they can live indefinitely but killed otherwise? Or do the fey have even the ability to cheat death itself and return to form after being slain? Just wanted to get a fair degree of opinions on this. I'm kind of 50-50 on the matter, but I think it would be really helpful to get insight from a cross section of players who might have struggled with this decision before or used fey in their campaigns.
Bump. I have a gunslinger of my own, and I would love to hear an official ruling on this.
Thanks for the link! This may answer some of my questions.
To clarify, I am speaking in regards to the race creation playtest supplement which will be included in the Advanced Race Guide. The section I am referring to is on page 11 of that content (downloadable form this site at the following link:http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lcp6&source=rss) "Spell-Like Ability (Variable, see special): Prerequisites: None; Benefit: Choose a 2nd-level or lower spell that does not attack a creature or that deals damage. Members of this race can use this spell as a spell-like ability 1/day. The caster level of the spell is equal to the character level of the user. Special: This ability costs as many RP as the
EDIT: Please disregard my response below, I re-read it and I was wrong. But still, that means that lvl 0 = 1 RP, lvl 1 = 1 RP, and lvl 2 = 2 RP. [So the way this is written, you may only choose spells level 2 or lower, with the RP cost N+1. So lvl 0 = 1 RP, lvl 1 = 2 RP, and lvl 2 = 3 RP.] Assuming for the sake of argument that all of these spell-like abilities are level 0 spells, that should still be 4 RP.I'm confused - where does it say in the Advanced Race Guide Playtest that a 0-level spell like ability costs 1 RP? Because that seems like an awful lot for each once-per-day cantrip to cost 1/10th the race's total.
I am using the playtest version. The Advanced Race Guide doesn't come out until... June? But I wanted to give it a go anyway and see how what I had so far transfered over. I am kind of disappointed thus far, as from what I can see it definitely grants special privileges to the core races. =( However, I suppose there's always room for improvement. The other thing that isn't really addressed is race-specific feats. But I suppose there isn't a good way to go about that, since a feat wouldn't need to be restricted in the same rigid way that racial traits or bonuses are. I thought that when the board united(which almost never happens) against that idea they would keep their word and not use the artificial race point method that pretends all core races are 10's. I am so disappointed.I think he's still using the playtest version. I don't think that the full product is out yet.
Thanks for the assistance! ...Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes. A monster's spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order.
Such a n00b, replying to my own post. As an addendum, there is another thing which is confusing: When you choose a spell as a spell-like ability, the RP cost is based on the spell level. (With, of cource, the restriction of level 2 or lower spells available to select.) But what if multiple casters get this spell at different levels? What rule of thumb would you use to determine the cost? The lowest spell level listed, the highest? It's not really elaborated on in that eventuality, but I'm sure it's important.
I am very new to the boards, apologies in advance if this is a repost! I was actually in the process of creating and balancing a race within our campaign group when someone pointed out that the race creation playtest had come out. I downloaded it, but they pointed out something I would also agree is confusing. In the core race examples at the end of the material, you see something like Gnome Magic which comes with various benefits, including 4 spell-like abilities; dancing lights, ghost sound, prestidigitation, and speak with animals. Assuming for the sake of argument that all of these spell-like abilities are level 0 spells, that should still be 4 RP. And yet in the breakdown for gnomes, this only accounts for 1 RP. I was wondering if anyone could explain / account for this discrepancy? Because as it stands now, I think that kind of makes at least that magical racial ability broken. |