I am looking for advice regarding a new character that will be introduced in a party of 5 for RotRL AP. The rest of the party consist of 2 rangers (one ranged, one natural weapon melee – shapeshifter archetype), a wizard/cleric and a rogue.
The backstory is essentially made, so the race is fixed to human.
The class itself is anything but fixed though. He is going to be a frontliner, and some sort of spellcasting is needed. I am strongly leaning towards divine spellcasting for backstory reasons. The options I have, as I see them, are :
- Paladin (no problem with the group alignment as a whole, although most of the party members are way more chaotic good in inclination than LG. So some form of dilemma will emerge, if not the worst kind such as evil-good problems)
Now the limitations: Both the Paladin and Cleric would essentially be CRB only, both in terms of feats and spells. The Inquisitor and the Oracle would have de facto access to class features and spells specifically included in the class description, but access to other feats and options in the APG will be difficult (as in hard to convince the DM to allow them).
The stats aren’t rolled yet. I have no idea what I could end up with, and obviously a 10 pts-buy equivalent makes for a really poor Paladin for instance. The rolling method is 4d6 drop lowest, x6, if it matters.
What are the pros and cons for each ? Is the Paladin that much a poorer option without the new spells (outside CRB) ? What about the pt-buy equivalent dependency for each class to make them effective?
Abilities include the use of feats. If not, the synthesist with his suit on would have no feat except for the free multi-attack at level 9.
Check the math to be sure about the Falcatas, since they are 1handed weapons the penalties for multi-weapon fighting with them are -4.
Also you only get iteratives with the main hand and 1.0 str dmg mod, all off-hands attacks only get 1 swing and 0.5 str dmg mod.
But yeah, you can then add some secondary tentacle attacks in the mix at only -2 (and half str dmg) since you have multi-attack.
Ask the player to slack a little on the evo pts spent on offense, it's easy to skyrocket above a party average power with a synth if no one optimizes.
I'd say "Summoner must be Xth level" is pretty clear. It doesn't say "The character must be Xth level".
But honestly, it doesn't matter much. When allowing something the rules aren't exactly clear on, you have to weight the potential abuse it can lead to.
But in the case of Eidolon's evolutions, the points are going to be too scarce if you heavily multiclass and it will mostly be useful as a skill monkey but not a front-liner. So allowing you to select evolutions that require X level is only going to bypass some of the suckage the class leads to when multiclassed, but i doubt it would make it (more) problematic on a power or versatility scale.
I went and checked because the way both of you commented on the issue it seemed like you think martial proficiency has simple weapon proficiency as a prerequisite. But it doesn't.
So if you intend on using a martial/exotic weapon with the Eidolon, no need to pick simple weapons proficiency feat first, nor select the evolution granting it.
As for the scenario involving the evolution for martial weapons based on a simple weapons proficiency feat, like AbsolutGrndZero i'd say you can skip the first 2pt evolution cost for simple weapons.
It has its use. Being proficient with all martial weapons versus a single type. But it costs 2 evo pts more down the line. At some point you can fall back to simple weapons to and save those 2 evo pts too.
We also ruled it as all friendly spells are tried to save against. Not because we thought X or Y spell "should" have a saving throw : yes (harmless), but because it's a pain to remember all those exceptions.
When i play the wizard, it's my responsability to call the saving throw and SR when i throw a spell.
If i play the raging superstitious barb, i feel akward slowing down the table to ask the cleric to check his spell description if it has a saving throw : yes (harmless) or just no saving throw. And clerics/buffers know the effect of their boosting spells, but that saving throw line is one they would have to check if asked, because it never comes up.
So yeah, for sake of simplicity and pace we call for a ST regardless like your DM called (for most probably not the same reasons)
For melee, a single 2x before the claw attack would work fine.
I am not monster savvy. Do they usually follow formal rules, or stuff like that happens all the time and people resort to the "it's monster's special rule" kind of interpretation ?
The Xill stat block seems to point in that direction.
Bows use 2 hands but don't use the metaphorical off-hand. Hence the Xill can attack with 2 bows at the same time, as per two-weapon fighting. It's attack bonus is @full BAB because of Multiweapon Mastery.
If the bows followed the normal 2handed weapon rule; 1 main and 1 off-hand worth of hands to use, the Xill just couldn't use 2 bows, Multiweapon mastery or not.
Maybe monsters are not intended to follow the exact same rules as PC all the time, but unless someone can show a multi armed monster that uses more than 1 2handed weapon at a time, I see the matter settled: If not elegant in terms of rules, a bow is NOT a 2handed weapon for handiness and off-hand attack potential, only in terms of pratical use of said weapon does it require 2 hands.
You could thus use armor spikes in the same round you use the bow under this assumption, but i am not touching the vestigial arm version of the same question.
heard of a new player race from Best.4 that has 4 arms.
Short of that it can't be done. Alchemist's vestigial arm can't grant you the attack needed for the shield bash since the 2handed bow already takes a main and an off hand.
EDIT but yeah, vesti. arms still allow you to carry a shield and benefit from its AC, and on the rounds you don't fire a bow you can shield bash.
In terms of Craft Wand, besides Rejuvenate Eidolon, what are other good spells to wandify? I may very well get it, regardless of whether or not I spend 4 pts on Fast Healing.
The first thing to consider is the cooperative aspect of crafting. Craft wand has a strict requirement on the availability of the spell to be put inside the wand. Since you don't want to "waste" all your spells known on spells to put into wands, better to ask the wizard to provide the spells for go-to wands at lower levels.
Note that the spell must be cast to create the wand, but only once per day (or per 1,000 gp), so you can buy a scroll of X (level 1 spell) and create a wand out of it ! (caster level 1). This is very useful.
The summoner's spelllist is condensed, and as such you get awesome level 4 and 3 spells, that are normally level 5+. Those spells that cannot be put into wands usually are are a good list to start with, skim it for good 50 charges sticks options, that do not rely on CL and DC that much. heck even if they do, they can be good options anyway.
Note that for this, you need to cast it yourself, so the spell must be selected as a spell known. If your wizard buddy cast the spell for you it's going to be from his spelllist, so spell level 5+, and thus can't be put into a wand.
That's quite a leap. First the dmg is good, especially when combining Naturals with manufactured. OP mentioned he might add naturals to a main manufactured weapon attack.
Implying that this leads to min/maxing 7 str and dex character ? I rolled my eyes at that one. Just a little.
At any rate let me break this down more clearly for you since for some reason you want to poo poo on an evolution you clearly don't understand.
Yes, lets talk about this evolution. Why do you think it's worth 4 evo pts ? I asked twice already. This is the third time.
If you don't have Fast healing you can still do that... nothing prevents you form using life conduit. You only miss on 1 hp per round.
The rest of your post actually address why you think Fast healing is good. Although i've never had to deal with loss of limbs (!!!) in a game.
Oh, and I don't want to burst your bubble but :
"A creature with the fast healing special quality regains hit points at an exceptional rate, usually 1 or more hit points per round, as given in the creature’s entry. Except where noted here, fast healing is just like natural healing. Fast healing does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation, nor does it allow a creature to regrow lost body parts. Unless otherwise stated, it does not allow lost body parts to be reattached. Fast healing continues to function (even at negative hit points) until a creature dies, at which point the effects of fast healing end immediately."
So you don't regrow lost body parts. Comparing to a ring of regeneration is also unfair, the latter prevents bleed, whereas Fast healing doesn't, for example; it's not the same ability. And it doesn't mean the ring is a good choice at that price either.
You made your points, and i am unconvinced. Your name calling and pretentious stance on the matter filled my cup. Have a good day.
Wow. really. ok. Have it your way. Suggesting your best combo ever as the thing to behold. Then someone comes around and tells you it might not be THAT awesome, and all you care to answer is "go home you min/maxer" ?
I'll make it clearer. Or try to.
Forget about the craft wands or rejuvenate versus Life conduit. The end question is : Is 4 evo points worth fast healing 1 ?
You cannot rely on the fast healing in combat. So it's just to get to full HP after a fight. You just save on charges of a wand. Be that rejuvenate, or CLW if you cast life conduit.
I prefer 4 evo pts spent on defense or offense rather than to be "self-sufficient" and avoid popping charges of a 750 gp stick. Half that cost if you went with craft wand.
The combat use of life conduit is a nice thing to consider in the equation, but it's not OMG i'm invulnerable. The healing (via life conduit) is very nice, but fast healing doesn't add anything worth noting to the deal, 1hp per round?. And it eats up a standard action to cast the spell (rather than attack, yourself) and then a swift action every round. So you lose on Arcane strike, which with 4-5 naturals +2 or 3 iteratives is good damage.
So Life conduit, in itsefl, can be useful. But it doesn't require Fast healing to work on it's own. Fast healing is only allowing you to avoid burning charges of a CLW wand, which is pocket change. To me it's not worth 4 evo pts.
Crafting wands has tons of benefits besides fully healing the Suit. At low levels, as a spell, rejuvenate is less effective than life conduit, but life conduit requires another source of healing afterwards. Most of the time, that's going to be a CLW wand. As a synthesist, it's pretty much equivalent to burn couple charges of rejuvenate lesser wand or to cast 1 life conduit and use couple CLW charges, although the former didn't cost you a spell slot.
While appealing for combat at level 11+, as far as out of combat healing goes, the combo Fast healing + life conduit is still only 1d6-1 HP dmg to you for 1d6 Temp HP to the suit. You trade a spell slot (level 1) for charges of the CLW injector. Don't you ?
I don't want to dismiss your combo as ineffective, I really want to understand why you think it's so amazing.
As for saying you spend feats on extra evolutions, I think feats are scarce enough NOT to do that as a synthesist. But as far as saying a feat is less valuable than 4 evo pts, then yes, that's the other extreme.
In case of the base class (non-synthesist) Fast healing working on the beast in melee range + life conduit spells, while you UMD CXW at a distance (invisible) do sound nice.
That's still for level 11. For 75% of you character career (or 55% in case the OP goes to 20) you need Rejuvenate...
And to put it in perspective of opportunity cost, pretty much everyone agrees that a feat is worth less than 4 evo pts, hence everyone picking a weapon proficiency via feat instead of evo.
Same math applies here : infinite HP for a feat (craft wand - lesser rejuvenate amounts to pocket change eventually, so no GP in the equation when the dilemma at level 11 arises), or for few spell slots (level 1) and 4 evo pts (fast healing). Since you need the former to get through earlier levels, the feat is already spent making it a false dilemma unless you start at 11. No ?
Edit : The d6's per round as a swift can be a fight changer. I grant you that.
I fail to see the advantage over rejuvenate Eidolon. Both are spells, both need to be cast several times a day, both SHOULD end up being a wand. In case DM is iffy on magical item availability, you need craft wand in both cases.
Life conduit need fast healing, so level 11. So 4 evo pts down, only available high level, and you don't achieve more than Rejuvenate spells. And that's assuming fast healing works on summoner, eventhough it's an evolution. Unless you mean to apply the evo to the summoner via Greater aspect at level 18 ? There is precedent on evo for the synthesist not applying to the summoner, like the mental stats increase (cha-int-wis) that won't work on the summoner.
Those feats are kind of nice. Alternate pounce of some sort. But it is very feat heavy.
Those feats on a Kali type build with one hand free to wield a wand of DDoor would be awesome, but not for a Angel theme Synthesist that want to keep close to a regular biped with 2 arms.
If you wonder why i proposed the claws/tentacles Nat. Attacks even with that in mind, I just had Tyriel from Diablo computer games in mind. Wings are fashioned in such a way that you can easily fluff those attacks as such.
Without a wand DDoor spells are too few, and slots too precious to rely upon for such usual tactic that fixes 3 feats.
You can workout the details, you grasped the mechanics.
Yeah, you can optimize the distance at the end of your round by forgo-ing part of your natural attacks, when enemy is out of reach of you naturals, then attack at reach with weapon THEN 5' step back. OR, once large, connect all your naturals, 5' step back, then thrust.
I just think that claws or tentacles are offering so much tactical advantage/tools with push evo to be set aside at high (10+) level. Even if it's only tentaclesx4 + push, thats 5 evo for so much win with a reach weapon (long spear, so frees a feat).
As for the reach(weapon), seriously, just hone your skills to be ready to dodge a book coming at you from the DM.
An argument for a reach weapon even when going large at lev 8:
By then you have 4 natural attacks. And at level 9 (so only 1 "suboptimal" level), you have Multiattack. That means that you can have (ideally) 4 claw attacks with "push" on them all, @ -2 from full BAB. You have 4 chances to push the initially adjacent enemy for at least 5'. Then you can take your 5' step back and enjoy your reach weapon.
As for XMorsX's build, while the Nodachi is possibly one of the best weapon to use a feat on, i'd avoid taking it so early. You could very well put Arcane strike to good use much sooner too.
And thx for the link XMorsX, i bookmarked it for reference !
Nobody mentions craft wand for synthesists. Ever.
In my experience it's a must, maybe because of DM's opinion on availability of magic items in general. But also because Summoner can make kickass wands of baleful polymorph ! Mass bear endurance !! Overland flight (for your buddy with UMD) !!! and many others ! granted that last bit is more useful for most summoner that aren't synthesist, but the point on wands of rejuvenate stands.
Yes for arcane strike on natural attacks. That makes it an awesome feat on a Synthesist which can get a good number of those + manufactured weapons.
I can't really help you on the build itself, the pointers provided come from succinct analysis.
Food for thoughts : PA is iffy on a build that is 3/4 BAB in itself and has more than half it's attack at -5 or -2 to hit (secondary attacks, without and with Multiattack, respectively). After several levels, once multiattack is grabbed (either at lev 9 or with a regular feat), and a good enough str mod is achieved to alleviate the lack of BAB and those -5/-2, then PA becomes interesting. IMO.
At the same time, Arcane strike has no to-hit penalty. So it's useful from the get go, albeit with lower return on your 2handed weapon, but better/regular return on your secondary/primary attacks than PA.
Combat reflexes is good with a reach weapon with a decent Dex. A biped lacks the latter unless you invest in ability increase (dex). Which can be done along with (str) prior to lev 6 no problem. Lack of evo pts might be the problem. IF your DM allows you easy access to wands of rejuvenate, then the level 5 feat could be combat reflexes, and by then you can have some spare evo pts to invest in that ability increase.
As for extra evolution, I am not sure i would use it. I mean if spare feats slot come along down the road it's a solid choice, but I would prefer to invest in PA, CR, AS, craft wand (if needed), and your heritage feat. that brings you to level 7 minimum before you can even consider it. And we haven't even considered spellfocus (conj), Augment summ and improved init. Of which the last is pure gold for any build.
Alternatively, drop CR. forget about spellfocus and Augment Summ. Go spear + natural attacks, and use the spare feats for evo pts. Until you get sufficient str, mixing naturals with the spear attack will be very lackluster, unless you grab multiattack early.
I think the first part applies to me. The answer is no. No it isn't worth it. Eidolon have HUGE str scores. That and [weapon enchant / power attack / arcane strike / AoMF for your naturals] will make up 90% of your dmg ouput before long. Even bumped by 3-5 dmg, the weapon dice(die) won't matter much. Of course you lose on the crit range. That's a bummer. But the weapon feat can be postponed for a later slot if you so wish it, when the even higher +DMG modifiers on your attacks will be so large that an added crit range will be very tempting.
As for the trip/disarm abilities, they are really subpar me think. The disarm ability is only a +2 CMB, and the "trip" one only allows you to drop the weapon if the CM failed miserably to avoid being knocked prone yourself. Since you will have reach over your opponents most of the time (reach weapon, enlarge person, large evolution) you will avoid the AoO without the improved feat, most of the time. And just avoid using the CM when you don't. That and the HUGE str score means a more than respectable CMB. Evaluate as you play, but i doubt trying CM on level appropriate opponents will expose you to a -10 CMB vs CMD often, if at all, even on a roll of 1.
You have a big stick and secondary natural attacks. You won't rely on Vital strike either. So the simple long spear is adequate IMO.
That frees up some feats now does it not? Might as well consider Imp. Init, Arcane strike, Power Attack along with combat reflexes... But the most important one is craft wands at level 5 if you are not 110% sure your DM will let you buy wands of rejuvenate. For some hybrid fun (you are still a caster !) you can squeeze in stuff like spell focus (conj), for pit spells/grease/glitter/etc and augment summoning for when the suit goes "poof".
AS for DR, I am not sure. But it can be very useful. DR 5 or 10 /Good in your case, since you are Evil ? Almost too good. Unless you plan on exclusively taking on some "real" angels.
Depends on how your DM will allow access to wands of lesser rejuvenate Eidolon. As a synthesist that's your ONLY option for healing. Note that XMorsX's suggestions of Reach(weapon) is probably against RAI, although i can't link dev post or FAQ on the matter. Also, Fast healing does nothing for your Eidolon, since the suit only provides temp HP. Might be semi-useful to heal you after you uplinked your own HP to refill the suit that should've gone "poof" after an attack, but that's it. I am not even sure the evo thus applies to you.
So in the end, since you NEED a lot of rejuvenate spells, it's 1) a spell tax, and 2) a feat tax to pick up craft wands at level 5 if your DM won't let you buy some. You really don't want to waste all your daily slots on it, so the wand is a must.
With that in mind, I would drop the martial/exotic weapon proficiency and just use a long spear, which you are proficient with from the get-go.
Natural armor evo at level 1 and 5 are no brainers. Ability Increase (STR) as XMorsX said, before you go large. Skip the elemental dmg, since you won't focus on natural attacks.
Reflavor the bite as a headbutt. So you have 3 attacks from level 1. Remove it for limbs/claws once you get a 4 natural attacks cap. Reflavor the limbs/claws, if you want an angel theme Eidolon/Synthesist: just point out that the mechanics are the same, but the visuals need not lead to a monstruous 4-arms Goro.
Ask if feat retraining is possible. If so grab Multiattack at the earliest so you can make some (maybe not the cap number) natural attacks along with your longspear iteratives at only -2 ea (for natural attacks). At level 9 you retrain your former Multiattack since you get it for free. Alternatively a DM could simply let you choice a new feat and ignore retraining.
A very cheap tactic is to apply the "push" evolution on your natural attacks. No need for reach evo on those. Let's say you have 4 claws and a longspear. you start with your secondary attacks, have 4 attacks at -2 to push the adjacent opponent, then thrust the spear with iteratives as they are now in reach, then 5' back. There you go, out of 5' step full-attack retaliation. Works on equal size enemies without reach. Once you get large, it's even more uselful but the tactical considerations for enemy size and reach become more complexe.
It's not about probability, or rather not entirely. It's more about metagame.
case 1) You "know" the AC you are rolling against. Be that metagame knowledge of the monster stats, or because the roll of 10+6 from the fighter missed but his 16+1 did hit. Since you know your own modifier is +4, when you see the dice stop rolling with its 12 on top, you call for a reroll before the DM says it hits or misses. Yip, pure metagame.
case 2) You are the first attacker on a strange monster nobody identified yet. The first hit is very important because you want to apply XYZ debuff as a touch spell or whatever before the monster acts. You rolled a 5, and don't think you can even hope to hit touch AC. You select to use the reroll, in hope to roll higher. You have about 75% chance to do so.
Both claws, the gore (if you have it) and the bite are all PRIMARY attacks, there are no penalties to the attacks. The penalty to attacks is only on secondary attacks.
I don't think there is a single claw attacks that is not primary. But depending where your gore and bite come from, they might be secondary. Animal Fury rage power for one, doesn't spell primary or secondary, but can be assumed secondary from its wording.
Didn't know a space/reach entry was the norm. Thought they put one to specify irregular patterns, like the eagle in my 1st ED Bestiary. Although i recently learned that was a mistake they changed with a stealthy errata (eagle was small with 2.5' space and 0 reach, newest version is small without the entry for space/reach, so reverts to 5' space and 5' reach).
And I see the space/reach is listed under "Offense" in the stat block.
Well... if having the reach evo work on weapon attacks is cool in your game, as is good. But beware the nerf-bat once your Eidolon gets large evo and you cast enlarge person on it. Doubt the GM will like that.
Seriously, to limit the reach evolution to natural attacks is good design. And to make it either selectable multiple times OR to apply to an attack evolution group (head - for gore and bite reach, or limbs-claws to get reach on both of them, or wing buffet, for both wings to get reach) would have been better.
Last, if they want to keep the reach evolution a one time pick, they should limit the attacks they want it to apply to, which seems to be bite/tail/gore (and maybe tentacle and slam) evolutions.
EDIT : a reach slam attack with pull evolution. Now that's weird.
From the PRD
DIRE BOAR (DAEODON) CR 4
large = 2x2 squares, so 10' by 10'. As for reach, only "tall" large creatures get it (all humanoids standing on 2 limbs, + others). "Long" large creatures, most quadrupeds, don't get added reach.
Summoner: If I choose the reach evolution for my eidolon, how many of its attacks gains increased reach?
—Pathfinder Design Team, 04/26/13
It's sad that you can't select the evolution more than once. Because you can't have the reach evolution on any other attack beside bite/gore/tail if you care about symmetry !
Are the style feats really required ?
Seems to me it's kindda feat heavy (boar tree (3)+ Feral) for a couple bleed dmg. Unless you also fancy the intimidate option.
As to the choice of the race, besides flavor, in what way is picking a Tengu required ? Except as noted you skip the requirement of a 5th feat (IUS) for style feats.
Animal Fury + beast totem gives 3 attacks, and the helm applies to any race as well to add a 4th, alas secondary, gore attack.
side step : is Animal Fury description making consensus as to whether it's NOT a primary, but truly only a secondary natural attack on it's own ? It's only mechanically described as being used with other attacks, so the given -5 to-hit fits a primary or secondary attack when used with iteratives, without Multiattack.
If the style feats aren't that important, i concur that you can get 4 attacks quite easily (any race), and the pouncing from Beast totem makes it all the more impressive, and thus have a lot of free feat slots for extra rage powers XD
Note that the "floating" weapon attacks using your Int mod for to-hit also added the Int mod to dmg. Can't remember if that's the alpha or beta though. And if back then it was unlimited or already 3+int mod times a day. Before bonus spells/metamagic/cap on metamagic would be considered (low level), that made the Universalist a super strong range dmg dealer as well !!!
Is that "only" logic speaking, or is there a rule about it ?
It is the cheesiest approach for a biped Eidolon to get 5 natural attacks. 1 pt bite, 1 pt claws (feet), innate claws (hands). Color me satisfied if you can point out where it says you can't do that.
RAW : Eidolon's evolution for claws says it can be applied once, only, on limbs(legs), which obviously meant for a quadruped forelegs versus hind legs, but alas as written, a biped can do it too.
That furyborn enchant is really interesting, but alas I am not sure it works on natural attacks. It only states melee weapons :
Furthermore, even if it is allowed on natural weapons via an AoMF, can it increase in bonus throughout a single round full attack ?
That seems a little strange. You roll for 4 natural attacks, wearing the amulet of Furyborn, and the last attack could already be at +3 ?
Maybe it's balanced for iteratives with a single weapon, but it seems a little strong on 5+ natural attacks builds if allowed to be put on AoMF.
Then one could argue that it will only increase in bonus for a single attack in the natural attacks routine, making it a rather poor +2 enchant. I see no middle ground if allowed on AoMF, weak or strong.
Thanks for the Golembane Scarab and Frozen Fist Amulet tips, greatly appreciated.
For RP reasons, the summoner is a whimp. Literally. I built him with rolled stats that amount to a 11 pts buy ... So yeah, physical scores are pretty bad, and I am not going to melee as a flank buddy. Totally wasting the fact that it's a 3/4 bab class, but meh, only so much you can do with 11 pts equivalent stats !
I was thinking about aiming for AoMF +3, with the +2 left under the cap for either 2x elemental enchants or something like holy.
Use magic attack evolution to pass through magic DR at low level, and past lev 10 to bypass DR/good, until AoMF get holy, or if I go for 2x elementals.
Use Versatile weapon as a wand to overcome DR/silver and cold iron as needed before AoMF gets big enough.
And simply carry a big stick made of adamantine for backup. Might even enchant it moderately at lev 9+ to include it into the attack routine with Multiattack.
That's a game plan. And since i am not even sure we will be able to craft in the AP, it might be out the window quite fast. Unless someone else gets good advice, that seems like a good overall approach to minimize DR problems.
I am slightly confused. You described in good details what you thought would be optimal choice for the AoMF enchants in your first post. Essentially, energy resistance notwithstanding, you argued that for DR, you are better off just stacking 5x elemental dmg enchants. That's what i labelled the bazooka approach instead of trying to overcome the DR.
In your second post, you go the other way, you show exactly why 5x elemental enchants ain't very good since many high level critters have moderate energy resists across the board, nullifying each source of elemental damage.
Re-reading your posts, you do not seem to factor in material based DR, only DR/-. I am looking for ways to overcome the former not the latter.
Also, please don't spoiler monsters from that particular AP. But I am not really familiar with monsters' resistances overall, what kind of CR usually come with DR adamantine ? Is it worth even considering for an AP that (i think) goes up to level 14-15 ?
Otherwise, AoMF +3 + Versatile weapon + magic attacks might do just fine.
I am playing a summoner in a casual game set in RotRL AP.
I am planning ahead as to what options are available to overcome DR with the Eidolon's natural attacks, as DR is often the bane of multiple attacks, in particular natural attacks.
So far i've identified 4 sources for practical solution. But DR adamantine is still elusive.
1) Magic attack (Su)- evolution. counts as magic for DR. at level 10 counts as alignment DR bypass. Great.
2) Versatile Weapon - spell. This one is not on the summoner spell-list but is relatively low level and as such could be bought as a wand and UMDed. Bypass any 1 type of DR, material based (except adamantine), or dmg type. Only works on 1 attack.
3) Eldritch Claws - feat. All natural attacks count as magic and silver for DR. Great with Magic attack for passive "always on" "all attacks".
4) Amulet of mighty fists - item. Even with the price reduced, this gets quite expensive to make +3, to bypass cold iron. to make +4, to bypass Adamantine, means to forgo good options for added effects since amulet is capped at +5.
Any other options i overlooked? DR Adamantine is really the hardest to bypass for Natural attacks, as AoMF @ +4 seems to be the only option.
The wording on the Vestigial arm needs to be clarified. On that all agree. Because taking it RAW, 4 arms (2x Vestigial arm) alchemist CAN swing 2x 2handed. Not gaining extra attacks, thus conforming to RAW.
But the FAQ on twf and armor spikes make it clear that the designers have in mind the off-hand attack as being an additionnal attack to an attack routine where only a main-hand was used. Be that off-hand really a hand or not is irrelevent. A two handed weapons uses both the main and the off-hand attack potential. If you don't have extra attacks, you can't use the extra arms to make further attacks.
AS far as the benefit for having extra arms (even without attacks) go, there are plenty of awesome scenarios :
2) 3 different weapons wielded. Mix and match a main hand and a off-hand attack to maximize effectiveness against particular DR.
3) Sword and board, possible twf. Extra hand allows spellcasting, akin to somantic weaponry feat from 3.5 (don't have to sheath/drop the weapon to cast)
Probably a dozen more i can't imagine at the moment.
THe problem, mechanic wise, that arise when twf 2x 2handed is quite cumbersome. As you only have 1 main hand, one of the swings will benefit from 1.5 STR mod and 1-3 power attack. But what about the other one? You only have two off-hands left, how do you deal with the dmg bonus rules and the to-hit calculations ?
RAW, you would need to go to the table for twf, and use the -4/-4 line for your to-hit, as you don't have a off-hand light weapon. The bonus dmg and power attack ratio is still up for debate.
If you use a 2handed, a light weapon and a shield, one could argue that with twf feat, you could squeeze 1.5 str mod on the 2handed, and 0.5 str mod on off-hand, both attacks at -2. And still benefit form the shield for AC, via the 4th arm (no bashing). But that kind of solution is clearly in violation (IMO) of the intent of the FAQ reagarding TWF and armor spikes.
Ha ! it was hidden in the combat part of the FAQ :
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
—Pathfinder Design Team, 07/26/13
Driver 325 yards wrote:
The part about the shield bash is directly from a FAQ. The expansion of the FAQ to the situation the OP outlines is opinion, though it may, nonetheless, be a reasonable interpretation of the consequences of the FAQ.
It's strange, I was sure it was part of the FAQ. I meant the clause explicitly saying you can't use two-weapon fighting with a 2handed and armor spikes, for example. And the reasoning behind it was exactly what i said above : that you have a main and an off- hand, and that the 2handed uses both, so you don't have any off-hands left to use two-weapons fighting, even if the off-hand attack intended is armor spikes or bladed boots.
Maybe it was only designer insight on some thread, or blog. I do recall it caused quite a fuss. Since i can't find it, i guess I can't back up my words with RAW.
But anyway, the bottom line (of my imaginary post/FAQ) applies here as well : Vestigial arms do not grant you more attacks, pretty much like armor spikes can't be used if you already 2hand a weapon.
According to the FAQ on TWF, in particular the part about fighting with a 2 handed weapon + a bladed boot/armor spikes being not allowed "because the off-hand is already used to wield the 2handed", then no you can't.
take it this way : a humanoid has a main hand and a off-hand attack potential. If you wield a 2handed, you combine both to get 1.5 str mod to dmg. Funny how main-hand(1.0 str mod) + off-hand(0.5) = 2handed huh?
The Vestigial arms allows you to have more options rdy. Like potions, or even another weapon. But you can't exceed the normal main-hand+off-hand rule with them.
Since main-hand and off-hand are only taken into account for attacking, you can still wear a shield with one of the Vestigial arms to get AC. You can't however, shield bash with it if you attack with a 2handed with 2 of your other hands, or attack with two 1handed weapons already.
AS far as I am aware, the arms can't be used to make attacks, or allow you to make more attacks. That includes 2handing 2 weapons. SO the Only legit combo you asked for is the first. But then, you don't need the 4th arm either.
Oh and the second option is also valid. Sorta. You can fire the crossbows 1handed and have the according penalties, and reload both with a Vestigial arm's aid.
Yeah, figured 3) would case some headache. Any DM worth it's salt wouldn't deny a PC a chance to strike a hovering flyer "just out" of reach. jump DC might vary from one to the other, AoO from the flyer or not, but denying the possibility of an attack based on the "you don't have spring attack feat" is just mean.
Somehow combat seemed much more fluid and imaginative when we were running Ad&d. Called shots (old school) and lack of tactical grid based rules/abilities made for much more memorial combat.
I blame the rules.
OK, got pretty much all the insight i was looking for. So now onto the matter of corner cases, just for fun :
The eagle is adjacent to a medium creature without reach, in the square right above it. On it's turn, it full attacks with +1 for height advantage.
1) The eagle stands hovering in that square, succeeding at DC 15 fly check to hover. The enemy wants to get the frak out. It can't use the withdraw action in any direction to avoid AoO, since the diagonal squares under the eagle are still threatened. So even if the first square left (under the eagle) does not provoke, the second one (any diagonal) will.
2) The eagle, after completing the full attack, ascend 5' to be out of reach. Is that possible ? ascending at 45 degrees is supposed to use twice the amount of mvt, and doing a true vertical mvt requires a DC 20 fly check. So i guess, no, it's impossible to use the 5' fly-step in this manner since it would require at least 10' of mvt, and a successful fly check.
3) The eagle "stands" 5' above the medium target, so 1 vertical square between them. If said target wants to strike at the eagle, it must do a jump check. "Straight cube creatures" would mean a medium creature must make a DC 20 jump check - 5' jump to close that vertical gap (part of it's mvt action) to try to attack the eagle once. Table
seems to imply a medium creature can already reach 8' from the ground, so a DC 8 jump check would be enough to reach the total 10', and strike at the creature in the cube above. If the creature is small, it's rather a DC 24 jump.
Regardless of the actual DC for this to work, the creature incurs an AoO from the eagle since it goes in, then out, a threatened square on the way up, then down.