Jellyfulfish's page

Greetings,

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)
- Warrior cleric (essentially a str based melee cleric, maybe reach, with just enough Wis to get highest spells)
- Inquisitor
- Oracle (metal? battle ?)

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?

Thanks !

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 Eagle (or celestial variant) seems to be considered a top choice for most casters that use the summon monster I spell. Or even summon monster II for 1d3 of those animals.

I am unsure how to properly play that creature. After re-reading the rules, here is some scenarios that can highlight how to properly handle the creature.

Caster starts casting summon monster I. Opponents get to roll on a spellcraft to identify the spell.

1 round later, just before the caster goes again in initiative, assuming nothing broke his concentration, the spell goes off.

1)Where can the creatures appear ? I assume mid-air to be a fair "surface", or rather "medium that can support" the creature.
1.b)Can it be summoned in a foe's square ? Probaby not. So the summoned eagle appears anywhere at close range to the spellcaster (25' +5' /2CL), ready to act.

2)It most probably charges (dive) on the intended target. No need for handle-animal check since it can be presumed to know friends from foes ? Baring tactical considerations it can't comprehend, it thus charges at the nearest, say goblin.

2.b)The eagle has 0 reach, as such it must enter the enemy square to attack. So diving onto the goblin's square triggers an AoO, assuming said goblin is armed and not flat footed. Is there 2 AoOs ? one for leaving the 5' reach of the goblin's dogslicer, and another for entering the goblin's square? Seems to me it's not the same source, one being movement, the other being entering enemy square, so possibly 2 AoOs. I ask because entering an enemy's square, even with a 5' step (from a normal humanoid) would still provoke. IF the eagle survives the AoOs (or avoids them) it can now do a single attack on the goblin?
2.c)If the eagle was summoned 5' from said goblin. Can it 5' step inside the goblin's square ? That would lead to an AoO for entering the enemy square even if it's a 5' step ? For further considerations regarding that see question 4).

3)Before the eagle initiative comes up again, the goblin will act. Can it attack the eagle that is within it's space with a regular dogslicer or must it 5' step outside the square ?
3.b) if it doesn't want to bother with the eagle, can it move it's full speed and do a standard action elsewhere without incurring an AoO ? bottom line : do the eagle threaten its own square?
3.c) Assume the goblin has a reach weapon (horsechopper). Is it possible for the summon to appear at 5', close in, full attack, and never trigger an AoO since the goblin only threatens at 10' ?

4) the eagle is up again. Lets say the goblin didn't move, and still share the square. Can the eagle full attack for 3 attacks at this point? Must it do a fly check to hover in place ? What is that DC, 10 or 15 ? Doing that fly check can be made with the full attack ? Because if it's a move action to do the fly check our poor eagle will never full attack...
4.b) Similar to the above, but now the goblin actually moved 5', out of the square. Can a flying eagle do a "5' air step" to close in the goblin's square ? Does it incur an AoO for entering the square, despite the 5' step ? Does that need a fly check ? This is 2.c) redux.
4.c) The goblin actually moved 15 feet away from the eagle to attack another hero. Can the eagle follow that movement and attack once ? It's less than half it's movement (fly speed), so it needs to roll for a fly check ? what’s the DC ?
4.d) The monster in question is no longer a goblin but something medium with a bite attack, a reach weapon, and combat reflexes. It moved 15' like in 4.c) Now the eagle triggers for leaving the reach square at 10', triggers again for entering the monster's square (bite attack threatens) , all this before 4.c) considerations.

I know summon monster I is a low level spell, but if ruled correctly, the eagle is really not that good. It will most probably die every time before it gets to attack because of AoOs. And will probably never full attack, while it's most favorable stat-block entry is the 3 attacks.

Greetings,

I play a summoner in a campaing (AP) with a bunch of friends. The group has a whole decided to get together after several years of not playing. And as far as all players are veteran from the Ad&d era, none of them are munchkins are optimization fanatics. As such, most do suboptimal choices from a mechanical point of view, and a lot of emphasis is put on role play. Just a bunch of friends getting together to slay goblins really.

The problem encountered is inherent to the summoner class. Or more specifically, to it's eidolon class feature. Looking through the various forum posts to actually get a grip of what are the do's and don'ts for this complexe class, I realized that properly built, an eidolon is not really OP compared to other melee classes that optimize. Here lies the problem, we don't optimize, and as such, there are very obvious options to get the eidolon a head start in power, and it seemed rather disturbing to most other players. DM in particular.

So the rule so far has been to reduce the cap number of the eidolon's natural attacks by 1. So 2 attacks max at level 1, and so on. While it does bring the Eidolon in line with a confortable power level for our group, I am looking for a more suited modification to the class feature.

For me, an option would be to actually limit the number of attacks that can be made as primary attacks on the Eidolon. I don't understand why they implemented so many ways to easily augment your eidolon with primary attacks, there is NO mechanical advantage to grant it secondary attacks, as the evolution point costs are only margianlly lower (not in all cases even).

Something like : Keep the table for maximum number of natural attacks, but of those attacks, only half (rounded up) can be considered primary. This clause overrides an attack evolution that would otherwise specify the attack to be primary.

So you would still be able to flesh out your eidolon the way you want (taking only primary attacks evolutions because that's the way you want your eidolon to look), but limit the overall power. This also adds the benefit of making the free multiattack feat at level 9 a bonus rather than an useless free feat.

Exemple :
@ level 1 biped with bite evo has 3 attacks, 2 primary claws + secondary bite
@ level 4 you can have 4 arms with 2 primary claws and 2 secondary claws.
@ level 9 you can have 2 claws primary, bite primary, 2 claws secondary. Or tentacles/wing buffet whatever for those secondaries.

Why didn't the designer add a maximum number of primary attacks to the eidolon's progression ?

Thoughts?

Greetings,

I am contemplating the multiattack bonus feat the eidolon gets at summoner level 9. At first i was amazed and thought this would allow for ridiculous damage output. I ended up only seeing it as a good way to overcome DR. I'll build a fine (not min-maxed to the death) eidolon of level 10, and show how close they are in damage output, with the weapon wielder actually falling behind on relevant monsters. Please, critique the builds, i think they are rather straight forward, but i am pretty sure i dropped the ball in my attempt to make the most out of multiattack. Enlighten me.

For this comparaison, I'll use biped form, half-elf summoner with favored class option put into eidolon's evo points, max number of natural attacks, and compare the builds based on the damage expected on level appropriate monster, and use the extra evo points/feats availlable post build to measure it's flexibility.

Both Eidolon will take the flight evo for mobility and rule of cool, and the large evolution for pure awesomeness. The former helps the Multiattack user more, as wings will grant easy 2 secondary attacks for 1 point. The latter will benefit both.

1) Frenzy NatAt

NatAt just doesn't care about weapons. He rips faces with his claws and is damn good at it.

level 10
Evo points : 14+2

Evolutions :
large (4pts)
flight (2pts)
extra limbs (2pts)
claws (1 pt)
bite (2x1pt)

Str score is
16+8(large)+4(auto bumps)+2(level bumps choice)+2(belt of strenght) = 32

spare evo points : 5.

feats used : 0.

offense gear : belt str +2, AoMF +2; 20k /62k.

Attack routine :

AB = bab(+8) + str(+11) + AoMF(+2) -size(-1)= +20
Bite/claws x4
+20(1d8+18)/+20x4 (1d6+13)
average damage on all hits : 88.5

2) McStick ++

McStick uses the biggest meanest weapon to damage his foes, and supplement his full attack routine with 5 secondary attacks.

level 10
Evo points : 14+2

Evolutions :
large (4pts)
flight (2pts)
wing buffet (1pt)
tentacle (2x1pt)
bite (1pt)

Str score is still 32

spare evo points : 6.

feats used : 1 (greatsword proficiency)

offense gear : belt str +2, AoMF +1, greatsword +2; 16k /62k.

Attack routine :

AB (sword)= bab(+8) + str(+11) + enhancement(+2) -size(-1)= +20
AB (secondary attacks)= bab(+8) + str(+11) + AoMF(+1) -size(-1)-multiattack(-2)= +17
Sword/Sword/Bite/wings x2/tentacles x2
+20(3d6+18)/+15(3d6+18)/+17(1d8+6)/+17x2 (1d6+6)/+17x2 (1d6+6)
average damage on all hits : 105.5

Now, if everything lands, that's nice, but a CR 11 monster can be expected to be an average encounter, with an AC of 25. When that factored in (i didn't do the crits), the expected damage of Fury NatAt and McStick drop to 66.38 and 64.73, respectively. It goes south for McStick on higher AC, of course.

So all things considered, McStick uses a feat, frees up 1 evo point, to do more damage on trivial monsters. He has more flexibility to counter DR, as a weapon is much cheaper to enchance.

Both have the option to get reach on the bite for extra control, very cheap. Or the elemental damage on natural attacks. That one helps Frenzy NatAt somewhat more due to higher AB on his naturals.

Could McStick use the reach evolution on the weapon attacks? Has it been ruled for or against? RAW do not deny that possibility, but I can see RAI fluff to restrict it to natural attacks.

I also hand-weaved the fact that McStick build is not RAW legal, as it's impossible to forgo the innate claws on the eidolon. Still,i don't think that changes the numbers at all as you can grant proper 5 secondary attacks for the same evo budget. Something like (base)2claws,wing buffet, bite, and instead of tentaclesx2 you could get extra limbs for the sword.

Am I missing something in trying to make more out of Multiattack ?

Greetings,

What do you guys think of this class (Beguiler, PH 2 : http://dndtools.eu/classes/beguiler ) to use within a Pathfinder Core Book + Advanced Players only game? Is it of comparable power with the base/core classes ?

Looking at the variant for rogues in all published material from Paizo, or other classes like the alchemist, nothing strikes me as similar to this spontaneous int based caster.

Looking for a rogue-like character that want to go diplomacy/bluff with a splash of illusion/enchantment, without relying on sneak attack, but that want to keep the trapfinding. Nothing seems better than that beguiler.

Would you allow it as is, with proper skill consolidation as per 3.5 -> Pathfinder for the class skills ? It's already fitting the d6 = 1/2 BAB progression. The only odd ball thrown in that class is the spellcasting. Any modifications should be made to it to merge with Pathfinder classes' power level ?

Ah….. barbarians.

Upon release of the core rule book I was pretty disappointed with the options given to the class. The fighter seemed such a better choice for he got more or less the same to-hit and damage bonus from his class features compared to the rage str bonus, plus a much higher AC and feat selections.

The tide has turned with the APG and UC, and now the different archetypes for the barbarian and the new rage powers make it a very nice class, able to really shine outside the pure DPR competition with the fighter (and maybe even win that one too).

I was looking at the beast totems line of rage powers and kept wondering if anyone actually got around to optimize, or at least crank a little bit of love (and rage) onto those claws the barbarian gets.

From a pure mechanical point of view, people grab the beast totems to get pounce, but use a manufactured weapon with it. I was thinking of a Wolverine type character (yes probably with the invulnerable rager archetype) that use the claws. Any way to make it work ? I suppose you’d be stuck with two attacks per round (both claws are primary natural weapons?) at 1x STR mod.

If someone also have some nice idea on how to tack some Fast healing on a mostly barb build that’s a big plus.

-Jelly

Has there been a official ruling regarding the ability of a lev. 17 barbarian to get into a rage and out of it during the same turn, in order to nullifies its associated penalties during the remaining of the round, and to enable the barbarian to use his once per rage powers every round?

There seems to be many people thinking along those lines since a lot of barb build suggestions incorporate some ways to be immune to fatigue before lev 17 in order to get that trick going earlier.

Now, what if a errata was issued on the barbarian ability, going along the lines :

Old :
Starting at 17th level, a barbarian no longer becomes fatigued at the end of her rage.

New :
Starting at 17th level, a barbarian no longer becomes fatigued at the end of her rage. In addition, the barbarian’s once per rage rage powers are now treated as once per round.

This would actually mean you don’t end your rage every round and undergo the silliness some have pointed out, while keeping the rage penalties and benefits (through rage powers selection and rage features) out of your turn.

What do you think?

Of course those who do not wait for the barbarian lev.17 to get the trick going will still have to face the angry look of their DM when trying to justify their strength surge every round and no AC penalty on ennemies' turn.

-Jelly

The barbarian greater beast totem rage power allows for pounce ability.

Most of the beast totems are related to natural attacks. Lesser giving you claw attacks, and greater improving those. Is it the design intent to give the pounce ability only when using those natural attacks? Or is the rage power specifically not mentioning any restriction in order to allow barbarians to attack with manufactured weapon, if they so desire, or even mix one natural attack (claw) with a 1handed weapon, when they pounce?

Available at 10th level, pounce is almost a no-brainer for barbarians who want to deal significant damage in melee (it actually keeps them in the top DPR). This rage power makes the vital strike chain less appealing to them than it might have been with only the core rulebook. I can foresee a lot of barbarian players pick those 3 rage powers by 10th level, and pick other interesting rage powers that fit their character concept. Without the need for spring attack/vital strike combo, Barbarians will have a lot of room for extra rage powers feat, as the only really helping feat on charge/pounce is power attack, from a damage dealing point of view.

Thoughts?

I'm trying to design an elemental damaging spell based on a flamethrower effect.

The idea is to have fairly good damage output or fire type, with possibly a condition sideeffect similar to orb spells from 3.5, ongoing effect maintained by concentration, with an area of effect with the "cone" geometry, movable as part of the caster's maintained concentration.

Here is what I have so far.
-----------------------------
Fire Hose
Evocation [Fire]
Level: Drd 5, Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 40 feet
Area : Cone-shaped emanation
Duration: Concentration
Saving Throw: Ref. half, see texte.
Spell Resistance: Yes

A blazing firestorm springs into existence from your open hand palms. The Fire Hose deals 1d4 per caster level (max 15d4) fire damage to any creature caught in the cone-shaped emanation at the beginning of the caster's turn. The first round a creature is affected by the Fire Hose, it must succeed a fortitude save or be dazzed for 1d4 rounds. Every round a creature is affected by the Fire Hose, it is entitled to a reflex save to reduce the fire damage taken by half.

On his turn, the caster can choose to maintain the Fire Hose via substained concentration. He can also choose to re-orient the cone-shaped emanation in any direction around him, but is otherwise forced to stay in place for the duration of the spell.
---------------------------

The points of balance for this spell are as follow : While more damaging and easier to adapt to ennemie moves than Wall of fire, the Fire Hose lacks the extended duration past concentration and allows a reflex save for half damage. The possibly added condition hads some flavor to the spell without making it overpowered. The fact that you can deal caster level d4s per round might feel like alot but it bounds the caster to his original location, and concentration must be maintained (possible interruption via concentration check failure).

I'd like to have some feedback on this spell. If you think it's too powerful overall, if it needs another spell level allocation, etc. Please try to evaluate based on the actual power level of evocation/damaging spells, not based on other spell options which, we all agree, are usually better choices for casters.

-Jelly

What are the mechanics involved in scribing several spells onto a single scroll?

I assume the following:
-Scribing costs remain the same, you you simply add all the costs together.
-The caster level of the various spells can differ.
-When completing the casting of any of those spells, the effect takes place as normal, leaving that particular spell space, on the scroll, blank.
-The remaining spells remain on the scroll and can be individually completed at a later time.

So my question is, the benefit of such a practice is to have a variety of spells at your disposal needing only one move-equivalent action to ready?

And the drawback is to be limited in scroll-sharing/lending, or to be more susceptible to thievery?

Jelly

Under the barbarian rage power Knockback, it says: "Once per round, the barbarian can make a bull rush attempt against one target in place of a melee attack.(...) This does not provoke an attack of opportunity."

The Bull rush maneuver says : "you can make a bull rush as a standard action or as part of a charge, in place of the melee attack."

which is the correct interpretation of the rules:

a) Since knockback specifies "once per round", it means you can use the knockback rage power instead of one of your attacks, either a standard attack action after a move, one of the iterative attacks due to high BAB, or even instead of an AoO.

b) Knockback uses the same mechanics and limitations as a bull rush attempt. it essentially counts as improved bull rush by itself : no AoO part, trading the +2 CMB/CMD bonus for little damage. It also must be used as a standard action or charge.

If it's only b) that is correct, it seems a little weak as a rage power. It does little by itself and overlaps with a feat meant to complement it.

If a) is correct, I fear it adds a mechanical problem to close combat: full attack, trading last attack for bullrush maneuver, do not follow, 5' step back. Rinse and repeat.

anyone?

Crafting a belt of mighty constitution +2 requires 4 things. The spell, the feat, a CL of at least 8, and 2000gp.

A 3 rd level wizard with starting int. of 20 will have a spellcraft check mod. of +11. The craft DC for a CL 8 item is 5+8 = 13. Add the fact that the CL requirement is not met, and the DC is now 18. The wizard only needs a 7 on a d20 to correctly craft this item. Is that accurate?

What would be the CL of the crafted item, for determining its saving throws? CL 8 or CL 3?

Given the money, crafting a +6 belt would be as easy for this wizard. The fixed DC mod of +5 doesn’t factor in the difference between the actual caster level and the CL requirement, nor the does the CL requirement, for higher enhancement bonus, scale. Is that intended?

If I correctly understand that the header CL is actually a requirement, it should be added to the requirement section of each items, or clearly stated in the creation rules that it is a requirement. An enhancement bonus on a weapon, for example, clearly states the minimum CL being 3 times the bonus to be added.