Search Posts
As a side note, I really like the flavor of "verbal only". My sorcerer recently turned level 5 while IN a jail cell. He woke up the next morning and ordered the cell door to "Move it!" and dammit, that's exactly what it did! I also like not using "arcane" languages for some spells. Sorcerers especially don't "cast spells", when I play them. They "bend reality to their wills." It's hella fun when you play it that way. :)
At the higher levels the INA adds more than a simple +1 to damage. Once the dice start getting to the 1d8 size the die increase from INA is worth more than just a +1 to damage... and that bonus gets spread out over the monk's up to 11 hits. So I think it was specifically nerf from an "overpowered" angle. Oops. You are correct. Adding an d6 or d8 would give an average +3 or +4 bonus damage per attack. Yeah, that IS obviously more than other classes could get (compare to weapon specialization). The main question on this side-topic still exists, though. Is there ANY reason, whatsoever, to treat monk attacks as "natural"? Beneficial? Detrimental? Anything at all? Also, Camper Joe, I just figured out something that you said that had been confusing me. * Multiattack is a moot point since none of the monk's unarmed attacks count as off-hand attacks Were you, by chance, looking at "Multiweapon Fighting" as opposed to "Multiattack"?
Off the cuff, I'd say that every time you try to cast a spell (that has a somatic component) while wearing armor/carrying a shield, you roll percentile dice. If you roll your spell failure chance or lower, you lose the spell, but nothing happens. Also, since all spell failure chances are expressed in increments of 5, you can always divide by 5 and roll a d20, if that's easier for you.) Example. My wizard is wearing a chain shirt and has a normal buckler strapped to his arm. Chain Shirt has a 20% spell fail and a buckler has a 5% spell failure. Added together that's 25%. Every time he casts a spell that has a somatic component, he rolls 1d100. If he rolls 25 or less, he loses the spell, with no actual magic happening. Personally, I would divide by 5% and roll a d20 instead. Then, I lose the spell on a 5 or less.
INA has been specifically excluded from being used by a Monk, because otherwise it would be available as an effect on a Monk's unarmed strikes since they are, as you quoted, treated as natural attacks. I understand that. What I don't understand is why? To use a charge on the nerf-bat? What is the reason? Two possibilities come to mind. The first is that it's overpowered. However, an average of +1 damage per attack isn't exactly game breaking. The other possibility is that Monk attacks aren't really meant to be treated as natural attacks, and the devs targeted the wrong rule. They should have changed the monk descriptor and not how it interacts with various rules.
Thank you Camper Joe. I thought I was talking into the darkness, there! Did you have any other questions that pertain to this topic?
There is a certain amount of confusion as to what, exactly a "natural attack" is. Part of that confusion stems from the fact that monk attacks are "treated as natural attacks" I'm trying to point out that there's absolutely no reason for this. In fact, it should probably be ignored completely because it doesn't mesh with any of the rest of the rules, nor does it benefit from them in any way. Yes, what I'm arguing for is technically a suggestion to have something changed. In the meantime, I felt I might help clarify what a natural attack is, and what monks do are in NO way natural attacks. They gain nothing by even "treating" their attacks as "natural". By removing the reference, many things get cleared up and make more sense. This topic exists because there is confusion. I submit my cure for some of that confusion. Also, how would "3 or more attacks, that are treated as natural" NOT count for the prerequisites of "3 or more natural attacks?"
feats are effects, it's that JB and the Paizo crew have specifically exempted INA. It's not that feats aren't allowed, it's that they decided to specifically not allow INA. Example please? How about the only other natural attack feat. Multiattack, anybody? So, I can take this feat so that my level 20 monk has the following attack progression? 18/18/16/16/16/16/16?! DAMN! Y'know what? I think I'm going to stop arguing with you, because this "natural attack" thing kicks ass. Oh, wait, the term "secondary attack" only seems to apply to the special rules I mentioned for natural attacks. It doesn't even seem to apply in the context of iterative attacks. BUT ... my monk CAN take it for his unarmed strikes, right? It's not on the exception list, right? NEAT! *sigh* Please name at least ONE example where calling a monk's unarmed attacks "natural attacks" makes any sense whatsoever?
Okay, sure, I understand that. My question to you, then, is what spells and/or effects require this statement? Magic Fang? Works on unarmed attacks anyway. What exactly is an "effect", anyway? Feats obviously aren't effects, or INA would work. I ... honestly can't think of ANY examples where a monk benefits from "counting" his attacks as "natural" ones. So, if there's no point ... why bother confusing people at all? Please provide examples, because I'm genuinely curious.
1,000 XP to everyone for effort :)WOOHOO! Level up! Of course the guy who contributes almost nothing to the encounter still gets full xp. It's always the way, innit?
I can see where you're coming from. However, the current wording creates more confusion that MY version. Treating monk attacks as "natural weapons" opens up at least 3 problems, all of which need to be specifically accounted for. Those being: attack progression, flurry of blows and Improved Natural Attack. If you completely remove the reference to natural attacks from the monk descriptor, then ZERO exceptions are needed (that I can see). It's much, MUCH cleaner and makes more sense in the context of the rules.
Thank you Tanis. I guess I can see where the confusion lies. Natural Attack is indeed mentioned under the subheading of "Unarmed Attacks". HOWEVER, I think it was only being used an an example of being "armed" without having any actual weapons. This is different then the game term of "unarmed". *rubs forehead*. That seems to be where a lot of the confusion lies. "Unarmed" as the game term is a specific kind of weapon. Then there's the generic term "unarmed", which refers to "not having a weapon". Natural attacks are "unarmed" ONLY in that they don't use a manufactured weapon. Grr ... I really hate to keep having to correct the rulebook, but I really think it's best if you just remove the reference to "natural attacks" from that section. It was (obviously to me) meant as an unrelated example. Unrelated because natural attacks ARE ALWAYS "ARMED", which is the whole point of the example, by the way.
*deep breath* Ooookay. Now go back and actually READ those spells, please. Here's a link in case you get lost. I apologize for being rude, but I have little patience when people correct me without doing their research (I get upset with myself when *I* don't do the research as well, so it goes both ways.) Anyway, those two spells specifically mention that they work with unarmed strikes in addition to natural attacks. SO, all you need to do to remove confusion is to remove "natural attack" from the Monk's descriptor. If a monk's attacks WERE "natural attacks", then he couldn't even use his own flurry of blows! He COULD take Improved Natural Attack, AND all of his attacks would be at his highest attack bonus (as per any other natural attack progression). None of this is true. THEREFORE a monk's unarmed strike IS NOT a natural attack, and the text in the monk description is just plain wrong. In the end, natural attacks are completely separate form unarmed attacks. Weapon Focus (Natural Attacks) would NOT be comparable with Weapon Focus (Unarmed). A monk's attacks are "unarmed" AND "weapons" (like swords), but are NOT "natural attacks". All Natural Attacks are "unarmed" but not all unarmed attacks are natural attacks. Again, this is incorrect. Natural Attacks are ONLY Natural Attacks. Unarmed is unarmed. Period. My confusion comes in here: natural and monks attacks are listed under unarmed attacks Where, exactly are you seeing this, please? I don't see it under weapons, and don't know where else to look.
Natural Attacks are best defined here, as far as I can tell. They represent a creatures innate battle ability. Usually claws and teeth, but sometimes a natural affinity for punching you with giant fists (slam attack). Natural Attacks tend to follow their own rules, specifically a monster always gets to use ALL of his available natural attacks in every full round of attacks. Unarmed attacks can usually be made from creatures that don't have built-in weaponry. A human's hand isn't designed with punching in mind. Monks, however, have trained their bodies to the point that their limbs ARE weapons. They're even treated as manufactured weapons for some purposes (Magic Weapon). Note, however, that they still use normal PC rules for attack progression, so the statement about their attacks counting as natural weapons should probably be ignored. More on that later. Unarmed Strike as a favored weapon would include any non-weaponized body part being used to attack. So it would NOT count for a leopard's claws, but it WOULD count if that leopard wanted to ball up his paw and punch with it. (I've seen a declawed house cat punch out a larger dog this way. Seriously). Then there're monks. According to the text, their attacks should be "treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon." From various other rulings, this should PROBABLY read: "is treated as both a manufactured weapon and an unarmed attack." A monk's attack is NOT a "natural weapon". In fact, a monk can't even flurry with natural weapons if he has them. Also, he can't use feats that enhance natural weapons. So, basically, ignore the whole "monk's have natural weapons" bit. Unfortunately, I'm late for work, and will answer more later if need be.
You could always give pollymorph any object another whirl, plus the usual upper undo spells such as wish and miracle which fix reincarnate normally. Technically, casting another P.A.O. to return to normal wouldn't be able to recreate your old appearance (you can't polymorph into specific creatures). HOWEVER, some further research has probably answered my question, anyway. "Permanent" is not the same as "Instantaneous". The latter means that the effect becomes intrinsically true and any remaining effects are non-magical. Permanent only means that the magics continue to persist. In other words, you CAN choose to end the spell at ANY time (as per "Greater Polymorph, who's rules it uses). It also means that it's dispellable and anti-magicalbe. Drat.
Okay, P.A.O. raises all sorts of questions. Do you have to follow the guidelines of the listed spells or can you polymorph truly anything into anything else? Anyway, as curious as I am about that, my current question is how to undo it? Assuming you change something "permanently" from one thing to another, how can you change it back? (This applies to Balefull polymorph too, I suppose). With the exception of Balefull Polymorph (the only other "permanent" morph), the subject can always just CHOOSE to return to his original form at any time. Does this apply to a PERMANENT effect? If the subject can't just will himself back to normal, then what magics would work? Dispell Magic? Remove Curse? What about an anti-magic field? I could understand if it would suppress a non-permanent polymorph, but what about a permanent one? My mage wants to "permanently" turn himself into something big and nasty before casting anti-magic field, but he wants to easily change back afterward, too! What's gonna happen?
A debate just came up in my game. Beast Shapes doesn't explicitly say that when you become small, you get the +1 to AC and attack. However, ALL small sized creatures get that, so there's no point in specifying it, right?
Also remember that taking a second class doesn't mean you have to change your character concept at all. I made an unarmed/grapple barbarian who was a "barbarian" in almost every way. However, he was barbarian(3) rogue(3). With Greater Grapple (and my bite attack), I could start doing decent sneak attack damage in a grapple whether or not I had allies around. I soloed the evil wizard boss without him being able to do a damn thing about it! I justified it by saying that my fighting style was "extra brutal". I wasn't necessarily aiming for vital spots (like rogues usually do), I was just super vicious in where and how I attacked. My "Rogarian" was the most effective member of the team!
Well, it isn't paticularly briliant, but what about allowing additional daily allotment of uses fo burning a spell level or two? (sacrifice lvl 3 spell to get additional 9 + 3 x cha modifier rounds of claws)? As far as houserules go, everybody seems to be fairly cool with "unlimited", so I don't see any particular reason to complicate it any more. Your suggestion DOES seem to be fairly standard mentality for a feat, though. But seriously? If I'm going to spend another feat on those claws, I don't want to also have to spend spell slots.
If you really want to use claws all the time, perhaps the answer is a spell that grants the claws? At which point I again ask, "Then why bother giving them as a class feature." *shakes head* Unless somebody from Paizo chimes in with some behind the scenes rationale, I'm going to have to agree with pretty much everybody else who says that the daily limits on sorcerer 1st level abilities is ridiculous and counterproductive to what we assume to be the initial design intent! Now, as much as I love discussing this topic, unless somebody shows up with some brilliant new insights, perhaps this threat is better off left unbumped, yes?
No, I never thought it was! I was actually hoping that somebody would make an offshoot thread to discuss other options in more detail. I believe I've been a chief proponent of your hero system, in fact. I just wanted newcomers to know why we're discussing this. As you well know, I REALLY don't like necessary magic items. The more people we convince of their evils, the better we can help make the game, methinks.
Maybe Zen should have linked to my other threads or at least recapped some of my sentiments about WHY you should get rid of "mandatory" magic items from the game. Sigurd, it has nothing to do with trying to take away "toys". It's about creating a smoother, more immersible setting. This Thread Discusses Why we want to remove the so-called "key" items from our games. This Thread discusses implementing these ideas in a practical manner. There are a lot of posts to read, which is probably why Zen79 started a new one to highlight his own idea, but if you search for my own posts "LordGriffin", I make most of the relevant points. (I don't come up with any solutions, though).
LazerX, I wasn't trying to say that a pure Sorc/Disciple should be a main tank. I was saying that everything that the Disciple gets lends itself VERY well to front line use. I was refuting your claim that DD is NOT a melee class. I loved how you said that it "never has been" a melee class. Did you even see the 3.5 version?! It sure as heck wasn't a casting class, I'll tell you that! Dragon Disciple has always been a good for melee. Pathfinder just made it good at casting as well. And what part of +7 natural armor is NOT good AC progression for a warrior or anybody else? Heck, if you go pure sorcerer/DD, you can get that up to +9! That's either 2 or 4 points HIGHER than you can get with magic items and it stacks with other defenses that a "warrior" would normally have. "Not that impressive AC"?! Really?! Is it because a Dragon Disciple probably won't be wearing very heavy armor? Mage Armor + a decent dex is usually how casters handle that situation. And hey, if you're really worried about AC, get yourself an enhanced mithril buckler. It doesn't interfere with spellcasting, and you only lose the AC when you're attacking with both hands. Because after awhile even with the buff they get later on, claws are going to be second rate to a decent weapon. If they're an inferior option to a sword, then why limit them? Why even have them at all? If you're going to be using a giant sword, then you probably don't care about the fact that you can grow claws. If you're NOT using a giant sword, then you're going to need them to be more reliable than "a few rounds a day". Are you seeing the logic, here or do I need to wait until Kolokotroni shows up again to say things better than I can?
I see you decided to give your chart more light by making it's own thread! I have a question. Your ninth bullet point mentions that Heroic Qualities "cost twice as much". They cost twice as much what? Money? Hero Points? I thought that this chart was specifically FOR buying Heroic Qualities. Why would I double the cost just to use it as intended? Obviously, I'm confused as to how it's intended. Hmmm.
On that note, a silo would likely do about 6d6 damage, although you DO have to be able to "wield it as a melee weapon" first. Good luck with that.
Why not, if I may ask? Now that I think about it, I don't think you get "penalties" for using a weapon that's too big. I think you just can't do it. That should probably apply to wizards as well.
The Dragon Discipile is NOT and never has been billed as a "melee" class. Although once you get up there, who's going to care about some measly claws when you can pop out FORM OF THE DRAGON. Remember, Form of the Dragon isn't something you can rely on in EVERY battle. You get it at level 12 (earliest) and only once per day. The claws are available from level 1. For a sorcerer, they're there for when you run out of spells. For a Disciple, they're for when you don't have any Forms left, or the fight is too small to waste using one. Of course, if using the claws wastes resources as well, than that defeats even that use for them. Then there's the part about DD NOT being a melee class. Okay, it's not pure melee, but seriously. Medium BAB, d12 hit die, +4 strength, +2 con and +3 nat armor. You can also choose feats like Blindfighting, Power Attack and Toughness. Plus it gives you claw and bite attacks! What would you use all of that for? Shooting a crossbow? Making magic items? Throwing daggers? Pure casting? ... NO! The only thing a Dragon Disciple gives out that's not usable in melee is the +2 Int! Almost everything else isn't just melee, but Main Tank melee. I don't care what you think it's been "billed" as ... it's stats are heavily geared for melee. Too bad you have to carry around a sword just to make use of any of that. It sure would be nice if it came with it's own, built-in, dragon themed weapon .....
Wow, four posters in a row that agree with each other. And now you can add my vote to make 5. I also like the idea of throwing around a colossal sword-shaped item with true strike with this. I'd never allow it, but the thought amuses me.
DW, An inherent +5 attack/damage is NOT more powerful than a +5 sword. It's just more versatile, which is better, but not more powerful. As far as special effects like flaming goes, that would still most likely be relegated to actual items. I don't think I much care for the "change it every few minutes" part, whether it's intrinsic or material. Just like the choice of feats or magical items, what you take is what you keep, unless you spend a LOT of time or money to change it. Magical item stat enhancers CAN usually be applied to "any three stats". Most PCs buy whatever it is they need. That could easily be a belt that gives a bonus to strength and dex, plus a headband of wis. The point, though, is that by level 20, those items are usually at LEAST +4. Your chart is +4 MAX. The question, of course, is "How many stats should get a +6 bonus by level 20?" One? The MADs will complain. Three? The SADs will feel that they're being overshadowed. Can you give the MADs what they "need", while still offering the SADs something equally valuable that the MADs won't have a problem with?
Side note: Draconic bloodline is still way cool no matter how you view the Claws ability, and THANK GOODNESS they made Dragon Disciple into something halfway decent. Thank you Paizo! ^_^ Very much agreed. The magical advancement system that 3.5 had was not only useless, but it was just plain stupid. Now we have the standardized "+1 spell level" that I can actually DO something with! Of course, they way they laid it out makes level 8 almost worthless. Oh, well. Anyway, I agree that a "normal" adventure probably "should" have a 10-12 strength. However, in the context of this thread, I don't think that's enough to benefit the claws. Not only do you have low BAB, but you're getting +1 at most from strength, unless you REALLY specialize (like I did). Now I get +3 from strength, +1 from feat and my casting has become NOT good. All for ... 5 rounds of so-so melee. WHOO! I tried my best to optimize for claw use (barring a few rp considerations) and all I managed to do was to make them barely usable ... 5 times a day. Anyway, I'm pretty sure that I understand all of the arguments that are relevant here. Continue debating this if you want, but I don't think there are many more points to make. Especially since everybody seems to be in agreement anyway. Thanks again to everybody who helped out, especially Kolokotroni and Helic! Your flurry of insights was exactly was I was hoping to get from this!
Stuff like this IS what I'm looking for. But it still needs to be simple. A static chart is simple. Even Zen79's Hero chart is pretty easy to follow. Many of your line items duplicate non-essential magic items. For example "+5 to a skill" or "recalling magics". I do like that you're considering these things. Besides the "invisible items" idea, I think you're the first poster to incorporate them. Perhaps you could give more options, though? Speed bonuses. Vision enhancements. Even something like a 3/day haste would be something you could add to a list of goodies. Just a thought.
I initially read some of it, but your wording made it difficult to understand or was just convoluted. For example, Defensive Training gives an AC bonus every level. But you have to raise "armor" first. But nothing can be higher than armor. But armor can't be higher than anything else. And you get to chose which armor you receive. It's not a LOT to keep track of, but it seems to me that it could be more concise. Also, a +1 to a single save is a pretty weak bonus. To get the equivalent of a +5 robe, you'll need to use 3/4 of your Defensive Training on Better Saves. Your Physical and Mental Training, as stated, would give two stats a +4 and one stat a +2 by level 20. That's very weak compared to what items would give you. Everything gives some specific bonuses that kinda/sorta mimic some common magic items, but they don't mimic them perfectly and often just seem randomly thought out. I appreciate the effort, I really do. However, I think it could use a bit more refinement.
Is there any information on why it was changed from the Beta version? Well THAT'S fascinating! I just read the beta version. They use the wording "any time the target rolls a d20", but mentions later that "once it's used, it's gone." Now, I KNOW that the beta version isn't exactly canon. However, it does seem to shed light on Paizo's internal logic. In other words, "any time" actually means "next time". It's badly worded, to be sure, but the intent seems to be clear.
Zen79 ... WHOOT! Finally, a nice chart for ability progression that's NOT "invisible items". It focuses on the needed bonuses which is really what I wanted this thread to be about. (although I am happy with pretty any option that gets rid of item clutter!) I'll need to run your numbers to see how well they work, though. Does anybody else have insights into this? Do these numbers work for SADs, MADs, tanks and casters? It seems to me that this might actually run into the standard ala cart problem. A wizard, for example is going to reap HUGE benefits from this. He typically won't care about AC and will only work on a single stat. I'm not sure that a +10 enhancement bonus to everything that a wizard does (namely, his Int) maintains the internal balance I'm looking for ... although it IS only 4 points higher than a "normal" maximum. Hmmmm.
Not to me. How many times is the cleric going to have to roll a d20 over the course of one round? It doesn't seem that overpowered at all. The ability is a touch attack, and is meant to be used on other party members. Using it on yourself would do very little beyond giving you an extra saving throw, since I believe it would end at the beginning of your next turn? (not sure, actually).
Well, given that the wording is "any time" and not "the next time" I would have to think it's all such rolls made before the Cleric's next turn.Doesn't that seem a little strong? I agree, it does seem a little strong. However, you ARE giving up your standard action. You're sacrificing any attacks you might have made to make sure that somebody else's attacks (and/or abilities) have a better chance of hitting. It has a nice side effect of giving it's bonus to saving throws as well. All in all, it's powerful, but I don't think it's unbalancingly so. Especially with a times per day limit. (unlike Sorcerer times per days limits for abilities that mostly suck, but that's another topic).
Let me re-iterate, however; I consider ALL 1st level sorcerer powers to be 'weak', especially in the long run. I have no problem with any of them being unlimited use because of this. I find it interesting that the greatest opposition in this thread to "unlimited claws" actually supports it. You just don't see a reason to single them out for special treatment. Oh, and carrying loot is everybody's job It stretches credibility in my mind to assume that every character should have a high strength. It's not necessarily good for "role players" (since it's reeks of metagaming) nor is it good for "optimizers". (I'm not saying you can't be both). Really, giving a sorcerer a high strength is a very personal decision that's not very well supported by the function of the class itself. Adding additional (weaker than actual spell) powers are not more valuable, they are less so. I definitely see your logic, and I want to agree with it. However, an option that's not usable is not an option at all. Okay, so you can make a claw attack in a grapple. Can you hit with it? At low levels, maybe. Even then, unless you're dedicated to using them, you don't want to have to use them. They're "emergency only". The rays are something you can rely on when you run out of normal spells (and even then you can't rely on them for very long). So yeah, I guess it IS kind of pointless to single out the claws. ALL of the abilities are "emergency backups". And, as you keep pointing out, you're better off with a crossbow than trying to rely on something with so few shots. I hereby expand my original question to ask ... Why are ANY of these abilities limited to times per day!? None of them are exactly game breakingly powerful.
A.)You have 1/2 BAB B.)You will likely either have a low strength OR a low casting statThen there's Treantmonk's point about TWF. Unless you get extra damage per attack (like rogues), you're not better off with two, weaker weapons. 2d4+double strength at most? A two-handed weapon might do at least as well! While I really do appreciate Helic's points, I think that Kolokotroni is making better counterpoints. And Treantmonk who hasn't even joined this thread. :)
Actually, due to this thread I've been preparing to do just that. We just started playing I'll report how it goes when I have news. *eyes sparkle* Ooooohhh..... I'm still not a fan of "invisible items", but they beat the pants off of actual items. I know that games can take awhile to progress, but definitely report back whenever you DO have something to report. If you start a new thread (which might be called for by now), please link to it from this one.
I'm learning more and more to make to I read all of Kolokotroni's posts. You make some excellent points. The main one being, of course, that every other 1st level ability is something that caster do anyway. Giving an ability that's difficult for the class to focus on really should have greater perks than otherwise. To everybody who's still suggesting builds ... I don't mind if you're suggesting builds in a general sense, but I take offense if you're suggesting them to me personally. Here's the thing. Due to reasons of role playing, my race is already chosen for me. With anything less than Polymorph Any Oject, I don't have a choice in the matter. What is that race? I'm not telling because I don't want to be advised on how to optimize it. What I DO want (if this topic is still pertinent) is conversation relating to the balance and/or utility of the claw attack in general. Actual play experience would be the bread and butter of this topic. If you want to discuss "character build", please do so with "balancing claws to make them usable" (or similar) in mind.
My group is perfectly amiable to playing different games. However, Deadlands is a far cry from being thematically similar to D&D. Exalted on the other hand is a White Wolf publication. We've had a fallout with White Wolf and don't much care for the game mechanics anyway. Don't worry about not reading all posts in a 100+ post thread before offering an on-topic suggestion. I tend to berate people who prove that they haven't even read the FIRST post, but I'm not going to get upset if you don't read the rest of 'em. Has anybody tried to incorporate "invisible items" or any other idea into their games, yet? I'd be curious to hear play-test results.
I actually agree. In my games, I always get rid of infinite anything, including decanters of endless water and unlimited ration bags. Then again, I also get rid of bags of holding. I feel that most of these things would ruin a "normal" fantasy style economy. Also, the more "answers" that exist, the fewer "problems" for a GM to form a plot around. GM: There's a drought! You have to melt the northern glacier in order to restore the ecology! PCs: Or we can go the Westville and hire a few acolytes to head over and take care of the water shortage. Northern Guardian: *waiting* .... Where IS everybody?
Well, you can't really blame Paizo or the design of the system for what a 3rd party publisher puts out. I've been diving into a lot of them, and some are much better than others at "getting" the feel of the design philosophy of the game. Looks at the file. Oops. I didn't actually realize that it wasn't an official release. I think I saw it on the front page when I clicked it, too. *sigh* Oh, well. Yeah, after fumbling around with Mongoose crap, I've learned to avoid 3rd party stuff. I thought those bloodlines and feats looked fishy.
If only there was a feat in the Advanced Player's Guide, that would allow the Sorcerer to use his claws at will How many of you spent $2 to get Class Options Volume 1: Sorcerer Bloodlines? I ask because I did. And guess what? They DO have a feat to extend your level 1 abilities! Behold, the amazing power of NOT being limited to 3+charisa mod times per day! In fact, with the cost of only a single feat, you can extend your uses by another charisma mod times per day! .... That's right. the feat already exists and it gives you a few more uses per day. I love Pathfinder, but seriously ... screw that. Oh, and it specifically says "can only be taken once". I guess the power levels were threatening to go over 9,000 or something.
I ran an evil sandbox game. I just made a map, filled it with countries and cities and points of interesting and gave the evil PCs their own country. They were all high level Evil Overlords. The goal of the game? Whatever they wanted. Sometimes they conquered neighboring kingdoms. Sometimes they sought after rare beasts to run horrible experiments on. Some days they just stayed home and defended the castle from rampaging paladins. For the most part, I let them decide what to do. Everybody had TONS of fun until they all killed each other over something trivial.
I actually agree. I don't much care for text walls and I feel bad when I make them! Actually, I'm not sure that very many people DID read one of my larger posts. I made a VERY obvious mistake that nobody pointed out. Oh well. That's what I get for being too verbose! My mistake was saying that I would prefer to NOT take all 10 levels of Dragon Disciple, that way I only lose 8 caster levels. Obviously I meant to say TWO caster levels. (To do that, you only take 8 levels of DD). But I Do apologize. Accepted. :)
Unfortunately not as yet. :( Dang. Oh well. I'm at least glad to hear that yet another GM has said okay to "unlimited uses", even if it is for legacy reasons. Thanks, though!
GMs in both games have house ruled that the Claws are permanent, mainly due to the fact that I made the builds during BETA and they just wouldn't have worked as well under PFRPG Rules, but also because they agreed with me that not having them full time was silly, especially since the damage got a Nerf. Wait, these characters have actually been played!? THIS is exactly what I wanted to hear about! Dragonblooded sorcerers that focus on their claws! Can you tell me more about how it went? Were these characters effective enough? Were they too effective? Did having multiple attacks at your full bonus pose problems? Did the other players feel that you were stealing their spotlights? I'm very curious.
(for those just joining in, there are a couple of deleted posts that aren't important). Anyway, I don't think that people are just rehashing the same old things. I feel that the single most profound post was Helic's, which is pretty low on the page! I also think you missed the discussion about Multi Attack, which is also pertinent in a thread about natural attacks. As far as solving my problem. Somewhat, yes. Helic answered the question by (quite frankly) pointing out some obvious points that I had missed. That, coupled with a general impression I get that "they should be unlimited", and I definitely have something to work with. I thank everybody who understood this thread who provided thoughtful insights.
Good point about the +6 BAB thing, since I'll have two attacks anyway. As far as considerations, I already have considered them. I'm planning to have Improved Natural Attack by level 5. As far as Multi Attack goes ... I'd like to point out that it wouldn't do anything for the build. Both claws and the bite are already made at the full attack bonus, so there are no penalties to reduce! I'm rather curious as to why Improved Natural Armor can be taken multiple times. Yeah, it's for monsters, but it still seems to go against how feats normally work. It doesn't really matter, though. My feat list is going to be pretty full anyway. Especially since I'm thinking about taking 5 levels of Lore Master from 15 through 20. Again ... this is a role playing consideration! I don't need anybody telling me how it won't work in various ways. (Actually, I can get an extra +1 to attack from Lore Master, which I'll probably need more than the blindsense capstone). |
