So if I used Greater Polymorph to transform the fighter into a gorgon, the breath weapon for the gorgon would be 10+spell level+my intelligence modifier? (So an Int 22 wizard with spell focus (transmutation), casting Greater Polymorph on a fighter in this way, would result in a gorgon breath DC of 10+7+1+6=24?)
I know that this is about 5 years, 7 months, 24 days, 17 hours, and 2 minutes after the post, but for the benefit of others looking at this post, I would like to voice (or type) that I think that makes sense. Keep in mind that it is the wizard's magic that powers the stone breath, not the fighter's abilities. After all, the fighter's physical abilities are being changed by the wizard's magic.
Will-based 'Disbelief' doesn't seem to be 100% appropriate here.
I am probably not the person you are asking, but I would agree with you here.
I also have some input on whether or not it is an action.
d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat wrote:
Using an extraordinary ability is usually not an action because most extraordinary abilities automatically happen in a reactive fashion. Those extraordinary abilities that are actions are usually standard actions that cannot be disrupted, do not require concentration, and do not provoke attacks of opportunity.
I would say it is not an action, because I deconstruct the above statement as so.
"Using an extraordinary ability is usually not an action. . . " means that unless if there is a reason that it would be an action, it is not an action.
". . . because most extraordinary abilities automatically happen in a reactive fashion." is the the reason why it is usually not an action, not the condition for it not to be an action.
"Those extraordinary abilities that are actions. . . " the talent never says that it is an action. It says it functions similarly to the spells, and a case could be made that the function of the spells is their effects, not their activation.
". . . are usually standard actions. . . " is saying that they don't always have to be standard actions. If you are categorizing the talent as an action, then by RAW, it would be most likely a standard action. See below for more follow-up on this.
". . . that cannot be disrupted, do not require concentration, and do not provoke attacks of opportunity." means that even if it is a standard action, nobody is going to punch you for sounding like an emu, unless if they readied an action, but even then, they cannot stop you from sounding like an emu. By RAW, even some ability that prevents someone from speaking would not allow you to interrupt this talent, if you classify it as a standard action.
Also, keep this in mind:
d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat wrote:
In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn’t your turn.
So if my above argument didn't persuade you, then compare this. Extraordinary abilities that are actions are usually standard actions. In general, speaking is a free action. Both of these pretty much say that unless if some exception is given, their rules apply. However, the exception to each is the other. Ergo, in RAW, it is either a free or a standard action. In order to get it to tip either way, you would have to compare the definitions of "usual" and "general".
Merriam-Webster Dictionary wrote:
Definition of general
1 :involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole
2 :involving, relating to, or applicable to every member of a class, kind, or group (the general equation of a straight line)
3 :not confined by specialization or careful limitation (a general outline)
4 :belonging to the common nature of a group of like individuals :generic (the general characteristics of a species)
5 a :applicable to or characteristic of the majority of individuals involved :prevalent (the general opinion)
b :concerned or dealing with universal rather than particular aspects
6 :relating to, determined by, or concerned with main elements rather than limited details (bearing a general resemblance to the original)
7 :holding superior rank or taking precedence over others similarly titled (the general manager)
Merriam-Webster Dictionary wrote:
Definition of usual
1 :accordant with usage, custom, or habit :normal
2 :commonly or ordinarily used (followed his usual route)
3 :found in ordinary practice or in the ordinary course of events :ordinary
— usually \ˈyü-zhə-wə-lē, -zhə-lē; ˈyüzh-wə-lē, ˈyüzh-lē\ adverb
— usualness \ˈyü-zhə-wəl-nəs, -zhəl-; ˈyüzh-wəl-\ noun
— as usual
:in the accustomed or habitual way (as usual they were late)
According to these definitions, the term 'general' is usually defined as applicable to all instances (pun intended), though it can be defined as only most of the time. However, the term 'usual' always means most of the time, not all of the time. In the context, general is obviously used to mean most of the time, but it is still a stronger expression, taking precedence over others similarly titled (another pun ☺).
Using it to make non-speech sound effects is not directly covered by the above, but consider this: it uses the same ability as it would if you were just making speech, and there is nothing to say that they are different actions. And if you would argue that it would be a different action, would you argue that humming isn't a free action because it isn't technically speaking? In any of the aforementioned cases, the vocal chords are what is used to produce the sound. And if we consult ye olde dictionary again:
Merriam-Webster Dictionary wrote:
Definition of speak
. . .
1 a :to utter words or articulate sounds with the ordinary voice :talk
b (1) :to express thoughts, opinions, or feelings orally (2) :to extend a greeting (3) :to be friendly enough to engage in conversation (still were not speaking after the dispute)
c (1) :to express oneself before a group (2) :to address one's remarks (speak to the issue)
2 a :to make a written statement
(his diaries … spoke … of his entrancement with death —Sy Kahn)
b :to use such an expression —often used in the phrase so to speak
(was at the enemy's gates, so to speak —C. S. Forester)
c :to serve as spokesperson
3 a :to express feelings by other than verbal means (actions speak louder than words)
b :signal
c :to be interesting or attractive :appeal
(great music … speaks directly to the emotions —A. N. Whitehead)
4 :to make a request or claim —used with for —usually used in passive constructions (the seat was already spoken for)
5 :to make a characteristic or natural sound
(all at once the thunder spoke —George Meredith)
6 a :testify
b :to be indicative or suggestive
(his gold … spoke of riches in the land —Julian Dana)
Now, obviously, some of these would just be crazy to pass off as a free action (like definition 2), but there is no reason why definition 5 (to make a characteristic or natural sound) wouldn't be a free action. A bird could tweet as a free action, could it not? As long as it is a characteristic or natural sound of something, and would not clearly take more than a free action, it works (note that the definition does not specify that it has to be a characteristic or natural sound of the one making it).
In conlusion, I would say that RAW would put the use of this ability as a free action, not a standard action, unless if you are imitating a non-speech sound, in which case RAW + logic would put it as a free action. Of course, I'd still be open to considering someone else's take on the matter.
...the exponential loss of the protection 90 percent of the time makes this item not super useful...
I might not be understanding something here, but how is a 90% chance of not functioning an exponential loss of protection?
Also, the usefulness is a direct corellation to the amount of spells the user may face on a given day. And if even one of those spells gets that 10% chance and reflects, it is already about twice as cost effective as what it could have been for a static 1/day. Each additional spell that triggers it is that much value all over again.
And anyways, it is far more useful than what the party already has and never uses. And imagine the surprise when the evil wizard that cast Power Word Kill hits that 10% chance and dies.
You could use Charm Animal on a herd of elephants and Speak with Animals to convince them all to attack the temple and trumpet loudly. You just have to make a DC 13 Diplomacy check for each one. And you get 12 hours from it while you can stack on another scheme, if you wish.
Just a question... Are you buying/renting the elephant from the market, or stealing it?
Well, the feat seems like it would be a lot more useful than profession checks, and you don't even have to spend 8 hours a day. I would consider that worth a feat slot.
Perhaps you could hire workers to craft equipment for you? 3 sp/day of crafting plus 1/3 the price of the item doesn't seem bad, but they might charge you more for 'cheating the system'. Either way, as long as the price doesn't go over the full value of the item, you are saving money.
Also, you could improve your lifestyle quality to Wealthy, and if the GM allows it, have a yard sale, gaining up to 2.5 gp for every 1d10 minutes you spend searching for items. This could get you 100 gp in 40 minutes, if you get really good rolls and have customers lined up. The longest time it could take to get the items is almost 6 hours and 40 minutes. So, with 8 hours of work, you get an average of 87 items, each sold for 2.5 gp, leaving you with 217.5 gp. Repeat that 5 days a week for 4 weeks (about a month) and you get 4,350 gp, a profit of 4,250 gp. Add in hirelings to multiply your profits. Although, granted, the GM will most likely overrule this, as you are only paying 100 gp per month to buy this stuff, and items are supposed to be sold for 1/2 price, so your sellings would be limited to 50 gp/month, and then you don't get the other benefits of wealthy living.
You could obtain invitations to plot-important events, like a banquet with the king to tell him what the villain is up to. And then pay for an army to arrest the villain with the help of the town guards. And while you're at the banquet, why not stick a few silver spoons in your umbrella when nobody's looking, and then sell them for a profit?
Or, you could just enjoy a generally luxurious lifestyle to lure the master criminal to try to rob you, while the entire police force (which you hired) is hiding in your safe to arrest the criminal as soon as he breaks in.
Just a few thoughts. I think this feat's primary use would be for plot hooks, but it's still worthwhile.
I would advise using CON and Toughness, because HP seems to be the barbarian's thing.
If it's allowed, the Unchained Barbarian's temp HP would be quite helpful, but the GM may rule that you can't multiclass into it because they are both forms of the same class.
Have you decided a race? You could try Catfolk for the Nimble Striker feat.
Perhaps you could use Rhino Charge with the condition 'As soon as he finishes his turn", so you can take a move action to start your turn and ready another charge?
Maybe Combat Expertise, if you don't mind taking a further penalty on attack rolls.
What level are you playing at? If your goal is just to have dagger-pouncing ability and not necessarily barbarian, maybe take 17 levels in Monk of the Four Winds to get Tiger apsect, gaining the pounce ability (full attack on a charge) and move at 10x your land speed. 5 levels in Oracle with the Unchained curse will let you multiclass this with your 2 levels of Barbarian... if you're playing at level 24...
This is just a thought, and it depends on interpretation, but you could make it refill itself by having a continuous Minor Creation inside the mug, assuming that tea could be considered vegetable matter. This would cost you 28,000 gp to add, according to the magic item pricing guidelines. Although, the tea would disappear 7 hours after leaving the cup, so you probably won't gain in long-term nutrition.
Another note from those guidelines is that to mix multiple magic mugs, you must multiply the lower item cost (usually the one you are adding on) by 1.5. So, the prices you would face are as follows:
Calculations:
Tankard of the Drunken Hero: 5,300 gp (I assume you are starting with this, as you requested a tankard)
Tengu Drinking Jug: +1,500 gp = 6,800 gp
Neverspill Goblet: +1,500 gp = 8,300 gp
Free Refills: 8,300 gp * 1.5 = 12,450 + 28,000 = 40,450 gp (The existing price was the lower one.)
40,450 gp. Yeah... probably more than you wanted to pay, but look at the bright side. You get all the tea you could ever drink without having to pay the local shops.
...the only comparable items I know of are the "Reflecting" shield quality, which is apparently worth an astounding +5 bonus for an effect you get once a day, and the Ring of Spell Turning, which costs the GDP of a small country.
Well, if you consider the price in the guidelines for pricing magic items...
Calculations:
The spell is 7th level for a wizard. This means that being "use activated or continuous" with a duration of 10 min/CL, it would have a price of the spell level * the caster level * 1,500 gp. This comes out to 7 * 13 * 1,500, or 182,000 gp, assuming minimum CL. In the "Reflecting" shield quality, it only triggers once per day. Thus, the price gets divided by 5, leaving 36,400 gp. However, there is a 100 gp material component. Because this item has a daily limit but no overall limit, this would have to be factored in at 50x its value, increasing the price to 41,400 gp. This is between the price of a +6 and a +7 bonus (36,000 and 49,000)
Spell turning once per day is worth 41,400 gp, more than a +6 enhancement bonus, which would be a +1 bonus plus the reflecting property, plus 5,400 gp saved. I would consider that to be a good deal.
As for the Ring of Spell Turning...
Calculations:
Borrowing some of the numbers from above, the price for this would start at 7 * 13 * 1,800 gp, which is 163,800. Being usable 3x/day, it has 0.6x price, or 98,280 gp. Add in the cost of material components, and you get 103,280 gp.
It could have been priced at 103,280 gp, which is the GDP of a slightly-more-than-small country.
My advice is to accept the prices given, and be glad that the writers didn't price them according to the guidelines.
As for pricing the 10% chance, I would probably start with what Dastis said...
Dastis wrote:
I would calculate the value of a continuous version then divide by 10 to represent it working 10% of the time
Calculations:
Base cost for the effect constantly, as in the first calculation box, is 182,000 gp. Drop it 10% as he said for 18,200 gp. Because of the material component and lack of charges per day (instead having a 10% chance), the price would have to be increased by 100x the material component, or 10,000 gp, leading to 28,200 gp.
The effect should cost 28,200 gp. I would be prone to question this and raise the price if you predict that the player wearing it would be targeted by more than 5 spells in a typical day of adventuring.
As for what gatherer818 said...
gatherer818 wrote:
Maybe reduce it slightly further from Dastis's suggestion if it can't be suppressed by the wearer, so it has a chance to reflect beneficial magic.
Definitely price it as a specific armor or a gold cost bonus, not a + bonus, if it only works 10% of the time and has a drawback besides.
...That cost reduction would probably not apply here, as it is considered continuous (despite the 10% chance), and the spell itself already reflects friendly magic. I definitely agree with you on pricing it as a static increase, though. If, however, it is to be priced as an enhancement bonus, I would likely put it at a +5, because that is the closest match in raw gp value.
