Stormjack's page

@Odraude Thanks, I didn't see that for weapons. Good call.

@mplindustries Good point regarding the feat requirement for plate armor. I'm unfamiliar with those other magic items.

@Odraude [url href=http://bit.ly/1691iKx]Darkwood[/url] is masterwork, which means it has +150 gp added to it's cost. A typical spear costs 2 gp and weighs 6 pounds. Darkwood adds "10 gp per pound to the price of a masterwork version of that item." At 6 pounds that's an extra 60 gp. I think it's 212 gp (2 + 150 + 60). If I'm wrong, someone can correct that.

Thanks @Caderyn for the correction. Are these stats and costs correct for each of these options?

Wild Dragonhide Breastplate
Human form: +6 AC, +3 Dex Bonus, -4 Armor Check Penalty
Wildshaped: +6 AC, +4 Dex Bonus, 0 Armor Check Penalty

Cost: 16,700 total. Calculated as (200 breastplate + 150 masterwork) x 2 for Dragonhide + 16,000 Wild (+4 bonus cost due to +1 AC & +3 wild).

Wild Dragonhide Full Plate
Human form: +9 AC, +1 Dex Bonus, -6 Armor Check Penalty
Wildshaped: +9 AC, +4 Dex Bonus, 0 Armor Check Penalty

Cost: 19,300 total. The breakdown is 3,300 Dragonhide + 16,000 Wild.

Thanks for that advice. Our party travels to a lot of cities, so he stays in human form much of the time. Regarding the stats, our DM was very generous and allowed our party a non-conventional approach to rolling our ability scores, which resulted in all of our PCs having very favorable numbers.

I need help understanding druid armor options and costs. My 8th level druid is loosely modeled after Treantmonk's "Spirit of the Beast" template. Our party has one tank, several strikers, and a couple of glass cannons. Consequently my PC acts as a secondary tank (along with his animal companion and summoned animals) to protect the softer targets. We only use the Core Rulebook (no expansions).

How can I best beef up my druid's AC? His 18 Dex with +1 Hide armor and a +1 Amulet of Natural Armor grants a total AC of 20, with a -3 armor check penalty. This AC is starting to feel weaker than it did a few levels ago.

I've been reviewing Dragonhide, Darkwood, Ironwood, Wild Armor, and Wood Shape. Dragonhide armor with the Wild enchantment appears to be a straightforward choice. Another combination that came to mind was full plate armor constructed of Darkwood with both Wild and Ironwood enchantments. At first reading, it seems that would grant the plate armor bonus of +9, an armor check penalty of -4, and a max Dex bonus of +1. Getting that +9 armor bonus in WildShape form would be a huge improvement.

By comparison, his current armor (sans enchantments) nets +8 AC (+4 for hide and +4 for Dex). While the darkwood/ironwood idea nets +10 AC (+9 for plate and +1 for Dex). But he doesn't get to use that AC bonus when Wildshaped. Ironwood applies an extra +1 magic bonus to AC. Initially I thought Darkwood removed the Maxiumum Dex Bonus restriction, but on a second reading it appears that first impression was wrong.

What would you recommend, and how would I cost these out? Thanks.

Thanks Mort. That's better evidence. All I have is the Core Rulebook. How the monsters are written and handled by the developers gives better guidance on how to interpret this. That shows how the combination was implemented, even if a developer didn't specifically provide a ruling on this. I appreciate you following up.

It's still murky to me. You're right concerro, in this case the rules are poorly worded. It would be nice if there were some errata to clear this up.

There are other ideas to bring to the table on this one, but I'm not going to press it. It seems the consensus on the forum is that we have a "community house rule". Which is fine, and goes with the spirit of Pathfinder, "Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs."

I like that about Pathfinder. That spirit brings the game back to the original vision of Gygax and Arneson.

My scenario is that I'm working on a Druid build, and I was looking for a decent weapon selection for the low levels until he gets Wildshape. At that point this will be a non-issue. I think the combination is clever, and worthy of consideration. Ultimately my DM will need to decide how he wants to interpret this.

Thanks everyone for your input.

What page is that on? Thanks.

Thanks for the replies. That Double Slice feat is cool. Let's break this down a different way because this is still unclear to me.

Here are 3 scenarios. In all of these use a character with an 18 Strength and a 15 Dexterity. And this character wields a Quarterstaff. Strength of course grants +4 to hit and +4 damage. Dexterity is present to meet the feat requirements, but doesn't impact the math.

Quarterstaff is a two-handed weapon. So for Strength damage purposes (page 16) it does 1-1/2 times damage in the primary hand (+6), and half damage in the off-hand (+2). Quarterstaff is also 'double' weapon. Consequently, it gets treated as "Off-handed weapon is light" (page 141) on the Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties table.

Here are the 'to hit' penalties for primary and off hands from the Two-Weapon Fighting table (page 202):
1. Primary -6, Off -10 <== Normal penalties.
2. Primary -4, Off -8 <== Off-hand weapon is light.
3. Primary -4, Off -4 <== Two weapon fighting feat.
4. Primary -2, Off -2 <== Off hand weapon is light and Two-Weapon fighting feat.

Scenario 1: The character has no feats that assist with two weapon fighting. Attack penalties would be treated on row 2 of the Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties table, since the Quarterstaff is a 'double' weapon.
Attack bonuses would be:
* Primary: +0 to hit, +6 damage
* Off Hand: -4 to hit, +2 damage

Scenario 2: The character has Two-Weapon Fighting feat. Attack penalties would be treated on row 4 of the Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties.
Attack bonuses would be:
* Primary: +2 to hit, +6 damage
* Off Hand: +2 to hit, +2 damage

Scenario 3: The character has Two-Weapon Fighting and Double Slice feats. Attack penalties would be treated on row 4 Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties.
Attack bonuses would be:
* Primary: +2 to hit, +6 damage
* Off Hand: +2 to hit, +6 damage

Is the above analysis correct? Thanks.

Is it correct to say that a character with an 18 Str, 18 Dex, Quarterstaff, and Two-Weapon fighting would attack as follows:
Primary hand: +2 to hit, +6 damage
Off hand: +2 to hit, +2 damage

* * *

Here is my scenario and reasoning. A character has an 18 Strength and an 18 Dexterity. He has a Quarterstaff and the Two Weapon Fighting feat.

Quarterstaff is a Two-Handed Melee double weapon. Regarding 'double' weapons, page 141 states, "A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon (see page 202)."

The 2-Weapon fighting chart on page 202 shows -2 primary-hand and -2 off-hand penalties when the off-hand weapon is light and the character has Two Weapon Fighting. Essentially the Quarterstaff gets treated as a light weapon on this chart since it's a double weapon on page 142.

At this point, my understanding is that this character would be able to attack with the Quarterstaff with attack penalties of -2 for each attack. The strength of 18, granting +4 to hit, would offset that penalty, leaving a net bonus of +2 to each attack.

Now we get to damage. Page 16 states, "Off-hand attacks receive only half the characters's Strength bonus, while two-handed attacks receive 1-1/2 times the Strength bonus."

Given this scenario with the Quarterstaff, I take that to mean the character would get +6 damage (1.5 times) on the primary hand attack, and +2 damage (half) on the off-hand attack.

Is this correct? If not, please let me know where that analysis is off base. Thanks for your help.

Thanks everyone! We've decided to go with the straight Pathfinder core rule book. I appreciate all the good feedback.

@Matthew, Thanks for the guidance. Grapple was one of the problems we found.

@Don, We are playing with the Core Rulebook. As we're beginners with Pathfinder, I figured this would be the correct place to post this question. Should I repost it in a different forum?

Our gaming group is starting a new campaign, and we may use Pathfinder for our core rules. We are a pretty hardened group, with experience from AD&D to 4.0. We spent a lot of time in 3.0/3.5, disliked 4.0 (WoW on paper), tried the original AD&D with modifications, and have decided to go back into 3.5, but with limitations.

I purchased the Pathfinder PDF, and noticed many of the feats and spells that I was familiar with in 3.5 are absent.

What has been your experience with using Pathfinder and incorporating spells and feats from 3.5 into Pathfinder? Is that a bad idea or a good idea? Does it unbalance the game? I'd like to know what the Pathfinder veterans have to say about this. Thanks.