Search Posts
I believe previous delves into this question concluded that you only need to meet the new feat prerequisites now, so you can replace your 1st level feat (assuming nothing else you have depends on it) with a feat you didn't actually qualify for at 1st level but do now. I don't like this myself, but that's the way the rules are written...
What do you actually see this character doing? Between this and your previous thread, you've been very reluctant to elaborate on what exactly you want this character to do. You mention Rikimaru from Tenchu' as your inspiration, but please assume your readers have never heard of this character*...
Secondly, be prepared for disappointment: Generally speaking, characters from movies or video games don't translate over into TTRPGs very well. Pathfinder adventures are based around a group of players that rely on each other to succeed, while movie and video game characters tend more toward a single unstoppable protagonist who can somehow handle everything by themself. Before they get access to Gang Up at level 6, it can be tricky for a rogue to get your foe off-guard, and playing in PFS probably isn't helping your teamwork as you are presumably playing with a different team each week. At low levels, keep in mind that 1d6 one-handed weapon + 1d6 Sneak Attack (avg 7.0) isn't really a lot better than 1d10 two-handed weapon (avg 5.5) so putting yourself into a vulnerable position to get a sneak attack might not be a great idea (though the improved accuracy is always nice). As a low level Avenger, I'm guessing you'd largely need to forget about using Hunt Prey outside of a 'solo' monster that will probably take a couple of rounds to defeat: The extra action to designate a target probably isn't worth it on 'trash'... As a low level Ruffian, you probably want to take a flanking position when convenient but not worry too much about it outside of boss fights. Once you get Gang Up, melee sneak attacks get pretty easy to make with the slightest cooperation from the rest of your party, but Ruffians are still only looking at an average boost of 1.5 damage per weapon die as you generally get an additional sneak attack die around the same time you get another weapon die.
Ranger(Precision) is probably the easiest build to pull off but the action economy will likely be annoying and you'd be giving up on all those rogue goodies (like all the skills) so it might not really 'feel' like a Ninja. Also, Ranger feat options tend to lean more toward ranged attacks and dual-wielding than two-handed melee weapon wielding.
To Clarify: The Katana has the [Two-Hand 1d10] trait: Source This gives the Katana a d10 weapon die when wielded in two hands, and therefore not eligible for sneak attacks from a Ruffian as their text specifies that you make die size adjustments before determining sneak attack viability: Player Core pg. 166 You prefer the direct approach: strong-arming or intimidation. You might be an enforcer for organized crime, a highway bandit, or a noble who bullies others with threats of your family's power. You use whatever tools you have at hand to get the job done. You can deal sneak attack damage with any weapon, not just the weapons listed in the sneak attack class feature. This benefit doesn't apply to a simple weapon with a damage die greater than d8 or a martial or advanced weapon with a damage die greater than d6. (Apply any abilities that alter the damage die size first.) Critical hits you make with these weapons gain the weapon's critical specialization benefit if the target is off-guard to you. You're trained in Intimidation and medium armor. You can choose Strength as your key attribute. When you gain light armor expertise, you also gain expert proficiency in medium armor, and when you gain light armor mastery, you also gain master proficiency in medium armor. A Ruffian wielding a Katana in one hand can sneak attack, but not if wielding it in both hands.
'Real World Ninja' were most likely spies and assassins, neither of which would typically wield such a large and obvious weapon when a far smaller and concealable one would do the job just as well. The 'traditional ninja sword' is supposed to be the Ninjatō (Shortsword), though there is apparently zero historical evidence of this weapon actually existing...
Does the initial spell have to be single target, or can it be one person affected by a multi-target spell? If the latter, consider Hunter’s Blessing. Hunter's Blessing has a 1 hour / level duration, making it a poor option as it already lasts an entire adventuring day before even considering using a Pearl of Power or Extend Spell metamagic. Honestly, I'd probably disregard any spell with a 10 minute / level duration (like Freedom of Movement) as they will generally last an entire adventuring session already, making them a somewhat poor use of a Mythic ability. Angelic Aspect is a bit weak: The fly speed is pretty nice, the Darkvision & Low-light vision will depend on your character's species (and possible magic items), the DR is horrible (at least when fighting demon armies), the resistances aren't particularly good, and you are going to want an actual holy weapon if you intend to actually attack in this AP. The 'Greater' version looks like a much better option with its aura and outright immunities, but won't come into play until the very end of the AP (I remember my oracle hitting 18 at the end of the 5th module). Antilife Shell is, as I posted last year, a truly horrible option that will hurt you far more than it might possibly help. True Seeing is a decent if somewhat situational option: It won't come into play too often, but actually having it up when you need it is very nice. Death Ward is also highly situational: It probably won't come into play in most sessions, but will be huge when it actually does.
Okay, I made the mistake of assuming Krune created the spear that bears his name, but the wiki states is was actually crafted by Xin, presumably between his appointing the runelords in -6480 AR and his 'death' in -6420 AR (presumably close to the start of this period). So there was only a 32 year period (–6452 to -6420 AR) at best in which both Xin and any Runewell existed. It is possible the ability of the runewell/font to weaken the spear is more a reflection of the Runewell's power and synergy than any association with its actual creation. Also note the wiki for the Alara'quin also lists a different option for destroying any of these weapons, involving an entity which didn't appear on Golarian until -6301 AR (119 years after Xin's death): The Alara'quin can be destroyed by hurling them under the crushing feet of the Oliphaunt of Jandelay, but only if there is no active runelord of the associated school of rune magic... Artifact destruction clauses tend to fall into one of two specific categories: 1) Specific setup for the next stage of the adventure's story, or2) Largely meaningless flavor text that just explains why it has survived until now. Given the near impossibility of actually meeting the requirements (you'd have to get the spear without actually killing Krune, go to the runewell of a city destroyed so completely that no one can find it, dip the spear in it, then immediately kill a direct descendant of a specific dragon killed 11,000 years ago), I think this one falls into the latter category...
What does "dakka" mean?Simply put, "More Dakka!" = "More Firepower!" "Dakka" is an onomatopoeic slang term, most famously used in the Warhammer 40,000 universe, that represents the rapid, deafening sound of automatic gunfire. In the lore of the Orks, it has evolved into a foundational philosophy: "There is never enough dakka"—meaning you can always use more firepower
Krune became the 7th Runelord of Sloth in -5525 AR, so the runewells would have been around for nearly a millennia before he rose to power (having been a high priest and advisor to Ivarinna, the prior Runelord of Sloth, who reigned from -5752 to -5525 AR). This does clash with the 'runewells die with their masters' trend, but I presume that they weren't so fragile in the old days when they were being fed by an empire and only in modern times are they so dependent on their specific runelords.
The term 'font' comes from the latin for 'fountain' and can refer to a receptacle for liquid (a baptismal font) or a source of something (a font of information)*: The later usage is fairly synonymous with 'well' so the item is most likely referring to a Runewell.
While the city of Xin-Haruka was destroyed, its Runewell is an artifact tied to Runelord Krune so it presumably survived the destruction of the city but was actually destroyed when Krune was finally slain by Pathfinder agents**.
The first rule of the Redeemer is: you do not talk about the Redeemer! The Redeemer: If you can't say anything nice about an archetype... On a 'less silly' note, a fundamental issue with this archetype is that it is built around taking prisoners, which leads to the inevitable followup question of 'okay, now what do we do with them???'
I do not see any contradiction between the Paladin code and the worship of Pharasma if a Paladin were to swear to lay the dead to rest, respect tombs and graves, destroy the undead, help with childbirth, and perhaps have an interest in prophesy. This is well within a Paladin's code of conduct. I think it is probably best to think of Pharasma as being more along the lines of a cattle rancher in that any 'good' aspects really have very mundane (and possibly completely 'selfish') motivations: Pharasma only cares about the natural cycle of 'Birth to Death to Judgement' and therefore promotes actions that keep this cycle running smoothly (in particular, making certain the dead pass along to their judgement). She's not opposed to murder, as long as you don't prevent the victim's soul from moving on to her judgement... Imagine a 'Paladin of Pharasma' encounters a fresh murder scene:
There is actually no restriction against worshiping Pharasma as a Paladin. The Paladin must be lawful good, yes, but the need to be within 1 alignment step of your deity is for Clerics and similar. The Paladin must honor his code of conduct but that code has no provision that a Paladin must be within 1 step of a deity's alignment. Paladin's aren't actually required to worship a deity at all: In fact, the only mention of a deity in their CRB entry is when the opening blurb states they seek '...to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve' which could be read as limiting their options to deities with Lawful Neutral, Lawful Good, or Neutral Good alignments as mentioned in the Gray Paladin archetype. If you look deep enough, you'll find plenty of discussion on this specific topic in these forums. Honestly, you could probably make a good argument that Pharasma as a goddess of fate and prophecy and the impartial judge of souls should actually be Lawful Neutral rather than Neutral, but that's an entirely different discussion...
Re-thinking this, what you probably really want to do is just convert this into a new blessing, but I'm not certain how you should go about this: Blessings get a lot more uses per day (albeit for both blessings) and need to have lesser and greater abilities, which don't seem to mix well with this specific ability.
Back in AD&D 2.0, this was a weaker spell called Negative Plane Protection (lower level, gave a save against these attacks, but only blocked one attack) that kinda undersold its effectiveness against Death effects: They split the death effect protection into a separate 'Death Ward' spell in 3.0, and then rolled the Negative Energy effect into it in 3.5 giving us the version PF1 uses that kinda undersells its effectiveness against negative energy. An issue with Death Ward is Shadows (both normal and greater) become completely impotent against someone warded with this spell: All they can do is Strength damage, which the spell negates. The other problem with this spell is its fairly high level and not-long duration: It's great if you are making brief forays into areas with shadows, but problematic if you are facing them all day long...
Honestly, the best solution is to get a different set of Table Rules: This one is particularly bad as it is both extremely erratic (only impacts natural attackers) and extremely powerful (basically neutralizes impacted characters), which is just bad for the game: It might make 'logical' sense, but logic really needs to yield to the game being playable.
If 'changing the rules' is not an option:
Litheria Blossom looks pretty good as a consumable option.
Offhand, this seems like more of a Home Brew item than 'advice' as you are trying to create something new here. The basic issue you have here is that Druids are chock-full of odd abilities that can easily be traded out, while Warpriests are not: They really only have Fervor, Bonus Feats, Channel Energy, and Sacred Weapon to play around with. On a practical level, trading out your Bonus Feat at 3rd or 6th is probably your best option. Of course, as you are playing this character, the person you really need to ask is your GM, who has the only opinion that actually matters here.
I'm assuming the Wildshape feature from the Druid and Shifter classes isn't fitting your vision??? You are stepping into a bit of a minefield here: The Wildshaping Druid was the poster child for power issues in D&D3.0 as they were powerful melee combatants with full spellcasting as well, which made players wonder why they should bother playing a martial character at all. Polymorphs aren't as strong as they were back then, but they are still powerful and complicated so you're aren't likely to get anything 'more flexible' than Wildahape without a full caster build like the one you mention.
As I recall (and it has been a long time since I played* this AP), these rewards aren't the sort of thing the characters would actually be aware of: They are part of the characters suddenly and unexpectedly (in game, at least) gaining Mythic power. That being said, giving the players a 'good acts might be rewarded' or even 'This is GOOD vs EVIL, so be as Good as you can be' heads-up is not a bad idea.
Strictly speaking, the feat text does not explicitly bypass the cover/concealment requirements of Sneak, but it really seems like this was the intent. '...even if it’s currently observing you' should probably read as '...even if it’s currently observing you and/or you lack cover/concealment to it'.
Sounds an awful lot like a Rogue to me:You spring into combat faster than foes can react. On the first round of combat, if you roll Deception or Stealth for initiative, creatures that haven't acted are off-guard to you.A ranged version of this would also be quite nice, whether for a shuriken to the face or a concealed crossbow, even if it only works once per encounter. When your enemy can't properly defend itself, you take advantage to deal extra damage. If you Strike a creature that has the off-guard condition with an agile or finesse melee weapon, an agile or finesse unarmed attack, a ranged weapon attack, or a ranged unarmed attack, you deal an extra 1d6 precision damage. For a ranged attack with a thrown melee weapon, that weapon must also be agile or finesse. As your rogue level increases, so does the number of damage dice for your sneak attack. Increase the number of dice by one at 5th, 11th, and 17th levels. Gunslinger Ranger Rogue Archetypes Alkenstar Agent*, Butterfly Blade*, Dual-Weapon Warrior*, Eagle Knight*, Red Mantis Assassin*, Rose Warden*, Vigilante* * This archetype offers Quick Draw at a different level than displayed here. You draw your weapon and attack with the same motion. You Interact to draw a weapon, then Strike with that weapon.
It's not the sneak attack damage that is the issue, bur rather the 'grappled into inaction' itself, so I'm just going to eliminate most of your list as not directly relevant. Grease: A good defense, but only if you use it before you get grappled.
Resisting typical attacks and spells is fundamental NPC design, but resisting a dedicated grapple build is often not taken into consideration, and the typical response when it is taken into consideration is Freedom of Movement or some similar immunity source as using a standard action to escape a grapple is basically a losing struggle even if they actually succeed on every escape check. Personally, I briefly considered going the grapple route on 'Taja the Bloodrager' using her 16th level arcane bloodline ability to activate Beast Shape IV upon entering Bloodrage to transform into a Huge Squid (Giant) with the Grab and Constrict abilities, but I decided against it as it was too messy, too complicated, and simply just far too late in the campaign.
Maneuver builds all tend to have the same fundamental issue: In any given encounter, they either:
Yeah, they never did put any real effort into balancing 'expensive material component' spells and non-consumable magic items (nor did they provide any guidance on spells with variable components like Restoration). Personally, I always felt like you should have to provide the material component each time you used such an item...
1 square is currently 1.5 meters. 1 square = 1 meter is way too tight quarters for adventuring: Remember, PCs will need space to actually swing most weapons, and tight quarters like this should strongly encourage the use of thrusting piercing weapons (this is why ancient armies used to favor spears and short swords: You don't need a lot of space to thrust with them, so you can pack your troops into tight formations). 1 square = 2 meters is far more practical for metric adventuring, but this is going in the opposite direction you desire...
Correction to my earlier post about the oldest edition mechanics:
The staves' utility increases if you are a spontaneous spellcaster, but the price is still problematic. It is a problem several items share: who will buy Bracers of Armor from +1 to +4 when a wand or a firsa-level Pearl of Power does the same job at a lower cost or with better utility? Pearls and Wands are very useful for adventuring parties with their likely limited duration dungeon crawls and high likelihood that someone in the party can cast Mage Armor, but someone who doesn't personally have the ability to cast the spell/use the wand and/or just wants constant protection* will certainly appreciate the Bracers.
The Heightened effect on the Staff of Power goes back to the D&D3.0 version from 2000: Back then, a non-artifact staff wasn't rechargeable and used the same 'minimum DC' rules as wands and scrolls (a staff was basically a wand with a variety of spells), so the heighten effect was likely an attempt to make this staff 'special' like it used to be in prior editions*. The DC 17 spells weren't worth the 200k price tag, so you would never actually see one of these unless you found it in a treasure pile, at which point you would almost certainly sell it (it's a nice item, but 100k gold will probably get you a lot of nice items). With D&D3.5, the magic staff became a much stronger option with the addition of it being able to benefit from the user's caster level, ability scores, and feats, but the high price still made this particular staff a really poor investment (by the time you could afford it, most of these spells aren't particularly useful). This is an issue with pretty much every magic staff, but the Staff of Power is particularly bad because it is so expensive... With PF1, magic staves lost 80% of their charges (from 50 to 10) but became rechargeable, which means you can use them more often (in the long run, at least) but doesn't really change the fundamental 'high cost for relatively low power' issue.
First off, you'll probably want to define 'fleeing from danger' clearly. Secondly, 'The GM sets the DC and decides whether you roll a Fortitude save or a Reflex save, as appropriate for the environment and circumstances.' is criminally vague: At minimum, you need some guidelines here, and preferably some actual DC criteria. Most importantly, is this reaction really called for? When push comes to shove, you really don't want to encourage creatures to flee: It can already be pretty awkward to catch a fleeing foe if you're not significantly faster then them (or have a ranged attack and a clear line of fire), which typically just annoys the players for no real purpose... Everyone fighting to the death isn't particularly realistic, but it makes the game flow a lot smoother than having them run away (are they going to raise an alarm? Are we going to split the party if they scatter in different directions?) or get taken prisoner (who's going to guard them? Is there a local authority we can hand them over to? Will they just be executed if there is? Remember, most societies can't really afford to feed/cloth/house/guard prisoners).
Generally speaking, I strongly recommend actually playing a game for a while before making any tweaks or even using major optional rule variants: Typically, you'll have a much better feel for how things work with some actual gameplay under your belt (this advice is for pretty much any game and not just PF2e). Messing with skill progression will likely have a lot of impact at very low levels as Rogues/Investigators can get a legendary skill by level 4 and other classes by level 7 and any action that uses a skill check instead of an attack roll can get a significant boost at low levels.
An accessory item with a rune requires investment to function, so their is a 'cost' to using them:Rules as Written, it looks like the Shadow rune can be applied to Grand Bazaar pg. 88 Accessory runes are runes that provide enhancements or abilities to mundane clothing, items, shields, and vehicles. Accessory runes must be physically applied to items through a special process to convey their effects, like all runes. You can apply an accessory rune to any mundane item that meets the criteria in the accessory rune's Usage entry. If allowed by the Usage entry, you can even apply an accessory rune to a magic item that doesn't have the invested trait, such as a shield. When you inscribe an item with an accessory rune, it gains the invested trait, requiring you to invest the item to gain its magical benefits. An item that already has the invested trait can never have an accessory rune inscribed on it. Accessory runes are basically creating new magic items, so you aren't going to get away without having to invest them.
Rules as Written, it looks like the Shadow rune can be applied to
The accessory option does seem to pretty much make the rune's armor restriction kinda pointless, but the accessory item does require its own investment slot, so it's not completely pointless I guess...
Note that composite bows often made of more than just wood, making their usage questionable regardless of item level: Materials such as horn or antler are added to composite bows because they have extraordinary compression strength, which compliments the equally phenomenal tensile strength of sinew. This greatly increases the energy-storing potential of a composite bow, relative to its length.The traditional English/Welsh longbow is technically not a composite bow as it is made from a single piece of wood that has properties similar to a composite bow's structure (heartwood on the inside handles compression well while the softer sapwood on the outside handles tension well). ...
Way I read this, the Accessory Runes can also be put as Armor Runes on EC even if it is not of the Armor category mentioned in Use. Nope, there is a specific limitation on runes here: Core Rulebook pg. 580 ... Each rune can be etched into a specific type of armor or weapon, as indicated in the Usage entry of the rune's stat block. Explorer's clothing can have armor runes etched on it even though it's not armor, but because it's not in the light, medium, or heavy armor category, it can't have runes requiring any of those categories.
Does it really matter? I found Spell Perfection(Holy Word) to basically be an 'I win' button already*, so throwing in Mythic Paragon is basically 'I win more...' *I literally went with this combination (plus level-boosting feats) on my WotR Oracle (with a watered-down Mythic system), used the spell once, and realized I had basically broken the game. From then on in, I reserved that spell for emergencies or encounters no one (GM included) really wanted to waste time on.
On the topic of skills a) The Rogue skill progression gets a little odd at levels 12-14:
This progression oddity is actually pretty useful, as it gives you a chance to pick up a skill you've essentially neglected before level 12 and get it to Legendary by the end without really sacrificing anything (most classes have to essentially lock their three Legendary Skill choices in by level 7). b) Some Rogue class feats do have skill prerequisites, so you might need to plan accordingly:
As has been discussed in this thread many years ago, thrown weapons are pretty underwhelming for Thieves:
Actual skill builds will vary by character: My halfling thief went with a Medicine (Continual Recovery + Ward Medic) build at the start for patching up the party, but it really comes down to what you want your character to do. I believe I ended with legendary Acrobatics, Athletics, Medicine, Stealth, Survival, and Thievery: Survival was a last minute (like 'level 13 or so before boosting past trained' last minute) add due to our ranger's player having to leave the game midway thru.
I seem to recall there was some sort of exception for 'optional' changes like this where they don't count as 'altered' for stacking purposes because you can just choose not to take the alternative option and keep everything working correctly: For instance, a Monk whose archetype loses Purity of Body who then becomes a Sin Monk just doesn't have the option to trade out Purity of Body again for Sin Points (as they don't have the feature anymore). Real rusty on the specifics, though... Ah, looks like it was linked in an earlier post: Monk: Can a qinggong monk take a second archetype if the character doesn't swap out abilities the second archetype requires?
The EX-CLASS ARCHETYPES special rules specifically allow for further advancement in the monk class. The specific issue is the line "If another archetype the character had before she became an ex-monk replaces the same ability as the ex-class archetype, she loses the old archetype in favor of the new one; otherwise, she can retain both archetypes as normal" only mentions replaced abilities and High Jump is only altered. Personally, I'd probably read this as 'replaces or alters' to keep it in line with the 'as normal' archetype stacking rules.
You haven't actually asked a specific question here... I presume High Jump is the only ki point using class feature remaining for the Sin Monk and was intended to now read as one of the following:
I'm guessing the first reading is probably intended, but that is just a guess.
Re-read the 'greater' version's text: The witch can more effectively redirect effects to her proxy chosen by the gift of consumption hex. When the witch succeeds at her Fortitude save against an effect that she has redirected to a proxy, the hexed creature takes a –4 penalty on its Fortitude save against the redirected effect. If the witch ever fails a Fortitude save or intentionally exposes herself to an effect that requires a Fortitude save, such as by ingesting a poison, she can redirect that effect to affect ONLY the hexed creature, though the hexed creature can still attempt a saving throw to resist the effects. Once she has redirected an effect to another creature in this way, that creature cannot be affected by the gift of consumption hex again for 24 hours. The witch must have the gift of consumption hex to select this hex. Did I just fail a Fort Save? I guess that's your problem, not mine... With a Coup-de-Grace, the witch would still have to deal with the damage, but most other effects can just be pushed onto a foe (provided a 'fresh' target is within range and your immediate action is available) without any other consequences.
Yep, I can see why this was banned from PFS...
It is worth noting that while Gift of Consumption (Su) is flagged as being PFS Legal, Greater Gift of Consumption (Su) is not and since it doesn't seem to be outright 'evil' or involve any of the banned subsystems (crafting, stamina points, mythic, etc.), this is a decent indicator that it is considered either too powerful or too confusing for Organized Play. I'm not seeing any obvious confusion issues, so I'm going say this power is just considered to be potentially too ridiculously powerful and GMs might want to think twice about allowing it in their games.
Here's the thing to keep in mind: The Race Builder is just not good. Basically, no one uses it because it doesn't work very well at all, and the game is generally better if you pretend it just doesn't exist. The 'race builder' examples in the ARG are never going to get an errata because they are just examples of how this system can be used: They are not official PC races, and they don't necessarily bear any resemblance to any official PC race published at a later date. As published, the ARG Drider PC is Str +4, Con +4, Wis +2. You can certainly not like it, but it is what it is. If the GM wants to change it, that is well within their authority, but that doesn't make the ARG version 'wrong' (or 'right' for that matter) in any way.
I don't think you understand my stance on this, i stand with the GM who already ruled the Driders do not get the +2 str bonus from larger size or the -2 to dex. and that the stat block given is intentional. It was the pc who is using the race that is arguing otherwise and trying to get support for his belief. Also, this is a very high-powered campaign with factors I haven't revealed. People's race choices have already been balanced out by the GM, case in point im a actual monster a dragon who has been put through considerable restraints, size locked to medium, and no racial modifiers to boot, as well as being locked out of the Gestalt rules... As printed, the Drider PC gets the Large size (which costs it 20% of its RP) and all associated benefits/drawbacks. Source Large (7 RP): Prerequisite: Humanoids taking this quality must have the giant subtype; Benefit: Large creatures gain a +2 size bonus to Strength and a –2 size penalty to Dexterity. Large races take a –1 size penalty to their AC, a –1 size penalty on attack rolls, a +1 bonus on combat maneuver checks and to their CMD, and a –4 size penalty on Stealth checks. A Large creature takes up a space that is 10 feet by 10 feet and has a reach of 5 feet. Medium (0 RP): Medium races have no bonuses or penalties due to their size. A Medium creature has a space of 5 feet by 5 feet and a reach of 5 feet. Small (0 RP): Small races gain a +1 size bonus to their AC, a +1 size bonus on attack rolls, a –1 penalty on combat maneuver checks and to their CMD, and a +4 size bonus on Stealth checks. Small races have a space of 5 feet by 5 feet and a reach of 5 feet. Tiny (4 RP): Prerequisites: Aberration, construct, dragon, fey, outsider (native), or plant type; Benefit: Tiny creatures gain a +2 size bonus to Dexterity and a –2 size penalty to Strength. Tiny races gain a +2 size bonus to their AC, a +2 size bonus on attack rolls, a –2 penalty on combat maneuver checks and to their CMD, and a +8 size bonus on Stealth checks. Tiny characters take up a space of 2-1/2 feet by 2-1/2 feet, so up to four of these characters can fit into a single square. Tiny races typically have a natural reach of 0 feet, meaning they can’t reach into adjacent squares. They must enter an opponent’s square to attack it in melee. This provokes an attack of opportunity from the opponent. Since they have no natural reach, they do not threaten the squares around them. Other creatures can move through those squares without provoking attacks of opportunity. Tiny creatures typically cannot flank an enemy. The GM is free to use a homebrew version of the Drider without these attribute adjustments, but you are outside of any official rules at this point...
The ARG has an example write up for driders, https://legacy.aonprd.com/advancedRaceGuide/raceBuilder/exampleRaces.html#o ther-race-examples Type: Aberration 3rp Size: Large 7rp (+2 size bonus to Strength and a –2 size penalty to Dexterity) Base Speed: Normal 0rp Ability Score Modifiers: Flexible (+2 Con, +2 Wis) 2rp Languages: Standard 0rp Racial Traits:
Defense Racial Traits
Movement Racial Traits
Senses Racial Traits
Other Racial Traits
Total: 35rp By my count, this version should end up as: Str +4, Con +4, Wis +2 on a species that is pushing up on a +3 level APL adjustment (at low level at least)
They are suppose be picking the base PC race. They aren't building the race. Well, here's your problem: There is no 'official' Drider base PC race option. I am seeing a third-party Drider Bestiary Template but templates are not really intended for PCs. EDIT: There was a Drider option published in D&D3.0's Savage Species volume, which made it into a 10 level 'class' to balance it out. |
