Lets bet more complicated - Chained Flurry or Unchained Flurry? the language changes.
Long story short, they are all variations of the same mechanic, stating they act as are TWF. As such, you shouldn't stack them, you get one or the other.
Lets get some rules here (all from the Archives of Nethys)
Chained Flurry of Blows:
Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat). For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus from his monk class levels is equal to his monk level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus.
At 8th level, the monk can make two additional attacks when he uses flurry of blows, as if using Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat).
At 15th level, the monk can make three additional attacks using flurry of blows, as if using Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat).
A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands. A monk may substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of a flurry of blows. A monk cannot use any weapon other than an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows. A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows attacks.
Unchained Flurry of Blows:
Flurry of Blows (Ex): At 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When making a flurry of blows, the monk can make one additional attack at his highest base attack bonus. This additional attack stacks with the bonus attacks from haste and other similar effects. When using this ability, the monk can make these attacks with any combination of his unarmed strikes and weapons that have the monk special weapon quality. He takes no penalty for using multiple weapons when making a flurry of blows, but he does not gain any additional attacks beyond what’s already granted by the flurry for doing so. (He can still gain additional attacks from a high base attack bonus, from this ability, and from haste and similar effects).
At 11th level, a monk can make an additional attack at his highest base attack bonus whenever he makes a flurry of blows. This stacks with the first attack from this ability and additional attacks from haste and similar effects.
Brawler’s Flurry (Ex): Starting at 2nd level, a brawler can make a brawler’s flurry as a full-attack action. When doing so, a brawler has the Two-Weapon Fighting feat when attacking with any combination of unarmed strikes, weapons from the close fighter weapon group, or weapons with the “monk” special feature. She does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability.
A brawler applies her full Strength modifier to her damage rolls for all attacks made with brawler’s flurry, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand weapon or a weapon wielded in both hands. A brawler can substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of brawler’s flurry. A brawler with natural weapons can’t use such weapons as part of brawler’s flurry, nor can she make natural weapon attacks in addition to her brawler’s flurry attacks.
At 8th level, the brawler gains use of the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat when using brawler’s flurry. At 15th level, she gains use of the Greater Two-Weapon Fighting feat when using brawler’s flurry.
Brawler's Flurry is explicitly TWF while flurrying. So you can not combine the two.
Chained Flurry is also explicitly functioning as TWF. You can not use TWF, CHained Flurry and/or Brawler's flurry together.
Moreover, as they are not the same ability (they operate differently), and do not state they stack, Brawler's Flurry and/or Chained Flurry do not stack your brawler and Chained monk levels for the purposes of their effects.
Unchained is actually probably the most direct. It states that "He takes no penalty for using multiple weapons when making a flurry of blows, but he does not gain any additional attacks beyond what’s already granted by the flurry for doing so. (He can still gain additional attacks from a high base attack bonus, from this ability, and from haste and similar effects)." So while you can use 2 weapons, you gain none of the bonuses or penalties from TWF.
Chained flurry has been FAQed several times, and last ruling I heard was that you can use any number of weapons, take any attack with any equipped weapon or unarmed strike, and take no TWF penalties. (i'd list the faq, but I haven't been able to find them since the redesign)
I imagine it is assumed the same rules apply to Brawlers flurry.
Ive been off these boards ever since the site redesign. People are still trying to engage this guy on these questions?
I had been trying to convince this guy that PF isn't his jam for at least a year.
He states repeatedly what he wants in a game, we tell him that game isn't pathfinder, and then complains that all he can play is pathfinder, and starts a new thread that sounds like he hasn't been having this argument for over a year. I often reply before looking at his name and discovering that its this guy again. Always with a thread title which asks a question, just not the one he is asking.
He believes that his local GMs represent Pathfinder, and since its the only thing anyone will play, keeps trying to determine how to break out of the core mechanics of pathfinder.
If you have an issue with the core design choices of D&D 3.5, including races that are trade-offs, core abilities defined by class, and a Game Master who is more than a simple arbiter of rules, Pathfinder and PFS are not your game, and you will not have fun playing them. If you don't have other options in your area, the internet can provide. If you hate internet TRPGs, then don't partake. Asking the same questions will get you the same answers.
I agree that the rules state that when an aggressive action is declared, combat begins. Many people state this is to prevent PCs from declaring "I ATTACK FIRST". However, I would like to point out that the rules in fact encourage the opposite - trying to avoid saying anything the DM can ever interpret as mildly aggressive in intent. It ends up playing a game of Schrodinger initiative.
I was in a game where we were going up against an Alarune. We did not know what she was at the time, it was disguised as a Person of Authority, but we knew she was fake. I know after the fact, from reading the module, that the Alarune wanted to sucker us in as close as possible, to get us with her calming spores. We were all riding the Giant Dino Wildshaped Druid in our party. The Druid player explained to our GM that the goal was to walk close, and then charge the fake POA. Because he expressed his intent to attack at some point, and despite that his attack vector was to do exactly what the NPC wanted, while 150 ft away when neither side wanted to initiate combat...we rolled initiative.
Schrodenger's initiative is where a person who has not initiated combat and is not disposed to make the first strike gets initiative. I encounter it often with my Lawful types - I have not yet seen clear need to fight, and because the actual triggering action hasn't in theory occurred yet, I have no idea what to do with my initiative round. I know, from the init roll, that the guy is actually a bandit that will attack me on his turn, but acting on it would be metagaming. It sucks. It never seems to be a problem for the opposition however. Ive had my injured monk about to jump into a pool of freezing water drinking a mage armor potion initiate combat, no bluff check that i was drinking another potion, they monsters *Knew* that i was in fact buffing myself for a fight, not drinking the endure elements before jumping in the lake.
I am not wishing to argue house rules, I recognize the RAW. My question to this thread would be how others reconcile Schrodinger's Initiative in their own game.
Except that they are not armor. RAW or RAI. They are arm guards (a category of item which can include Archery accessories), leather or metal, that house an enchantment for a magical armor bonus, but do not occupy the armor slot. If you, theoretically, put mage armor permanently on a shirt, it does not become armor. Or are you arguing that mage armor costs a monk their monk abilities? In the ABP rules from unchained, clothing getting the armor enhancement is treated as having AC 0 so you can get an armor bonus without wearing armor. If you accept this AC bonus, do you lose all of your monk abilities? RAW, 'armor' is anything that occupies the armor slot. Spells or Magical items providing an armor bonus are not armor.
It is generally expected that you gain some level of magical armor enhancement, even if you do not wear armor. Either by spells or magical items. This can be seen in the ABP options, which recognise Armor bonuses as part of the 'Big 6' options the rules expect you to be investing in.
Small note....Eidolons, by the CRB definitions Nefreet linked, are not summoned creatures, except when summoned via the 1 rd spell. Which is why at some point this concept should have been clarified. Nothing in the description disallows a summoned creature from returning with non-summoned objects. And again, they aren't summoned creatures, because the 1 minute ritual is not a spell. If you want to play that game.
There was a 7-11 PFS scenario that requested the players 'volunteer' for the mission presented. A player asked if he could decline the mission. I told him he could, and was free to go explore the Merch room (it was a convention). He choose to volunteer. When player's question the set-up, the best response is to cheekily let them 'pass' on the gold, loot, and XP. Even better if you are enforcing cost of living.
The fact is, when the question comes up, go ahead and have Father Cornelius find anther group. If the players don't get the hint, they eventually can't find work, because word got around that they don't want any.
IN general, the best route is to establish from the get go that the Father is either unsuited to adventuring, or that he is busier with other, more direct or more dire threats.
I think limitations of the format of PFS, which the scenarios in discussion are meant for, is part of the key dissonance I see here. Lets take my GMT example, which lacks the established in rules limitations. See GMT is no more resistant to intimidate then any other NPC with class levels, as there are no modifiers for having spent years involved in organized crime to get those items he wants. So, from a rules perspective, even a level 1 or 2 who put focus into intimidate could in theory, intimidate Torch. But it only lasts a short time. And if you actually frightened Torch, he would likely have you ‘dealt’ with. And its how I would shut down that kind of funny business in a home game. In fact, you might not even finish your attempt before the 10 guards in the room deal with you. But due to various rules in PFS, including the don’t be a dick rule, I am discouraged from attempting you from being a dick in a game I run.
Several times I have had to dissemble because I don’t know what the target of the intimidate knows, Or I am trying to determine how the guard is going to murder my players. As a PFS GM I have been told I am wrong because an intimidate target did not give up info from intimidate because it would cause harm to the target (as explicitly stated in the intimidate rules). I have been told I am wrong to interpret Intimidate as an aggressive action. I have been told I am wrong to have negative consequences for actions which should have negative consequences. Why do writers ban intimidate? Because long term consequences aren’t a thing. Intimidate should often lead to long term consequences for your characters. But the Format of PFS makes introducing long term consequences impossible, and you also often can’t deal with it during the session either. The format often ties a GM’s hand. Writers ban intimidate because the real downsides to that skill don’t exist in this format. Low DC skill with none of the built in downsides? I'm surprised PFS continues to allow it as written.
So here is a spoiler free case i encountered, that did not have an intimidate immunity. it was a 7-11 season 0 or 1 scenario The big bad flesh warps their family and i presumed minions when they fail. The party took out a room of enemies, and stabilized one guy and tried to interrogate him about his boss and minions. This minion had 'fight to the death' morale. He is restrained and unable to restart his bleed out by preforming a stressful action, which he would have otherwise done.
I told the party that he would not give them information. Intimidate will not cause an enemy to perform an action that would cause them harm, or in this case be tortured. They could not threaten him with worse then torture and death. I got so much grief for this ruling.
The various limiting factors on intimidate, No self harm, "friendly", not mind control, are designed to be the balancing factors on a stupidly low DC. But a lot of players refuse to accept those limitations as ok. Ive been told by a venture lieutenant that I shouldn't restrict the abilities of intimidate on an enemy who would otherwise slavishly throw himself upon the PC's swords despite his 10 friends failing to even scratch them. There are circumstances where Intimidate would not work. A level 1 is not going to intimidate Grandmaster Torch surrounded by guards (though mechanically they could). Hence, "immune to intimidate".
The rules are, technically silent on the ability to upgrade magic items, let alone the proper costs for doing so. Magic Item creation is largely in the 'Ask your GM' territory.
Assuming you can upgrade (rather then get a new bonded item) your ring, 3,000gp is the most logical option. But your GM might disagree.
Adding abilities makes things even more 'Ask your GM' territory. IN the end, the rule of thumb would be you would value the item at full value, then figure your 50% crafted cost, then deduct your previous item cost.
Sorry about that.
Unless you are asking for PFS, then I can give a more solid answer.
It really depends. IN FFXV, the prince is obviously the main character, and his friends are clearly supporting characters. But I could easily see a campaign where the group, with the price as their leader was the main character. Its all about how the NPCs interact with the compainions of the heir. Have those in the resistance praise the individual contributions of the others, have them recognize that its this 'strike team', not just the heir that is solving the issues. Make them feel valuable. Its also going to rely on the heir valuing in-game and out of game his PC allies. Its very possible, but it requires that the world see them as a unit with a clear and defined leader rather than the prince and his lackies. Perhaps build to that point with success, but if the other players dont feel their contributions are valued by the 'resistence' or that the usrpers consider them part of the threat, it doesn't matter if they are more combat effective - they will check out during the RP, and that will undermine your story.
May i remind everyone that several creation school effects had an instantaneous duration with prrmenant effect in pathfinder. They created something that was prrmenant., but was otherwise mundane. Cure light wounds was instantaious, but it had a prrmenant effect. How do you dispel blindness/deafness? you don’t. It’s An instantaneous spell with a prrmenant effect. How do you dispel the damage caused by a damaging spell? you don’t. The effect is permenant, at least until another jnstant duration spell comes along to change it again. A serum of appearance change is the same. It takes effect instantly (instant duration) but it’s effects are Permanent. The magic is instant in duration, it’s effects are permenant.
also, tieflings are a false equivalency. Tieflings have a host of nice racial traits. Vanara's do not. Moreover, things with the same name are not the same. Incorporeal subtype, incorporeal universal monster ability, and the condition incorporeal all do different things. Only one of those makes you immune to critical hits, for instance.
this feels like the pummeling stance debate where rules lawyers loved to say the word punch used in the description was fluff, right up until the devs said it wasn't.
in any case, i enjoy douglas that, after stating the the vanara could carry the lantern as long as he didn't try to get the mechanical effect, therefore saying the OP could in fact do precicely what you have been arguing he couldn't, you have gone back to saying the tail can retreve items but not carry them. despite the fact that, mechanically, with a little bit of training it could carry the whole vanara.
Which is why ive switched to the reformation inquisition. Its far more in theme. ;)
I'm proably going with (at first level, with the 2nd level rebuild ill make a martial my first level):
Human Cleric of Cayden Cailean
Domains: Reformation, Travel
Feats: Combat Reflexes
Skills: Diplomacy, Perform (Strings), Know (Local)
Traits: World Traveler (Know Local), Talented (Perform (Strings))
Theme: Weary Nirmathi soldier who never wanted to go to war, never wanted to be a part of the never ending feud between Nirmathi and Multhune but abandoned his own desires to study music to help his friends and family, starts wondering who is looking out for him while drinking, hears Cayden's voice, and is lead onto a path of promoting peace through reasoned words...and Music
I realize my character wont ever be excellent at perform. That works with the bill and ted influences I wanted. I don't get the inspire, or the good hope. But I am ok with that, because I think the ideas I had were too spread out and all over to work very well.
Thanks for the Help!
I think all sides kinda missed parts of what I was putting down, but I think Sir thugs a lot put the most thought into PFS considerations and the question of what I could do with a one level dip. Work got in the way of my returning.
The back and forth discussion taught me 1 thing - The bardic performance cleric isn't going to be what I want. One of my goals was to eliminate the need for CHA with an inquisition (reformation or conversion) instead of a domain if I went primary cleric, and everyone seemed to keep primary cleric but drop the abdication of CHA.
I agree that higher move speed was a big goal of the travel domain, and I'm left with a big question of Revelry vs Travel.
Good Hope looks great. I'm not sure why people keep suggesting putting it on a class with inspire and talking about them stacking though...they are both morale bonuses.
In addition, a lot of these cleric builds seem to assume multiple active round/level and minute/level buffs, which isn't assumed in PFS play. I don't often have prep time going into an encounter, i.e. I often don't 'know' I'm going into an encounter, and when I do, buff time has often hurt me.. I'm on my -14 with several characters in 9+ level play. I'm well aware of the environment of PFS play, and while useful, I never assume I have even minute/level buffs ready, let alone round/level.
Sir, Thugsalot, I'm not sure a few stray skill points and a 1/day buff is truly worth the ranger dip, but you have given me things to think about in that regard.
I did give several more details, domains I intended to take, features I liked, and the theme: Caiden Cleric whose motto is "Be Excellent to Each Other" and is influenced by bill and ted. I highly appreciate Sir Thugsalot's provision of a theme beyond just a stat block.
Ive actually got a theme in that vein now, mixing in my original theme, and I think its gonna work out great. Thanks everyone for your comments. Feel free to discuss more if you have ideas.
I am working on a PFS build that started as a Human Cleric of Cayden Caillean, and I am looking for some advice. He got a bit of Bill & Ted "Be excellent to each other" in him, and then I decided that, due to the flavor, I wanted this cleric to pick up a perform skill, and then decided picking up a bardic performance might enhance the flavor. But the loss of a domain and the shifts to spontaneous casting make the evangelist a bad choice for the build.
So now I am trying to decide on a Songhealer Bard with a dip in cleric, or Cleric with a dip in bard, or what.
I want my domains (Conversion Inquisition & Travel) for the domain powers. However, if I am a primary cha caster (i.e. Bard) I obviously don't need Conversion. I like the high level Travel powers, but they aren't necessary. I want the flavor of getting create alcohol as a variant spell, which needs a subset of the divine casters to be legal.
I want enough skill points for a perform skill. I would like to have bardic performance using strings, oratory, or singing.
I had been thinking of the character as a medium/heavy armored reach weapon user otherwise.
Beyond that, I am not sure how to go with the character. I am flexible on the race and classes used. Any thoughts?
Ive pointed out before, and I will point it out again, any time someone says this makes sence due to "more material' being used or some such nonsense.
A large adamantine [light edged] weapon costs significantly more than a medium [one handed edged] weapon, but from a rules standpoint are equivalent weapons with the same statistics, with only the suitability of their grip being a concern. Adamantine pricing, based on small/medium pricing and the above comparison has nothing to do with the size of the item and everything to do with a really weird desire to punish those with the need or desire to use large sized equipment.
So, i started cruzing through the stickied thread this morning, and discovered an answer to a question ive had for weeks.
I bought a ring of eloquence for a effrit-blooded scorceror. I thought getting the series of elemental languages (auran, aquan, ignan and terran) would be cool and themeatic. And after all, I choose the skill in my head band of intellegence, and a few other items of a similar nature exist, with factors chosen by the creator of the item that have other legal options.
I looked at the Additional Resources, the Campaign Clarifications, the Organized Play FAQ, and the Advanced Class Guide FAQ. None of these sources listed any restrictions on the use of the Ring of eloquence, and the item description states other language combinations exist.
So imagine my surprise, after playing the character last night and locking in the purchase, when i started reading a thread compiling blog and forum posts clarifying rules for organized play and found a link to a Sep 2014 blog post which produced official PFS rulings. Do I now need to keep an entire archive of the blog at hand as yet another source of rules? What is the point of the Additional Resources, Campaign Clarifications, and Oraganized play FAQ pages, if I still cant reliably determine what has and has not been ruled legal for play?
So I was running a PFS game recently and I had an early scenario that did not anticipate the players attempting to interrogate the enemy. They could not diplomacy the enemy, as the enemy started out at the far end of the scale and they could not move the bar more than 2 steps.
So they intimidated the enemy. I felt this shouldn't work, the enemy knew that any talk on his behalf would lead to his torture & death (stated in his stat block) anyway, there was nothing the PCs could do to produce a worse fate. But they insisted that intimidate was a 100% guarantee if they made the laughably low DC. I tried pointing out that no matter how big your diplomacy, 'diplomancy' doesn't actually exist, and no matter what abilities you have to increase the number of steps you can move someone's attitude, it is within the rules for me to decide that a minute of discussion isn't going to change the genocidal maniac's opinion on killing the party. But they continued to insist that Intimidate isn't like that and that if they make the (again, laughably low) DC, they have to get the info they want.
Rather than waste time debating the issue with local players who question *everything*, assuming they know the rules better than I do, on the spot I decided to give them some ultimately useless information that appeased them. I realize that in PFS I am supposed to operate 'by the rules', but I also know the rules state that it is possible for there to exist impossible skill checks. My question to the rules forum: who do you think was right in this situation? Given the stated morale of the enemy (by losing he is already going to be killed or flesh warped), and the lack of insight has to what the enemy knows or doesn't know about the big bad's plans, should he have even been able to be intimidated into talking? Would you agree that the enemy might have considered spilling the beans to the party 'taking action that would cause him harm'?
I'm just curious the wider opinion on the skill. I don't need strategies to deal with problem players. I'm in rules, not advice.
I find, in most cases, that those who require an uncommon or rare race to make an interesting character are either using it as a crutch, or are just prejudiced against humans.
I haven't found one who builds a character where the race is a necessary or critical component of that character, but is rather a shorthand for stereotypical traits or a providing a mechanical benefit.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to play other races. But you need to be honest about it. I prefer dwarves and gnomes, and it shows in my character list. But I can't think of a single one whose race is what makes them interesting. I have a Dwarf who loves to take charge because, as a dwarf, he knows how to mundane things better. But it could just as easily be a human referencing his local region instead (think Chekov and Russia). The race isn't what makes him interesting, the personality is.
From a certain standpoint, my most boring Pathfinder (PFS) character is a Nagaji Brawler/Rouge. She is dumb as rocks (Int 6, after a level up boost), with a high strength (20+). In combat her primary attack is head butts. She owns a caravan to smuggle goods back to the Nagaji Empire, its the reason she adventures. She's pretty cookie cutter. But the Table and I have fun with her, because its the character that makes it fun, and the character isn't largely defined by her race.
My most interesting character is however a uncommon race, a Tengu. He's a Monk (Sensei) / Inquisitor (Preacher) of Irori. This character's motivation in life is a lot more tied into race - His goal is to elevate the Tegu people and make them stop being the dregs of society by encouraging the race to strive for self perfection. But if I wanted to play with this build in a game that didn't want Tengus? Its a different character, sure, but I could play it. I could find other hooks in the lore to work with. I've been playing D&D since AD&D 2nd ed, and I still haven't run out of unique personalities to work with. I play a uncommon race because it fits with my character or help define an aspect of the character. Not because I need the race to have any idea at all.
I had a friend who couldn't play a 'normal' character. They were boring. He had to have a gimmick. Children. A caster who got a rod of wonder and would use it to the exclusion of any other tactic. A pacifist involved in combatting the world destroying evil. It was weird. He was so upset when I ruled he couldn't play a kobold, because in my homebrew setting, many 'evil' races like kobolds were in fact *evil* races. In a cosmic sense, the evil races were created by the malevolent elder god "Destruction" (later to be revealed as Tiamat) with the goal of ending creation. There was no question cosmically of nature vs nurture in this campaign, Evil races were by their nature evil, and would not have been able to be on the PC side of the campaign arc, whose goal was to prevent the freeing of Tiamat and the end of creation. Told to restrict himself to just about anything else he couldn't do it. If he couldn't have his special snowflake Kobold, he literally couldn't find his character interesting (until he chose a child with no PC class levels). His character other wise was a bog standard rogue, taking little mechanical advantage of being a Kobold, and whose personality was easily transplanted into the child. It could have been a gnome or Halfling just as easily. But those were too "generic" and "boring". It needed to be something highly unique so he could highlight his uniqueness to everyone.
And that I find is the case with most people who need an uncommon or rare race - They demand to play a race that is in-setting rare and unusual, and then whine when it turns out that, like in the real world, uniqueness is not necessarily a positive trait to have when travelling from village to village.
Why do I insist on playing common races? I don't. But I don't reject playing them either. But I would imagine most people gravitate towards standard fantasy races because A) they are new, and the common ones are familiar, B) they are in fact common and therefore have fewer issues travelling, or C) They are in fact common and therefore it requires less explaining why they are present at the beginning of the campaign/adventure.
Second sentence. The one nefreet bolded? That sentence is a broad policy statement, and its phrasing makes no sense if it was only supposed to apply to the Adventurer's Guide. Given the significant complaints that occur every time they stealth errata some option by reprinting it, a policy of "You don't need to buy a new book to use an option you already had" solves serious concerns about bait and switch that were getting leveled at Paizo. It undermines the reason we need to have and bring those resources in PFS, and its questionable how that policy would work in practice because of those reasons, but it makes quite a bit of sense in the "don't be a dick" arena
Slightly off topic, but you have to understand the reason behind the damage multiplier stacking rule.
Quick short hand:
Lets take a common case, mounted charging with a lance, and getting a crit. The charging lance is 2x, the crit is 3x. but what these represent aren't multipliers, nor are they total damage.
The 2x charge represents 1x BWD, and 1x CHDB. From a balance standpoint, you are only supposed to be getting 1x Weapon damage as a bonus from the charge.
On a crit (no mounted charge), a lance does 3x damage, representing 1x BWD, and 2x CDB. From a balance standpoint, you are meant to get 2x Weapon damage as a bonus from the crit.
So on a mounted Charge Crit, instead of 2x3=6x BWD, or 2+3=5x BWD, you get 1xBWD + 1xCHDB + 2xCDB = 4xBWD.
I assume this same rational would apply to crafting multipliers, if any.
I want to apologize for the posters who want to quickly comment rather than provide either a substansive "yes, those numbers are correct", or trying to explain how to do things. In short, yes, it all adds up. Feats or magic items might provide additional bonuses that have non-stacking types, but in general, the base AC animal statistics, the 4th/7th level advancement, and the AC table benefits all combine to produce the "base" statistics.
Your numbers are correct. However, in the the belief that if we leave it at that you or another poster will need to revisit this question, I want to explain how we get there.
Lets slow this down a bit, take it step by step. Please bear with me for some of my comments - Others who may not be as versed in the rules as you may see this post, and I am wrting for them as well.
As a note, you should link to your sources in the furture. D20PFSRD (where it looks like you got those screenshots) is posting that information legally, there is no reason to hide the source of that info. And information not in the tables is needed as well.
Paizo PRD entry on Druids, for refrence.
First, the 1st level AC bear. From the List:
Starting Statistics: Size Small; Speed 40 ft.; AC +2 natural armor;
So we use those stats to calculate the Bear as if it were any PC or NPC. We apply the bonuses from the AC Table as well, noting that an AC has D8 Hit Dice as per the Druid entry on Animal companions.
1st level Bear:
Init +2; Speed 40 ft.;
HP 11 (2d8+2) (Depending on your house rules (average vs roll) this can vary)
AC 14: 10 + 2Dex + 2Nat
Melee attack: +3 (1BAB, 2STR)
Saves: Fort: 4 (3BASE+1CON) Ref: 5 (3BASE+2DEX) WILL: 1 (0BASE+1WIS)
Skill Points: 2, Feats: 1
Tricks Known: 7 (6 for INT + 1 Bonus Trick) (Handle Animal tells you how many tricks an Animal normally can learn)
Ability Scores Str 15, Dex 15, Con 13, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6;
Now, no major changes happen until 4th level, when the bear gets the advancement. This changes the base bear, but only in the ways specified.
4th-Level Advancement: Size Medium; Attack bite (1d6), 2 claws (1d4); Ability Scores Str +4, Dex –2, Con +2.
Since the AC table is cumulative, you just need to adjust the base bear with the above bonuses, and then apply the Bonuses in the AC table.
That gets you (with the ability increase to con):
4th level Bear:
Init +2; Speed 40 ft.;
HP 30 (4d8+12) (The Con change provides retroactive HP, just like for PCs)
AC 16: 10 + 2Dex + 4Nat
Melee attack: +8 (3BAB, 5STR)
Saves: Fort: 7 (4BASE+3CON) Ref: 6 (4BASE+2DEX) WILL: 2 (1BASE+1WIS)
Skill Points: 4, Feats: 2
Tricks Known: 8 (6 for INT + 2 Bonus Trick)
Ability Scores Str 20, Dex 14 , Con 16, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6;
Now its just incremental changes from the AC table. That gives us, at level 9 (both increases in CON)
9th level Bear:
Init +3;Speed 40 ft.;
HP 60 (8d8+24)
AC 19: 10 + 3Dex + 6Nat
Melee attack: +12 (6BAB, 6STR)
Saves: Fort: 9 (6BASE+3CON) Ref: 9 (6BASE+3DEX) WILL: 3 (2BASE+1WIS)
Skill Points: 8, Feats: 4
Tricks Known: 10 (6 for INT + 4 Bonus Trick)
Ability Scores Str 22, Dex 16 , Con 17, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6;
And there you go, a level 9 Bear AC.
Now, the bear as an AC does not grow again. Its an unfortunate design decision, and does seem small. It does however provide a solid melee companion with no issues traveling through the 5 ft wide cooridoors common in dungeons.
I am unsure how I would design a large size bear companion. Perhaps a second advancement at 7 as a house rule, but make sure there is a drawback beyond the -2 dex for size.
How would you go about not getting your emissary familiar butchered trying to make use of divine guidance in combat?
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
as a note, in PFS, #1 is wrong. there is absolutely no auto fail on skill checks. Automatic failure only occurs where specificly spelled out, which occurs in the attack roll and saving throw entries.
Officially, all AOE effects except bursts centered on the caster have a corner of the square as their origin. That creates the first two templates the OP posted.
However, as a holdover from 3.0, the 15 foot cone template doesn't base itself on a corner, but on the middle of the square. That creates the abberent 1/3/3 Cone template. The 1/3/3 template does feel more cone shaped than the 2/4/2 Template, and that's likely why they suggest to use it.
My advice, allow your group to use both interchangeably. Or have them choose one.
if you look here: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/gettingStarted.html at the ability score description you find that ability checks are defined as checks that use your ability score modifier and nothing else (aside from situational modifiers). any [attribute] check such as strength check, con check, etc. is an ability check. initiative is a den check, with its own set of situational modifiers. there is no comprehensive list. ability checks are catch-all checks for when no defined skill applies, but you are clearly employing an ability score. like lifting heavy objects is a strength check. there are some clearly defined uses, like bleeding out is a con check, as are feats of endurance like holding your breath and running without getting fatigued. any time you call for a [ability] check, the luckstone applies.
Neils Bohr wrote:
How exactly do you lose out on the free attack? there is nothing preventing you from casting the spell, taking a 5 foot step and taking the free attack. In fact a faq clearly states that you can.
Any spell with an attack roll can crit regardless of the means of delivery. That language is only present to indicate that the spell does not use the weapons crit threat modifier.
Touch: You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch up to 6 willing targets as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell. If the spell allows you to touch targets over multiple rounds, touching 6 creatures is a full-round action.
I believe the general rule-of thumb presented in this faq applies: (in fact the whole thing give some great guidence)
Basically, the spellstrike gives the magus more options when it comes to delivering touch spells; it’s not supposed to make it more difficult for the magus to use touch spells.
My group generally uses an appraise check to identify mundane weapons and armor. Its not an official use. Nor is a craft check, the other way my group does it. But its a possibility. For a Compound (+3) Longbow, Id also say anyone with proficiency could use it for a few minutes and determine if it was above their strength bonus, or the specific strenght bonus if it is below their bonus.
a 25 on an appraise check will identify that an item is magical, but not what the magic is. Identifying magic items is codified as a spellcraft check while using detect magic. that link provides the DC of 15+items caster level.
Gallant Armor wrote:
1) What you really want to know is - when using spellstrike (ranged or otherwise) does the weapon attack need to hit (regular AC) to discharge the spell, or does it only need to touch to discharge the spell? Its an interesting question, and one I thought i knew the answer to. I thought you needed to hit the appropriate ac for the weapon attack to discharge the spell. but then I read this FAQ stating that spellstrike is not intended to make it more difficult for a magus to use touch attacks.
It also uses touch attack in refrence to the spell and states that hes still holding the spell that can be discharged at the slightest touch (except for holding the weapon). Because of this, i establish that spells being delivered with spell strike are still touch spells, and would discharge on a touch ac hit, even if the weapon is riding on would otherwise fail to hit.
You added the wrinkle of a Dye arrow, an arrow that targets touch ac. This simplifies the approach, but might be unneccisary.
TL; DR: Without a dye arrow it would probably work, but expect Table Variation. With a Dye Arrow, it would almost certainly be yes.
2) Elemental effects of the spell? Certainly. Elemental effeects of the arrow(assuming it was enchanted)? YMMV. But if you are talking about the elemental effects of the arrow, it does not matter if you are delivering a touch spell, that is about the interaction of the dye arrow and the enchantment.
As a note, this is really a rules question. Its about how various rules interact.
because he's not trying to kill the fighter in the first place, so he's not trying to make her bleed to death. Also because, unless he's got Improved Unarmed Strike, he's not efficient enough with his fisticuffs to use his rogue talents with them, I'm not even sure he can use sneak atttack with his fists if he doesn't have IUS... that feat is like weapon proficiency with unarmed attacks.
Sneak Attack wrote:
Rogue Talent wrote:
I see nothing in those quotes that requires the rogue to be proficient in a weapon to use sneak attack or rogue talents. And i still see no lethal requirement to use bleeding attacks.
Now, you are right that it does not make sense to declare a bleeding attack if you dont intend to kill someone, but there is nothing that prevents it.
Perhaps you would like to cite some rules?
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Unless the rogue has the improved unarmed feat, he is not doing lethal damgage with his fists and can not do the bleed.
I second Chess Pwn's question. The Bleeding attack talent doesn't seem to have a lethal requirement.
Language is widely regarded as an effective way to express an idea to other parties. If you do not have a grasp of language i can see how the idea that you can communicate your desires to others is a bit baffling. but you seem to have a decent grasp of the idea of language. You clearly expressed a 'point', that is that you feel people have unfairly judged the point of the OP because of his posting history.
The OP originally expressed that his key desire was to see a build that could not use the majority of its class abilities. That wan't unclear in the OP. However, having no knowledge of the OPs history I still jumped to the why question. a PFS character should be designed to fill and be effective at one or more adventuring roles. Pathfinder Field Agents are, in theory, skilled adventurers capable of handling any role. So we question why you would try to force a Fighter with 1/2 bab and a d6 hit points into the ranks of the Pathfinders, he clearly isn't very skilled, and his skills (swordplay) don't match the training he has received (wizardry). (Remember, conceptually, if a character is a level 1 wizard he spent years training at an arcane school, or under an older wizard, despite not having the ability to perform the magic he was being taught).
So the question is, what is the goal of creating a build like this? Placing flavor over base competance is generally considered to be a jerk move in organized play. I refuse to play in home gmaes with one of my friends because he does not think the ability of a character to survive is at all important when compared to the entertainment of having a useless actor be forced into an adventure and feign death whenever combat starts. I certainly dont want to play in a game where that character is somehow a Pathfinder Field Agent.
Im not saying you have to be optimized. But saying how could we build a fighter without the feats, or weapon/armor training (fallen paladin) or how should we build a fighter without the feats, bab, HP, or Armor/weaon training (Stupid Wizard) and still be an effective class? its an interesting thought exercise and can maybe work with a campaign designed around the ideas. But this is about PFS, and therefore you have to assume the answer to the question will be considered for use in PFS, and therefore you have to ask WHY?
So of course people are going to question that motive. I did.
if they cant finagle a 14 cha i doubt it