Search Posts
I've always looked at Conan movies and how he held his sword as "stances". I like them for the theme. If you don't like them it's not like the whole character revolves around them. Plus with things like vital strike, you're hardly speed in your tracks. I tend to see Conan more like a Barbarian/Fighter multiclass character than a pure Barbarian..
Continuing with the side note. As a side note, with the other comments i was getting here, i am starting to think the UBarbarian is a sidegrade too and not an upgrade. But i have to wait and see it for myself before making me an idea.The UBarbarian is supposed to be a sidegrade, because the barbarian's overall power level was fine. They just wanted to make some tweaks, like preventing the barbarian from dying when they stop raging and their temporary HP goes away, and getting rid of the "once per rage" powers that encouraged rage cycling. A quick review of both classes let me think it is a very very small upgrade; cause danger sense is more useful than trap sense. It is more a tweak and polish thing. What i really love to see is an Unchained Fighter class.
I admit that removing immunity to poison is a good move, cause thematically it is not really monkish. In fantasy monks are killed with poison by coward foes when those dastards cannot defeat the monks in a fair fight. Poison immunity is something i'd expect from an alchemist or maybe a dwarf monk archetype. But not on normal monks.
For people who wants to spend TOO few time making a character before deciding if the're going to love the game, a fighter is the right choice. 5 minutes and you are on the road to adventure. Except that we can skip 3, 4 and the last ones. I'd tell the player, ok, let's play, then decide the feats n skills later, once you understand how they work. You cannot do it with a fixed ability of a class. Anyway, once they got the rules i tell the player, you have now two options, you can select the feats and skills or move to Ranger or Paladin. I'd assume your 1st level is the level of that class and adjust accordingly. Also i can offer magus, psychic warrior or so on once the guy already knows what he wants.
I don't really get your point. I mean, what you say is clear, but i don't know if it is good for you that the UMonk doesn't have a good will save or you think it is bad for it to not to have that iconic feature of all good saves. cablop. The CMonk is just as focused on combat as the UMonk. If it was an archetype, i'd feel it right. But unchained classes are reboots of the core classes. Or at least they try to. The URogue is a nice example. Anyway, the CRB Monk is not as focused in combat as the U Monk. Having a low BAB and less HP and penalties when flurrying they're not the right class for pure combat, but they're good enough to give support. They can help fighters flank, they keep rogues at bay, they became tanks with some builds, they are harder to take down by casters (until now), they distracted the enemy, were good for rescuing, etc.
Not once in any of these situations would a Fighter be a better choice for teaching a new player how to play the game. Just one scenario. The player wants to play NOW. I have a newbie like that, she choosed a complex class and then she never finished to build it. So her PC is lacking things, but she always wants to play NOW and never wanted to get the extras. For people who wants to spend TOO few time making a character before deciding if the're going to love the game, a fighter is the right choice. 5 minutes and you are on the road to adventure.
I really, really don't throw at them things that drain levels. I avoid things that permanently damage stats. In exchange i don't have problem throwing them mummy dragons or ETs. But they like it, as long as they keep growing they don't have issues with what i throw at them. Maybe i hate to throw level drainers, cause i saw some GMs resorting to them when they cannot manage high level parties. The worst of them never allowed the players to go beyond lvl 5. Hence i developed a hate for experience drainer. Even vampires don't drain levels. Ah! And never, never, never used shadow wights... I think you'd use shadow wights when you HATE a PC and want to banish it from all planes. I just show the page or link with them to troublemaker players, but without any word. That's enough.
Maybe the difference of opinions between Secret Wizard and me is Secret Wizard wants for the U Monk to be equivalent to the older one, but easier to play, and i expected for it to be a boost on the existing monk, like the U rogue is to the rogue, because i do believe some non caster classes do precise an improvement in a game that gives too much to casters at high levels. As a side note, with the other comments i was getting here, i am starting to think the UBarbarian is a sidegrade too and not an upgrade. But i have to wait and see it for myself before making me an idea. Maybe i'm dissappointed of the change in the will save of the monk because it doesn't really reduce the disparity of the class against caster classes. Maybe i don't like Secret Wizard build answers because the good will saves of his builds are the result of the builds and his skills making them rather than the class per se. Those builds don't prove the class is good at will saves, those builds prove Secret Wizard is a good one at making strong builds against odds. In fact, i would ask Secret Wizard for advice about making unexpected strong NPCs for my players if i want to make a campaign really hard for them.
Some people believe that a compensable weakness is not an issue. Some other believe it is. We cannot reach a conclusion here. It is a matter of opinions and opinions are not facts. Going to facts, if y is the will save of the UMonk and x the save of the CMonk we have y < x always; for me that is a weakness for others it is a non-issue.This is not mathematically nor empirically sound. I just posted a build with Will equal in both cases. Secret Wizard, math is math, it does not need to be sound. It is true. By still arguing about a math fact, you only show you are trying to ignore the truth. Bad news, you cannot change math just because. I'm telling you "here i can get a nice hamburger with 5 bucks", you tell me "there you can get the same hamburger for 8 bucks" (3 more), then i tell you "oh man! i'm trying to save those extra 3 to get fries with my order", and then you tell me "oh, you are being too emotional about your hamburger! don't you realize they have a bigger milkshake there?" Oh My Gosh! Am i even asking about milkshake? And you keep telling me they are right at charging more for the hamburger because they serve a bigger milkshake! (Make hamburger = will save, the 3 extra bucks = the feat slot i want to save for other use, fries = the feat i want to buy with those 3 bucks, milkshake = the BAB i'm not worrying about) Math is math, no matter if you talk about pure numbers, stocks, game mechanics or fast food. A better combo is the one i want with extra milkshake for the same price (even if i didn't asked for it), if not, then it is a different combo. Go compare the Rogue with the Unchained Rogue. The U Rogue is the same Rogue with FREE extras. Is to be too emotional to ask for the same for the monk too?
I still don't get why when i say "I think one of the UMonk weaknesses is a low will save" people show me how much damage the UMonk can deal (another topic) to "prove" the poor Will save of the monk is not a weak spot of the class... I still don't get it...
In summation: it's just your impression, cablop. Ok. I know i'm biased to the will good save for the monks. But i still think it is not just my impression. So, to be fair, and to not to do it myself, cause i'm biased: Please, Secret Wizard, make two builds for both classes, with exactly the same ability scores and feats, the same, not equivalent, and we use those two to compare both classes. I think lvl 12 as the last build you made is ok. I'm asking that, because you posted too many builds before so it is a nightmare to compare all. Just two builds with exactly the same scores and exactly the same feats and we can compare them. Of course, be fair, don't select feats that only benefit UMonk, feats that could benefit both classes and we can compare and see what class is better for what with the same build, except for the "chasis".
Hmmm. I still dislike the poor will save of the UMonk. I can accept that build is good. But i still think a Good Will save would boost that Will save to 22 instead of just 17. The fact you can get a decent will save doesn't make the poor will save a good thing on the UMonk class, it is still a weak point, like saying the fortitude save of the Wizard is a weak side of that class, you can workaround it, but it is a weak aspect of that class no matter what. In other words, i think if we can only have two good saves, then the UMonk must have Reflex and Will. More Dex boost the Reflex save up, more Wis boost the Will up, same investments in both stats and both saves remain the same. Anyway. I think i got a few final answers to my thread:
The easiest (not synonymous of best) class to play for a newbie is definitely the fighter. Sadly is the class who suffer the most of the C/MD. Anyway, rules are complex, the fighter makes the player easy get how the game works, maybe he is not going to make out the best, but we also learn from failure, and a not too good fighter is not as frustrating as a not too good wizard. You can retrain skills and feats, hence you can rebuild a fighter with ease, but not a ranger or a paladin. Also, you can add on top of the fighter, i mean, when the player got the basis of the game he can just multiclass. I, myself, when GMing found that a fighter is a good starting point for a newbie. And i do the opposite of what this thread suggests... i barely advice a fighter to old gamers, and i strongly discourage it for veterans if they come from AD&D. 3.5E/PF Fighters are disappointing to them.
My favourite experience of teaching the game to someone was when the new level 4 ranger player took the spell Commune with Birds for that day and proceeded to act like a badass Disney princess. :-DThis wins at life. Seriously, best thing I've read all day. (^-^) Then you missed this post. xD
I forgot, by using armor the monk loses the Wis bonus to AC, the Dex bonus to atk/dmg and Int bonus to initiative aside the normal armor penalties.
How about ki pool being 1/2 level + WIS + CHA? I was about to say that. Cha would work for the ki pool. This way we can still have the monk that traded wisdom for empathy, a la Peter Caine (well, Peter would be a multiclass character, Cop/Shaolin Monk). But i was thinking that if i had to design the class, the monk would also be a limited spontaneous caster, cause they have a lot of spell-like tricks like levitate, spider climb or heat metal, a la Kwai Chang Caine, he used that one a lot against guys with guns. I'd still make it three good saves + the synergy stats. I'd like the synergy of stats people is proposing here, really, that makes a guy who is really trying to make himself perfect and not depending on or be tied to material things. In the end it's not going to make the character OP, cause the points he can spend on stats are the same. Let me think, i'd start with the UMonk chasis and then change, HD to d8 (changing BAB to moderate also), make the three saves good, make it a psionic or psychic caster with spells per day equivalent to a paladin three levels lower (or half the level) with a very limited list of spells (sutra caster would work too), make the synergy things you are proposing (Str+Con for HPs, Str+Dex for atk/dmg, Wis+Dex for AC, Wis+Cha for ki pool (already alleviating the low ki pool), Int+Wis for skill points (not really sure on this one), Int+Dex for initiative, Int+Cha for casting (but the bonus spells you only get from the highest score)) and maybe not making still mind a fixed feature but optional and offer equivalents for the other two saves. Flexible, powerful, not depending on material mundane stuff and lowering the HD and BAB compensate for it, not MAD anymore, cause you build what you want sacrificing other things but not shooting yourself in your toes. So you can make the strong monk, or a wise one, or a fast one or a smart one or the empathic one or the healthier one or the skilled one. From the Sorata of X to the Kwai Chang Caine passing by drunken monks, Peter Caine, Li Mu Bai, Dhalsim, etc.
That'll make an interesting archetype.
Ok then, now that we are comparing the monk and the cleric in a somehow real world representation of those roles in game, i can make this question: Suppose we meet two guys, their abilities are the same (in game same ability scores), one a monk and one a priest, they're equally wise (in game they have the same Wis score, already said, but emphasized), equally expert in their fields (in game, same levels). Who is supposed to be the harder to manipulate his mind? Who is supposed to be the one harder to enchant? Who is supposed to be the stronger when it comes to "he made up his mind"? The harder to seduce? The harder to be convinced by a charismatic performer, noble or politician? Always the cleric? So in game terms, has a cleric a stronger willpower than a monk of same ability scores?
As cablop pointed out, priests are also supposed to be very wise, but no one bats an eye at a combat cleric with only 14 Wis - in fact, in low pb games you'll be encouraged to get away with a 13 to start. I'd love to see that google comparison run in chinese and hindi (or whatever represents indian tradition) too.
Well... using that argument we can also say will save should be a poor save on the cleric too, because the cleric should be a wise spiritual guy, so we are encouraging people to build a wise cleric. Mmmmm. You are right, placing things in those terms... Those clases need to be nerfed... or the other classes need to be improved. With nerfing casting classes i can accept the poor will of the monk. Without that nerf i still vote for a good will save on the u monk to be on par. And i think the same way the Barbarian gets a d12 HD exception, the U Monk can have a three good saves exception too. It won't hurt and makes it more flexible, if people don't want to spend in wis, ok, don't do; you are still a playable monk.
Well... using that argument we can also say will save should be a poor save on the cleric too, because the cleric should be a wise spiritual guy, so we are encouraging people to build a wise cleric.
Well... I'm realizing this: there are two paradigms to make a build, in terms of effectiveness, i mean to improve it to get the best from the game mechanics; well, at least two ways. Paradigm One is to balance the build giving it what it lacks and placing it on par of other builds. I guess this is the way players like Secret Wizard prefer. Paradigm Two is to enhance its already most powerful aspects; placing those aspects far beyond what other builds can ever have, not wasting a single resource on already poor aspects of the build. This is the kind of build some online gamers use in other games. I like the Paradigm Two. It is the idea behind games like Street Fighter or King of Fighters; your characters is really strong at one point it is not an issue to be too weak in another aspect. Paradigm One can compare to games like MK 1, 2 or 3; every characters was the same as others, similar moves, power, etc. with a few unique differences, ah, and different sprites. I really don't like it, despite i liked MK in the past. The UMonk poor will save can be improved if you make builds under Paradigm One. But UMonk is a poor choice if you make builds using the Paradigm Two. If you don't waste resources on already poor aspects of the build you don't purchase Iron Will, you prefer to make a Dex or Con build instead a Wis build, etc. I admit the first weakest point of the UMonk is not as weak as i thought. So i understand, now, the why behind that decision. But i still think the U Monk having a poor will save is a bad decision. It is not monkish. It fails to build the unbreakable mind monk. It fails to reflect the not really wise guy that thanks to hard and disciplined training improved his mind, but is still a dumb one to give wise advice. It also fails to reflect the guy whose path is to excel at every aspect in his pursue to perfection, not just in punching bad guys in their faces... except if i accept what some people, like Ssalarn, VargrBoartusk and others, said. The U Monk is not really a monk, it is just the name of a pack of features in this game some people can use to make some monks... and other martial artists: disciplined combatants that desire to be in the front line rather than playing a support role, combatants focused in dealing damage with their own bodies rather than being mystical characters (but still being, to some extent). It is also an easier to use class for newbies. In other words, my conclusion is: the Unchained Monk is as monkish as white chocolate is real chocolate. That does not change the fact white chocolate is tasty, but if i need to eat it for the need of caffeine and theobromine it is not the right choice. And to mix it with an expresso won't make it real chocolate. I like the class, i still can create Tekken/Street Fighter characters with it but not Miyagis, Kwai Chang Caines, Pai Meis or MMORPG-like monks. Well, i still can make a Li Mu Bai if i (homebrew) switch its poor save to fortitude. I'd use it almost as it is now changing two things:
Secret Wizard: you are not answering my question, in regard of Will being a poor save. In fact, you are not proving the weakness does not exist, but you are proving the issue DOES exist. If a poor will save was not a weakness... why do we need to workaround it with builds? Why do we need to sacrifice a feat or two to compensate an "inexistent" issue? Why do we need to spend the money in items we don't really want to balance a "non existent" weakness? I'm not a build freak, because when i play or i GM with my friends we are not doing it for the DPR or alike, we don't look for the most optimized/efficient build there; we play to have fun. So to navigate through dozens of rules to make a build that can compensate a low save is not fun. In short: If i got twin PCs, i make one a Core Monk and the other an Unchained monk, both have exactly the same ability scores, purchase the same feats, get the same items and monk weapons; because of the flavor of the characters... then the Core Monk ends with a far superior Will save than his brother. Period. Why? Why the decision of the designers was to remove one of the nicest features of a Monk, all the saves are good saves by sacrificing an iconic save of fantasy monks? Monks and Paladins, in regard of combat classes, should be the ones with the most powerful will saves. In fantasy you can make a health weak body, but a weak mind monk? This does not happen with Core Rogue and Unchained Rogue. You compare both classes and you see that they just added on top of the old class. Anyway; taking in consideration your answers; i reach to the conclusion the UMonk is really a martial artist, with mystical background, suitable for Jackie Chan, Van Dame or Bruce Lee characters. There are ways to improve their will saves to make them on par with a Core Monk with average will and no will improvements; but a Core Monk willing to have an unbreakable mind will do it against the UMonk with no effort. I accept your answers about the other part of my question. Poisonable monks do exist in fantasy. So not-toxin-immune monks are a good thing. If they want to survive a poison they need to use their ki for that. I like that now, after being explained.
I think saying that UnMonk has low Will saves is like saying Wizards have few skill ranks per level. C'mon, people, I showed you guys the builds and compared to CRB Monk, you can see that it's a common mistake to believe that but in actual gameplay has no effect :P You are right in one thing: you can find a way to workaround the poor Will save of the UMonk... but that does NOT change the fact it is one of its weakest points. Even an investigator has a better will save than a UMonk! My idea is not "a poor Will save breaks the class and makes it unplayable" but it is "a poor will save is to the monk like a moderate bab progression is to the fighter; you can still play the class, but it does not feel like the right thing". The question is not "how can i workaround it?" but "why do they think it was right to remove one good save to the monk, and why precisely Will, one of the 'iconic' features of fantasy monks?". I accepted the explanation of moving some constant passive features to ki powers... I can imagine Li Mu Bai was able to survive the initial effects of the poison but had not enough ki to remove the poison from his system; the same with Pai Mei and the hero of that Fearless movie. And it does make sense, cause to kill someone with poison in wuxia genre and other asian genres has a significance, the killer is a worthless coward who decided to resort to such despicable method. So i think the change is acceptable. But the will poor save not. I remembered the Old Wise Men from Kungfu series being captured, tied and injected with a powerful truth serum. His body was under the effects of the serum (Fort fail), but he remained silent and didn't say a word, truth or false, until his foes decides to stop trying for him to say anything (Will save). This is a monk. So i still think, why will, why make it a poor save?
A very, very long thread, wow. Ok, i am trying to read all of the posts, but if i do i'm going to be mass-ninja'ed. First, i'm going to do what many suggested, to not to see the UMonk as a replacement of the CMonk. It is a different class that can do almost the same. It is not as mystical as the fantasy monk is, but it is very good for campaigns. It is more on the fighter side than the support side. Second, i like the class enough to use it to make characters like Sato Asami, Yu Shu Lien, Jen, etc. I think it will be suitable for Li Mu Bai if the poor save was fortitude instead of will... And PF should allow the jian to be a monk weapon (but that's another issue). Third, i still think it is bad to make the will save a poor save instead of making fortitude the poor save. Old, physically weak monks that cannot be mind affected exist. Monks that could be killed using poison or illnesses, too. So, i still think it is a bad move. I still think no one proved me the will poor save is ok with that UMonk. I can still make a homebrew archetype of the UMonk that just swap both saves. Any way, i agree with the UMonk having one bad save, cause that class is more a combat/wuxia warrion-monk than a monk that was looking for self-perfection and the Nirvana.
I second that. I wanted to be able to create a monk like Li Mu Bai, until i realized the Flurry of Blows he could perform with a jian sword is not doable by RAW.
I have to say, that i still like the class enough to want to use it for some characters, but not for real monks. Characters like Sato Asami from the legend of Korra or the Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon ones would really work with this class.
Which, if correct (and I agree with you, and also agree with Bob Bob Bob accept when he calls it a 'flaw', though I'm thinking he means more in the sense of mitigating factor rather, in which case I agree even then), means we succeeded with the Unchained monk. The problem that led to the Unchained monk was that the core vanilla monk was underperforming in many games, especially for new players, full of trap options and the likelihood of making a 'flurry of misses" character. Having played with or as some of those archetype combos you mention, they did just fine on their own, and were usually powerhouses in their own right (heck, some of them could solo published adventures).The biggest flaw in the UMonk isn't compared to the CMonk but compared to all of the archetypes available to the CMonk (and completely shut off from the UMonk). Well, you are right. I agree that a better BAB and a Flurry of Blows a la 3E was the way to fix the flurry of misses. We have to admit that Flurry of Blows mechanics working like Two-Weapon Fighting is a mistake, because TWF is a very poor option under PF. But... it is not the topic of my question. I was asking about why some features, like Diamond Body, became a ki power, instead of remaining constant and why the will save is a poor save, why will? Monks are the wise guys, the masters of their own minds. In fantasy monk's will is one of their strongest features, not their weakest features; they could have weak bodies, but powerful minds. In wuxia genre even demons can't enchant monks. So, i think it is a mistake.
I'd say yes and no. For the attack, you are right, for the defense, not. Immunity to poison is a very good thing to always have. 2. The "UnMonk has a weak will save" thing is a myth. Core Monk needs a 16 on Constitution to be on pair with as 12 CON UnMonk. Those points that the Core Monk was spending on CON are now spend on WIS on the UnMonk, allowing you for a higher base WIS, which means higher AC and higher ki points and higher Will saves. I say no to this argument. The 12 Con UMonk has a lower Fortitude save than the 16 Con Monk, by 2 points. Anyway, it is not really wise to sacrificing points in a good save to compensate a poor save. But really the improvement of the d10 over the d8 is 1, not 2, so the Con 12 UMonk compares to the Con 14 Monk. That is not a big thing, the extra HPs are just 1 per lvl (in average) for the same Con score. Also, to have too many hit points is not that good in the game. As the rules are now, hit points are just like credits, so the UMonk has a "bigger" HPs wallet than the base monk (not that really big). Anyway with good supporting characters in the party this is not an issue, healing spells heal the same amount so both classes need the same amount of healing for the same damage. BTW, with a core Monk i won't sacrifice Wisdom to just have one more HP per level, i prefer that bonus on AC, ki pool and will save. In the end what i mean is: it made more sense to sacrifice the fortitude save than the will one for a monk. A monk with poor will save? Please!
I can also add Iron Will to the base Monk, making it even better. Anyway... i still think it is not a monk, but a martial artist... a brawler variant maybe...
I don't know if already mentioned here, but the "d20 SKILLS-N-FEATS MARTIAL ARTS SYSTEM" BY KENNETH S. HOOD was a nice material i used to give more flavor and power to combat and stealth classes. If i find a way to adapt it to PF i'd continue using it. It suggests to ban some feats from the game; but in practice i found that you don't need to ban them from the game for it to work nicely. A downside is it doesn't have rules for epic levels, so if you were playing 3.5 and wanted to continue beyond lvl 20 you're characters are going to exhaust the options in a few levels and you'll need to start homebrewing things.
I never played the monks to full extent, not in pathfinder. I was just comparing both classes, the Core Monk and the Unchained Monk. At first sight i liked the Unchained Monk, then i was reviewing it... and i started to like it less and less, and finally i don't like it more than the Core Monk. It is not better, maybe easier, but not a better Monk. Its weakest side is they moved some of the core abilities and made them ki powers, but the ki pool is too limited to really compare those powers with the original abilities that could be used with no limit! In that aspect the Core Monk is more powerful, cause they can use those abilities constantly. The second weakest aspect is a poor will save. It is the most important aspect of a monk, its willpower! I can even imagine a weak fortitude save, but not a weak will save! This is not a monk thing! For me, this no longer looks like a monk but a martial artist student. It looks more like a Chuck Norris or Van Dame character than a shaolin monk. Am i wrong on this one?
You could make him a paragon human from the 3e epic book. That would take care of your starting stats right there. 3 levels in human racial, and off on his labors! O.o i got a tick in my eye... that's a badass template, too powerful! But, right, it seems it is Hercules before even a single commoner level xD, except Hercules was not that smart xD.
You could make him a paragon human from the 3e epic book. That would take care of your starting stats right there. 3 levels in human racial, and off on his labors! O.o i got a tick in my eye... that's a badass template, but too powerful... but right, it seems it is Hercules before even a single commoner level xD. But Hercules was not that smart xD.
Anyway... PF drows have some changes in their classic skillset so they feel not exactly as.. well, as drows. Pupil-less white eyes, no blind fight, no two-weapon fighting masters... hmmmm. Anyway @captain yesterday is right pointing to how to make them have new deadlier tactics.
Well, i didn't read those books. Some people told us the tales from them... but the more answers i get, the more i realize it is a misunderstanding that some masters had and... and a snowball effect.
Because faerie fire is a magic light effect, when the darkness provided by Fog Cloud or Obscuring Mist is caused by normal physical means, not by magic. Anyway... if light wouldn't work inside fog or smoke, then parties using fog and lights are a myth.
Str 18Gonna need to be a wee bit higher than that. Even with magic items and level bonuses you don't get up to matching the strongest of the Titans (Atlas) starting from 18. Yes... i guess he is about Str 26~30 when just starting. But i want to know other opinions.
Those spells block sight, but not light. So you can see the light of the faerie fire... maybe blurred, but you can see it. Going further, the fog would affect the faerie fire light the same way fog and dust allows us to see a laser ray.
...it doesn't work either way.Outlined creatures do not benefit from the concealment normally provided by darkness (though a 2nd-level or higher magical darkness effect functions normally) Yes, lowering its level, making it a lvl 1 spell, somehow (that's the question), allows the outlining to suppress the concealment in the area. But some people said Obscuring Mist or Fog Cloud would work instead...
I was not trying to use those rules, but trying to state that at least there's one reference of people using the darkness + faerie fire combo in the past. Afaik some book also described that tactic. But considering that drows in PF are not the same drows as previous version drows, we can adapt to the change.
Yes, i'm realizing it. Maybe the new usage of darkness and deeper darkness is to allow drows to attack surface humanoids during day, attack heavy illuminated underground places, and so on. They use the faerie fire in the opposite situation, under natural dim light and darkness to remove concealment from enemies and remove their stealth abilities. Or i have to rant againt one of my first GMs... nah... he played it well, very well. He used a natural fog instead darkness then faerie fire. I'd have to get those book about that drow with two scimitars.
Hmmm... Spell-Like Abilities: All of their spell-like abilities focus on controlling the light and visibility. Dancing lights is a functional cantrip and easily dismissed. However their other spell-like abilities merit a deeper look. Darkness creates an area of shadowy illumination, impenetrable to darkvision or low-light vision. By itself, it's an interesting option and most useful when the drow are encountered in an area familiar to them, but foreign to their opponents. The final spell-like ability drow have pairs superbly with darkness. Drow are clever enough to place their faerie fire spells to good advantage, outlining the player characters and making them easy targets. (Though DMs should note that darkness will affect faerie fire's ability to work if it's a 2nd-level or higher effect; a drow's spell-like abilities have a caster level equal to the drow's class levels.)
Honestly, you have decided how you want it to work. As long as it is your game, do as you want, but that don't make it the official game rule. Sadly i didn't decide. I assumed they worked like in the tale i mentioned. Now i think the field would revert them back to their original forms... what i really hate of that concept is that means the SU are magical effects detectable by a simple detect magic cantrip, underpowering doppelgangers, faceless stalkers, raksashas, metallic dragons and even titans! I still haven't decided...
I have never heard before of people using this "classic" combo. I think it is a combo from the 1e, 2e eras.
@Diego Rossi you are ignoring this part: Change Shape (Su) A creature with this special quality has the ability to assume the appearance of a specific creature or type of creature (usually a humanoid), but retains most of its own physical qualities. A creature cannot change shape to a form more than one size category smaller or larger than its original form. This ability functions as a polymorph spell, the type of which is listed in the creature's description, but the creature does not adjust its ability scores (although it gains any other abilities of the creature it mimics). Unless otherwise stated, it can remain in an alternate form indefinitely. Some creatures, such as lycanthropes, can transform into unique forms with special modifiers and abilities. These creatures do adjust their ability scores, as noted in their description. Is that part extending the time the polymorph spell lasts or is that replacing that part making the su ability more like a conjuration spell or a spell with instantaneous (like Flesh to Stone) duration? Also if the antimagic field says: A normal creature can enter the area, as can normal missiles. Furthermore, while a magic sword does not function magically within the area, it is still a sword (and a masterwork sword at that). The spell has no effect on golems and other constructs that are imbued with magic during their creation process and are thereafter self-supporting (unless they have been summoned, in which case they are treated like any other summoned creatures). Elementals, undead, and outsiders are likewise unaffected unless summoned. These creatures' spell-like or supernatural abilities may be temporarily nullified by the field. Dispel magic does not remove the field. Those other magic/supernatural beings remain unaffected, even ghosts and shadows. So the points you are emphasizing, as others already did, don't solve those two things to reach a conclusion. The su ability is not a spell. Is "can remain in an alternate form indefinitely" be a consequence of the su ability or is it part of a spell, being a constantly magical fueled effect? If other creatures like golems and undeads remain stable, even made that way by magic, why cannot the alternate shape form work that way? I'm in that grey area. I like the idea of them being reverted to their original forms; but i hate the downside of deflavoring doppelgangers, faceless stalkers and raksashas, that secondary effect of them being detected by a cantrip is... well... stupid... I also like the idea of them being trapped in their alternate forms, the tale of the kitsune that had to enter in fox form through a magic dead zone to talk with his master is also nice. But of course it seems to break the rules, or at least an abuse of the ambiguity of the language...
I realized some creatures ave invisibility as spell-like ability while others have it as supernatural ability... So i have to add them to this same question.
This other part confuses me on antimagic field: "The spell has no effect on golems and other constructs that are imbued with magic during their creation process and are thereafter self-supporting"... Could we consider the change shape works like it? If the golem still walks in the antimagic field, then the alternate form of the shapeshifter could also be "self-supported"? I'd like to know... I remembered a book from Forgotten Realms where a hulijing (a kitsune, in chinese) cames to speach with a woman witch in a dead magic zone, he had to enter in fox form (it'll be the fox shape feat) and remained in that form cause he had no means to become humanoid in the zone.
To add to my confusion, this is the only thing about change shape i get from the FAQ:
That part about not needing to reactivate the ability could make us think while the effect is present the ability is not active at that moment...
I'm going to summarize the rules and texts related to the question here: Supernatural Abilities (Su):
Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like. Supernatural abilities are not subject to spell resistance and do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). A supernatural ability's effect cannot be dispelled and is not subject to counterspells. See Table: Special Ability Types for a summary of the types of special abilities. Change Shape (Su):
A creature with this special quality has the ability to assume the appearance of a specific creature or type of creature (usually a humanoid), but retains most of its own physical qualities. A creature cannot change shape to a form more than one size category smaller or larger than its original form. This ability functions as a polymorph spell, the type of which is listed in the creature’s description, but the creature does not adjust its ability scores (although it gains any other abilities of the creature it mimics). Unless otherwise stated, it can remain in an alternate form indefinitely. Some creatures, such as lycanthropes, can transform into unique forms with special modifiers and abilities. These creatures do adjust their ability scores, as noted in their descriptions. Polymorph:
School transmutation (polymorph); Level sorcerer/wizard 5 Casting Time 1 standard action Components V, S, M (a piece of the creature whose form you choose) Range touch Target living creature touched Duration 1 min/level (D) Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless) This spell transforms a willing creature into an animal, humanoid or elemental of your choosing; the spell has no effect on unwilling creatures, nor can the creature being targeted by this spell influence the new form assumed (apart from conveying its wishes, if any, to you verbally). If you use this spell to cause the target to take on the form of an animal, the spell functions as beast shape II. If the form is that of an elemental, the spell functions as elemental body I. If the form is that of a humanoid, the spell functions as alter self. The subject may choose to resume its normal form as a full-round action; doing so ends the spell for that subject. Antimagic Field:
School abjuration; Level cleric 8, sorcerer/wizard 6 Casting Time 1 standard action Components V, S, M/DF (pinch of powdered iron or iron filings) Range 10 ft. Area 10-ft.-radius emanation, centered on you Duration 10 min./level (D) Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance see text An invisible barrier surrounds you and moves with you. The space within this barrier is impervious to most magical effects, including spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. Likewise, it prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines. An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it. Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell's duration. Summoned creatures of any type wink out if they enter an antimagic field. They reappear in the same spot once the field goes away. Time spent winked out counts normally against the duration of the conjuration that is maintaining the creature. If you cast antimagic field in an area occupied by a summoned creature that has spell resistance, you must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against the creature's spell resistance to make it wink out. (The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result.) A normal creature can enter the area, as can normal missiles. Furthermore, while a magic sword does not function magically within the area, it is still a sword (and a masterwork sword at that). The spell has no effect on golems and other constructs that are imbued with magic during their creation process and are thereafter self-supporting (unless they have been summoned, in which case they are treated like any other summoned creatures). Elementals, undead, and outsiders are likewise unaffected unless summoned. These creatures' spell-like or supernatural abilities may be temporarily nullified by the field. Dispel magic does not remove the field. Two or more antimagic fields sharing any of the same space have no effect on each other. Certain spells, such as wall of force, prismatic sphere, and prismatic wall, remain unaffected by antimagic field. Artifacts and deities are unaffected by mortal magic such as this. Should a creature be larger than the area enclosed by the barrier, any part of it that lies outside the barrier is unaffected by the field. Pathfinder RPG Bestiary FAQ - Change Shape: Does a creature with this ability use the duration of the change shape spell, and have to keep renewing as it expires?: As originally written, with how the Pathfinder rules for change shape work, a creature with the ability must keep renewing it every few minutes, as it is based on a spell with a duration. This negatively affects creatures such as doppelgangers, which live for extended periods in an alternate form, and having to reactivate this ability would ruin the ruse, especially as it couldn't do so while it slept. The way this ability works is being updated as of Bestiary 2. For now, unless a creature's description says otherwise, treat any creature with change shape as if it had the ability to remain in its alternate form indefinitely, without needing to reactivate the ability.
@Diego Rossi, you are placing some emphasis in some portions of the text. A text we already know. But i don't get what you mean, what's your position about this. It still doesn't explain what happens to the shapeshifted in the antimagic field. If being in an alternate form is part of the supernatural ability or if it is an effect of the supernatural ability, a supernatural ability that is not in use at that moment. It does not explain if the text saying "Unless otherwise stated, it can remain in an alternate form indefinitely" means this change the spell's duration or if we get rid of the spell duration thing and the creature is in a different mundane form. |
