goartak's page

Goblin Squad Member. 12 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


Good post. I'd be interested in seeing the "Roughness" breakdown if you have a chance.

I reread the section on hazards today and it lists the number of actions a complex hazard has in the "Routine" section before the description. So the (1 action) in there for this one is the number of actions it has not the number of actions the routine uses as I was previously thinking.

This seems very appropriate for a lvl 8 trap.

Playtest Rulebook wrote:
Reaction "For complex hazards, the reaction also causes the hazard to roll initiative" (p. 343)

If I'm reading this correctly the "Stealth +16 (expert)" portion is the Stealth modifier the trap uses when rolling it's initiative, using Stealth instead of Perception. So it has a +16 bonus on the initiative roll and the trap is an expert at stealth for making that roll (though I'm not sure why that would matter since the flat bonus is already listed).

Playtest Rulebook wrote:
Stealth "A complex hazard instead lists its Stealth modifier for rolling initiative, followed by a DC if there’s a chance someone might detect it. If the hazard requires a minimum proficiency rank in Perception to find it, that rank appears in parentheses." (p. 342)

The "DC 29 (master) to notice the control panel" is the Perception DC to notice the control panel and you must be master proficiency to notice it. You'd then go to the Disable section to find the Thievery DC 21 (expert) to disable the control panel and you must be a expert at thievery.

Paizo formatting this differently may remove some of the confusion. Move the initiative portion to it's own entry at the bottom of the top section of the description after the "and then rolls initiative" in the Effect entry or to the top of the bottom section immediately before Routine since that is where the roll will happen and must precede the Routine beginning.

What I'm confused about here is how many attacks does this trap have?

Playtest Rulebook wrote:
Effect The trap makes an attack against the triggering creature and then rolls initiative.

This seems clear. 1 attack against the creature that triggers the trap

Then after rolling initiative on its turn...

Playtest Rulebook wrote:

Routine (1 action) The trap launches one dart against every
creature in the gallery as 1 action. Because it launches darts
continuously, the trap also has a free action to launch a dart at
each creature during that creature’s turns.

So, for 1 action it launches a dart against everyone in the gallery. It has 3 actions so 3 attacks against everyone or does it take only the 1 action on its turn? So for the sake of counting were at 1 or 3 attacks.

Either way its turn is over now and something else's turn begins, likely a PC but could be anything. Now comes the part about the free action in the Routine. It gets another attack as a free action or does this portion of the routine reference Continuous Barrage? With the former we're at 2 or 4 and the later still 1 or 3. Now let's take a look at Continuous Barrage.

Playtest Rulebook wrote:

[[F]] Continuous Barrage

Trigger A creature within the active gallery finishes an action.
Effect The trap makes a poisoned dart Strike against the triggering creature.

As a free action this can happen multiple times per turn but only once per trigger. Unless the free action portion of the Routine refers specifically to the Continuous Barrage free action (not a separate free action) AND the "has A free action" implies it can only do this once it bring this trap as high as 7 attacks per turn against every PC. 3 from actions, 3 from Continuous Barrage, and 1 from the unspecified free action.

Let's assume we have a level 8 barbarian with +4 CON mod for 8*12+8*4=128 HP. He'll have master proficiency in medium armor. Let's assume he's using an master quality BP and has a dex of at least 14 (to get the +3 max dex) bonus an AC of 27. The trap attacks at +18 so it hits on a 9. That's a 60% hit chance. On possibly 7 attacks? At 3d4. He also has Master proficiency on fort saves for a minimum +14 fort save vs DC 20 is a 25% chance of being poisoned. This is less likely to happen but on 7 attacks at an average of 4.2 hits per round so on average he'll fail just over 1 fort save per round. On average these to-hit numbers may be a high not having accounted for other bonuses e.g. magic items, other modifiers to AC/fort, special materials, higher CON than +4, etc.

DPR math time using a simple version of the dpr formula (7 attacks * 3d4 (7.5 avg) damage * 60% hit chance) * 1.10 crit chance (for 10% crit chance on die roll of 19(18+19=37 is AC27+10) or 20) + 1d6 poison (3.5 avg) * 7 attacks * 60% hit change * 20% fort fail rate (on roll of 2 to 6) * (1.05 * 2d6 {7avg} poison) for crit fail jumping directly to stage 2.

7*7.5*.6*1.10+3.5*7*.6*.2*(1.05*7) = 56.259 DPR

Now on our barbarian that's not terrible. More armored characters or better for it'll be lower less armored or worse fort it'll be more. But that's only one round and it's going for everyone in the room which may be the full party. I suspect this would be a significant danger to an party that triggers the trap instead of disarming it. If the likely only one person in the group, although some groups may have more than one, who can disable it goes down rest of the party better get out of the room or everyone dies.

Someone please check/update this math using stats from some real characters. It's gotten late and I'm not sure about the math for the poison damage including critical fails.

Your claw damage wouldn't be effected by the monk unarmed strike because natural weapons are different than unarmed attacks. Thus, your claws would deal 1d4 +1 per 4 levels for a medium creature or 1d6 + 1 per 4 with improved unarmed attack:claw. That being said the description for a monks unarmed strike says:
"A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."
which to me says you could use improved natural attack: unarmed to deal 1d8 damage with your unarmed. This was valid in 3.5 rules but there has been some discussion as to whether or not it's allowed in PF.

I have a player in my group who wants a continuous Shield + Mage Armor item as a waist(belt) slot item. There is a wizard in the group with the appropriate feats and caster level to craft the item, as far as I can tell at least. I'm wonder from a RAW standpoint what the cost of the item should be. From what I can find (based on table 15-24 on p. 550 and the "Adding New Abilities" section under Creating Wondrous Items on p. 553) it should cost 7k. The Shield spell would be (cl 1 * spell level 1 * 2000gp continuous) * 2 for the usual duration of 1 min/level for 4kgp and the Mage Armor would be (cl 1 * sl 1 * 2000gp for continuous) * .5(for additional ability) for 3k for a total of 7k market value and a cost to create of 3.5k.

Am I missing something in the rules? How would other DMs handle this? It seems like a substantial benefit (8ac + immunity to magic missile) for the cost. Compared to an item like Bracers of Armor +4 for 16k which would provide the same benefit of the Mage Armor spell if taken as 4 armor (instead of using special abilities) I can't believe the price discrepancy. That's without the benefit of Shield.

KaeYoss wrote:

Humans work, because, well, they always work.

Aasimar - I'm not sure. Even if you don't get a disadvantage for playing a non-standard race, the stuff you get over a human are not par to what the human gets. It's not crippling, though, so if this is for flavour reasons, go ahead.

I was doing this more for flair and rp reasons than to build a munchkin character. I realize the cha bonus doesn't do much but it does let me drop it to a 7(9 with racial) to get -4 points on the build. Darkvision is also handy.

KaeYoss wrote:

As for the rest: What are the framework conditions? How are ability scores generated?

Monks need more ability scores than any other class: They need strength, dexterity, constitution and wisdom - and if you want to be good at combat manoeuvres (which, at least for me, is a huge part of the monk's concept), you might need a bit of intelligence, too, because the Greater [Combat Manoeuvre] feats aren't on your bonus feat list so you need the prerequisites - which, for disarm and trip (two of my favourites) is combat expertise and int 13.

Sorry I can't believe I didn't give more detail on this. OK, characters and core rules are Pathfinder. Setting however is Forgotten Realms. The DM loves the setting. Ability scores are the 25 point buy from the PF book. Our fighter is a trip build so I guess for this character I'm gonna stay away from that one but disarm is always fun. I would like to have some battlefield control ability and alot of mobility to take advantage of the increased speed. Already have monk robe and will focus on unarmed.

As far as a note on the campaign we have been magically "abducted" by the god of magic to thwart an evil scheme which opened a rift to the lower planes bringing in lots of demons. They tend to hit hard and accurately. I'm pretty sure the DMs dice are weighted ;)

I'm in need of some help retuning a 7th level monk. Looking for a primarily monk build. Prcs designed for continued advancement as a monk are ok, but please dont tell me to take 19 levels in another class. We play in the Forgotten Realms setting so pretty much anything from those books is legit. I had initially planned to go into the monk of the enabled hand prc from Dragon Compendium but my DM just nerfed that.

Current race is Aasimar but would be open to something relatively close, such as human. Gith is a no go, as is the Vow of Poverty feat. Would prefer non-evil race but if you've got a great idea and it's dependent on a usually evil race throe it up for me. Other than that at this point I basically have carte blanche here as long as the material is from FR.

Ravingdork wrote:

All vital strike does is double the BASE weapon damage whenever you make a single standard action attack in a round.

So if you were wielding a greatsword, you could attack as a full round action to get +12/+7 (2d6+mod), or you could use vital strike make a single attack at +12 (4d6+mod) as a standard action. The feat (and those that follow it) are especially good for those times you can't just sit there and swing over and over again.

Note the that bonus base weapon damage does not multiply in crits, nor does your magical enhancement bonuses, srength bonuses, power attack bonuses, etc. get doubled. Only the base weapon damage (in this case, the greatsword's 2d6) gets doubled.

Thanks for the quick reply, your explanation is what I thought it meant. The only reason I wasn't sure is because other feats, like Scorpion Style or Deadly Stroke, all specify to make a single attack as a standard action.

My level 7 fighter in Pathfinder currently has a full attack bonus of +12/+7 when I power attack. If I were to take Vital Strike as my 7th level feat what would my attack action look like? The wording on the feat seems ambiguous and leads me to believe it would either be +12/+12(2x weapon damage)/+7 or simply +12 with double weapon damage.

from the pathfinder SRD:

Vital Strike (Combat)
You make a single attack that deals significantly more
damage than normal.

Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +6.

Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together, but do not multiply damage bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), or precision-based damage (such as sneak attack). This bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit (although other damage bonuses are multiplied normally).

The first option seems rather overpowered and the 2nd seems rather lackluster at this level (although it seems the more likely option based on other feats similar to this one), but I see potential for it at higher levels when your 3rd/4th attack are rarely able to hit.

Do these minis come unpainted as the product description states or painted which is what the image shows? If unpainted, I would prefer that the image shown on the page reflects that. Most of the minis I've tried to paint end up looking terrible and have long ago given up that frustration in my life. Thus, it would be nice to see the images as the figures will really look.

I think just rewording it a bit would do the trick. Maybe something like:

AC Bonus: The buccaneer gains a +1 bonus to AC and CMD at 2nd level. This bonus increases by 1 for every two class levels thereafter, up to a maximum of +10 at 20th level. These bonuses to AC apply even against touch attacks or when the buccaneer is flat-footed. She loses these bonuses when she is immobilized or helpless, when she wears any armor or when she carries a medium or heavy load. In addition, the buccaneer adds her Dexterity bonus (if any) to her AC and her CMD ONLY while unarmored or when she carries a light load.

Your intent in this, in my opinion, also goes a further along the path of reducing the benefit of taking armor proficiency feats since wearing any armor would remove the dex bonus to ac and CMD.

This class is crazy overpowered. You have effectively created a mash up of the fighter (lots of bonus feats, fighter ONLY feats since you specify weapon spec, d10 hit dice, high BAB progression), Monk ( evasion, bonus AC to an excess, high ref AND will saves), and barbarian (6+int skill points, uncanny dodge) classes and then added in some extra abilities just to make sure this character is completely ridiculous.

On top of that, you AC bonus "When unarmored and unencumbered, the buccaneer adds her Dexterity bonus (if any) to her AC and her CMD." can be read in one of two ways. Firstly, one could take it to imply the buccaneer applies DOUBLE her dex mod to AC and CMD since all characters recieve a dex mod to ac and CMD normally. Secondly, that the character recieves only the normal dex mod to ac and CMD, as all creatures do, and in fact looses this dex mod while armored or carrying a medium or heavy load. If the latter is, in fact, your intent then this at least brings a very small reduction in the classes power. I suspect however, that it is not. I would also recommend more of the class features (specifically the free two weapon fighting, weapon finesse, tireless and steady footing in addition to the evasion and AC bonus limitations which you have built in) have "unarmored and unencumbered" as requirements. Especially at lower levels, before the AC bonus surpasses the AC which can easily be provided by taking the light armor proficiency feat levels, there is little to prevent a character taking that feat at first level and gaining additional AC.