So then are you saying to get 1 Cleric crusader, 4 Qinggong monk and 15 HGM?
Qinggong monk is an archetype, so it can be taken at the same time as HGM.
I'd go Q/HG monk 2, crusader cleric 1, Q/HG monk 17.
Search Posts
Yea, the svirfs pretty cool, but remember that you have to drop the SR for people to heal you, though that's not so bad as the HGM get's HP when ever he crits. I have disagree with you about the dex and wis focus, unless agile is involved. I play with a str based monk on occasion, and he kicks all kinds of butt. A high strength is generally needed to make sure all those flurry attacks connect and do good damage. Again, unless you have agile. Then a dex based build is more than viable. He can already scout just fine and he should have a great perception and sense motive. Finding traps is cool, as is the sneak attack, but delaying any of the hungry ghost stuff and their progression hurts alot. That's 4 less HP every crit and you get the ability later depending on when you get the levels. I second the Qinggong archetype. It's pretty darn nice.
I would go dwarf for race and allocate stats w/race factored as
At 4th go wisdom bump the either con 8th and strength after or just strait strength bumps. For feats it's really up to you except for 3rd and 5th, at which I would take crusader's flurry and power attack respectively. Maybe steel soul for some extra saves vs spells? As I said, I don't like the vows myself, but they are helpful.
The level dip in to cleric is needed for crusader's flurry with a high crit weapon, so I'm with Mechanical Pear on that one. The levels in rogue, however, kinda kill the build for me. Monk is a very level based class, hungry ghost monks even more, and the rogue hurts your BAB and flurry progression, not mention your hungry ghost stuff. I'd also go strength based instead of dex for power attack. Yes, your AC will be lower, but your damage will be raised by quite abit. I might also skip out on the vows, as HGM gets ki back when they crit or drop a foe so running out is much less of a problem for them. Then again I don't like them for roleplay reasons, so it's up to you. Just go with a 19-20 crit weapon until you get crusader's flurry, then hack things up with the 18-20 crit weapon. You'll want to get keen as soon as possible, though. It's either that or wait till 13th for improved crit.
I looked at the panda...Das just silly. Why does it get powerful bite? Anyway, for even more goofiness give it the bodyguard animal archtype so you can tell people you have a guard panda.=P Can't ride till 7th though so it's kinda in the same boat as most ACs for medium characters if you want to go that rout. As for wayangs, while they are the mechanically powerful choice, their background doesn't fit a mounted rager type character. That and the name. You wont be able to get anyone to cast touch spells on you, and enlarge is right out!
The restriction on melee attacks and movement isn't based on the action taken, it's on the distance moved. If the mount moves more than 5 feet, regardless of what action was used for him to do it, the Mad Dog can only make a single melee attack.But the beast gets a full attack? Seems abit silly to me, but thems the rules.=P Thanks for the reply Haven't made the character yet, but I was thinking a halfing for medium mounts because frankly the horse and camel kinda suck and waiting till 7th doesn't fit the mounted character style. As for what I'm riding I was thinking either a giant gecko/chameleon for climbing shenanigans (the tongue on the cham. would be funny) or the spinosaurus if I wanted to be kinda broken. 18 base strength with three attacks? and it can rage with me at 4th level with the ferocious beast rage power? That's just mean.
The restriction on melee attacks and movement isn't based on the action taken, it's on the distance moved. If the mount moves more than 5 feet, regardless of what action was used for him to do it, the Mad Dog can only make a single melee attack. But the beast gets a full attack? Seems abit silly to me, but thems the rules.=P Thanks for the reply
This ability seems, to me at least, to not require any actions from the animal companion. The swift action, 30 foot range requirement, and movement counts towards all seem to imply that it happens on the Mad Dog's turn, thus allowing the war beast to take his full actions for the round, minus the speed if it decides to move. For this part I just want to make sure that I'm not crazy and this is how others read it. I do have a question for the boards though; How would you adjudicate this if the Mad Dog is mounted on the war beast? if the MDs mounted you can't exactly "pull the target back toward the mad dog." Would the MD be able to full attack as the war beast hasn't taken any actions to move that round? Seem pretty powerful. Just to be clear I'm asking for a PFS character, so I'm looking for RAW adjudications, not house rules.
Ok... Then what the hell does the 5th level shield fighter ability do?
I guess you could read that you could use it with two weapon fighting and use either your shield or your sword for all of your attacks, but with out TWF it's basically wasted text.
Eh, I have to disagree with you on the switching attacks part. The shielded fighter archetype has an ability that specifically allows for that, so no switching even if you aren't getting extra attacks.
OP tried singing it not knowing where he was And now they'll be trolling him forever just because
Boon companion isn't in hardcover, Which is what he asked for.
The closest out of hardcover I know of is horse master, which only works for cavalier, and requires at least 4 levels of it at that plus 6 ranks in ride.
18d8 averages out to 81 and your str w/huge beast shape is a 45 which is a +17, so that's 98. Add in +4 more for arcane strike and your looking at 102 on average. Crits don't actually add that much though, only adding another 4d8+21 for an average of 39 extra and 142 total. Heaven forbid you get a druid to cast strong jaw. Because we are attacking as though we are gargantuan due to INA it would just about double the damage. 36d8 on a single attack... ouch.
Ah, missed dragon form. Silly me. I wouldn't allow magic vestments on the robes because they're not actually armor, but if you think your DM will go with it more power too you. Hmm... Well, a balor, a CR 20 creature, has a +31 main with is sword not power attacking, a +26 with, so I guess a 36-42 is pretty good. If you can find ways to make it higher for things like a greatwyrm black dragon, CR 23 I think, that would be best. Full on bruisers like that tend to abit higher attack bonuses than the SLA beasties like the balor.
Might I introduce you to the Behemoth Hippopotamus? With it's 4d8 bite your vital striking will hit like a truck! It might not be better than some other forms, but there's something to be said about one big attack.
A bunch of stuff about dragon style It's was just a suggestion off the top of my head, wasn't sure about the viability. An option is to go Sohei monk instead of fighter. That would get you your wis bonus to ac, as small as it is, and two of the needed feats out of the way. Speaking of sohei monk, how attached are you to wizard? Because I've got a nice sohei monk/empyreal sorcerer idea just waiting to be tried. Casting stat to AC is the main draw of the build, with some, admittedly mediocre, blood-line powers thrown in for fun. It might even cross-blood well, I haven really looked at it too much. Some stuff about AC To be honest your AC is so low I wouldn't even try. The best additional AC you can get out of a size increased form is Huge beast shape or giant form at a +3 (+6 natural, -2 size, -1 dex). Not really worth trying. I'd just go for a +5 cloak of resistance and save yourself 50,00 gp. Now, that being said, if you want to go for AC and forget about attack the tiny magical beast is pretty darn good with a +9 (+4 dex, +2 size, +4 natural.) Still don't think it's worth it for you, but there might be a build for it using an agile amulet of mighty fists...
I would also stay away from poisons. Even if the beastie isn't immune to poison, a big if at 20th, the save DCs for the effects for polymorph spells are the save DC of the spell, so with your int so low your poison DCs are crap.
You don't normally get a feat every level, just the odds ones first off.
There's a Guide for good forms for each of the polymorph spells. Edit: There's the right Guide! Fixed!
Well, even if you did have to make the save you can choose to fails saves voluntarily, so it's somewhat of a moot point.
Ah, but mithril armor counts as light armor for everything except proficiency, so no arcane spell failure chance, whether or not you are proficient with the armor. So a summoner or bard can use mithril medium armor with no ASFC, but might still take the ACP to attack rolls without something like armor expert.
Personally I wouldn't take sharp claws at all. I don't think it's worth a feat. And focus was just an off the top of my head suggestion, and you could probably come up with a better choice if you really put some thought in to it. I do like nimble striker in to claw pounce. Vanishing trick then pounce is a nasty combo, so I'd keep it. Here's a list of class guides. Just use the ninja one for suggestions. They ARE optimization guides, so they'll be very min-max heavy.
It looks like a good build, which isn't hard as the class/race combo practically builds itself. As for gimping yourself on the natural weapons, it really depends on what level you're going to get too. At mid to high levels your going to loose out on attacks, but the d8 sneaks mostly make up for it, atleast for the mid levels. That and the lack of minuses for getting multiple attacks. I'm not sure sharp claws is worth it though. It only adds up 1 point on average, so not really worth the feat. I'd take something like weapon focus instead.
Yup, that'd be your best bet! Mix with push and/or trip for extra AoO hilarity! Watch out for pounce though. You have to charge to the nearest square that you can attack the target, so mixed reach attacks don't work too well with pounce.
It does say one attack, so it would only be one of the claws if you were to use it on one of those attacks. Also, you can't take an evolution more than once unless otherwise specified, which reach does not, so no pair of reach claws.
Well the dictionary definition is "fairness and straightforwardness of conduct," which I think we can all agree most correspondences/ negotiations with most Asmodeans are anything but. Then again you can argue the exact definition of fairness and it's subversiveness, but that's for another thread. Edit: Oops. Subjectiveness not subversiveness.
Eh, being honest isn't inherently lawful. I mean just look at Asmodeans! They're law absolute, and they are basically all deceitful. Honesty is more of a good trait than a lawful one, though I suppose a chaotic person is more apt to lie than a lawful one. An Abadaran might be more honest than a Cayden Caileanite , but the Cayden Caileanite is a hell of a lot more honest than an Asmodean!
Iomedae is the lawful good Goddess paladins. Sarenrae is the neutral good Goddess of redemption, healing, the sun, and burning evil things to a nice crisp. Edit: I'm not even sure if Iomedae was around at the time Rovagug tried to eat everything. She's one of the relatively new gods.
Silence is different from fireball or burning has be cause it targets a point, object, or creature, not just a 20ft spread. There's also that "or none" clause in the save part of the spell. In the way you're talking everyone in the area get's the save, which means that clause doesn't mean anything. And silence stops sound whether or not you're in it, no sound exists with the area. If you were on the opposite side of a silence from another person you couldn't hear them talking, or at least it would be muffled because the sound would have to travel around the silence. Silence doesn't care about creatures and where they are, NO sound may exist within the area of the silence, made from within the area or without.
Paladin into hellknight is probably the most optimized choice, but just can't see Dredd as a paladin, so yea either inquisitor or fighter. Might be able to spin a ranger too. You'd need heavy armor prof. for both the inquisitor and the ranger so you'll either a fighter level or a feat. Both would be pretty fluffy with track and such though, and the extra skill points would really help flesh out the character. I'd skip hell knight with the inquisitor though. Lower BAB means you get it later and you'd need the armor prof. and the inquisitor is a fairly level based class. Add in no caster levels from hellknight and you'd get more for staying inquisitor.
Well Mr. Ninja, thank you for the input. So what kinds of feats and abilities did you take to hyper-specialize in color spray? Just so I have an idea. Just the normal DC enhancing stuff. Spell focus, greater spell focus, heighten, huge charisma, and a rod of widen for extra shenanigans. I even took lingering for clouds of color spray. Lots of fun if no one in your party likes fighting and you're really in to roll play. But if you party likes combat and actually feeling useful in that part of the game then I would use other ways of being effective.
6/10
Huh. I'm glad I looked at those paladin codes, very fluffy. But I think as long as the evil outsiders are summoned with the summon monster spells, and not something like planar binding/ally, the paladin would tolerate it, if not be too happy about it. Those spells only last a few minutes at most and the creatures are fully under the casters control. If they keep summoning those as opposed to other choices I would think the paladin would have too speak out against the acts, but not outright stop them, as no fully evil acts are taking place, just a distasteful summoning choice. I think alot of these type of things leads back to people playing paladins more like overly bossy lawful neutral worshipers of Iomedae, and not the champions of good they're supposed to be. They aren't just codes, they're good people! Edit: But if they're using Planar binding/ally(especially ally) then the paladin should step in. With those spells you're working with the outsider for a longer amount of time and there's a chance it can get out with binding. A paladin would at the very least repeatedly and forcefully try and talk the caster in to choosing other choices. And if the caster refuses he should either leave the group or if he can't or wont for whatever reason (mission to important, ect) he might smite the creature as soon as it's summoned or interrupt the spell being cast in the first place.
Be careful with the heavens mystery, specifically awesome display. I had character focused on color spray that bumped charisma as high as it could go, and, while very powerful, wasn't all that fun to play. Fights ended in an instant, making them very underwhelming and making everyone else seem almost unneeded and the GM very frustrated. And in fights with stuff immune to color spray all the feat investment went to waste and I lost almost all of my effectiveness. That being said I love the heavens mystery roll play and gameplay wise. Floating is a pretty effective conversion tool for your average townsfolk. Just don't break the character like I did and it sounds like a fun character to play.
I'm only one new GM, but I've a got a knee-jerk reaction against allowing a player to take the form of anything that wasn't actually humanoid type with this spell. It's too much like getting the other polymorph spells included for free, and they're not supposed to stack. I'm not sure I would allow you to change humanoid subtype, either, since Alter Self does that. Maybe with the higher levels of Undead Anatomy. I need to flip through the undead sections of the bestiaries and see what's there without templates. It is a somewhat powerful spell in that regard, but if you look the stat modifiers are worse and they are also higher level spells than their counterparts. UA 1 has basically the same limitations as alter self, a 2nd level spell, and is 3rd level. This trend continues with UA 2 getting large a level later than beast shape and the level gaps go up from there. And the positive energy/negative energy heal switch can very easily cause problems when the most common healers in groups is a positive channeling cleric or an oracle which usually choose the cure spells for their bonus. This problem is even worse in pfs because, while the party in a campaign can make changes to accommodate this, you can't count on a pfs cleric/oracle to have such spells. There's also the roll playing aspect to consider. The townsfolk might not take the parties wizard turning in to an undead monstrosity too well. =)
There is no such thing as the humanoid keyword. There is the humanoid type, which doesn't include monstrous humanoids. The word you seem to be forgetting is shaped. It has nothing to do with any game mechanic, it's how the creatures shape. Apes are more vaguely humanoid than centaurs. So are pit fiends, solars, gargoyles, and even dreches. Huamnoid means having a human like shape. The "vaguely" adds things like wings and tails and things like that. It doesn't let replace your crotch with a horse.
Eh you could argue that flaming skeletons and such are variants of the original templates, and thus if you can transform into the original template you can transform in to the variants. That UA 4 gives pretty much all of the abilities that the zombie and skeleton vatiants give gives pretty good justification for the argument. But that comes in to play so late, UA 4's an 8th level spell, that it wont come in to play in pfs, or most games for that matter, and if it does just talk to the GM about it. Humanoid being in the type has really nothing to do with what you can change in to, but it is a good guideline. While all humanoids are legal, not all monstrous humanoids would qualify. Gargoyles and most others would be fine, they're humanoid in shape, but centaurs and some others wouldn't work, as they aren't. You could even look at other types, such as aberration or fey, as long as they are humanoid in shape. Technically you could even do some outsiders depending on if you consider outsiders alive, which is what's needed for zombie and skeleton. That's abit of stretch, though. I'd stick to clearly allowed things pfs, as GMs may not agree, and just talk to your GM otherwise. The question I want to know is does UA 2+ keep the stipulation about humanoids and the specific natural attacks? It does say "functions as undead anatomy I" but doesn't keep the humanoid in "allows you to assume the form of a Tiny or Large corporeal creature of the undead type" so it's abit open ended. It also doesn't say anything about the natural attacks, but UA 1 never says anything about scaling damage with sizes larger than medium, so I'm guessing no on that one.
Yes, but, as with all polymorph spells, you must choose a creature to emulate. Here's a link to the polymorph section of the magic chapter of the CRB. You must choose a specific creature to emulate with the spell, not just what you want to look like. With beast shape you must choose an animal to draw what abilities you get from the spell. Choosing a lion grants the movement speed, natural attacks, and special abilities of a lion within the confines of the spell you're using, you don't just look like the lion. You can't just pick and choose which abilities you want. In the same vein you must choose an undead corporeal form to emulate with undead anatomy, with UA 1 having the stipulation of humaniod and UA 4 getting rid of the corporeal. Even with UA 1 I can, at least in how I read it, take the form of any humaniod zombie, skeleton, ect, even if they are normally templates, meaning I could use, lets say, a strix for it's fly speed, or a monkey goblin (inner sea bestiary) for it's climb speed. I'll be honest I'm not sure what your point is. Not trying to offend or anything, I'm actually confused on exactly what your point is.
You are basing your logic on a concept absent from any actual rules. I'm basing my logic on the fact that it's a HUMAN zombie, not just a zombie. If you can show me stats for a creature just called a zombie, then yes you would just use those stats, but it's a HUMAN zombie. It has a base creature, it has to, you can't just have a zombie. They aren't going to list the template because it's implied. It would be redundant. They took a human with any number of levels from any class with a particular physical stat block, and applied the zombie template to him. For all the other polymorph spells this makes perfect sense. A lion is a lion. Not a human lion, not a wolf lion. It's just a lion. However the stat block given in the bestiary is for a HUMAN zombie with a particular set of physical stats. If they have used a zombie wolf for the example creature would you be arguing that that would be the only type of zombie you could use?
(Sorry about the late reply) I know that, it's been stated repeatedly. However,two of the creatures that it specifically calls out as things you can change in to, zombie and skeleton, are by definition template creatures. Even the given stat blocks are just human [class]1s with the templates added. You can't just make a skeleton or zombie, you must have a base creature and add a template. So two of the examples of undead you can emulate that are given in the spell are illegal by that rule.
Riposte from Duelist and Crane Riposte dont stack I though. O_o Why wouldn't they? You can full attack and fight defensibly, and they're both AoOs. So with combat reflexes, which you get at 4th level duelist anyway, you can make both. I'm sure about getting both for the same attack though. I don't think one action can provoke more than one AoO, even from different abilities, so you'd have to be attacked more than once. Edit: Ninja'd! Also crane wing is a sure thing, while parry needs an attack roll. So there's that.
Where Does it say Undead anatomy is illegal in pfs? Nothing in the additional resources page about the spell.
Even if you use the given stat blocks they still are creatures with templates. So by that rule you could never make a zombie or a skeleton.
So you're saying I can only be a human zombie? A human vampire? A human skeleton? ALOT of undead creatures have only one example stat block and a good portion of them are humans. That, mixed with the fact that almost all undead are templates, seems to me that this spell is an exception to the rule. That rule was more to prevent adding things like fiendish to get get resistance and such.
true, but the ability changes the base speed of the base creature, so it stays when you become the undead. So now you have a halfling vampire with a base 30 ft speed, so you should get that speed with UA. Of course it's a moot point because you could just become a goblin vampire for the move speed, but the halfing isn't as noticeable from a distance.
You always use the lower value for speeds with a polymorph spell. Other cool things you can turn into with UA 1: a mummy,a lich, a ghast, a vampire/spawn, other cool medium undead from the newer bestiaries I don't know, ect. You don't get much from them as opposed to the zombie or skeleton, but you can still do them. The real question is can you use other humanoids than just the bestiary stat block one, such as strix to get a fly speed from UA 1. What about the different racial options for player races? Say I wanted a halfling vampire with the fleet of foot racial option. Is this something I can do?
The spell specifically calls out ghoul as an option and states ''such as,'' which implies more options, which makes sense considering the options available to the spell, such as burning. I'd just treat it as an exception to the rule, the spell doesn't make a whole lot of sense otherwise.
The thing about agile is that it's usually 4-5th level before you get a +2 weapon and that's along time to wait. For the amulet of mighty fists it's not too bad, but you probably wont get it faster than the above build. That, and fists, even with scaling damage, are inferior to a scimitar and it's crit range, and then agile hurts even more for the weapon because you want keen pretty darn soon.
Wow that weapon sworn cleric is trippy. Weird 3erd party stuff. Anyway, why not just take 2 levels of weapon sworn cleric? If i read it right, you get feats like a fighter, so that's a feat at first and second, so there's your prerequisite feats for the build up to that level. And I wouldn't dump strength, you still probably want power attack, and a 13 is required for that. Even without that you'd want a 10 so you have at least some carrying capacity. As for getting past levels 1 and 2, I'm sorry to say your kinda sucking. You could have a pretty high AC with an 18 dex, a chain shirt, and a heavy shield, so you can tank pretty well, your just doing crap for damage(and to-hit at first level, your only proficient in scimitars, so no weapon finesse).
To the original poster, sadly without some kind of GM rules change you can't be such an awesome crafter that you can craft magic items without spell casting, or at least a good use magic devise and spellcraft. You might be able to convince your GM to set something up for you though. A feat from a caster or a feat from a melee, it's not too different. It's far from game braking, and thematic to boot!Err... There's already a feat for "you're such an awesome crafter you can craft magic stuff" and it's as core as core can be - Master Craftsman is in the CRB. Wow. I've never seen that feat before. I like it! I want to use that at some point in a campaign. But, yea, those guides are cool, but depending on your party you might not want to min-max too much. That can lead to bad gaming and no fun for the rest of the party.
|