lowew's page

So a sorcerer wants to polymorph and then use subtle spell to cast while polymorphed. The argument is that with polymorph, the lack of ability to use hands or voice is nullified by subtle spells not requiring verbal or somatic components.

Here is the appropriate section of polymorph spell:

"The creature is limited in the actions it can perform by the nature of its new form, and it can't speak, cast spells, or take any other action that requires hands or speech."

Here is subtle spell:

"When you cast a spell, you can spend 1 sorcery point to cast it without any somatic or verbal components."

I guess it comes down to this:

Is casting spells something different from other action that require hands or speech? Or is casting spells included in the text as an example of something you can not do? The word "or" is the sticky widget here. If the reason that casting spells is forbidden in polymorph is solely because of the need for hands and voice, then subtle spell would seem to negate that.

Remember also, that subtle spell requires a sorcery point, so its not an unlimited trick.

I know ultimately the DM gets to decide this and its up to them, but what do you guys think?

So I get it, you can't cleave and vital strike in the same round. My question then is why did Paizo use the term "attack action" in the Vital Strike description instead of the term "Standard Action". Seems like that would have avoided confusion.

I know that there are other things you can do as a Standard Action besides attack. But the description of cleave uses the phrase "As a standard action", not "As an attack action" like in Vital Strike.

Can an attack action be something other than a standard action?

..but I am interpreting correctly? Animal who are companions lose their racial feats like, run and endurance, so if you as a druid or ranger really like those feats, they would need to be taken again?

BTW thanks all for the super quick replies, nice forum here!

Hey guys, just a few quick observations to make sure I understand it right. Animals are actually nerfed when they become companions, they lose their racial feats, and they seem to suffer a constitution hit (which they get back later through the companion leveling track).

Example: Pony pg 177 Bestiary.

The pony in the bestiary has a 14 Con, and two racial feats, Run and Endurance. However when it becomes an animal companion, as per pg 54 CRB, it's con is now a 12, and it loses Run and Endurance.

I've noticed the seems to be the case with every companion I looked at it, it loses its feats and seem to suffer an ability hit.

Is that right? The pony that is a companion starts off weaker than a regular pony (It gets much MUCH better as it levels up with its master, I get that)and is featless?

Seems a bit harsh if so.

Thanks.

So instead of thinking of it as 3x daily (as 8th level druid) and 1x daily (as 4th level druid), think of it as 1x daily and 2 additional times a day as your totem due to the +2 effective druid level?

Or in other words, as an 8th level druid you would get 3x wild shape a day total, so if you use wild shape as a shaman at 6th level, that is your one use of regular wild shape, then as an 8th level druid you would get 3 uses, but one is already gone leaving 2.

Or, you have however many uses of wild shape as your druid level +2 but only your druid level -2 worth of them can be used for something besides your totem.

Ok I think I got it.

Michael Grimm wrote:

In the APG Druid Shaman entries, their wildshape is modified as follows:

Quote:

Wild Shape (Su): At 6th level, a [type] shaman’s wild shape

ability functions at her druid level – 2. If she takes on the
form of a [type], she instead uses her druid level + 2.

What does this +/- modify? Does it modify how long the ability lasts or the level of the ability you can use?

Thank you.

Both.

As in, levels 1-5 you get no wild shaping.

At 6th level, you can use wild shape as if you were an 8th level druid if you turn into a (bear/eagle/etc.), lasting 8 hours, Huge to Diminutive, as beast shape III, up to 3 times per day.

You can turn into any other kind of animal as a 4th level druid, lasting 4 hours, Small or Medium, as beast shape I, only 1 time per day.

The times per day overlap, so you could turn into a (totem animal) 3/day, or into some other kind of animal 1/day and a (totem animal) 2/day.

Zombie thread.. Raaawr, but I don't understand the overlapping times per day? Shouldn't it be you can turn into your totem animal 3 times a day AND a "regular" animal 1 time a day?

Tumble is your friend, get that acrobatics score up as high as possible so you can move around enemies with ease to set up those crunchy sneak attacks!

At least thats how the rouge in my game vexes my NPCs.

Sounds like a job for a nice devious trap! Once the PCs are hanging from the ceiling in a net they are fairly helpless, barring an astromech droid.

There is one in "Ultimate Combat" called the meteor hammer, I'm not entirely sure it is a monk weapon, but it should be IMHO, and I would houserule that it is, but the monk must still take the feats for it.

Well I could not convince the Hero Lab staffer I spoke with that it was applying this template wrong. Everytime I sent an e-mail explaining my option B, he would respond by saying that the base creature is CR 1/3 and you add +2 CR to that to get a CR 1.

Nowhere on the template does it say add 2 CR, it says to add 2 HD, then compare that to a skelton of the same HD.

At any rate I am done arguing with him about it, he insists that the bestiary is wrong, and his logic makes ne sense to me (I wonder if he even read the template, after a I submitted the bug).

In my games I will be adding the 2 racial HD to the creatures exsisting class HD, and then comparing that to the Skelton chart on page 250, and adding 1 CR to that.

...and I will be keeping a lot closer eye on Hero Lab, YIKES!!

No, that is not how the skeletal champion works according to the template (Did you even bother to read it)

PRD wrote:

CR: A skeletal champion's CR is +1 higher than a normal skeleton with the same HD.

Hit Dice:Change all of the creature's racial HD to d8s, then add 2 racial Hit Dice to this total (creatures without racial HD gain 2). HD from class levels are unchanged.

Compare too say a half dragon...

PRD wrote:

CR: Same as the base creature + 2 (minimum 3)

No HD mentioned... or the half-fiend

PRD wrote:

CR: HD 4 or less, as base creature + 1; HD 5 to 10, as base creature + 2; HD 11 or more, as base creature + 3.

Note the CR is as base creature in both cases (which is the creature you apply the template to, including any class levels, a 18th level warrior half-fiend would be CR 19--base creature CR of 16 plus 3 from the template)... skeletal champion is not... to determine a skeletal champions CR by the book, you take its total HD (including class levels) and compare it to the skeleton template, and then add 1.

So, forgive me, are you saying that the cr is determined by the base creatures HD or the HD after it been adjusted by the template itself?

I am in the middle of an email conversation with one the developers as we speak. He seems to be making the error of confusing cr with HD, as in your first post. I just typed him an e-mail trying to explain the difference, we'll see where it goes.

I wonder what made you bring this up today of all days? I just posted nearly the exact same question yesterday night. I agree this template is a function of hit die not class levels. All classes grant 1hd, no matter if they are pc or npc.
However there is a school of thought where the example creature would be a CR 1, and it is at the center of my confusion. Here's the issue, do you calculate cr based on the base creatures hd, THEN apply the rest of the template (specifically, the 2 racial hd the skeletal champion adds), or do you add the two racial hit die to the base creature then calculate the cr. here's how it looks both ways...

A. Base creature has one HD. Normal skeleton with one hd has a cr of 1/3, see page 250 bestiary 1, add one cr for skeletal champion creature is therefore a cr1. Then continue adjusting the base creature as per the template on page 251.

B. Then there is the way the bestiary seems to do the math... Base creature has one class hd, the skeletal champion template adds 2 racial hd for a total of three hd. A normal skeleton with 3 HD is a cr 1 (250 bestiary), skeletal champion adds one cr to this, for a total of two.

So I'll ask here (and sorry if I am hijacking the thread) do you adjust cr then add the templates hd, or do you add the templates additional hd, then adjust the cr.

My instinct is to go with option b, but even hero lab seems to use option a. I am currently involved with a bug report with them to try to convince them that their program is doing it wrong. They disagree so far and say the Bestiary has it wrong.

Ultimately it's just 1 cr, but still it's annoying to have it be an issue.

Oh and thanks in advance for any help..

Hi,

I have a general question and a specific example to illustrate the question. When adding a template to a creature that changes it's HD, do you adjust the CR and then change it's HD, or do you change the HD and then adjust the CR based on the new HD? CR is dependent on HD in this case.

In particular I am trying to make a gnome warrior skelton champion (yarrg). Part of the reason I am confused is because I don't like to just trust hero lab blindly. Its a great program but fairly buggy about things like this and it disagrees with the Bestiary. My terrible DM math disgrees with both! So I am turning to you dear readers to help guide my thinking on this!

Ok so, base creature is a gnome warrior CR 1/3. I will be refering to pages 250 and 252 of the Bestiary. It says that a skeletal champion has a CR of +1 higher than a normal skeleton with the same HD. It also says to change all the creatures racial HD to D8s, then add 2 racial HD to this total. HD from class levels are unchanged.

Option A) Here is how the Bestiary seems to have done the math. Base creature 1 HD from class level, no racial HD to take away, so add 2, for a total of 3 HD. On the chart on page 250 a regular skeleton with 3 HD has a CR of 1, add 1 to that for a total of CR 2.

Option B) This seems to be how Hero Lab figured it. Base creature is 1 HD A regular skeleton with 1 HD is a CR 1/3. Since a skeletal champion has CR of 1 higher than a normal skeleton with the same HD, we go up one higher on the chart on page 250, and treat the new creature as if it has 2 HD, which gives a grand total of CR 1. Then continue to change the bae creature by adding the addition HD.

Both ways seem to have thier logic. After all the CR adjustment is listed first on page 252 (first as in before the HD adjustment). I hope I have made the issue clear. It is kind of an order of operations issue, and I can find no evidence in the book as to which way is right (except of course that the example creature came out to CR2 and started the EXACT same CR as my base creature, a human warrior and a gnome warrior have the same HD and CR).

Is Hero Lab wrong?
Did the Bestiary mess up it's own math?

.......Help...

Thanks ;-P

So, I'd like to run a undead uprising / zombie apocalypse one-shot for my group. But my concern is how do I keep wave after wave of zombie encounters from dragging or being boring. Same enemies over and over ect... Any ideas? Thanks!

interesting info thanks for the feedback. It makes sense now!

I guess the topic is a tad misleading, I don't have an issue with wordcasters having access to summon spells. It strikes me as strange that they can cast it as a standard action when every other spellcaster must spend a full round action. Oh well, minor issue, no big deal.

Casting summon monster as a sorcerer or wizard or cleric or even summon creature as a druid has always been a full-round action. One of my players surprised me by casting it as a standard action as a wordcaster (words of power sorcerer). Does this seem like an exploit to anyone besides me. As far as I can tell he is right, words of power are all standard actions. Just seems strange to me....

Well FYI here is what happened...

Battle began, I cast prismatic sphere on myself. Tarrasque tried to attack through my sphere. All the effects kicked in, he saved against most but DID go insane, take acid damage (I think) AND was teleported to another plane of exsistence!. Washed hands, went home a hero and didn't lose a single hit point!! LOL!

Later we decided to go after the thing using astral travel abilities and as the campaign ended our characters are chasing it across the muiltiverse trying to drive it to hell!

LOL ok, so plan:

A. Plane Shift
B. Wraith-o-mania
C. Climb in it's mouth and snap my Staff of the Magi, Same as portable hole trick?
D. Summon the Star Turtle lol... http://d20npcs.wikia.com/wiki/A'tuin_the_Star_Turtle

Then it's my turn to run, karma's a b**** lol!

My GM leveled us from 10 to 20 last week, I can tell he is getting tired of running. I saw him drooling over the Tarrasque entry in the Bestiary, and no I didn't look at his notes or anything, he was very vocal about it.

I am playing a sorcerer, and heres my plan. Attempt to plane shift the beast. If i cannot get past his spell resist, maybe use a wish to negate it, then try again. Direct damage seems to be a hopless cause. Any thoughts or suggestions?

There are a ton of excellent guides out there for low to medium level sorcerer builds, and they served me well but I'm outleveling them.

My DM either in a moment of madness or just plain weirdness suddenly leveled us from 11 to 20!!!! Midget gaming anyone? lol.

Anyway, I am playing a drow sorcerer with the draconic bloodline, and again the spell selection guides have helped me up to this point, but I can seem to find any halfway decent guides on spells after 5th level.

Im looking for just general good solid sorcerer spell selections, any advice or help is appreciated.

Diego Rossi wrote:

James, what do you think of the possibility for a Baldebound magus to enchant his Black Blade?

I think it should be allowed, but the cost should be based on the enhancement bonus of the blade at level 17+, i.e. the cost should be that of enchanting a weapon with a +5 enhancement.

I think the cost should be what the total bonus (w/Black Blade abilities) is at the time you add extra enchants. If/when further Black Blade abilities are normally gained, you would lose out on additional Black Blade enhancement bonus UNTIL you re-enchant the Blade (so total GP invested equals the difference between now-current Black Blade enhancements and now-current total enhancement bonus). Until you've done that, the added enhancements 'CLASH' with the Black Blade enhancement progression, only allowing some of the Black Blade enhancement to seep thru (equal to how much you paid for). Alternatively, the Black Blade enhancements could have 'priority' and 'suppress' additional enchantments that you've added (but haven't 'paid for' to make 'compatable' with the higher level Black Blade enhancement level).

Either way it would be nice to have Errata, since with the RAW not saying anything, I don't see why all Enhancement-equivalent Enchantments WOULDN'T apply on top of the Black Blade bonuses, and that seems unbalancing at higher level. You would still run into the +10 maximum level for Enhancement-equivalence though, just like Paladins, et al. (barring Errata to contrary, I would stick with previously existing Enchantments in that case, i.e. Black Blade progression would be suppressed if you run into the +10 maximum)

I'm sorry I posted in the wrong forum apparently. this mechanic is just really frustrating me and I'm tired of just taking a good guess at it. Thanks for your input Mr. Jacobs and you as well Quandary, hopefully this will make it to the FAQ and perhaps maybe even an example posted. Again sorry I put it in the wrong forum...

lowew wrote:

JJ how does grapple/grab/ and constrict look when used togther? Does the creature get a grapple damage effect, damage from the grab ability, AND damage from constrict on subsequent rounds after the first? I will send cake if you will show me an example of a constrictor using these abilitites versus a kobold!!

My guess..

Round 1

Bites, does damage, starts a grapple for free and wins, does constrict damage.

Round 2

Maintains grapple, gets to do grapple action damage (per CRB 200). GRAB ability damage (301 Bestiary), AND constrict Damage (Bestiary 1)!!

Round 3

Same as round 2

Also if a creature with more than one attack (octopus) chooses to take a -20 and simply hold the target, does it have to make standard action to amintain that hold, if yes then doesn't it lose the ability to use its other arms for combat?

A snake on a kobold attacks with its bite. It has grab, so it gets a grapple check for free with its bite. If it wins the check, it deals constrict damage there and then.

Round two, if it maintains the grapple, it deals constrict damage, which is generally more than the normal grapple damage. A creature with constrict generally won't want to forgo its constrict damage to just do the grapple damage. Keeps it simpler too.

A creature that has more than one attack can just make a normal attack in that case since it has grab; if it hits the foe it's grappling it gets a grapple check to maintain for free.

At least... that's how I see it all.

Thank you so much for your time Mr. Jacobs. This has vexed me for a long time.

I just want to be crystal clear, a creature with grab and constrict, on subsequent rounds after the first (if it successfully maintains a grapple), only gets to do constrict damage, not damage from the grapple action itself, nor from grab as a separate ability?

JJ how does grapple/grab/ and constrict look when used togther? Does the creature get a grapple damage effect, damage from the grab ability, AND damage from constrict on subsequent rounds after the first? I will send cake if you will show me an example of a constrictor using these abilitites versus a kobold!!

My guess..

Round 1

Bites, does damage, starts a grapple for free and wins, does constrict damage.

Round 2

Maintains grapple, gets to do grapple action damage (per CRB 200). GRAB ability damage (301 Bestiary), AND constrict Damage (Bestiary 1)!!

Round 3

Same as round 2

Also if a creature with more than one attack (octopus) chooses to take a -20 and simply hold the target, does it have to make standard action to amintain that hold, if yes then doesn't it lose the ability to use its other arms for combat?

Ahh, okay you said bite not grapple, but I got ya then.

Okay, so either way (mine or yours) it is still one set of bite damage and constrict damage per round (after the first). But your logic is more sound.

And we seem to both agree that the -20 thing is terrible and maybe even useless lol.

However let me say this..

I think you are off a tad on Round one Step four. I am almost positive that you get constrict damage on the first you round you establish the grapple. Here is the entry from the bestiary 1 FAQ to back up my assertion...

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fo#v5748eaic9nid

A creature with constrict deals this additional damage every time it makes a successful grapple check against a foe. This includes the first check to establish the grapple (such as when using the grab universal monster rule).

—Jason Bulmahn, 11/24/10

@ Rathyr

I just wanna stop for a second here. I want to apologize if my posts sound arguementative or like I disrespect you or think you are wrong or anything like that.

I have ADD badly, so focusing on complex rules like this for a long time is difficult for me (makes it hard to GM lol).

I realize my interpretation is probbably wrong and maybe even stupid lol.

So, would you please show a step by step breakdown of what the rounds would look like and why?

Thanks again for helping me!

lowew, for the reasons I stated above, the Grab (Ex) does not damage on a grapple check. I've seen a great many builds and rule debates on grappling before, but this is the first time I've seen someone put forth that argument. That is Paizo restating obvious grapple rules.

As for the -20 debate issue, I'm not seeing the need for an incredibly complicated explanation. You can take a -20 to avoid the penalties of grappling. You still have to maintain it as a standard, and everything else remains the same, you just don't have -4 Dex and -2 to attack rolls (I can't imagine you would be able to avoid the "you can't move" portion of grappled...). Is it a terrible trade off? Yes. But there is no need to invent a new subset of rules.

So you are saying that where grab says...

"A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature’s descriptive text)."

...it is actually referring to the grapple damage action mentioned on 200 of the CRB? Ok if thats true then what if the creature wants to do an action BESIDES damage as part of it's grapple. like pin or tie up? In your version if a creature decides to pin a grappled target then it doesn't get any damage from grab. But the description says that any time you succeed on a grapple check it AUTOMATICALLY deals damage.

So you are saying that if I choose not to do damage as part of maintaining a grapple, then I get only my constrict damage?

My real issue with this is the -20 thing. If maintaining a grapple and continuing to hold an opponent are the same thing, and it's a standard action to do it, then the benefits for taking a -20 to CMB are minute and never worth it.

A 64 legged land octopus with grab has to use a standard action to maintain a "hold" or a grapple making his other legs useless. He has to release his held target in order to attack others. To me that is stupid. The whole point of these monsters IMHO is that they can do lots of things at once with their arms, including hold one guy while whooping up on another.

I totally understand what you are saying and agree that is a solid interpretation, but the problem there are a LOT of interpretations, thats why we need help lol.

I also think the -20 to hold as part of the Grab rules is a holdover from 3.5 and made more sense in the context of that ruleset. In 3.5, taking that -20 to hold enabled a creature to continue to threaten an area and use its remaining attacks against other opponents. In subsequent rounds, it could hold the same opponent in a grapple, add more if it had more attacks with +Grab, and use its remaining attacks.

The intended use of the -20 option on a Grab in PF is unclear to me. The grappled condition is much less severe than 3.5 (ie does not equal instant sneak attackable) and maintaining a grapple is now a standard action.

Take for example the Kraken in PF's Bestiary. It has an Ex ability to make grapples without gaining the grappled condition without needing to take a -20 penalty, but doesn't get much benefit from it. It could Grab and grapple a total of 10 opponents in one round. In the next round, if it wanted to maintain a grapple against one(=standard action), it would have to release nine opponents as a free action and wouldn't get attacks against additional opponents. Optionally, it could release all 10 as a free action and get its full attack sequence back. This doesn't seem intended, but looks like current RAW.

Regarding how anyone kept grappling rules straight in 3.5, my group relied heavily on Skip Williams four part 'All About Grappling' series written as part of his Rules of the Game column. Rather than just an FAQ, I think grappling/grab rules could benefit from a detailed Blog post(s). I know the design team is usually getting hammered with work that needs to get done to pay the bills. I wish there were a method to compensate them for the time they put towards rules FAQs and Blogs.

I submit that maintaining a grapple is a standard action yes, BUT making a grapple CHECK to maintain a HOLD is not a standard action, merely a check. This is not stated verbatim in the rules, but seems to make the most sense. If the creature is taking -20 to CMB to hold, then it can do so without having to pay a lot of attention to it (ie a standard action). A creature must have GRAB to do this, and maybe it helps to think of grab and grapple as two related but seperate things.

Therefore the Kraken being able to use grab (not grapple) with out the -20 gets a HUGE advantage, it doesn't have to release a target to attack another one, and can use its standard action to fight with it's other tentacles while making only a cursory check to hold the target it already has.

Okay, ya this is still confusing, let me show you guys what I propose after reading it all night. I think the intent of grab was to make an ability that does two things.

One, it gives you enhanced abilities to start and maintain a grapple (free action to start, +4 on the check, no AoO).

Two. It also gives you the option to initiate a special kind of grapple called a HOLD. (They really should have made a separate condition entry for held IMHO).

I think that what is throwing everyone including me off is the fact that being HELD and being GRAPPLED seem like the same thing, but are not.

It's really about how they organized the paragraph under Grab. Let me show you with the text from the entry...

1. If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. Unless otherwise noted, grab can only be used against targets of a size equal to or smaller than the creature with this ability. If the creature can use grab on creatures of other sizes, it is noted in the creature's Special Attacks line. The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply to use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent.

Ok lets stop here, I think that this section talks about how GRAB affects regular old grapple, and explains that it gives the creature the option to use grapple checks to perform a HOLD, the next section I believe talks about how to perform the hold...

2. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself.

Ok, and here's where we get all the confusion, I propose the idea that the next section applies ONLY to hold (grappling with a -20 penalty) and NOT to a full on grapple.

3. A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature’s descriptive text).

Then the entry begins a new paragraph, which I believe refers to both grappling and the hold action again.

4. Creatures with grab receive a +4 bonus on combat maneuver checks made to start and maintain a grapple.

As a side note, constrict itself is very clear that anytime you make a grapple check, you can do constrict damage, the grab entry describes how constrict works with the HOLD special grapple. That's important for the following.

In this reading a creature with grab must decide upon starting a grapple whether or not to do a regular grapple, or a special HOLD grapple (-20 ect.ect.)

-------------------------so-------------------------

If the creature chooses to grapple normally...

Then it rolled and hit already, and gets to do its damage, (bite for the snake, or whatever gives the creature the grab ability). It can immediately begin a grapple, and if sucessful, the target takes constrict damage. On round two if it chooses to maintain the grapple, it can do the "damage" grapple action (200 CRB) AND the constrict damage, but NOT the "hold" damage from section 3 above, because it is not held, it is grappled normally.

If it chooses to take the -20 and HOLD the target...

It rolls an attack and hits, doing the damage (again depending on what attack lets it grab, bite in this case) and activating grab. It then rolls a CMB at a -20 (but with a +4 bonus for grab, usually already built in to the creature, thanks Ezikiel). If succesful it then imposes a HOLD on the target. The target gets the grappled condition but the creature does not, the target is subject to section 3 above. SO the grab does NOT do damage this round, but the target DOES get constrict damage.
On round two, the creature makes a grapple check to maintain the hold (-20, but with a +5 bonus per 200 of the CRB), but it is NOT grappling the target, it is HOLDing the target (even though it is a grapple check to maintain a hold). Therefore, the target takes damage from being held (section 3 above), AND from constrict (section 3 above), but is NOT subject to the grapple action damage on pg 200 of the CRB.
If the creature does this, it is not grappled, it can move normally takes no penalties, and can use other attacks if it has them. It can use the other attacks because maintaining a hold is a grapple check (free action) but NOT maintaining a grapple (standard action).
I know, I know crazy right? A grapple check is not the same as maintaing a grapple, and other checks (skill ect..) take no time to actually DO the check (well there are exceptions for SOME skills but you get the idea). So that's the payoff for taking a -20, the creature can use other abilities and attacks on the rest of the party while still holding and constricting the poor PC.

(Now, in the case of our snake, choosing the -20 would be pretty dumb, because he only has ONE attack anyway, so whether he chooses to grapple normally OR hold, that attack is used up, so he might as well just grapple normally to use his full bonus. But an Octopus with 8 arms would love to HOLD, so he can still attack with the other 7 tentacles, perhaps even intiate another grab)

The reasons I think my version is correct:

1. It "reads" easier if you think in terms of HOLD as a subset of grapple.

2. Creatures get two "damages" either way (constrict + "hold" or constrict + graaple action damage).

3. The -20 pays off bigger because the creature still has a standard action (not used up in maintaining, like regualar grapple). In the grapple is the same as held version, even if a creature takes the -20 to CMB, it STILL has to use a standard action to maintain because it is grappling, not "holding".

4. It seems far more balanced this way. Creatures getting to do basiclly 3x damage per round from ONE succesful check, thats not even against AC, AND it gets a +4 to the roll seems awfully powerful for one ability! Druids would never take anything BUT snakes for companions lol.

5. It doesnt really makes sense that a creature could do damage from grappling action, presumably with its mouth, and somehow do grabbing damage with its mouth as well, wouldn't they be kind of the same thing? Constrict still makes sense as a squeezing secondary damage.

Anyway, I hope that maybe a T-Rex will jump in and tell us all the way it is supposed to be... Until then this is probably what my group will go with. I still want to hear your thoughts though, interesting how we can all dechipher it so differently lol!

Hi,

Ok i know this get's intense to put it mildly, but I just need to know how close I am to understanding this ability set that has vexed me since DnD 3.0.

Situation: PC falls into a underground lake wherein he is attacked by an anaconda (or a constrictor as per the Bestiary). The snake wishes to kill and eat the poor guy. It has grab and constrict. Assuming the dice go perfectly for the snake (and therefore badly for the poor PC), and the snake wants to do nothing but damage the PC as much as possible, no moving or pinning or anything, here is how the combat would go acording to my reading of the rules...

Round 1
Snake bites, gets to start a grapple as a free action (+4 bonus due to GRAB), no AoO, the Pc takes Bite damage, and constrict damage (he does NOT take the free damage from grab, nor can the snake choose the "damage" grapple action). Assume PC fails his escape attempt this round.

Round 2
Snake succesfully maintains the grapple as a STANDARD action, not free anymore (he gets a +9 on the roll to do this btw +5 from page 200 crb, and an additional +4 from GRAB ability bestiary 1 301). Therefore the PC takes: 1. Damage as a grapple action (bite natural attack, page 200 CRB), 2. Bite damage again (not from the bite per se, but from the Grab EX ability, page 301, Best 1), and 3. Constrict damage again since the snake made a successful grapple check (Best 1, 301). as a MOVE action the snake takes the PC under water and so the PC is subject to drowning rules (which I will not go into here).

Round 3
Same as round 2, this poor PC is screwed!

The rules on 300 say that you may choose to deal damage equal to a natural attack (a summary), so that would be the snakes bite attack in this case, as part of the standard action of maintaining the grapple.

The rules for grab and constrict say that the damage from these abilities is applied whenever a successful grapple is maintained (constrict adds the language of INITIATING a grapple, that's why it applies to round 1).

There is nothing that says these abilities are separate or that you have to choose one or the other. So to me it seems that in subsequent rounds, as a standard action you can apply bite damage (200 crb) apply grab damage (same as a bite)(best 1, 301), AND constrict damage (best 1, 301).

----------------------or----------------------

Does the word HOLD mean something different than maintain a grapple?

On 301 of the bestiary 1, it speaks of conducting the grapple normally or using the part of the body that intiated the grapple to HOLD the target. If you do this you get a -20 on the check to start and maintain the grapple.

If you succeed the target is held apparently. A held target is not subject to grab damage on the initial round but can still be constricted, on subsequent rounds the HELD target gets the grab damage AND constrict damage, but NOT the grapple action damage as per pg. 200 cause it is held, and not grappled.

Also if being held is NOT the same as being grappled, then my above reading is wrong, and a grappled target does not take the grab damage, because being grappled isn't the same as being held. So therefore a grappled target would take bite damage, and constrict damage on round 1, and on round two, it would take grapple action damage, and constrict damage, but NOT grab damage.

-----------------------------------------------------------

The sticky widget here is the 301 bestiary 1 entry about GRAB. About halfway down it says...

"The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply (ha thats a laugh) use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent."

Does everything after this sentence in this paragraph apply ONLY to the special situation where the monster is HOLDING a target in one hand (or tentacle, claw, mouth ect.), or does the sentece after the next one pick up talking about regular grappled creatures AND "held" creatures again...?

"A successful hold does not deal any extra damage..."(ect ect until the end of the paragraph)

---------------------------------------------------------------

TL:DR

Is Hold the same as grapple?

If yes...
Round 1. Snake bites and intiates grapple, does bite and constrict damage.
Round 2. Snake mantains grapple as standard action, does grapple action, grab, and constrict damage.

If no...
Round 1. Snake bites and intiates grapple, does bite and constrict damage.
Round 2. Snake maintains grapple as standard action, does grapple action and constrict damage only.

(BTW if no, then what possible reason is there to choose to grab instead of grapple? Either way you are spending a standard action to maintain, so you couldn't make other attacks, so why would you give yourself the -20? What am i missing here?)

Thanks a LOT for any help.

He He, my GM reincarnated me as a dhampir thinking he was messing me over by making me negative energy affinative (easy, just buy a wand of inflict wounds and stay clear of the cleric's channel energy). But then he threw us a group of succubi who lured us all in to their level draining kisses.

While the rest of my party was painfully draining levels and trying to get away from the evil allure, I was playing tonsil hockey with mine and loving every minute of it! Even after her enchantment broke I was still making out with her!!

He'd forgotten that Dhampir have (virtually) level drain immunity. Good Times! Before it was all over, she was trying to get away from MY kisses lol.

yes it was during an "act normally" turn that I cast dispel magic on myself.

I am usually to wordy, so I'll get to the point.

We were fighting through a mage tower and we got hit with a Prismatic Ray. We all got the indigo "insanity" ray (Dm realized later that this isn't really how it works, he should have rolled randomly on the chart for each PC, not once for all of us). So we are all under the effect of an insanity spell.

The insanity spell reads that the targets are under a CONSTANT confusion effect. Does this mean that there is no save other than the initial save to avoid the ray, and no duration? So we are all just confused forever or until some random NPC figures it out and helps us by one of the methods listed in the spell? Since the whole party is insane we effectively cannot help each other and are just stuck forever right? Does that seem a little OP? Am I missing something?

By the way heres what happened. After we were all confused, the spellcaster just sat back and watched us kill each other. Eventually I was able to cast dispel magic to help the party out (Which begs the question, will dispel magic remove the effect? The spell says only Greater restore, heal, limit wish or wish. Is removing a status CAUSED by a spell, a seprate category from removing the Spell itself? Even though the end result is the same?). But by that time all of my party was dead (one guy died just after I dispelled him). So I was alone. clear headed, and Greaterly Invisible. So being desperate and wanting to go out in a blaze of glory, I appeared in front of the guy and broke my staff over my knee!

Turns out Pathfinder staffs dont cause the devastation that I remember D&D staffs did when they broke (except the Staff of the Magi, an artifact). But my DM liked the idea so much that he allowed it any way. So I rolled my D%, and wound up on a different plane instead of dead, and the bad guy, his whole tower and most of the town was completely obliterated. Awesomeness.

Of course I lived, which i didn't expect, so now I have a few people who arent to happy with me. Should be interesting.

I feel like that group is WAY to big, maybe split the group in half and take over DM duties for one of the groups, show them the tactics by whooping thier butts with them. If splitting is not an option, then I would see if I could find another group or run a game. They won't have your support in that case (as a player) and will have to fly on their own or fall on their face.

Also yeah, encourage them to buy the book sheesh, how can you play w/out the book?

Thanks for the refresher!

So yeah I should know this. If I am a sorcerer whom can cast level 3 spells on my own, and I get my hands on a staff that has say, a 5th level spell on it, can I cast that spell even though I cannot through my class.

While we are at it, some question involving wands.

I should know this, and i feel stupid.

Thanks.

There is an old OLD WOTC product called the draconomicon, and it had a prestige class that was centered around this EXACT concept, called the dracolyte. I can not find my copy, I'm sure it has been lost to time lol. But here is a link to the info anyway muh ha ha ha!

http://kahdnd.pbworks.com/w/page/5588855/Dracolyte

also see

http://www.realmshelps.net/cgi-bin/featbox.pl?feat=Dragon_Familiar

and

http://www.realmshelps.net/cgi-bin/featbox.pl?feat=Dragon_Cohort

These should at least give you a good starting point. I personally really like the Prestige Class, taking care of a dragon is a full time job!! lol

rat_ bastard wrote:

lowew wrote:

WOTC published a book called Draconomicon way back in the 3.0 days. If you can find it, you should definetly get it. If nothing else than because it has some of the best artwork I've ever seen in a gaming book, a rich, velvety, almost oil painting feel to the pictures. It also has really, almost ridiculously, extensive info on dragons of all types and ages.

In the book it showed a gold dragon lair that was actually next to river, in fact the entrance to the cave was underwater. Then it rose up under a slight hill nearby. The book also said that Gold dragons, as they mature, shift focus from gathering wealth to obtaining knowledge. So a goldies hoard might consist of a vast library of rare books (like a WHOLE lot) scrolls, magical knowledge stuff, artifacts, and the like.

I feel that the plains thing is a generalization, nothing more. I live in the great plains of USA and we have the occasional river, or even decent size hill, or canyon. But hey you are the GM, you can put his hoard on the astral plane if you want!

Hope this helps...

Draconomicon was the prettiest most useless book I have ever purchased, I am so glad I only payed 5$ for that useless bit of tinder.

The Draconomicon was lacking in certain areas... It didn't have a lot of new spells or prestige classes or feats. It didn't add a lot of game rules or even locales. It did what it said though, it talked about dragons, how they might think, what might by good tactics for them to use in combat so on and so forth..

lowew wrote:

WOTC published a book called Draconomicon way back in the 3.0 days. If you can find it, you should definetly get it. If nothing else than because it has some of the best artwork I've ever seen in a gaming book, a rich, velvety, almost oil painting feel to the pictures. It also has really, almost ridiculously, extensive info on dragons of all types and ages.

In the book it showed a gold dragon lair that was actually next to river, in fact the entrance to the cave was underwater. Then it rose up under a slight hill nearby. The book also said that Gold dragons, as they mature, shift focus from gathering wealth to obtaining knowledge. So a goldies hoard might consist of a vast library of rare books (like a WHOLE lot) scrolls, magical knowledge stuff, artifacts, and the like.

I feel that the plains thing is a generalization, nothing more. I live in the great plains of USA and we have the occasional river, or even decent size hill, or canyon. But hey you are the GM, you can put his hoard on the astral plane if you want!

Hope this helps...

Draconomicon was the prettiest most useless book I have ever purchased, I am so glad I only payed 5$ for that useless bit of tinder.

WOTC published a book called Draconomicon way back in the 3.0 days. If you can find it, you should definetly get it. If nothing else than because it has some of the best artwork I've ever seen in a gaming book, a rich, velvety, almost oil painting feel to the pictures. It also has really, almost ridiculously, extensive info on dragons of all types and ages.

In the book it showed a gold dragon lair that was actually next to river, in fact the entrance to the cave was underwater. Then it rose up under a slight hill nearby. The book also said that Gold dragons, as they mature, shift focus from gathering wealth to obtaining knowledge. So a goldies hoard might consist of a vast library of rare books (like a WHOLE lot) scrolls, magical knowledge stuff, artifacts, and the like.

I feel that the plains thing is a generalization, nothing more. I live in the great plains of USA and we have the occasional river, or even decent size hill, or canyon. But hey you are the GM, you can put his hoard on the astral plane if you want!

Hope this helps...

What hit movie do you hate that everyone else seems to love?

Mine would have to be Avatar, I just didn't think the story was that good. it was just a few hours of special effects with no original plot.

Borat singing the Khzakistani National Anthem lyrics to the USA national anthem music at the rodeo...

Mine is Book of Eli (that WAS bsed on Fallout 3 right? ;-P)

Enter the Dragon,

How about umm,.. Favorite movie based on a video game?

Fried green Tomatoes, don't tell anyone I wanna keep up my manly persona!! ;-P

Favorite Japanese Animated Film? mine is Spirited Away btw

A simple one that I started carrying around that really tics off my GM is a mundane item of some kind, (like a necklace or a common ring) with CONTINUAL FLAME cast on it. I play with a GM that likes to mess us over with darkness spells though lol. Nothing special but I've never had a campaign where it didn't come in handy.

Oh and Apacolypto is a pretty good flick, as long as you watch it for what it is and don't got all huffy about "thats a horrible unfair portrayal of central american cultures". It's just a movie, enjoy it IMHO.

Ramlatus wrote:

That is how all TTRPGs have been for me. Each character is on their own until the end of an encounter. The only exception is people will use an action to prevent someone from dying, but some people feel that that is kind of a wasted action better spent finishing the encounter. Then deal with the downed characters.

And yet, literally everyone on this thread is telling you that your assumptions are wrong.

You asked at the very beginning:

Ramlatus wrote:

So can any of you tell me what I am missing, or shed some light on this conclusion.

And that is the answer. It may not be the answer that you were expecting, or even an answer that you like. But it is the answer that you need.

PF2 is a team based, cooperative, role-playing game. It actually delivers on that claim. It is team based - party strategy and synergy is extremely important. It is cooperative - including with the GM. It is focused fairly balanced between combat and role-play - skills and skill feats are fairly important even if they don't always have in-combat use.

In order to enjoy this game you will need to put away your assumptions that you have gotten from other games. If you and your long-time friends that are used to playing PF1 and D&D and Shadowrun try to play PF2 the same way, it will go horribly wrong and you will either end up quitting the game system entirely, or end up back here on the advice forum wondering what went wrong.

No long term friends....

Hello Friend Ramlatus!

I am going to suggest that you go with the reach trip fighter build that Necr0g1ant suggested above. I am also going to suggest that you sign up for PFS and play that build at a few tables, either in person or online. You are going to be useful to your party, and you'll discover ways your party can be useful to you in the course of play.

Everyone who comes from PF1 or D&D goes through this mental hurdle. You're not alone. I went through this too until I actually played the game and went... "Oh yeah. That was effective."

Looking forward to playing with you at an online convention - maybe PaizoCon? - sometime.

Hmm

Unfortunately in my current situation I will need to find a job before I can upgrade my internet. In the small town I had to move to due to divorce I have been looking for over 3 months and my family and I expect it to take several more if I am lucky. If I am not lucky it could take 6 or more. So no online play.

As for in person play, there is a gaming store 2.5 hours from here, but I have never been there and don't know what the game situation is there. I will probably not get to play until after I find a job. I might....might be able to do an online audio only game. Some people have said something about Play by Post games, but I don't really know how that works.

So I work on learning the system and others like Traveller 2e and look for possible places to play when I can get the internet.

I am also not opposed to playing 5e, I just won't be spending any money with WoTC anymore.

Ramlatus wrote:

When in combat my assumption is that I will receive no help from my companions in the from of buffs or healing until the combat is over and then only half the time.

Why?

Why is that your assumption?

It seems like a strange assumption to me.

Also, what can you do to change that assumption? Because that mindset is going to make PF2 be not very much fun at all.

That is how all TTRPGs have been for me. Each character is on their own until the end of an encounter. The only exception is people will use an action to prevent someone from dying, but some people feel that that is kind of a wasted action better spent finishing the encounter. Then deal with the downed characters.

When in combat my assumption is that I will receive no help from my companions in the from of buffs or healing until the combat is over and then only half the time.

What games are you playing where 'one player/character usually has to carry the rest of the party a good 80% of the time'???

Started with Original Red Box D&D

A little
Werewolf
Star Trek
Star Wars

All the TTRPGs I have ever played are like this.

Hello friends,

I have been working on getting into a Pathfinder 2e game. Since my internet currently sucks I have been working on making characters and learning the rules until I can find work and get better internet.

I have been running into some troubles that I find HIGHLY discouraging. I have been trying to figure out how to make a good character and have come to the conclusion that the system is designed to make it impossible to make either a good or bad character. I feel very constrained, like I have training wheels that prevent me from failing. This also means that I can’t succeed as well. This make me feel like what is the point of making any choice for a character at all.

Looking into it further I keep reading things saying that teamwork is what is important in Pathfinder 2e. I find this idea difficult to believe. In my experience, one player/character usually has to carry the rest of the party a good 80% of the time. Relying on other players/characters will get the entire party killed. Most players/characters act independently of all the others in the party against the same enemy, but there is no coordination or planning, and very few player use abilities or spells to help their comrades unless the spell/ability they were using on themselves had additional targets beyond just themselves. I have a hard time seeing this work in game.

This keeps bringing me back to the same conclusion. What is the point of making a character and playing if your character can be replaced with any other character or at least any other character that fills the same roll with no difference.

So can any of you tell me what I am missing, or shed some light on this conclusion. I for obvious reasons can’t spend any money with WoTC. And Fantasy RPGs are my passion.

Thank you all for the welcome and the information. I will take time to look into the suggestions offered.

:)

In November my wife left me. I was suffering from depression and she didn’t want to live with depressed me anymore. So she left me, which means I also lost the children that I see as my own. Due to this I lost my home, and had to move back in with my parents in another state, so I also lost my job. I had just started a new campaign with my gaming group and also lost my gaming group.

Then came the new year with Wizards of the Coast trying to burn down their company. Now I have played D&D, with the exception of 4e, since I was 12. So I am looking for advice on how to find a game of Pathfinder 2e to get involved with so that I can enjoy the hobby I love so much.

As you can see I am not going through a good time in my life.

Relevant Notes
• I still do not have a job as work in the small town I live in is very scarce.
• I only have my phones hotspot for internet at the moment, and while it is unlimited it is pretty slow. I can’t play videos. I have to download them and watch them offline.
• I live in a very small town where most people have no clue what a TTRPG is. One of those towns where if they do know what they are they may be on the devil worshiper list of favorite activites, along with human sacrifice and eating babies. I am a little hesitant to advertise my hobby.
• I have been making extensive use of Archives of Nethys to learn the rules and make a few characters for PF2e. I will be asking for advice on my builds and concepts over there shortly.

I thank you for any suggestions you may have.