rainsinger's page

RAW: They become a living creature (magical beast) and are subject to all effects that would be usable on said living creature, but are no longer considered constructs as it relates to spells and abilities that specifically target... blah blah blah.

RAI: Obviously it was a simple oversight, and a "celestial" homonculous is still a construct. In my game, I would rule standard construct rules apply, but that it can ALSO be targeted by spells and effects that can affect a magical beast, though it does not count as a living creature for related spells and effects, and so on.

A way to get kineticists more HP.

Feat
Incredible Physique
Add 1 hit point per con modifier each level the character gains. This ability is retrospective.

(utilizing maths)

At level 1, I would get the incredible Physique feat with 20 con

I would have 8 + 10 = 18 HP at level 1. Comparatively, the barbarian has 12 + 5 = 17 so the kineticist would have 1 additional HP compared with the barbarian or 3 additional when compared with fighters.

If I use 3 burn, I would then lose 3 HP and be on par with a fighter.

If this is shown to be too potent at low levels, we could add prereqs like toughness...

Assuming level 10,

153 HP by level 10 compared with a barbarian who has 125 HP on avg compared with a fighter who has 114 HP.

This would 'slightly' break a rule where the same stat can't be applied to an aspect of a char more than once, it could solve the issue. Either as a feat or individual ability.

Also this ability OR feat creates a natural curve for the kineticist so that the kineticist doesn't feel like the burn ability is percentile based that stays the same the higher the level..

For example... 1 burn point = Barbarian. 3 burn points = Fighter equiv

At level 10, it's 3 burn points = Barbarian, 4 burn points equals fighter.

At level 20, Fighter has 224. Barbarian has 245. Kineticist has 303 HP which allows the kineticist to sacrifice 6 burn or 8 burn to get down to that of a fighter or a barbarian.

This is assuming no more stats are added, but this allows a clear power curve the higher the level, which fixes the feeling of having a % base when using burn.

...or just make a "Greater Toughness" feat. Pre-req: Toughness and ?? (I'm thinking Con 17 and/or BAB +6), then just have it increase the bonus from toughness by +1 per level.

So some stuff which came up or observations I made to myself when I playetested my Aerokinesticist:

-Invisibility. If we get the stealth skill and are air-types, why not make it an option.
-Thunderclap. I fell in love with thunder stones with this character, and having the ability to have a sonic attack like a thunderclap would rock.
-Suffocating attacks: Yes, at least one layer asked if I could do that. I'm on the fence with it, but since someone else saw it, I'll add it to my list.
-AoE. Yeah, that's necessary. I can't get it until later levels, but if my focus is an air blast, then I ought to have it sooner to be an effective blaster.

I'll have to double check the pdf for other stuff to make sure I'm not being repetitive. Definitely want to explore more charge attacks, I really like pressurized blast.

Invisibility, specifically, makes more sense as a "Mirage" but they are using that with water (even though a mirage is actually caused by air). In any case, something like that that acts like vanish or invisibility would definitely fit, IMO.

Will there be an Avatar: The last Airbender, aka martial artist type archetype?

If so, it seems the smartest option to build it would be to lose the level 2 defense ability in exchange for either the monk AC ability or unarmed strikes ability, and then lose wild talents at 6, 12 and 18 in exchange for either flurry of blows or (IMO, the cooler option) martial versatility.

That said, what I'm more interested in is a Kineticist archetype that brings in Spellstrike and Spell combat from Magus. To your point, imagine taking the Kineticist and exchanging a few abilities for spell strike and spell combat, and being able to do the staff-magus type setup. Boom, last airbender.

As the title says! Say then Race, Class, Archetype(s), and Alignment!

Aasimar (Garuda Blooded) Qinggong Zen Archer (AKA, Death on a stick)

Seconded, and taking a step further...

Add in some racial favored class options that are not just rehash of the same ones for the standard classes, and add in a couple character traits that work with each one.

I'd love to see the following:

:: Alchemist/Gunslinger - Pretty much a no-brainer setup.
:: Rogue/Sorcerer - robber of all things magical and expensive, heh.
:: Inquisitor/Monk - A Holy Mystic Monk type that specializes in eliminating enemies of his order.
:: Paladin/Druid - A Neutral (ish) Martial defender of nature?

Here's what I would like to see (taking into account the weekly update put out that hasn't been made completely official yet).

Arcanist: If the make all the noted changes, I like the direction it is going.

Bloodrager: This needs a lot of help, IMO. The changes that they have mentioned may fix parts of this, but I think it needs a clearly defined role... right now it just feels like an alternate version of the magus, but without the awesomeness that is spell combat and spellstrike. Honestly, I think we could just do without this combo altogether.

Brawler: Even the initial version of this, after playing around with it, I have found to be actually amazing. The versatility of this setup is amazing. The only issue I see is the restrictions on weapons, though that's getting a bit better with the proposed changes (though, opening up a can of worms here - this class with shields as a close weapon could get really ugly).

Hunter: I actually think this is probably the most well balanced of all the acg stuff so far. I do agree with the weekly that the companion should play in a little heavier, but I think that simply having more teamwork feats to choose from would help that quite a bit. It might also work though if they had an innate ability to buff their pets?

Investigator: Someone mentioned simply making the inspiration work for just about everything - I like this. Ditch sneak attack and allow inspiration to be used as a damage bonus also, and maybe play with the dice a bit more, instead of having to take a discovery to up it, maybe every ~4 levels, they gain either a bigger die or the ability to use more than one die per turn, etc. L4 = 2 Dice per turn max, L8 = D8's, etc.

Shaman: Please, please, please... make the entire class have the companion familiar setup. This will make the class both desired and unique for that aspect. Make this class feel like the companion familiar is the core of the class as opposed to a "nice addition" and all will be well with the world. :P

Skald: Honestly, this should have a core ability that either mimics moment of clarity X times per day, or allows spells to be cast X times per day while doing the rage song, etc.

Slayer: Yeah, already better than the base rogue, IMO.

Swashbuckler: Build in a mechanic where they don't have to do the "free hand" all the time, or at least where maybe they can use a buckler while maintaining a free hand, and still use it with shield bash, etc? Would be nice to have that kind of option that doesn't suck. :P

Warpriest: There's a fine line where this class simply feels like a knock-off paladin or it just doesn't have it's own role to play, and where it is truly it's own animal. I think if you ditch channel energy and instead "channel blessings" this could work. Here's the idea:
Blessings - Warpriest choose one type of blessing at 1st level that is a boon allowed by their Deity, and grants bonus spells at each spell level (all of which are buffs, debuffs, heals, restores or other direct effect type spells).

Channel Blessing - The warpriest can channel the 1st level blessing to a number of friendly targets (including the warpriest) equal to his warpriest level as a standard action. This blessing lasts for a number of rounds equal to 1/2 his wisdom modifier (minimum 1). At level 4 (or whatever), he may channel the 4th level blessing in the same way. At level 7, this ability may be used as a move action instead of a standard action, and the warpriest may channel any bonus spell granted by his blessing that is at least one spell level lower than the highest spell level he can cast, by sacrificing a spell of equal or higher level. Using it in this way counts as casting a spell and may require concentration or draw attacks of opportunity. At level 10, this ability may be used to channel blessing spells of any spell level that the warpriest can cast. At level 13, the warpriest may channel blessings as a swift action. At level 16, the warpriest no longer needs to make concentration checks and does not draw attacks of opportunity for channeling blessing spells. At level 19, the warpriest may channel blessing spells and this becomes a supernatural ability and no longer counts as casting a spell, though a spell of equal or higher spell level must still be sacrificed to do so (so they can also cast a spell in the same round). This ability may only be used once per round, and may be used a number of times per day equal to 1/2 the warpriest's level (minimum 1).

...something like that (sorry for the brick of text), with I'm sure some necessary tweaks.

I will say this... as noted above, PFS and PF Paizo Designers have said a lot of things... but what has always made sense to the group I'm in now, is if you invest in the +1 Int, and 1 rank Linguistics for a language you and your companion then share, you no longer need tricks for "basic" commands that are easily understood, but you still need tricks for things like attacking a demon, flanking, heeling (contrary to popular belief, it is not a simple concept to "follow at my feet without question"), and so on. That's how we've been playing it, but obviously this is very much a GM thing. On the same note, really, the GM can opt for a lot of different ways of going about companions in general, whether you have full, limited, or virtually no actual control over the animal, how the 3 Int thing works, how you determine HP for the AC, and what feats "make sense" vs. "are available" and so on.

Just a tidbit on this because I used to have a major chubby for the MMS monk builds... but then I discovered that A) more than one style, while nice, is unnecessary for the panther builds and B) Flowing monk is the most ridonkulous archetype monks can have (keep in mind, I'm not saying it's the most damage efficient by any means).

So, what I did was ended up with a Flowing Monk of the Sacred Mountain.

Panther style + imp & greater trip + vicious stomp = insanity.

What you do is start your turn going in a big circle, drawing AOO's and in turn attacking with trips, which then draw 1-2 AOO's from you until you run out of them (hehe), and then END YOUR TURN IN THE SAME SPACE. You get all the monster bonuses from sacred mountain that way. Rinse/repeat.

I have always felt that the most fun characters to play are the ones that have three basic components:

1) An interesting backstory and "life goal"
2) A solid build that is useful (keep in mind USEFUL does not always mean OPTIMAL) in combat and out of combat.
3) It is what you want to play (as opposed to what the group needs).

Remember, Teamwork is OP, and even the worst possible classes can get together and obliterate any combat given a little bit of strategy.

Psusac - Honestly I had considered making him a 100% buff-beast, but the party literally has that covered from every angle already.

My character is a buff & control wizard. We have a bard (though without the song part, but he still pops out some spells) and a buffing/healing cleric. That said, it's not like having a second healer/buffer wouldn't be useful. I had actually considered going with Druid simply because we don't have that set of spells in the party...

But, that said, in the end this is more for fluffy reasons, having a "bodyguard" and such for my character just fits him. In general though, I 100% agree that it's not an efficient use of a cohort - if I was purely going for a competitive edge, it'd definitely be a buffing caster of some kind.

That would be pretty solid but we're "no 3rd party" status for the home game, hehe.

Nudge?

The short version:
Grabbing leadership, specifically want to build a semi-thematic defender for my wizard who will also be helpful in battlefield control. After exploring a ton of options, what I decided on was a Phalanx Soldier Fighter/Witchguard Ranger. He'll be polearm + shield threatening 5' and 10', focusing on primarily the shield and bull rush stuff for feats.

The long version:
My wizard is a collegiate arcanist wizard (so very "good") and has a lot of good-focused feats and spells, worships a good god, etc. He is a buffer/debuffer/controller type wizard, so he'll end up making his cohort even better pretty quickly.

Cohort stats are pre-rolled 18 14 13 12 11 9, and for theme purposes he's going with Angel-Blooded Aasimar (2 str, 2 cha), so his final starting stats will be: 20 13 12 11 14 11 (+1 dex at L4). He's starting at L6.

The feat build so far...
L1 - Ranger: Two Weapon Fighting
L2 - Ranger: Style: Weapon & Shield - Imp. Shield Bash
L3 - Fighter: Shield Slam, Combat Reflexes
L4 - Fighter: Power Attack
L5 - Fighter: Imp. Bull Rush
L6 - Fighter: Gr. Bull Rush

Now, if I'm thinking about this correctly, he will threaten 10' and 5', so he becomes a standing blockade around the wizard or anyone else he's guarding, he can do multiple AOO's (3 per round), and if he successfully shield bashes, he'll get a free AOO on the target (most of the time). Oh, and he'll be using a Madu (heirloom weapon trait), so if he goes defensive, he'll only be -2 for +3 AC (acrobatics)

Here's what I'm thinking the rest of the way...
L7 - Ranger: (Free) Bodyguard, ??
L8 - Ranger: -
L9 - Ranger: ??
L10 - Ranger: Shield Master

So, here's the questions:
1) For levels 1-6, given the thematic angle (a guard for a wizard), do you think there's any more efficient or cool way to go about this?

2) For Levels 7 & 9, what feats would you recommend? (I'm currently debating cleave, cleaving finish, bashing finish, imp. TWF...)

3) Is there anything I'm missing that would make this build not work like I think it will? The plan is to have him kind of "in between" the wizard and the melee, able to hit from 10' out but still catch anything moving to get to the wizard.

Thanks!

One of the builds I've got "sitting in queue" is a lore warden/huntmaster cavalier whip user. Super fun set up.

Alternatively, I have a hobgoblin version that is viking/huntmaster and goes for all the demoralizing stuff first, hehe.

I don't suppose someone could copy/paste that feat into this thread? I'd really like to see how that reads and haven't had the chance to pick up the book yet.

We play it just how it reads, and at lower levels (currently a 5th level huntmaster has a bodyguard dog) it basically means he is more likely to survive if he has to run from combat to get to a safe spot, but he can't stand there and keep attacking. Given the power creep, I think that's really all it is primarily built to do - bodyguard companions get to survive long enough to survive. :P

Skirnir's give up too much... the shield thing was actually a totally "extra bonus" type of thing for the build. This is actually a hobgoblin whip magus type build. Was just trying to figure out if there was a non-8500gp way of taking advantage of that +1. :P

Long story short, he likely won't even be using a shield most of the time, but having options is always fun (run out of spells, go all ragetastic and have fun).

If you want to be a Viking magus the archetype you want is skirinir which gives you a shield style.

I know... I know... but, still.

Let's assume you have a L2 Magus, L3 Viking Fighter.

If he casts the shield spell:
Shield creates an invisible shield of force that hovers in front of you. It negates magic missile attacks directed at you. The disk also provides a +4 shield bonus to AC. This bonus applies against incorporeal touch attacks, since it is a force effect. The shield has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance.

And has the L3 Viking ability Shield Defense:
Starting at 3rd level, a viking learns the art of fighting with a shield. Whenever she is wearing medium, light or no armor and wielding a shield, the viking's shield bonus to AC increases by 1. (etc)

So... the crux of this is in the "wielding" part of the viking ability, IMO. Does a magus who has the shield spell up (which is defined as a shield of force with no penalties) get the +1 shield defense bonus?

If you want to have some really GM-angering fun... Dip 2 levels of Titan Mauler and then wield a Glaive in one hand. :P

Same issue is somewhat applicable to the Hobgoblin Ironskin Monk. At first glance, this is an amazing racial archetype... but then you realize it just doesn't work.

I've actually seen a barbarian built to do this intentionally... kind of ridiculous and awesome. :P

Can anyone show me something that a Viking Fighter can do better than a straightforward Barbarian? I really want to like the archetype, but it seems fairly weak.

Hobgoblin Viking with Demoralizing Lash doing whip + shield. Trust me. :)

If you did dip fighter, it'd be worth it to dip 4 levels, then you could access a TON of stuff that is awesome for archers, not to mention you'd get 3 extra feats and if you went Archer fighter, the ability to use one of the combat maneuvers.

Though obviously, PFS, that's like half your levels, haha.

Really? No thoughts?

I guess it's ok then. Really wish Draconic aspect wasn't so wasted... maybe I'll ditch the dragon feats of the kobold completely, but Draconic Paragon seemed so fun for a little kobold alpha.

Important stuff:

- Custom races are allowed in this game, 10 pt, only "standard" group traits allowed.
- Will have an 18 in Cha starting, rest doesn't really matter right now.
- Not looking for versatility at all, looking for a highly thematic character (see below).
- Not sure which dragon color yet, leaning toward black as acid seems there are slightly less monsters with resistance to it.
- Looking for answer to a specific question below as well as general comments on the build.

So, that said, what I'm looking to do is a "Alpha Kobold" custom race, specifically that will meld well with sorcerer, so here's what I'm thinking:
Humanoid (Kobold Sub-type); Small; Normal Speed; Normal Languages;
Human Ability Scores (0); Flex Feat (4); Advanced Charisma (4); Darkvision: 60' (2);

Crossblooded Draconic/? (Leaning toward Sylvan) - Specifically wanting to do crossblooded, as I will likely not need or want claws for a few minutes a day on this character... he's going to be pure caster. Thinking Sylvan because I can replace claws with a animal companion (and snag boon companion at level 3 or 5).

So, let's assume I'm doing Draconic/Sylvan for now. Here's where things get questionable:

At level 3, I can take woodland stride (which is nice) or Draconic Resistances (here's the problem). But at level 1, I was planning on doing Draconic Aspect and Draconic Breath as feats. I honestly can't remember, or find, whether the two sources of resistance and natural armor would stack. If not, it seems that my only choice would be woodland stride.

Secondary to that... here's what I'm thinking for level 1-3 (he'll be 3rd level when brought in)

Starting Stats: 10 14 13 10 10 22
Fav. Class: Sorc - +1/2 Damage (elemental choice that matches draconic stuff)
Trait: Focused Concentration (+2 Conc)
Trait: ? (leaning toward reactionary or something that bumps handle animal)

L1: Animal Companion (Something scaly); (r) Draconic Aspect; (1) Draconic Breath
L2: -
L3: Draconic Resistance (if it stacks) or Woodland Stride; Bonus Spell: Entangle;(3) Boon Companion

So, at that point, he would have a solid animal companion (possibly one he can ride), a nice backup attack in draconic breath, and possibly really good resistance and nat armor, depending. Spells would include a 0 and 1 level that match the elemental type he's going for, etc.

Thoughts, and answer to the stacking question?

Edit - Nevermind, found my stacking answer... so, general thoughts on the thematic kobold dragon-sorcerer thing?

Just my 42 cents..

As mentioned above, definitely look at the alternate Aasimar kit Plumekith. It is -perfect- for what you're trying to build.

with a 20 pt build:

14 > 14
16 > 18
13 > 13
10 > 10
12 > 14
10 > 10

Then put your first stat increase in Con, the rest in Dex the whole way.

Don't bother with Daze, take Read Magic (as someone else noted above) instead - any time you could cast daze, you could likely just attack, and daze is so easy for most enemies to save against anyway...

Traits: Don't bother with extended range, honestly, if you're so far out that you need it, you're probably in trouble anyway, haha. There's a lot of good options, but worth keeping in mind would be anything that gives you a class skill in something the Inquisitor is lacking or something that gives you a bonus to concentration (if you get stuck in a situation where you need to cast to survive, this will come in handy, and you aren't likely going to ever have the extra feat to put into combat casting or warrior priest, etc).

I'm assuming you're trying to kind of go with a "theme" of a holy-ranger angel-blooded sort of thing, so I'll stay away from my thoughts on min/maxing, haha.

First, and most importantly, I'm assuming that it's an "all or none" sort of thing when you decide to retrain an archetype. But, the way it is written, it doesn't specifically say that AND it also doesn't specify what is my primary questions here:

:: If a character has Archetype A, can he retrain out of an ability he doesn't want and keep the rest?

:: If he can, could he then retrain into an ability from another archetype that fits that same slot?

:: If both of those are viable, as an example, could a Phalanx Soldier Fighter retrain out of "Stand Firm" (L2 Ability Swap) and then retrain into "Pole Fighting" (L2 Ability Swap from Polearm Fighter)?

I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this. Again, I'm really just looking for clarification if anyone has seen anything official/semi-official regarding retraining (I looked and couldn't find anything) or in general what you as a GM would allow.

Edit: I just re-read this section in Ult. Campaign and my assumption seems correct, I missed a sentence when I first was reading this, so I guess my questions above are more of a "would you allow" than "is it RAI" - obviously as written it's intended to be all or not.

I know the topic is a bit old, but I recently ruled in our game that (with very few exceptions) if a class ability replicates a feat ability and specifically names or precludes you using that feat in conjunction with the ability, for all intents and purposes you have that feat when needing to fulfill a prerequisite.

I.E.: If you are a zen archer, you effectively have rapid shot to meet prereqs and at the appropriate level (6 or 8?) you effectively have multi-shot for prereqs. Obviously some things just won't mesh with this ruling (Like Mythic rapid shot), but in general we've found it to be fair and not game-breaking, as well as opening up a handful of character options that, had things been written with more sense, should have been useful in the first place.

I'm just curious if anyone sees this as OP or unnecessary, etc... basically just looking for feedback. I put it here because the zen archer is exactly the situation that brought this up.

If you are looking for something "long term" - that is, multiple sections of questing and adventure over the course of months or more - then my #1 top pick is Kingmaker.

Kingmaker, the obvious part, is a multi-section adventure path that goes from Level 1 to... well.. pretty much wherever the DM wants it to go. It's easily modifiable to compensate for lesser or greater power groups, skill levels and play time. It has a very fun and thorough story, but more specifically it's something that sounds like it might be really good for the type of adolescents you are dealing with.

You should read the overview of the campaign for a better description, but the general idea is that the group starts out simply "going on some adventures" as a band of heroes for hire, but it eventually leads into intrigue, political maneuvering, and building an entire country out of a swamp (or whatever) to rival those next to it and eventually name members of the group to important positions of power (hence, Kingmaker).

There's a lot of opportunity to teach teamwork, critical thinking and morality in this type of campaign more so than most dungeon-dive type settings.

If you want something more short term though, really any pre-boxed paizo adventure would likely work, just check the level requirements.

this is a weird one, so bear with me. My players have the tendency to mutilate the fallen bodies of all the humanoids they defeat. They smash the faces and remove the jaws to prevent their foes from using Speak With Dead on their fallen, and they chop off the feet to prevent them from being raised as effective zombies or ghouls. I can understand the practicality behind this behavior but seriously... it's creeping me out! Have any other DM's observed similar behavior in their players, and what do you do about it?... allow it? Overlook it? Divert them so how?

Here's how I handled this situation a few years back with an almost identical situation - though the players in my case were specifically fighting orc hordes at the time and simply wanted to be merciless and intimidating against their enemies (though they didn't have anyone with gentle repose or similar abilities).

After the literally hundreds of mutilated and dismembered bodies of the hobgoblins had been scattered about the plains and hills, over the course of one night, their patron deity decided to take some revenge and created a flesh golem and bone golem which attacked them in the early morning before they were prepared.

2 out of 5 players died, and the remaining three figured out very quickly that their behavior had angered a power much greater than that of mere orcs. One of the killed players came back as a priest (tome of secrets 3rd party) and went completely nuts with properly disposing of bodies after that.

While my example is possibly a bit extreme (they were only level 4, haha), it did teach them a lesson.

I mean, half of us have pondered this at one point or another, and aside from the so-so arcane heirophant from 3.5, there's really no good way to combine a companion and a familiar, and really, there should be. After all, with the slew of great combinations of characters that could receive both of these, it'd be nice to not have to manage 2 pets, or at the very least, have one with some added bonuses. Keep in mind this would be for house rules, as it would obviously need a ton of polishing if I were putting this out there as something to put into a paizo product.

So here's my idea...

Imbued Companion
Requirements: Animal Companion class ability; Familiar class ability; Spellcraft 5 Ranks; Handle Animal 5 Ranks (May use Knowledge Nature instead? Either way this sets up for a 5th level character at minimum, which seems reasonable, though I was considering making it potentially available with just the class abilities so that if someone did manage both at 1st level, like a druid with eldritch heritage somehow, then... yeah).

You gain the ability to imbue your animal companion with all of the benefits of a familiar. This requires performing the ritual as listed under the Wizard Familiar entry (Core Rulebook pg. 82), but grants the companion all of the benefits of being a familiar as well, with the following notes:

:: The level of each ability is not changed. The companion gains the abilities listed for the appropriate class level with which you gained the familiar ability, and so on.
:: Only one Natural Armor adjustment may be used - take the higher bonus granted by either your animal companion class ability or familiar class ability.
:: Any improvement (e.g.: Share Spells) that is duplicated in both class abilities does not in any way stack - the improvement is only gained the first time it is available.
:: The Familiar intelligence score can be improved upon with the stat bonuses available from the animal companion class ability.
:: The companions HP is determined by the animal companion ability and is unaffected by any rules regarding the HP or HD of familiars.

Advanced Imbued Companion
Requirements: Imbued Companion; Spellcraft 10 Ranks; Handle Animal 10 ranks (see notes above)

The effective level for your animal companion class ability is now equal to your total class levels. Example: If you are a Druid 5, Wizard 5, you are effectively level 10 for your animal companion class ability and all bonuses and increases linked to it.

Improved Imbued Companion
Requirements: Advanced Imbued Companion;

The effective level for your familiar class ability is now equal to you total class levels while applied to your imbued companion. Example: If you are a druid 5, wizard 5, you are effectively level 10 for your familiar class ability and all bonuses and increases linked to it.

Obviously wording and grammar might need some touch ups, but what do you guys think overall?

Ok, so then here's another dip into this idea...

Since monks don't need to use their hands for their unarmed attacks (as stated in the monk class)... does a monk with 2 claws and a bite attack even need to bother with getting extra arms and all that?

Again, obviously you can't flurry + natural attacks, it states that clearly. But if you opted for TWF (since I'd be dumping flurry for Fuse Style anyway), would it be like kick/kick/claw/claw/bite?

Seems to read that way.

Ok, first lets start with the basic part.

Character has 4 Arms which are clawed (1d4 primary), has a bite attack (1d4 primary), and qualifies for Multi-Weapon Fighting (more than 2 arms, dex 13).

Can the character wield a pair of weapons in two of the arms, and still get the natural weapon attacks (claw, claw, bite) with the other two claws and bite as secondary attacks?

Then... let's say the build is something like this (I won't bore you with the whole thing, just the important parts):

Half-Orc (Toothy) Master of Many Styles Martial Artist Monk 5 (stick with me), Vivisectionist Beastmorph Alchemist 4 (sneak attack and more bestial goodies), Natural Weapon Ranger 3 (obviously needed for this build).

Obviously he'd take the vestigial arms (so he has 4 arms), feral combat training (and the pre-req weapon focus), and he'd have imp. unarmed. from monk, and multi-weapon fighting. Not even getting into all the bonuses from the mutagen and so on... the question is, would he be able to do a full attack (remember, he doesn't have FLURRY because of Master of Many Styles) for 3 attacks (multi-weapon and base attacks) and then do his 3 secondary natural attacks? I know it may seem like the same question twice, but I know there's going to be differing opinions on this one out there.

...also, assume that I took any necessary prerequisites to get all this stuff. :P

I know it may seem like there's a lot of feats flying around, but I'm in a custom game where we get more bonus feats than a standard game.

Enaris wrote:

Chris Kenney wrote:

Enaris wrote:

I think that this highlights the fact that the 2d6 from Boar Style is bleed type damage....

The thing is, "bleed" is not a damage type, it's a condition. By definition the damage continues from round to round if it's called "bleed" until stopped, by default by any healing effect.

But also, it does not stack. Something is off with these feat descriptions, and its more a matter of what it means than what it says, because what it says is nonsensical.

Right. Home games, this is my working assumption for what happened: In Development, Boar Style simply read "2d6 additional damage," to be interpreted as "of the type dealt." Then, in editing, someone saw that Boar Shred did "An additional 1d6 bleed damage" and, ignorant of the fact that "bleed" has specific rules connotations attached felt that it read better if the 'type' of damage in both feats matched and changed Boar Style accordingly.

My assumption (as was mentioned above) and probably the most accurate, IMO, of the possibilities here, was that the intention of Boar Style was to give a "rend" effect for 2d6, and then Boar Shred was intended to be an actual Bleed. It could be read either way, of course (which is the problem), but note that in Boar Style it makes it sound like they are supposed to take the damage immediately "While using this style, once per round when you hit a single foe with two or more unarmed strikes, you can tear f lesh. When you do, you deal 2d6 bleed damage with the attack."

Weapon focus and specialization (unarmed) will now effect the natural attack in question. Spells like stone fist, will now effect it too.

Ok, I understand that... but keep in mind, we're SPECIFICALLY talking about a monk here. While yes, it is possible to get focus and specialization in unarmed as a monk, the fact is that those bonuses would still apply to his flurry of blows attacks as normal, and the natural attack would not change any of those attacks whatsoever according to the responses above.

So it doesn't seem to have any use FOR A MONK other than simply allowing you to attack potentially slightly useful "natural weapon" feats to your unarmed attacks... but it seems like a lot of steps to get very little output for a monk.

That said, I can completely understand how a non-monk using the natural weapons as secondary attacks (with like two-weapon fighting and so on) could make great use of this... it's just that the flurry of blows specifically kills the usefulness of this.

I still think that it's just badly worded altogether. They really need an errata on this.

It lets you use natural weapons with style feats.

Right... but you still couldn't actually DO anything with the natural weapon when using it -with- flurry, other than using that weapon type (piercing for a bite) in place of the standard bludgeoning... which you could do with a couple of styles anyway.

I guess I'm just not seeing the real point of the feat... and it seems like something specific enough that they had to have put it in with a pretty notable intent.

A) No, but he can make a flurry with only his bite attack. Or he can mix unarmed strikes and the flurry. But he can't bite in addition to his flurry.

Ok, so then here's the question that is the most important of all...

If he can't use the attack in addition to flurry, and the bite attack doesn't upgrade the attack die of his attacks... then is the ONLY point of this feat to allow the character to then mix the OTHER natural weapon feats with his unarmed attacks? (Like Eldritch Claws and so on)

Seems like a pretty much useless feat if it doesn't allow you to actually -use- the natural attack to some kind of advantage. I'd rather just grab a style feat. :P

A Monk's unarmed damage doesn't 'augment unarmed strike' in the manner of 'improvements' to the damage die but in the manner of a replacement damage die.

In that respect, I suspect the best you'll get is 2d10 medium claws (which would subsequently be 4d8 if you took Improved Natural Attack Claws I believe.)

Here's what I'm more interested in figuring out... (stay with me on this)

Ok, let's say you have a half-orc. Let's say you go the route of getting him a bite attack. Easy enough.

Now, let's say he's a monk, and he ends up with this feat. Again, easy so far.

A) Can he take multi-attack and use the bite attack as a secondary attack after a flurry of blows?

B) How ridiculous is it to think of him flurry-biting someone to death?

Monk description is very specific under flurry of blows in stating that you can not use natural attacks in addition to flurry - but obviously this feat is attempting (although badly worded) to circumvent the monk rules against natural weapons... I just am not sure how far they intended to go with it.

Adam Ormond wrote:

rainsinger wrote:

Though, what about a Monk 1/Ranger 19 (natural weapon)... Full TWF, Multi-Attack, and has the monk unarmed ability...

Would it then be...

+17/+17/+12/+12/+7/+7/+2, +17/+17/+17

RAW, I think that is the case.

RAI, I don't think IUS was intended to be allowed with Natural Attacks at all. Flurry of Blows explicitly denies their interaction, and FoB is really just TWF specifically for IUS.

Unarmed attacks and IUS do not interact with Natural Attacks in any way differently than any manufactured weapon. I think rather, that the RAI behind flurry was that you couldn't flurry a natural weapon, but that it didn't affect your usage of them. That's not how it got written, however.

So, effectively, your opinion on this is that if you have 2 claws and 1 bite, the 2 claws will be replaced by the first two of any unarmed/armed attacks, though the bite would still be available as a secondary natural weapon attack? That seems to be a sensible, simplified version of everything... though I really wish they would just errata the natural attacks RAW to be a little more detailed.

rainsinger wrote:

Though, what about a Monk 1/Ranger 19 (natural weapon)... Full TWF, Multi-Attack, and has the monk unarmed ability...

Would it then be...

+17/+17/+12/+12/+7/+7/+2, +17/+17/+17

RAW, I think that is the case.

RAI, I don't think IUS was intended to be allowed with Natural Attacks at all. Flurry of Blows explicitly denies their interaction, and FoB is really just TWF specifically for IUS.

Yeah, that's kind of where we're leaning. The other DM and I have been switching off between campaigns of ours about every six months, and have developed a pretty extensive house rules doc... but we never delved into the unarmed & natural weapon combat stuff to clarify our RAI. Kind of what I'm trying to do here. :P

Thanks for all the help guys.

rainsinger wrote:

Aye, k. Good point.

That said, if using fists, those would then replace your claw attacks, yes? So it'd be as stated above, only thing left of Nat attacks would be the bite?

Looks about right. Well, your natural attacks should be at +18, I think? Assuming multiattack. +20 BAB, -2 for being a secondary natural weapon.

Though, what about a Monk 1/Ranger 19 (natural weapon)... Full TWF, Multi-Attack, and has the monk unarmed ability...

Would it then be...

+17/+17/+12/+12/+7/+7/+2, +17/+17/+17

rainsinger wrote:

Aye, k. Good point.

That said, if using fists, those would then replace your claw attacks, yes? So it'd be as stated above, only thing left of Nat attacks would be the bite?

Looks about right. Well, your natural attacks should be at +18, I think? Assuming multiattack. +20 BAB, -2 for being a secondary natural weapon.

Aye, they wouldn't get the TWF penalty, because they aren't part of the TWF attacks.

rainsinger wrote:

What about an unarmed L20 ranger...

Unarmed Attacks (Full TWF, Multiattack) + c/c/b : +18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3, +16/+16/+16 ??

If you want to get very technical, the ability to use any part of your body for unarmed strikes is a monk class feature, not a feature of Improved Unarmed Strike, so you'd be using your fists for punching.

Aye, k. Good point.

That said, if using fists, those would then replace your claw attacks, yes? So it'd be as stated above, only thing left of Nat attacks would be the bite?

rainsinger wrote:

Ok, so then (assuming the high level character again) basically it's the option of full-attack with natural weapons, or more attacks with manufactured weapons (and possibly some secondary attacks with natural weapons, but at penalties)?

That definitely seems more balanced than what I was pondering above. :P

Yes. Assuming the 20th-level Ranger, these would be some possible options for full-attacks:

1: claw, claw, bite : +20, +20, +20

2: 1h-sword, claw, bite : +20/+15/+10/+5, +15, +15

3: Two 1h-swords (full twf tree), bite : +18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3, +13

What about an unarmed L20 ranger...

Unarmed Attacks (Imp. Unarmed, Full TWF, Multiattack) + c/c/b : +18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3, +16/+16/+16 ??

As others have noted, natural attacks are natural attacks, and, as such, cannot be used with iteratives or TWF.

That aside, it seems reasonable and balanced that a high level character with access to natural weapons could use one of those natural attacks with iteratives.

Things get complicated if you throw in Improved Unarmed Strike with a creature that has natural attacks. For example, a Weretiger Monk 8 with Multi-attack can use IUS + their natural attacks for Foot (+6)/Foot (+1)/Bite (+4)/Claw (+4)/Claw (+4)

So... going with that kind of idea... let's assume that first example (2 claws, 1 bite all primary) level 1 human fighter. Feats: Imp. Unarmed, Two-Weapon fighting and Weapon Finesse. Let's say he's got a Dex of 18 (+4).

Would he get 2 unarmed attacks (via two-weapon fighting) and the 3 natural weapon attacks (albeit at a -5 penalty to all), as there are no manufactured weapons involved? I.E.: Kick, Kick, Claw, Claw, Bite? Something like +3/+3/+0/+0/+0? Seems like an unarmed fighter with natural weapons would be ridiculous like this, but... yeah.

Yes, a character with 2 primary claw attacks and 1 primary bite attack could attack with all three attacks at full BAB as a full-attack action.

Natural attacks don't interact with two-weapon fighting, although you can attack with a manufactured weapon in addition to the natural attacks.

For instance, if you wield a sword in one of your hands, you would forego one claw attack in order to get full iterative attacks with that sword, as well as the second claw and the bite at -5 penalties (-2 instead if you have the Multiattack feat).

Ok, so then (assuming the high level character again) basically it's the option of full-attack with natural weapons, or more attacks with manufactured weapons (and possibly some secondary attacks with natural weapons, but at penalties)?

That definitely seems more balanced than what I was pondering above. :P

Ok, so... my fellow PF DM and I have had a few different ideas on how to handle some of these things, but I figured I'd put it out here for some help to see if there has been any official errata or any RAW we've missed to help clarify.

For all below, assume we're talking about a character that has 2 Claws and 1 Bite, all primary.

1:: If we're reading correctly, a level 1 character with the above natural attacks could, as a full-attack action, get 2 claws and 1 bite at full base attack bonus. Please let me know if this is not correct, though I think it is.

1a:: If so, let's assume that same character wants to act as if fighting with two weapons, but while still only using natural attacks - would he be able to make an "off-hand" attack with one of his claws or bite, or would it have to be, for example, a kick or head-butt or something?

1b:: If he CAN use his claw/bite as the "off-hand" attack, I know (by RAW) that all of his natural primary attacks would be considered secondary, receiving the -5 attack roll, but would they also receive the penalties from two-weapon fighting, or would those penalties only apply to the "off-hand" attack(s)?

2:: Let's assume a higher level version of the same character (L20 Ranger or something). He's picked up multi-attack, two-weapon fighting, Imp. two-weapon fighting, and Greater two-weapon fighting. Would he effectively be sitting at something like this for the attack roll penalties from attacking with everything:

-2/-2/-2/-2/-7/-12

2a:: Assuming I've done that right, that actually helps answer the first few questions, but then there comes the min-max question of which ends up being better... 3 attacks at full attack bonus and full strength bonus, or 6 attacks with various penalties to attack rolls at only half-strength bonus?

Seriously... I would pay double for a good, clean pdf version of this that I could print out at home. Don't get me wrong, I understand the idea behind wanting people to buy it on paper and make that extra few cents, but the logic is flawed. Most people will just erase and re-use, or scan it in themselves or make copies of each page and so on.

So why not sell the PDF and get in on that reusability factor and make some money that way?