Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Ah.
Part of the problem, alas, is that this is a rules mechanic that Jason was wrestling with up to the very last second.
The Bestiary rules are correct. The part in the core rules that contradicts this is a fragment, alas, that stuck in there. It should be cleaned up, I agree. It's unfortunate that the confusion is in there, but again, as far as I understand the game and as far as I've been using the rules for the last several volumes of Pathfinder, the rules from the Bestiary are the correct ones.
James, if you're going to fix something, check out the section on non-lethal damage in the Core Rulebook (page 191/192):
If a creature’s nonlethal damage is equal to his total maximum hit points (not his current hit points), all further nonlethal damage is treated as lethal damage. This does not apply to creatures with regeneration. Such creatures simply accrue additional nonlethal damage, increasing the amount of time they remain unconscious.
This is obviously not in sync with the new regeneration rules. By the way I like this rule about non-lethal damage.
|
Creative Director
|
James, if you're going to fix something, check out the section on non-lethal damage in the Core Rulebook (page 191/192):
If a creature’s nonlethal damage is equal to his total maximum hit points (not his current hit points), all further nonlethal damage is treated as lethal damage. This does not apply to creatures with regeneration. Such creatures simply accrue additional nonlethal damage, increasing the amount of time they remain unconscious.This is obviously not in sync with the new regeneration rules. By the way I like this rule about non-lethal damage.
This is also a fragment. We'll get it fixed eventually.
I to would love to see how the Bestiary and the Patfhinder RPG contradict each other here.
Here. Final paragraph of "natural attacks," see Hogarth's quote above which bolds the relevant line.
Good to know which one is intended. :)
Edit: Damn it, sniped by page two!
|
Creative Director
|
I think there might be something wrong with the Ettin entry. It is listed as having 8 melee attacks (2 flails +12/+12/+7/+7). It is my belief that this should read "2 flails +12/+7" which would give it only 4 melee attacks, and bring it back in line with its 3.5 counterpart (unless it was the intent to double its attacks and leave its CR the same)
It does have only 4 attacks, but listing it as "2 flails" is confusing. Listing it as 2 flails +12/+7 would be more accurate. As would simply removing the "2" from the start and listing it as "flails +12/+12/+7/+7.
|
Personally, I think that allowing Awesome blow to do regular damage with the chosen attack AND knock foes back is best. I think this is the way the feat's intended to work, and that would certainly make it a worthwhile feat and justify the fact that it's a lot harder to do than bull rush (which doesn't require a feat to do). I'm not sure if removing the damage was an intent or an accident or what. This'll be something we'll look at for the errata, for sure.
Thanks James, you guys are awesome. I want my giants to hit for damage AND flying effects! :)
Personally, I think that allowing Awesome blow to do regular damage with the chosen attack AND knock foes back is best. I think this is the way the feat's intended to work, and that would certainly make it a worthwhile feat and justify the fact that it's a lot harder to do than bull rush (which doesn't require a feat to do). I'm not sure if removing the damage was an intent or an accident or what. This'll be something we'll look at for the errata, for sure.I think it's pretty clear from James' answer that it is no longer intended to cause damage... but I *do* fail to understand how you can take a giant baseball bat to someone's noggin, make them fly 10', and cause NO DAMAGE ON IMPACT, just a mere d6 on LANDING!??! O_O (NERF bats?)
James if it's not too late, perhaps the errata should have this feat read pretty much like Vital Strike but instead of doubling the damage die, just put it that 10' flight bit + "for every 5 pts. of exceedance over CMD, add 5' to the flight distance"
(here's hoping! :P)
So is the official answer regular damage with the chosen attack + knock foes back + d6 damage on landing?
Or must we wait until the errata to have this answer established as an "official" answer?
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Page 55, Darkmantle
The Melee attack is listed as Slam +6 (1d4+4 plus grab)
CMB is listed as +4 (+8 grapple), CMD is listed as 14BAB is +2, Str bonus is +0, Dex bonus is +2, Size bonus is +1 (or -1 for CMB/CMD)
Melee attack should be Slam +3 (1d4 plus grab)
CMB should be +1 (+5 grapple), CMD should be 13
Also, the Init should be +6, not +4, since it has improved initiative, and also a Dex of 15 (+2).
Base Atk +12; CMB +18 (+22 grapple); CMD 32 (can't be tripped)
10 + 12 (BAB) + 5 (Str) + 3 (Dex) + 1 (Large) = 31
Base Atk +9; CMB +14; CMD 31
10 + 9 (BAB) + 5 (Str) + 6 (Dex) + 0 (Size) = 30
Base Atk +3;CMB +1; CMD 15
10 + 3 (BAB) + 0 (Str) + 3 (Dex) -2 (Tiny) = 14
Is there a +1 for the Dodge feat being applied in the Couatl, Erinyes, and Imp entries (perhaps others) that is not in the Dodge feat in the Core Rulebook? I notice this unexplained +1 on creatures with the Dodge feat.
Benefit: You gain a +1 dodge bonus to your AC. A condition that makes you lose your Dex bonus to AC also makes you lose the benefits of this feat.
--------------------------
Perception +11
5 ranks + 1 (Wis) + 3 (Class Skill) + 3 (Skill Focus) = +12
Perception +21
14 ranks + 1 (Wis) + 6 (Skill Focus with 10+ ranks) + 3 (Class Skill) = +24
|
Creative Director
|
So is the official answer regular damage with the chosen attack + knock foes back + d6 damage on landing?
Or must we wait until the errata to have this answer established as an "official" answer?
That's the "Official" answer until Jason says yes or no and the errata gets updated, at least, but I'm relatively certain he'll agree with the reasoning.
I have to ask,
so many people seem confused by the CMD wording, is this being looked at for future printings/ updates?
(for Core Rules)
I believe so.
Great.
I mean PERSONALLY I feel I understand it well enough, and can explain it to people as "oh it's just Touch AC + BAB & STR and reverse Size Mod (if any)" but that itself can be confusing when the book lists a mash-up of eligible bonuses (currently without Luck, which I assume is Errata) - It's not necessarily obvious that my description is REALLY the same thing, or if I'm just advocating some house-rule.|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
P. 56, Demon general text, I think there's a missing word in the 3rd paragraph:
"With each evil mortal soul that finds its way into the Abyss, the ranks of the deominc hordes - a single soul can fuel the manifestation of dozens or even hundreds of demons..."
Right before the dash. I'm assuming the word should be grows, swells, or something similar.
That's the "Official" answer until Jason says yes or no and the errata gets updated, at least, but I'm relatively certain he'll agree with the reasoning.So is the official answer regular damage with the chosen attack + knock foes back + d6 damage on landing?
Or must we wait until the errata to have this answer established as an "official" answer?
Thanks! Great :-)
"oh it's just Touch AC + BAB & STR and reverse Size Mod (if any)"minus 10, minus racial size bonus to AC... ;)
:blink:
Err... no, not minus ten, and there's no such thing as a racial size bonus, and he mentioned reversing the natural size modifier.
Touch AC = 10 + Dex + Size
CMD = 10 + Dex + Str + BAB + (-Size)
Therefore CMD = Touch AC + Str + BAB + (-2x Size)
Therefore CMD = Touch AC + Str + BAB + (-2x Size)Nicely done... :)
Well, it's what Quandary and I finally proposed during beta after a very long thread. :P Except that the "-2x size" part was pre-calculated so you didn't have to think about it. The actual text would have been along the lines of:
CMD is a modified touch AC. Add your base attack bonus and Strength modifier, and an additional special size modifier: (...), Small -2, Medium +0, Large +2, (...)
And then CMB vanishes completely, replaced by just adding that same special size modifier to a normal attack roll when performing a maneuver. No need to explain that the internal math consists of subtracting the base size modifier and then reversing it; write down one number, you're done.
This is, of course, mathematically identical to the final system if you assume the same modifiers apply. Which I do, because I designed it that way. Technically this is a house rule, but I don't care. ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Demon, Nabasu skils has stealth +15 (+23 in shadowy conditions). Where is the circumstance +8 bonus coming from? It's not listed under racial modifiers, nor do any of the Nabasu's special abilities mention this. Should this be a racial skill bonus, or is this an artifact of a non-final version of the Nabasu?
|
|
[Page 183] I found a contradiction between the kobold's statblock and the "Kobold Characters" section.
The statblock gives the kobold's Int as 10 and its languages as "Common, Draconic."
The "Kobold Characters" section says, "Kobolds begin play speaking only Draconic. Kobolds who have high Intelligence scores can choose any of the following bonus languages: Common, Dwarven, Gnome, and Undercommon."
Naga, Spirit
p. 213
column B, 2nd new paragraph
"Most commune with vague powers of death and destruction, working profane rights and seeking grotesque auguries from cultic forces."
I'm pretty sure you wanted rites there.
Shoggoth
p. 249
column B
Engulf (Ex)
...
This ability otherwise functions as swallow whole, save that a creature that cuts is way out of a shoggoth leaves no hole in the protoplasmic creature's body.
...its way...
2) can same sorcerer take unarmed strike and make 3 attacks 1 with a kick then 2 secondary attacks with claws (realizing the -2 with primary and -5 with secondary)?Yes. See below.
Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with
weapons can use both as part of a full attack action
(although often a creature must forgo one natural
attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a
claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their
weapons normally but treat all of their natural attacks
as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the
attack’s original type.
However, since unarmed attacks are considered as the actual weapon you make the kick at -2 and the claw attacks at -5 on attack rolls.
Generally this is a boor tacktick against all but the most easy to hit enemies (for a sorcerer in particular).
Please note that the primary attack does not suffer from any penalty when mixing Natural Attacks together. It's true that the rules on the Core book say that:
"You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes. (...) In addition, all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting."
(PRD -> Combat -> Actions in Combat -> Standard Actions -> Attack -> Natural Attacks)
However, in a recent thread, James Jacobs confirmed that this is not the case.
Ah.
Part of the problem, alas, is that this is a rules mechanic that Jason was wrestling with up to the very last second.
The Bestiary rules are correct. The part in the core rules that contradicts this is a fragment, alas, that stuck in there. It should be cleaned up, I agree. It's unfortunate that the confusion is in there, but again, as far as I understand the game and as far as I've been using the rules for the last several volumes of Pathfinder, the rules from the Bestiary are the correct ones.
You can see the original thread starting here.
Ok, as you obviously figured out, my post above was misplaced (note to self: triple check the page you are writing in when multiple pages are open...).
Don't mind it, since it refers to THIS thread, of course.
Sorry, but I'm no more able to delete it.
The ancient Red Dragon has Critical Mastery, but only one actual critical feat, Stunning Critical.
Wait, is this PDF only? I was posting for the print. Shoot.
The hobgoblin attack entries don't look right. They are listed as:
Melee - Longsword +3 - Should be +4 (+1 BAB, +2 Str, +1 weapon focus longsword
Ranged - Longbow +2 - Should be +3 (+1 BAB, +2 Dex)
This is actually an erratum for the Core Rulebook, but it relates to the Bestiary.
In the table for Summon Nature's Ally, Ant (drone) is listed for SNA II, whereas Ant (soldier) is listed for SNA III, yet drones are soldiers with a more powerful template added on. Should these be reversed, or should "drone" actually be "worker"?
While we're on the subject of SNA, I'm curious as to why riding dog is SNA I while wolf and hyaena are SNA II. All three are very similar.
It looks to me like the intention was for SNA I and Summon Monster I to summon a regular dog at 1/3 CR instead of the riding dog at CR 1/2. The regular dog would put it inline with the other first level summon spells which all summon 1 HD creatures.
What I cant figure out is why the riding dog is CR 1/2 and the wolf is CR 1. The riding dog has 1 less AC, +1 to hit, +1 to damage, +1 CMB, same special ability of trip on bite, 10 less movement, same HP, and same saves. Seems like they should both be CR 1.
I agree that it looks like the SNA II should have been Ant (worker) since it loses the trip and poison and reduces the Ant (worker) to CR 1. This is inline with the other 2nd level Summon Monster II and SNA II creatures.
The riding dog has ... 10 less movement
That's why, I think.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Lizardfolk have a morningstar and a heavy wooden shield, but are listed as having a claw attack. Unless they've grown a 3rd arm, their attack should probably be listed as:
Morningstar +2, bite +0, or claw +2, bite +2. Or you'd have to provide stats for lizardfolk with and without shields.
Mephits have the dodge feat, but it's not included in their AC. It should make their AC 17, and touch 14.
Merfolk are listed as using a heavy crossbow (both under their ranged attack and treasure), but the damage is listed as 1d8 instead of 1d10.
Concerning the Barbed Devil and his impale ability: A barbed devil deals 3D8+9 points of damage on a successful Grabbed opponent with a successful grapple check. Simple enough right.
Now under grab in the universal monster rules section it states that unless otherwise noted this ability can only be used against a creature/pc who is one size category smaller than the monster.
Now here is my question. Considering the general Barbed devil is a medium sized creature this pretty much means he will not be allowed to use this ability most of the time considering the vast majority of pc's are medium sized. Was this done intentionally being the Barbed devil already has a pretty substantial amount of other special abilities or was this an oversight and hence should the Devil should be able to use this against medium sized creatures as well?
Here's one:
Rhinoceros Companion: starts out as medium Dex 14. At 7th level advances to large -4 to Dex when in every other similar companion advancement from medium to large in the book it was -2 to dex. Minor typo but thought I'd point it out.
Also, tyrannosaurus is listed as Gargantuan but shouldn't that have been Huge? ACwise it matches to Gargantuan but you advance it from the base and advanced companion rules huge would be right for the stats. Also (I know I've made this point before on here) horizontal creatures calculate size category based on head and body length (ie to the base of the tail) On that basis Tyrannosaurus is squarely size Huge (16-32 ft) 20-24ft head body with a 16-20 ft long tail. Roc is somewhat similar on the ability scores.
One other rule specific one: Dire Tiger is listed as having Improved Iron Will despite not having Iron Will and it being one more feat than it should have by the standard feat rules.
Edit By the Way this is an awesome Bestiary aside from a few little things! Keep up the good work Paizo!