| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Paizonians! Pathfinder is a big game, and there are bound to be little mistakes that aren't caught during the final product, so let's see how many we can find and how to correct them without needing to create new rules or special exceptions to the existing rules.
As both an example and a kickstart to the the thread, I'll start off.
Ogre Statblock: The standard ogre statblock has the ogre's attacks incorrectly calculated. Greatclubs are martial weapons and ogres do not have proficiency with martial weapons, and the ogre doesn't have any class levels (including NPC classes like warrior) to grant them martial weapon proficiency. Thus the ogre should actually have a +3 to hit and 2d8+7 to damage, or he should be wielding a large club at +7 for 1d8+7.
Alternatively the ogre could also be wielding a large shortspear or longspear at +7 for 2d6+7. In the latter, the ogre actually has a 20ft reach, and in the former the Ogre can throw it as a hunting tool (of course ogres can throw normal clubs as well because they have a 10ft range increment).
IIRC monsters are proficient with any weapon in their statblock.
PS: I guess you will want a rules quote on that. I will see what I can find.
Edit: 2AM and still searching. I am going to check 3.5 also to see if I can cross reference the same place in pathfinder. It may have been taken out, assuming I can even find it in 3.5.
I can't find the rule. It must have been something I read online, and assumed it was true. Good catch. I will just give him proficiency with it for my own games.
I have trouble thinking of a greatclub as a martial weapon. It's a big stick. You hit stuff with it. Yes, with more training (read:BAB) you can hit stuff with it better, and with more strength, you can hit stuff with it harder. I just don't buy that it requires specialized training.
I never thought of it as a martial weapon either. They should have made it a simple weapon or lessened the stats. I know it is on the list, but like you said it is a big stick, nothing special.
|
IIRC monsters are proficient with any weapon in their statblock.
PS: I guess you will want a rules quote on that. I will see what I can find.
Edit: 2AM and still searching. I am going to check 3.5 also to see if I can cross reference the same place in pathfinder. It may have been taken out, assuming I can even find it in 3.5.
I believe your referring to the back of the Beastiary - creature type, traits .... some (not all) mention them prof with Nat weapons and any weapon described using or any weapon mentioned in its entry.
Ogre (humanoid) is prof with all simple weap, or by character class.
Director of Game Development
|
I can't find the rule. It must have been something I read online, and assumed it was true. Good catch. I will just give him proficiency with it for my own games.
Here ya go. It's listed in each of the creature types.
I can't find the rule. It must have been something I read online, and assumed it was true. Good catch. I will just give him proficiency with it for my own games.
Just remember to burn a feat on it so it's not cheating. That means to wield a greatclub with a +7 to hit, the Ogre has to give up either 4 HP (Toughness) or +2 from its Will saves (Iron Will). Fair's fair.
I have trouble thinking of a greatclub as a martial weapon. It's a big stick. You hit stuff with it. Yes, with more training (read:BAB) you can hit stuff with it better, and with more strength, you can hit stuff with it harder. I just don't buy that it requires specialized training.
I agree. However, in core PF it's a martial weapon. Odd though that is. You could house rule it to be a simple weapon, however. I doubt any of your players would complain. I've house ruled it to being a simple weapon AND dealing 2d6/x2 damage, and it's worked pretty good thus far.
However, this is about finding glitches in the system, and figuring out how they should be without excessive house-ruling. That's why I suggested swapping the ogre's greatclub for a club (1d8+7) or just giving them a longspear (2d6+7/x3, reach) or a morning star or something (2d6+7). In the end it works. :)
I can't find the rule. It must have been something I read online, and assumed it was true. Good catch. I will just give him proficiency with it for my own games.Here ya go. It's listed in each of the creature types.
Thanks Adam. I thought it was a general rule when it is creature type specific.
Ashiel it is proficient*, and I think intent goes over rules similar to the RD blinking dog sorcerer scenario. I know that mindset does not work RAW, but.....
*
Monstrous Humanoid
Monstrous humanoids are similar to humanoids, but with monstrous or animalistic features. They often have magical abilities as well. A monstrous humanoid has the following features.
• Proficient with all simple weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry.
|
|
I can't find the rule. It must have been something I read online, and assumed it was true. Good catch. I will just give him proficiency with it for my own games.Here ya go. It's listed in each of the creature types.Thanks Adam. I thought it was a general rule when it is creature type specific.
Ashiel it is proficient*, and I think intent goes over rules similar to the RD blinking dog sorcerer scenario. I know that mindset does not work RAW, but.....
*
Monstrous Humanoid
Monstrous humanoids are similar to humanoids, but with monstrous or animalistic features. They often have magical abilities as well. A monstrous humanoid has the following features.
• Proficient with all simple weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry.
Well I did mention that above as well but you need to read each type... it does not say that under all of them. Sorry I did not provide an easy link in my prior post using my phone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wraithstrike, instead of arguing with me, why don't you read the Ogre's entry (which I linked) and then read the rules concerning it? Ogres are Large Humanoids (Giant), and are proficient in simple weapons and weapons gained from class levels. An Ogre has 4 humanoid HD, and no class levels. Ergo an Ogre is not proficient with his Greatclub, so his attack rolls are supposed to be +3, or +7 with a simple weapon.
Is there a reason you're trying to argue with me?
I can't find the rule. It must have been something I read online, and assumed it was true. Good catch. I will just give him proficiency with it for my own games.Here ya go. It's listed in each of the creature types.Thanks Adam. I thought it was a general rule when it is creature type specific.
Ashiel it is proficient*, and I think intent goes over rules similar to the RD blinking dog sorcerer scenario. I know that mindset does not work RAW, but.....
*
Monstrous Humanoid
Monstrous humanoids are similar to humanoids, but with monstrous or animalistic features. They often have magical abilities as well. A monstrous humanoid has the following features.
• Proficient with all simple weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry.
Ogres are Humanoid (giant), not monstrous humanoid. They don't get the proficient with watever weapon is mentioned in their description clause, I checked both Humanoid and (giant).
EDIT: Ninja'd|
|
Wraithstrike, instead of arguing with me, why don't you read the Ogre's entry (which I linked) and then read the rules concerning it? Ogres are Large Humanoids (Giant), and are proficient in simple weapons and weapons gained from class levels. An Ogre has 4 humanoid HD, and no class levels. Ergo an Ogre is not proficient with his Greatclub, so his attack rolls are supposed to be +3, or +7 with a simple weapon.
Is there a reason you're trying to argue with me?
You are correct.
Burning Flash is listed in the various class word lists as boostable (it is listed under higher word levels with an asterisk), yet the word's description says it's only boostable for sorcerers and wizards.
Well I did mention that above as well but you need to read each type... it does not say that under all of them. Sorry I did not provide an easy link in my prior post using my phone.I can't find the rule. It must have been something I read online, and assumed it was true. Good catch. I will just give him proficiency with it for my own games.Here ya go. It's listed in each of the creature types.Thanks Adam. I thought it was a general rule when it is creature type specific.
Ashiel it is proficient*, and I think intent goes over rules similar to the RD blinking dog sorcerer scenario. I know that mindset does not work RAW, but.....
*
Monstrous Humanoid
Monstrous humanoids are similar to humanoids, but with monstrous or animalistic features. They often have magical abilities as well. A monstrous humanoid has the following features.
• Proficient with all simple weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry.
It is cool. By the time I came back here you and Adam had posted so I just followed his link.
Wraithstrike, instead of arguing with me, why don't you read the Ogre's entry (which I linked) and then read the rules concerning it? Ogres are Large Humanoids (Giant), and are proficient in simple weapons and weapons gained from class levels. An Ogre has 4 humanoid HD, and no class levels. Ergo an Ogre is not proficient with his Greatclub, so his attack rolls are supposed to be +3, or +7 with a simple weapon.
Is there a reason you're trying to argue with me?
I was not arguing.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Going back, I realized that if the Ogre had a mistake, then so too might other giants in the book. Because of this, I decided to check out the Giants and surely enough there are some errors in most of the Giants. It appears to be due to the Giants being copy/pasted from 3.5 for the most part, and they forgot to change their equipment!
Cloud Giant: The cloud giant has no immediate errors, as they are wielding a morning star (a simple weapon).
Fire Giant: The fire giant's attack routine with his greatsword is actually +17/+12/+7 instead of +21/+16/+11.
Frost Giant: Like the fire giant, the frost giant is wielding a martial weapon. It's attack routine with its greataxe is actually +14/+9 instead of +18/+13.
Hill Giant: Like the ogre, the hill giant is wielding a greatclub. Its attack routine is actually +10/+5 instead of +14/+9.
Stone Giant: The stone giant's attack routine with his greatclub is actually +12/+7 instead of +16/+11.
Storm Giant: The storm giant's attack routine with its masterwork greatsword is actually +23/+18/+13 instead of +27/+22/+17.
In all cases, merely swapping the listed weapon for a simple weapon (such as a longspear) returns their attack routines to the listed values.
Handle Animal: The handle animal skill was errata'd to no longer allow you to train animals to accept barding without attack roll penalties, requiring animals to spend feats they probably don't have to be able to wear barding without heavy penalties (and there is no rules for training feats onto animals). However, they are still proficient with armor if trained for war due to their innate type qualities.
Currently it is still 100% legal to arm your animals with barding that you purchase for them after training them for combat. Personally, I think it's better that way, but given all the confusion over animals and such thanks to questionable FAQ answers, this is definitely a glitch in how many may perceive the game. This is further compounded by the fact the FAQ actually says that you can. So at the moment, one entry in the FAQ says yes, the creature type says yes, and one entry in the FAQ says no.
Going back, I realized that if the Ogre had a mistake, then so too might other giants in the book. Because of this, I decided to check out the Giants and surely enough there are some errors in most of the Giants. It appears to be due to the Giants being copy/pasted from 3.5 for the most part, and they forgot to change their equipment!
Cloud Giant: The cloud giant has no immediate errors, as they are wielding a morning star (a simple weapon).
Fire Giant: The fire giant's attack routine with his greatsword is actually +17/+12/+7 instead of +21/+16/+11.
Frost Giant: Like the fire giant, the frost giant is wielding a martial weapon. It's attack routine with its greataxe is actually +14/+9 instead of +18/+13.
Hill Giant: Like the ogre, the hill giant is wielding a greatclub. Its attack routine is actually +10/+5 instead of +14/+9.
Stone Giant: The stone giant's attack routine with his greatclub is actually +12/+7 instead of +16/+11.
Storm Giant: The storm giant's attack routine with its masterwork greatsword is actually +23/+18/+13 instead of +27/+22/+17.
In all cases, merely swapping the listed weapon for a simple weapon (such as a longspear) returns their attack routines to the listed values.
Handle Animal: The handle animal skill was errata'd to no longer allow you to train animals to accept barding without attack roll penalties, requiring animals to spend feats they probably don't have to be able to wear barding without heavy penalties (and there is no rules for training feats onto animals). However, they are still proficient with armor if trained for war due to their innate type qualities.
Currently it is still 100% legal to arm your animals with barding that you purchase for them after training them for combat. Personally, I think it's better that way, but given all the confusion over animals and such thanks to questionable FAQ answers, this is definitely a glitch in how many may perceive the game. This is further compounded by the fact...
I know one of the erratas fixed a lot of stuff. I did not know this much was leftover. I feel like I have to go back and redo all the monster stats myself now. [frustrated but grateful]
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Finally stopped being lazy:
I see what the issue is. The basically copied the 3.5 stat block over, but did not notice the giant was proficient with simple and martial weapons. Now they have to go back and give the giant those proficiencies back or change the weapons out.
FAQ time I guess.
Proficient with all simple and martial weapons, as well as any natural weapons.
I know one of the erratas fixed a lot of stuff. I did not know this much was leftover. I feel like I have to go back and redo all the monster stats myself now. [frustrated but grateful]
Hey no problem. I have a mind for the mechanics so I find this sort of thing kind of fun, like a puzzle. It's also great for spotting inconsistencies and working towards being better GMs. ^.^
Also, don't fret. The giants are amazingly easy to fix without messing them up. Merely replace their weapons with a simple weapon. I would suggest a longspear because it is a great weapon and will not only not hinder their combat efficiency but will make their size even more noticeable, which will make them more memorable as opponents.
For all the large and huge giants (fire, frost, hill, stone, and storm), replace their weapon with a longspear. Damage drops by 1d6 (4d6 to 3d6 to 2d6 as appropriate) but modifiers are unchanged, and they now have reach (20ft for large giants, 30ft for huge giants).
As for Handle Animal. Well the FAQ can be wrong. This is a good lesson in that for those who weren't around when the 3.x FAQ was also wrong about things. As it is, the FAQ contradicts itself, and also goes against what is actually written in the actual rules. Unless the game is errata'd (which doesn't matter to me because I don't keep up with official errata and FAQ rulings because I don't play PFS) it's absolutely 100% legal to train your animal to wear barding (which is kind of the whole point).
I never really noticed the barding thing I will go check it out. [Why do I think I am about to see a train wreck?]
I never really noticed the barding thing I will go check it out. [Why do I think I am about to see a train wreck?]
Probably because we subconsciously know that it's going to be. Lately faith has been shaken in a lot of us with some of the new supplements that have been coming out, poor wording on feats and abilities, bad ripple effects (hey did you know that your sorcerer can now pop a potion and get an insight bonus on all their saving throws equal to their Charisma bonus for 40 rounds?. Heck, as written it even stacks with Divine Grace, since you gain your Charisma bonus as a sacred bonus, meaning Paladins can cast the spell on themselves and double-stack saves. :P).
Furthermore the devs seem to be apt to change or declare stuff that often times isn't even part of the rules, and often end up conflicting with other devs. I tend to respect the RAW, and if I want a FAQ, I want it to respect the RAW as well - not make up something entirely bonkers and unsupported in the least (I'm looking at you Vital Strike).
As for the train wreck, yeah it could possibly be worse. Long story short someone was apparently upset that you could use Handle Animal to give your animal companion armor proficiencies because apparently someone said Cavaliers and Druids had to spend their AC feats on armor proficiencies to use Barding, which is pretty bogus). So Jason comes along and says that the Handle Animal skill can't be used for that and they have to burn feats to wear barding without penalty, and noted he didn't care that it means you cannot legally have a horse trained to use heavy barding without it being a class feature (because they don't have 3 feats) - and he just noted that your GM could let you use Handle Animal to trade out their feats (something Handle Animal actually DIDN'T say you can do). FAQ'd.
Meanwhile, James Jacobs said that trained for Combat (see Handle Animal) is "war trained" and that not only does it give armor proficiencies but it makes horses hooves into primary natural attacks. Also FAQ'd.
Meanwhile, James is apparently correct at the moment, because Handle Animal still gives armor proficiencies according to the Animal Type, which means that players and GMs get to enjoy having sensible rules until it gets nerfed and/or errata'd.
I never really noticed the barding thing I will go check it out. [Why do I think I am about to see a train wreck?]Probably because we subconsciously know that it's going to be. Lately faith has been shaken in a lot of us with some of the new supplements that have been coming out, poor wording on feats and abilities, bad ripple effects (hey did you know that your sorcerer can now pop a potion and get an insight bonus on all their saving throws equal to their Charisma bonus for 40 rounds?. Heck, as written it even stacks with Divine Grace, since you gain your Charisma bonus as a sacred bonus, meaning Paladins can cast the spell on themselves and double-stack saves. :P).
bMeanwhile, James Jacobs said that trained for Combat (see Handle Animal) is "war trained" and that not only does it give armor proficiencies but it makes horses hooves into primary...
What spell is that? I did the research on the barding thing last night. I am still trying to decide what to do about that. I will probably just let it go as a bonus feat, but say the animal was raised that way from birth. I just need an appropriate price to put on such an animal.
What spell is that?
The spell is bestow grace from the Advanced Player's Guide. It can be cast on any good creature as a touch spell. The spell then provides a sacred bonus to the target's saving throws equal to their Charisma modifier. Currently, the Paladin him/herself can legitimately cast it on themselves, and being a 2nd level spell at CL 4th, it is an amazing option for a potion (400 gp) or continual use magic item (32,000 gp).
Now bestow grace of the champion isn't quite as bad in terms of abuse, but it does bug me that with the casting of a single spell a cleric basically gets to be a multiclassed Paladin for the next 13 rounds, complete with smite, divine grace, immunities, etc. In my opinion, this is worse than transformation (Tenser's that is) because Transformation makes you generically combat effective; this makes you into a Paladin. Woo, your class stolen by a single spell.
Another fun fact is both spells stack. If you drink a potion of bestow grace and then later cast bestow grace of the champion on yourself, you basically apply your Charisma modifier to your saves twice (once as an untyped bonus, once as a sacred bonus). So your cleric now has a bonus to all saves equal to ChaMod*2 for the next 13-21 rounds (21 because of stuff like ioun stones).
=============
I did the research on the barding thing last night. I am still trying to decide what to do about that. I will probably just let it go as a bonus feat, but say the animal was raised that way from birth. I just need an appropriate price to put on such an animal.
Personally, I'd recommend giving them the armor proficiencies when they're trained for combat. It didn't mess up 3.x, and it won't mess up Pathfinder. As for the price of trained animals, I recommend 200 gp times the CR squared. Thus a wolf (CR 1) would cost 200 gp, and a rhinoceros (CR 4) would cost 3,200 gp. For fractional CR animals, divide it by the CR twice (a raven at CR 1/6 would be 200 divided by 6 then divided by 6 again, for about 5.5 gp).
If the animal is untrained and requires its own training, cut the costs in half (100 gp for the wolf, 1600 gp for the rhino, 2.25 gp for the raven, etc). Of course, this means the PCs will need to spend time training them themselves. This can also be a decent method of allowing the party treasure during encounters with wild animals. If they can bring the animal back alive, they could sell it to be trained.
Also note that this is for animals. Magical beasts or other types of pets would probably cost much more (play around with the 200 gp "dial" until you're comfortable with the price, but I recommend perhaps 500 gp for exceptionally exotic stuff like magical beasts).
I've found this to be an excellent method of determining the cost and value of mounts for players on the fly. Also, while some of the costs may appear to be rather cheap for some of the high CR animals (a CR 7 elephant is just under 10k) magic items can be more appealing to the savvy player. A +2 sword is more useful than an elephant that can't fit in a building or dungeon, and the elephant can be killed (suffering 97 damage over the course of an adventure is easy by the time you could comfortably afford such an animal), and you have to direct your pet as a move action with Handle Animal or Ride, requiring further investments. Finally, remember that in Pathfinder animals will not attack unnatural creatures like Undead and Constructs unless specifically trained to do so (counting as an additional trick, see Handle Animal).
good stuff
Thanks.
good stuffThanks.
Anytime buddy. ^-^
Fire Giant, Frost Giant, Hill Giant, and Stone Giant have the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat for their weapon while the special ability Militant gives the Storm Giant proficiency with all martial weapons.
Fire Giant, Frost Giant, Hill Giant, and Stone Giant have the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat for their weapon while the special ability Militant gives the Storm Giant proficiency with all martial weapons.
Oh snap, they sure do. I missed that (got ahead of myself I guess). Looks like they had their bases properly covered with the giants, but it's just the Ogre that has the issue then. Excellent. Now I wish Paizo's boards allowed editing after 1 hour, so I could go remove the giants from the thread.
Fire Giant, Frost Giant, Hill Giant, and Stone Giant have the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat for their weapon while the special ability Militant gives the Storm Giant proficiency with all martial weapons.Oh snap, they sure do. I missed that (got ahead of myself I guess). Looks like they had their bases properly covered with the giants, but it's just the Ogre that has the issue then. Excellent. Now I wish Paizo's boards allowed editing after 1 hour, so I could go remove the giants from the thread.
I wonder why they nerfed the Ogre. One more HD just to get that feat in there would not have been too bad. At most it would have made it a CR 4.
I think the instant paladin spell aka "Bestow Grace of the Champion" is about to be removed from my game. I can just see a cleric or Oracle getting their hands on this one.
I think the instant paladin spell aka "Bestow Grace of the Champion" is about to be removed from my game. I can just see a cleric or Oracle getting their hands on this one.
Five bucks says Sean K. Reynolds was behind it. He argued during the gunslinger thread that his cleric should be able to fight like Fighters and Paladins and such too. My response was something along the lines of "Can we expect to see Fighter feats that allow us to raise the dead, summon celestial hordes, and perhaps shoot fireballs from our eyes in Ultimate Combat?", or something like that.
Of course, Mr. Reynolds thought that was a stupid and loaded question, and was somehow very unfair. :P
EDIT:
I wonder why they nerfed the Ogre. One more HD just to get that feat in there would not have been too bad. At most it would have made it a CR 4.
Hey, +1 level of Warrior adds martial proficiency, +5.5 Hp (before Con), +1 BAB, +2 Fort, and +2 skill points (before Int), and doesn't even increase it's CR by 1.
How is this thread different than all the "Errata" threads floating around?