|
No fair being done with you barb, I am still item hunting for the monk...of course I only half-assed a bit last night then stopped in disgust when the cool items were all neck slots...
EDIT: Also I am sure I link you to the RoTRL Experiment I I tried to run before. No spoilers unless you dig into the gameplay I dodn't thing. This would be what I think is the best test short of actually playing it out at a table.
Wouldn't need to be RoTRL if you haven't played it, but that seemed to be the one most played.
All parties could pick a class and we just go encounter by encounter in front of a panel of judges.
I can't think of any animal forms that allow druids to get more than 3 attacks per round (most cap out at 2 claws + 1 bite and maybe a rake under a special condition).Octopus leaps to my mind.
-James
The giant squid or also, and it is huge, but water adventures are not normal, and using it would be corner case.
The dinosaur with 4 attacks does also but beast shape 1 gives a lower bonus to strength.
No fair being done with you barb, I am still item hunting for the monk...of course I only half-assed a bit last night then stopped in disgust when the cool items were all neck slots...
EDIT: Also I am sure I link you to the RoTRL Experiment I I tried to run before. No spoilers unless you dig into the gameplay I dodn't thing. This would be what I think is the best test short of actually playing it out at a table.
Wouldn't need to be RoTRL if you haven't played it, but that seemed to be the one most played.
All parties could pick a class and we just go encounter by encounter in front of a panel of judges.
I still have not figured out what to buy with my gp other than a bow, and some potions of fly.
After the bow I have about 10000 gp left.
We can use RoTRL.
That can work. We can just use the book that does things at around level 13, whichever one that is.
I can't think of any animal forms that allow druids to get more than 3 attacks per round (most cap out at 2 claws + 1 bite and maybe a rake under a special condition).Octopus leaps to my mind.
-James
The giant squid or also, and it is huge, but water adventures are not normal, and using it would be corner case.
The dinosaur with 4 attacks does also but beast shape 1 gives a lower bonus to strength.
Ah yes, the giant squid has 4 attacks (but less attacks than a charging tiger), but I'm actually surprised by the octopus compared to the squid. The octopus has 9 attacks (1 bite at close range, 8 tentacles at extended reach). Admittedly, the natural attack damage of an octopus seems to be lower than the norm and tentacles are considered secondary attacks (getting only 1/2 Strength); but it has me curious.
Using the same enemy as before, same Strength (36), and same amulet, our DPS if the pit fiend was being fought by Beast Boy the Octopus would be...
+23/+23/+23/+23/+23/+23/+23/+23/+23/+23/+23/+23/+23/+23/+23/+23 tentacles at 1d6+8 each; resulting in a 10% chance to hit each time for 11.5 damage each hit. Resulting in 18.4 damage vs no DR, and 0 damage vs DR. If we instead added the bane property, giving us a +1 demom bane speed amulet, then we'd get 44.4 damage without DR, and 16.8 with DR. That DR is a problem for natural attackers. :P
If we just used a +5 amulet and haste, we get 9 25% chances to hit at 1d6+11 each, and we penetrate DR, resulting in a DPR of 32.625 damage (more than usual, even higher than if you have 16 attacks with a bane against the enemy, but still not matching the warrior with a 2 handed sword). EDIT: The sad bit is that the warrior is also using no feats or class abilities. Just his BAB + Strength + cheapest weapon listed thus far.
I think the thing that really hurts the druid in this case is that tentacles are secondary attacks and thus get a -5 to hit and deal 1/2 strength damage with every hit. I would say that disruption on your tentacles might make you really good at clobbering low AC undead quickly. Trying to powergame this, but I'm not sure how to get it better.
I don't know if it's been mentioned in this thread yet, but the standard Monk can't use Flurry of Blows in combination with natural attacks.
I think the thing that really hurts the druid in this case is that tentacles are secondary attacks and thus get a -5 to hit and deal 1/2 strength damage with every hit. I would say that disruption on your tentacles might make you really good at clobbering low AC undead quickly. Trying to powergame this, but I'm not sure how to get it better.Ashiel, you can do better. It really feels like a strawman here.
First of all, bypass the DR. It's not hard to do so, and something certainly that such a character would look to do.
Second, compare apples to apples. If you can't handle druid builds, go with something else.
Third, do me a favor and come up with 4 builds where this becomes insane or nearly so. I'm certain that you could do so were you inclined. Consider it a challenge.
Finally, on the specific quote above.. take multiattack perhaps? That reduces it down to -2.
-James
Hm, I forgot about multi-attack. Can you take multi-attack as a druid? I thought the prerequisite for multi-attack was having natural attacks (or is it just a means to acquire a natural attack?).
As for bypassing the DR, I'm not sure how you expect to do that exactly. The amulet can bypass the DR with a +3 enhancement and an oil, or a +5 enhancement with no-oil, but not with speed active. The druid in the example is already assumed to have a 30 strength, which assumes 17 + 5 (inherent) + 6 (enhancement) + 2 (level), and a +6 size modifier from Beast Shape III (giving you a 36 strength). If we just wanted to pump more attacks, taking Improved Unarmed Strike would be amusing (but not very effective). There's no spells in Pathfinder (that I know of) that do things like add tons of acid damage to your natural attacks (there was something like that in 3.5 though, which was why fleshrakers were kind of the powergame pet for druids in 3.5), and most of the better buffs that they are legal targets for are defensive in nature (barkskin, stoneskin, etc). Most of their buffs are good for animals (which they aren't actually legal targets for, even wild shaped, I don't believe, unless the ability to awaken yourself is still viable, but I was pretty sure it's not).
I think a Bard could go a long way to making it look sexy (+5 to hit and damage on all attacks would increase the octopus druid's hit chances by +25% and increase damage per hit by about 50% as well). However, unless we can bypass the DR, which is not easy to do in core (because I know of no ways that a druid can make their natural attacks cold-iron, but someone may surprise me), I doubt it will ever be very interesting, and even class-based DR (barbarian DR, fighter DR, or righteous might) is either enough to really tone the damage output down or problematic to bypass without a cleric or liberal use of oils.
Assuming there is a way to qualify for multiattack as a druid (perhaps being a lizardfolk druid?), is there any way to get full strength damage on secondary attacks? I don't know of a way, and as secondary attacks power attack would only make the druid's damage sink much, much lower (-1 hit for +1 damage? Ew, no.).
I could try with the minotaur build that ends with maxed wild shape and a +20 BAB. So that would at least make it seem like there was no -5 penalty (because the -5 would be offset by the +5 BAB), but I'm not sure anyone would be particularly impressed. Hmm...
I've got my thinking cap on though.
Well it's not core persay but wasn't eldritch claws or something in one of the 4 primary books and doesn't it do that?
Hm, Eldritch Claws is an interesting feat. It seems to be from the Advanced Player's guide, but wouldn't do us much good. It requires natural attacks to take the feat, and the feat makes your natural attacks count as magic and silver. Silver seems oddly specific, and definitely wouldn't help us in this example because the enemy has DR/cold iron and good. :\
Might save you a little money on a +1 enhancement though. The problem is it requires a natural weapon to select the feat. Druids do not have natural weapons by default, but gain natural weapons by using a spell (in this case a supernatural ability that mimics a spell that grants a natural attack while in that form). Reading the rules for prerequisites in the core rulebook, druids cannot take feats that require natural attacks unless they already have natural attacks. A sorcerer who has claws due to their bloodline could take this feat and improved natural attack, but a druid can take neither.
EDIT:
Some feats have prerequisites. Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat. A character can gain a feat at the same level at which he gains the prerequisite.
A character can't use a feat if he loses a prerequisite, but he does not lose the feat itself. If, at a later time, he regains the lost prerequisite, he immediately regains full use of the feat that prerequisite enables.
If the druid lacks the prerequisite, then the druid cannot even select the feat and make use of it when he does qualify for it. He simply can't take the feat at all.
Ah this is true sadly I can't say I have another option off of the top of my head that would accomplish that.
If the druid lacks the prerequisite, then the druid cannot even select the feat and make use of it when he does qualify for it. He simply can't take the feat at all.
Pretty much my issue too. I don't see a practical method for bypassing DR other that DR/magic, and unlike in 3.5, the druid spells that are kinda borked aren't buffs for improving your DPR; especially not in wild shape form. Against the enemies at this level range, even some of the dirtier tricks like dazing flame blade are completely useless (the pit fiend is immune to fire, which means the daze effect will never activate); and even trying that method to defeat the pit fiend in melee, a lot of people would be somewhat upset at the idea of a giant octopus wielding a blade of fire in one of its tentacles. :P
I could use certain metamagic feats or rods to change the energy damage of the blade to electricity to bypass the immunities, target his touch AC, and force saves vs dazing with each hit, but then I'd have to deal with his SR, regeneration, and I wouldn't really be making use of my natural attacks anymore either, so that's kind of a wash (and it's unlikely to have those things if I'm not building a blasting druid).
Now, against a low-AC enemy with no damage reduction, and no miss % (such as cloaks of displacement, blur, or displacement) the druid could really shine. Death of a thousand cuts would be the name of the game. In this scenario, the druid might even look overpowered if they could land every hit with no reductions. However, such things would also make full-power attacking with weapons look even sexier I think. Plus it doesn't hold from the NPC to PC side of things either, since a medium armor frontliner can have 38 AC easily in core with no shield (only armor, dex, natural, deflection), and upwards to 50+ with a shield, with a slight bump if you have access to supplemental material (celestial plate, armor kilts, etc).
Even against the above medium armor (let's say ranger) wielding a 2 hander, the druid would have still only have a 30% chance to hit him with each attack. That gives a DPR of about 55.2. Unfortunately, turning into a giant octopus means that your land speed drops to 20 ft. and unlike a tiger form with pounce + rake, you'll have a harder time getting your full-attack on to begin with (and 1 tentacle/round is depressing). I'm really having a hard time breaking this, even with speed applied to every natural attack the octopus druid can make.
definitely wouldn't help us in this example because the enemy has DR/cold iron and good. :\
Actually the enemy has DR/Silver and good...
-James
Which was already determined to be a non-issue 'cause I can't take the feat unless I'm a weird race or multiclassed. EDIT: There's also no way I know of to cast align weapon or bless weapon on natural attacks. Perhaps if I was using a holy speed amulet of mighty fists, but at that point I'm kind of stacking the deck against this one specific enemy (which if I was building a PC, I tend to build PCs assuming that they can run into anything, and AoMFs are too expensive to put randomly situational enhancements on IMHO). But then I'd still have to qualify for the feat, which I do not without cross-classing sorcerer or getting a high Charisma for eldritch heritage, which would definitely weaken both my martial potential (15 pb is standard), and would only solve my issue with silver (which is completely useless against demons, or DR/-). I'm not sure expending so many feats or resources just to bypass the DR of lyacanthropes, some devils, and some undead is particularly worthwhile. EDIT: In fact, I'd probably rather take Toughness and saving throw boosters to be a sufficient tank. The Toughness to offset my lower HD type, and the save boosters 'cause being a lawn ornament is not being a good tank. :P
|
A sorcerer who has claws due to their bloodline could take this feat and improved natural attack, but a druid can take neither.
If the druid lacks the prerequisite, then the druid cannot even select the feat and make use of it when he does qualify for it. He simply can't take the feat at all.
You could also take dip barbarian for a bite attack. But yes, you'd need to get a natural attack to get the feat.
I can't think of any animal forms that allow druids to get more than 3 attacks per round (most cap out at 2 claws + 1 bite and maybe a rake under a special condition).Octopus leaps to my mind.
-James
The giant squid or also, and it is huge, but water adventures are not normal, and using it would be corner case.
The dinosaur with 4 attacks does also but beast shape 1 gives a lower bonus to strength.
Ah yes, the giant squid has 4 attacks (but less attacks than a charging tiger), but I'm actually surprised by the octopus compared to the squid. The octopus has 9 attacks (1 bite at close range, 8 tentacles at extended reach). Admittedly, the natural attack damage of an octopus seems to be lower than the norm and tentacles are considered secondary attacks (getting only 1/2 Strength); but it has me curious.
Using the same enemy as before, same Strength (36), and same amulet, our DPS if the pit fiend was being fought by Beast Boy the Octopus would be...
+23/+23/+23/+23/+23/+23/+23/+23/+23/+23/+23/+23/+23/+23/+23/+23 tentacles at 1d6+8 each; resulting in a 10% chance to hit each time for 11.5 damage each hit. Resulting in 18.4 damage vs no DR, and 0 damage vs DR. If we instead added the bane property, giving us a +1 demom bane speed amulet, then we'd get 44.4 damage without DR, and 16.8 with DR. That DR is a problem for natural attackers. :P
If we just used a +5 amulet and haste, we get 9 25% chances to hit at 1d6+11 each, and we penetrate DR, resulting in a DPR of 32.625 damage (more than usual, even higher than if you have 16 attacks with a bane against the enemy, but still not matching the warrior with a 2 handed sword). EDIT: The sad bit is that the warrior is also using no feats or class abilities. Just his BAB + Strength + cheapest weapon listed thus far.
I think the thing that really hurts the druid in this case is that tentacles are secondary attacks and thus get a -5 to...
That +22 I had was at level 13. I am sure that in 7 more level the druid can find more than +1. Even without GMF it was a + 19. I am also sure that more than +4 to hit can be found. The smiting ability I used before bypasses all DR. Yeah it is only 1/day, but I am too lazy to post a level 20 build that will only do sub par damage, but doing more than 0 is not hard.
|
|
Pretty much my issue too. I don't see a practical method for bypassing DR other that DR/magic,
Paladin friend with Aura of Justice.
Ashiel, if I get it right (I admit I have only skimmed some of your posts) you are arguing that allowing a speed effect to give an extra attack for each appendage used would not be game breaking.
Let’s see where Reductio ad absurdum get us:
20th level monk. He has 8 attacks.
Left and right: hand, elbow, knee, foot = 8 “appendages”. He get 8 extra attacks at his maximum attack bonus?
Let’s say we disregard iterative attacks even if they are made with different appendages.
Druid in tiger form: there is no rule that say that a grapple should be maintained from round to round. Releasing a grapple is a free action if you are the initiator, not maintaining it is no action at all.
So: round 1 Pounce, 2 claws, 1 bite, 2 rakes x2 thanks tot eh speed effect. 10 attacks.
Round 2: 2 claws, 1 bite, try your grapple with all 3, if you succeed you get 2 rakes. Release grapple: Speed part of the round 2 claws, 1 bite, 3 grapple attempts, if one is successful you get 2 rakes.
With an even more liberal interpretation you can make up to six grapple attempts, one at a time, with your claws and bite, when one of them is successful you make your 4 rakes, then release the grappling appendage and make the leftover attacks with it. Almost guaranteed that you will get 10 attacks.
13th level ranger
BAB +13
str +6 assumed to have double slice.
twf, double slice, itwf, Two weapon rend,
kukri +3 keen vs +1 speed(alternate version)
numbers will be ran against AC 28 with no DR involved and vs DR 10
Then numbers will be ran with the favored enemy number on.
+3 keen kukri, no favored enemy
20/15/10 1d4+9 15-20/x2
20/15 1d4+9 15-20/x2
DPR: 43.16
DPR with DR 14.79
favored enemy
+3 keen kukri, favored enemy
26/21/11 1d4+15 15-20/x2
26/21 1d4+15 15-20/x2
DPR: 99.57
DPR with DR 10: 50.82
------------------------------------------------------
+1 speed(alternate) kukri, no favored enemy
18/18/13/8 1d4+9 15-20/x2
18/13/8 1d4+9 15-20/x2
Each additional attack is worth 6.69 DPR
DPR: 41.99
DPR with DR 10: 7 DPR.
favored enemy with alternate speed.
24/24/19/14 1d4+15 15-20/x2
24/19/14 1d4+15 15-20/x2
DPR: Each addition attack is worth 19.14 so the DPR is 117.16
vs DR 10--> about 50.23 DPR.
The creature I used was the Glabrezu. The cleric would have to cast align weapon.
I just realised that carrying an oil of align weapon might be needed so the cleric only has to cast it once.
A TWF'ing paladin would own things though.
With all this aside TWF needs some help.
A 13th level rogue with the same feats pulls in at 51 DPR with a flank and trying to bypass DR
The rogue is at about 77 with no DPR, assuming +18 dex, and 22 strength
Those sneak attack dice help it bypass DR.
With no speed(alternate weapon), and +3 keen kukris the rogue comes in at 58.89.
If DR comes into play with +3 keen kukris then the DPR is 40.60
Final result:If you can bypass DR double speed is very good when your special abilities are one. If not then it is not so good.
I guess I may as well try a fighter. Assuming all weapon spec and weapon focus feats are in play, and the fighter took improved crit his speed(alternate) DPR is 53.8 DPR
With DR it drops to about 19.
If the fighter has the feat that reduces DR by 5 then DPR is 36.
A fighter with +4 kukris comes in at 51.
With DR it is 23.2
DPR while ignoring 5 DR 36.86.
It seems that the -3 to attack carries more weight than I thought it did, and unless you have a something like sneak attack, or another special ability that makes you do more damage it is basically a wash. If you have a party beleives in buffs then the alternate speed should take over the +3, but if not then you might be behind before any special abilities kick in.
PS2: I may have gotten the rogue's stats wrong.
It was assumed to have TWF, ITWF, Double Slice, with a strength of 22, and to be flanking(another +2 to hit).
Pretty much my issue too. I don't see a practical method for bypassing DR other that DR/magic,Paladin friend with Aura of Justice.
Ashiel, if I get it right (I admit I have only skimmed some of your posts) you are arguing that allowing a speed effect to give an extra attack for each appendage used would not be game breaking.
Let’s see where Reductio ad absurdum get us:
20th level monk. He has 8 attacks.
Left and right: hand, elbow, knee, foot = 8 “appendages”. He get 8 extra attacks at his maximum attack bonus?Let’s say we disregard iterative attacks even if they are made with different appendages.
Druid in tiger form: there is no rule that say that a grapple should be maintained from round to round. Releasing a grapple is a free action if you are the initiator, not maintaining it is no action at all.
So: round 1 Pounce, 2 claws, 1 bite, 2 rakes x2 thanks tot eh speed effect. 10 attacks.
Round 2: 2 claws, 1 bite, try your grapple with all 3, if you succeed you get 2 rakes. Release grapple: Speed part of the round 2 claws, 1 bite, 3 grapple attempts, if one is successful you get 2 rakes.
With an even more liberal interpretation you can make up to six grapple attempts, one at a time, with your claws and bite, when one of them is successful you make your 4 rakes, then release the grappling appendage and make the leftover attacks with it. Almost guaranteed that you will get 10 attacks.
It seems that as soon as DR is able to be pass those extra attacks become really powerful. My smiting druid's DPR had a big increase once DR could be ignored. The issue is that right now bypassing DR is not so easy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the thing that really hurts the druid in this case is that tentacles are secondary attacks and thus get a -5 to hit and deal 1/2 strength damage with every hit. I would say that disruption on your tentacles might make you really good at clobbering low AC undead quickly. Trying to powergame this, but I'm not sure how to get it better.Ashiel, you can do better. It really feels like a strawman here.
First of all, bypass the DR. It's not hard to do so, and something certainly that such a character would look to do.
Second, compare apples to apples. If you can't handle druid builds, go with something else.
Third, do me a favor and come up with 4 builds where this becomes insane or nearly so. I'm certain that you could do so were you inclined. Consider it a challenge.
Finally, on the specific quote above.. take multiattack perhaps? That reduces it down to -2.
-James
I will have to agree with this, if this is Ashiel trying I am a bit disappointed...
So we are still arguing about what the Devs have already rules on eh?
And we wonder why they don't rush to give us FAQ answers...
I don't they mind being questioned. The manner in which some posters do the questioning seems to be the issue. People just need to learn how to disagree civilly. Telling SKR he is a (insert bad words) is not the right answer.
So we are still arguing about what the Devs have already rules on eh?
And we wonder why they don't rush to give us FAQ answers...
We're discussing mechanical theory, not arguing. Calm down dude.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't they mind being questioned. The manner in which some posters do the questioning seems to be the issue. People just need to learn how to disagree civilly. Telling SKR he is a (insert bad words) is not the right answer.So we are still arguing about what the Devs have already rules on eh?
And we wonder why they don't rush to give us FAQ answers...
At the same time, what is the point of making a ruling if people are basically going come into the thread where the question is asked and say the ruling was wrong because they don't think it is gamebreaking problem (usually people who never seem to think anything is a gamebreaking problem and walk around with straw laden camels...)
If in the rules discussion, once a rule is officially clarified, that should be the end of the discussion in the rules forum. After that, move it to house rules where it belongs.
If I were a Dev, I wouldn't even want to wade into these things if posters were just going to keep arguing about whatever I said after I left, regardless.
I want the Devs to wade in.
They are here much, much less now.
I am not saying people here are being Professor Cirno or Shallowsoul, but yegardless of how polite, when you come here (the rules forum) to ask a question, and either the Devs rule in the thread or you are pointed to a ruling, that should be it.
Anything else you have to say, move it to the house rules forum where it belongs, because you are clearly outside of the rules at that point.
We really need a theory craft board to get this stuff out of the rules discussion.We're discussing mechanical theory, not arguing. Calm down dude.So we are still arguing about what the Devs have already rules on eh?
And we wonder why they don't rush to give us FAQ answers...
We(not me specifically) asked for one a little after the CRB was finalized, but the idea was denied. I guess having anything like the theoretical optimisation boards was deemed a bad idea. I do remember a few posters being vocal about not having a similar thing here.
|
|
We(not me specifically) asked for one a little after the CRB was finalized, but the idea was denied. I guess having anything like the theoretical optimisation boards was deemed a bad idea. I do remember a few posters being vocal about not having a similar thing here.We really need a theory craft board to get this stuff out of the rules discussion.We're discussing mechanical theory, not arguing. Calm down dude.So we are still arguing about what the Devs have already rules on eh?
And we wonder why they don't rush to give us FAQ answers...
The problem being we now functionally have it in all threads rather than in a controlled environment where we can say "Go here and be among your own kind, far away from the rest of us..."
You can't have a decent discussion about actual rules without all the wanna be developers derailing it with "But it should be X".
I don't they mind being questioned. The manner in which some posters do the questioning seems to be the issue. People just need to learn how to disagree civilly. Telling SKR he is a (insert bad words) is not the right answer.So we are still arguing about what the Devs have already rules on eh?
And we wonder why they don't rush to give us FAQ answers...
At the same time, what is the point of making a ruling if people are basically going come into the thread where the question is asked and say the ruling was wrong because they don't think it is gamebreaking problem (usually people who never seem to think anything is a gamebreaking problem and walk around with straw laden camels...)
If in the rules discussion, once a rule is officially clarified, that should be the end of the discussion in the rules forum. After that, move it to house rules where it belongs.
If I were a Dev, I wouldn't even want to wade into these things if posters were just going to keep arguing about whatever I said after I left, regardless.
I want the Devs to wade in.
They are here much, much less now.
I am not saying people here are being Professor Cirno or Shallowsoul, but yegardless of how polite, when you come here (the rules forum) to ask a question, and either the Devs rule in the thread or you are pointed to a ruling, that should be it.
Anything else you have to say, move it to the house rules forum where it belongs, because you are clearly outside of the rules at that point.
I agree that once the devs says X is how a rule works saying "nope that is not what you meant" makes no sense. If I write a book, and I have a typo, and I explain the typo then I am pretty sure I knew what the intent was.
On the other side some people just like to know why something works a certain way, that it is a valid question.
For me personally it depends on the specific question and the intent behind it. The ruling on magic missile and cleave vs mirror image is an example of people telling the devs they were incorrect, even though PF mirror image and 3.5 mirror image don't read the same. They were to fixated on the fluff of cleave.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a lot of the asking why is actually sour grapes that they were ruled against.
I have disagreed with Dev rulings before, I will disagree with them in the future. It is still the official ruling and it ends any "rules" debate.
If you want to debate merits or alternatives, it should be in the house rules forum.
This needs to become a space Devs can pop in and make a ruling without people throwing a fit. If that means creating a "throw a fit" forum for wanna be devs who no one wants to actually pay money to hear from, so be it.
Devs don't visit the house forums that much if at all though. By question the devs I don't mean having constant back and forth(trying to argue as if you will change their mind), I was referring to why does X work that way, but not Y. Sometimes this gains good insight and/or allows them to see something that may have been missed.
In short: Asking why is ok. Questioning their ability to do their job despite their body of work just makes no sense though. People often forget that the rules are made to be universally enjoyable, and not just for their group's playstyle. Yeah I am still bitter that I lost the FAQ's.
General discussion is a better "why" area since you can discuss the merits of the game there.
PS:If they just started banning people.... :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think they have banned a few people, and some others were shamed away in disgrace, but sock puppets persist.
Asking why is ok, demanding why is not ok. And then you have the spiral of debating if the why given is valid (see the +1 ability modifier thread) and then no responses at all.
We all pay money to read the devs opinion on the rules when we buy the book. I would like more of them, not less.
A little bit of deference would go a long way toward getting more rulings in my opinion. If I were a Dev, in the current climate of the board I wouldn't post a thing. And most of them don't anymore. Sean is the only one who really dips his toe in, and when he does it generally gets bitten because unfortunately a very vocal minority think they are better devs than the devs.
The fact that they can't get people to buy products they put out speaks to the contrary.
All I want is a rules forum that is about the rules, and not about people trying to be developers. This was a specific question, it was answered by the Devs in the FAQ, and it should have ended there or moved to house rules at that point.
Pretty much my issue too. I don't see a practical method for bypassing DR other that DR/magic,Paladin friend with Aura of Justice.
Ashiel, if I get it right (I admit I have only skimmed some of your posts) you are arguing that allowing a speed effect to give an extra attack for each appendage used would not be game breaking.
In core, I really don't find it to be game breaking at all. Never have really. I hadn't thought about Aura of Justice from a Paladin, but I must admit that it doesn't shake me much, since Aura of Justice is so amazingly powerful that it wouldn't matter if the druid was making more attacks at all, because the smite target is most assuredly going to die (I'd actually fear Aura of Justice + bows more than Aura of Justice + Slow Moving Giant Octopi full-attack). Just tossing that out there.
Let’s see where Reductio ad absurdum get us:
20th level monk. He has 8 attacks.
Left and right: hand, elbow, knee, foot = 8 “appendages”. He get 8 extra attacks at his maximum attack bonus?
Actually, they're at his highest BAB-5 because they are secondary natural weapons, so he's effectively making a ton of attacks at a wizard's best attack bonus.
Let’s say we disregard iterative attacks even if they are made with different appendages.
The only way I can see that he's going to get any iterative attacks would be if he's also a kung-fu druid and is making unarmed strikes, which isn't actually a bad idea, but we'll need to be closer to the opponent (Octopi have 2 reaches, a long one for tentacles and a short one for others).
Druid in tiger form: there is no rule that say that a grapple should be maintained from round to round. Releasing a grapple is a free action if you are the initiator, not maintaining it is no action at all.
So: round 1 Pounce, 2 claws, 1 bite, 2 rakes x2 thanks tot eh speed effect. 10 attacks.
Round 2: 2 claws, 1 bite, try your grapple with all 3, if you succeed you get 2 rakes. Release grapple: Speed part of the round 2 claws, 1 bite, 3 grapple attempts, if one is successful you get 2 rakes.
With an even more liberal interpretation you can make up to six grapple attempts, one at a time, with your claws and bite, when one of them is successful you make your 4 rakes, then release the grappling appendage and make the leftover attacks with it. Almost guaranteed that you will get 10 attacks.
Actually you have to begin your turn grappling to Rake. You can't rake in the same turn that you initiated the grapple.
I will have to agree with this, if this is Ashiel trying I am a bit disappointed...
Er... O.o
Well let's see. At the moment I'm maintaining that in core I'm not going to be doing it with a 20th level druid, since the BAB, inability to take Multi-Attack, Improved Natural Attack, and the inability to use permanency on natural attacks you do not have (I'm pretty sure if you cast permanency on a natural attack and later lose that natural attack you lose the spell as well because there is no longer a target for the spell).
Now if my druid were to cast greater magic fang 8 times each time he turned into a giant octopus, then my DPR would increase a bit. Now at 20th level she can stay wildshaped / change form at will, which was what I was going for as a druid built for wildshaping. Now if we go the route of the multiclass character, let's see what we can manage.
Wraithstrike suggested a Barbarian. Not a bad idea actually. Rage could be pretty awesome. Kind of bugs me to lose out on the caster levels, but we theoretically only need druid 12 to get all our wild shape forms and 12 hour duration per form (but we won't be able to shift around willy-nilly, which is kind of a pain when all your gear melds with your body). With that, let's assume that the Druid goes from Lawful Neutral and dips 2 levels monk, for +3 to all saves and some feats like Improved Grapple, Unarmed Strike, etc. We could then dip 2 levels of Barbarian for Rage + 1 Power, 1 level of Oracle to Rage Cycle, then go Fighter 5 and grab Dueling Gloves which I think continue to function while wild-shaped.
That would change our tentacle attack routine to: +28 for each attack (BAB +17, -2 for size, -5 for secondary attacks, +3 weapon training, +3 weapon training, +13 base strength plus huge size) when not raging, and +30 when raging. That's looking better, but we've lost 7th+ level spells, which means we better bloody well be amazing at this because we gave up fullcasting for it. >.>
Our damage per tentacle is now 1d6+18 base. The gloves of dueling help the most (rage only adds +1 damage because they are secondary attacks, but the Fighter's flat +3 is much nicer in this case). Toss in a +2 enhancement from a +5 amulet of speed, and we hit 1d6+20 on the dot. Since we're trying to break the game, we'll assume that the druid has stopped to cast greater magic fang on each tentacle and refuses to change into a different form, which brings us up to +35 to hit when raging and 1d6+25 per hit when raging.
This is looking much better. This time the druid should have a 70% chance to land a hit on the naked pit fiend, setting the DPR to 319.2, or 151.2 with DR applied. This crazy biatch still can't kill the pit fiend even without its DR and this crazy build unless she has a Bard or Paladin backing her, and only a Paladin will help her kill it with the DR. (>.O)"
... ಠ_ಠ
+45/+45/+40/+35/+30 <- 20th level core Barbarian Raging w/ Haste and Bardsong. Damage: 38 w/ +5 greatsword and no criticals.
From worst attack to highest: 70%(swift action+6)/65%/90%/95%/95% 157.4 (whether DR or not).
Okay, there's an attempt to break it. I'm almost disappointed in the damage though. With the investment of all of that, I still couldn't 1 round the equal CR opponent with a full-attack. I wonder if I could get the Barbarian to outmatch her if I gnabbed giant form I or II. That would be another +6 to +8 to Strength, and up base weapon damage from 7 to 10 to 13.5, and then boost the damage by another +3 to +6.
As above but giant form II: +48/+48/+43/+38/+39 (swift+6), 52 per hit, sets the DPR to: 239.3 vs DR. Anyone remember what the damage formula is for figuring out critical hits? I still have enough cash on my Barbarian to get a +5 keen falchion, compared to the druid/monk/barbarian's amulet.
I think a lot of the asking why is actually sour grapes that they were ruled against.
I have disagreed with Dev rulings before, I will disagree with them in the future. It is still the official ruling and it ends any "rules" debate.
If you want to debate merits or alternatives, it should be in the house rules forum.
This needs to become a space Devs can pop in and make a ruling without people throwing a fit. If that means creating a "throw a fit" forum for wanna be devs who no one wants to actually pay money to hear from, so be it.
One problem: only the mods can move threads. So what should we do when a thread drifts off the original topic? (Especially when the original topic has been settled?)
I think they have banned a few people, and some others were shamed away in disgrace, but sock puppets persist.
Asking why is ok, demanding why is not ok. And then you have the spiral of debating if the why given is valid (see the +1 ability modifier thread) and then no responses at all.
We all pay money to read the devs opinion on the rules when we buy the book. I would like more of them, not less.
A little bit of deference would go a long way toward getting more rulings in my opinion. If I were a Dev, in the current climate of the board I wouldn't post a thing. And most of them don't anymore. Sean is the only one who really dips his toe in, and when he does it generally gets bitten because unfortunately a very vocal minority think they are better devs than the devs.
The fact that they can't get people to buy products they put out speaks to the contrary.
All I want is a rules forum that is about the rules, and not about people trying to be developers. This was a specific question, it was answered by the Devs in the FAQ, and it should have ended there or moved to house rules at that point.
I agree. Some people can't take "no" for answer. Suddenly the FAQ is not good enough. They want errata.
Now I do think some things should be errata'd but if the intent is put out I don't see why people say the rule is the opposite.
Then we get the "the books says..".
Ok, fine the devs statement does not match the book perfectly. In that case what should be said is "the intent is ___, or the devs said _______, but the book says ___", but to simply say X is the rule when you know that was not the intent is misleading.
Check this short thread starting here for an example of what I mean.
Note that a certain post never said what the intent was.
Wraithstrike suggested a Barbarian.
I was going to suggest a 1 level dip, but I don't remember actually typing it. If I did then I blame it on not enough sleep. :)
Wraithstrike suggested a Barbarian.I was going to suggest a 1 level dip, but I don't remember actually typing it. If I did then I blame it on not enough sleep. :)
Well a barbarian dip just wasn't going to do it. It would only have been +2 hit and +1 damage. I needed something much MORE; so I grabbed Monk 2 for the feats, Barbarian 1 for the rage, and Fighter 5 and gloves of dueling. Without all of that, I don't think I could have gotten it as high. The gloves of dueling were the single largest contributor, since they let me pretend I had about 12 Fighter levels for the purposes of Weapon Training (+3/+3).
I knew that there was no way I was getting its damage anywhere near a martial with just druid 20. Wasn't going to happen. I'm not sure I'd actually play this build in a game, since it gave up full casting completely (6th level spells is as high as it goes), can only wild-shape 5/day, and gets a stunted animal companion (even with the +4 level feat, I'm not sure it would be so awesome; especially since I'll want my feats for Natural Spell and Heavy Armor Proficiency, and will need my money for +5 wild dragonscale fullplate w/ kilt). The caster level bit is what worries the the most. Unlike a real 3/4 caster, such as a bard or summoner, her caster level will only be around 13 at best in core, or 15 out of core. That worries me greatly, since it basically makes her easy pickings for greater dispel magic.
... Aw crap, actually, the DPR is off by a lot. I forgot that her caster level was only 12. She can't buff herself to +5 with greater magic fang. Only up to +3, which is barely any better than the +2 from the amulet itself. ಠ_ಠ
The more I look at this, the less I think I can break it. This octopus thing wouldn't scare anyone at 20th level. It's a one-trick pony that has trouble setting up the ball (it has to be able to full attack or it's completely worthless), lacks the ability to use its magic items (with the exception of static mods, all its items meld into its form which means no potions, wands, staffs, x/day items, intelligent items, command word items, etc), is slow (20 ft. land speed), land bound (kind of a problem when you can't activate fly powers on your magic items and are thus forced to use your 5/day wild shape for mobility -- but doing so ruins your strategy), and all your buffs are trivially easy to dispel (an equal-level caster will greater dispel all your buffs away on a 3+). Hell, I'm not even sure it would scare the barbarian I matched it against without the buffs (the barbarian would just activate displacement via a cloak and laugh as it cut the octopus' DPR in half).
Hell, I'd take this thing on with another druid 20. My druid 20 would just cast that thorn spell and deal 1d6+15 damage + save vs daze every single time the octopus druid hit me. I'd bet money he'd be dead first...
|
|
One problem: only the mods can move threads. So what should we do when a thread drifts off the original topic? (Especially when the original topic has been settled?)I think a lot of the asking why is actually sour grapes that they were ruled against.
I have disagreed with Dev rulings before, I will disagree with them in the future. It is still the official ruling and it ends any "rules" debate.
If you want to debate merits or alternatives, it should be in the house rules forum.
This needs to become a space Devs can pop in and make a ruling without people throwing a fit. If that means creating a "throw a fit" forum for wanna be devs who no one wants to actually pay money to hear from, so be it.
Lock it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree. Some people can't take "no" for answer. Suddenly the FAQ is not good enough. They want errata.
Now I do think some things should be errata'd but if the intent is put out I don't see why people say the rule is the opposite.
Then we get the "the books says..".
Ok, fine the devs statement does not match the book perfectly. In that case what should be said is "the intent is ___, or the devs said _______, but the book says ___", but to simply say X is the rule when you know that was not the intent is misleading.
Check this short thread starting here for an example of what I mean.
Note that a certain post never said what the intent was.
RD should mod the theory craft thread. :)
I think he doesn't really bother me the way other posters do because everyone seems to realize he is completely off the farm with his proposals. He even generally realizes it.
It's like the crazy uncle no one takes seriously going off on a tangent about fluoride in the water. "Oh uncle, RD, you so silly..." and we laugh and laugh.
But then when someone starts listening to him, and others start calling for him to be in charge of the water supply...then...not so cute...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The more I look at this, the less I think I can break it.I find this disingenuous, and feels like you are knocking down strawmen.
Seeing as this is a moot point rules-wise, this thread is also now in the wrong forum for this part of the discussion.
-James
How exactly do you figure I'm knocking down strawmen? You asked me to try and break it. With a druid 20, you can't do it (or at least I don't see a way that you can). So my next bet was with multiclassing, which did pretty liberally (druid/monk/barbarian/fighter), but I made a mistake concerning the DPR (he can't be at +5 enhancement at 12th CL, only +3), but his DPR is still pretty high if he can get his full attack off. This form was the one you suggested for trying to break speed + natural attacks, and yet it doesn't work that way.
The problem I see is that in an actual game she's kind of a pansy. She's a huge creature in this form which besides making her a big fat target also subjects her to squeezing penalties if not in an a very open environment (anything not 15 x 15 means -4 to hit and AC). Her caster level is worrisome at this level and not very useful; which means not only is she at 6th level spells, but her spells are 8 levels behind in power (and thus very easy to dispel), and she lacks the ability to make use of most magic items (a huge drawback IMHO, because it means she's stuck with just what she can cast herself plus her physical traits).
But if you feel I am being disingenuous, then explain why. I look at her and I'm not sure how I'd make her nastier in a practical way. As she is right now, I'm not sure she'd be very useful at 20th level. She suffers from all the usual problems of a melee character at those levels, with weaker single-shot damage, more mobility issues, and has a hard setup for her shtick. If you're going to ask me to "do better than druid 20", and I put more thought into and produce something specifically trying to break it, then it seems pretty rude to suggest I'm being disingenuous; don't you think?
I also disagree that the point is moot. It was part of a discussion that another poster was saying, and has grounds in the RAW and is no less valid than anything else posted in the thread. This is a question of the speed enhancement, not the FAQ ruling (and the FAQs are not RAW and have been wrong before; hence why some people don't trust them fully; just like how the sage used to get FAQs wrong at Wizards).
===============================================
But as a thought experiment. A +5 amulet of mighty fists costs 125,000 gp. With that same amount of money, I could -- as a wizard or sorcerer -- produce 50 10th level copies of myself. On these 10th level copies of myself, I have them prepare magic missile, acid arrow, invisibility, elemental acid arrow (electricity), elemental acid arrow (cold), greater invisibility, teleport, enervation, overland flight, and telekinesis.
My minions follow me about easily enough. When needed, they can simultaneously target enemies with spells that have a range of 200 ft or greater, denying any spell resistance that a creature has. If a creature does not have spell resistance, then they are in bigger trouble.
Using the pit fiend once again. My wizards all cast elemental acid arrow (electricity) at the pit fiend. The pit fiend has a touch AC of 9 flat footed (he cannot see them because they are invisible. They have a +5 to hit from BAB alone. Assuming they have no Dexterity bonus at all (which means I don't either), then they have an 85% chance to hit him. On this turn, they chuck no-save no-SR missiles 200 ft. towards him for an average damage of 212.5 damage, and he takes an additional 212.5 damage on round 2, another 212.5 on round 3, and another 212.5 damage on round 4.
If they are facing an enemy without spell resistance, they instead hit them with magic missile dealing 875 damage directly to them, no save, no dodging. Even if they are wearing a brooch of shielding it quickly breaks the brooch and deals 774 points of damage to the victim.
They can also sit around under greater invisibility and cast telekinesis and proceed to use combat maneuvers against an enemy every round on the round. Due to their low caster level, they are not particularly good at combat maneuvers, but there are 50 of them, and if a single one of them rolls a 20, then the combat maneuver succeeds; allowing them to easily strip enemies of their possessions, trip them, grapple them, bull rush them, and so forth.
That would be a relatively simple exercise in breaking stuff.
The more I look at this, the less I think I can break it.I find this disingenuous, and feels like you are knocking down strawmen.
Seeing as this is a moot point rules-wise, this thread is also now in the wrong forum for this part of the discussion.
-James
How exactly do you figure I'm knocking down strawmen? You asked me to try and break it. With a druid 20, you can't do it (or at least I don't see a way that you can). So my next bet was with multiclassing, which did pretty liberally (druid/monk/barbarian/fighter), but I made a mistake concerning the DPR (he can't be at +5 enhancement at 12th CL, only +3), but his DPR is still pretty high if he can get his full attack off. This form was the one you suggested for trying to break speed + natural attacks, and yet it doesn't work that way.
The problem I see is that in an actual game she's kind of a pansy. She's a huge creature in this form which besides making her a big fat target also subjects her to squeezing penalties if not in an a very open environment (anything not 15 x 15 means -4 to hit and AC). Her caster level is worrisome at this level and not very useful; which means not only is she at 6th level spells, but her spells are 8 levels behind in power (and thus very easy to dispel), and she lacks the ability to make use of most magic items (a huge drawback IMHO, because it means she's stuck with just what she can cast herself plus her physical traits).
But if you feel I am being disingenuous, then explain why. I look at her and I'm not sure how I'd make her nastier in a practical way. As she is right now, I'm not sure she'd be very useful at 20th level. She suffers from all the usual problems of a melee character at those levels, with weaker single-shot damage, more mobility issues, and has a hard setup for her shtick. If you're going to ask me to "do better than druid 20", and I put more thought into and produce something specifically trying to break it, then it seems pretty rude to...
You only need a +3 amulet do you not ? if you are not going to raise the enhancement bonus over +2 as a druid there is little point, since GMF will be surperior and the +2 will not allow for any extra DR penetration. You coulkd however combine it with holy for the same ammount getting a bonus on damage vs all evil creatures and penetrating DR/Good.
The Druid could most likely be better if we looked for builds, to work it. There are some spells to help it's DPR that could be used as well.
A synthesist or summoner's eidolon will be better still.
A raging barbarian/druid gets rage powers and could add elemental damage to each attack if so inclined and probably more powers to increase it's effectiveness.
DPR against a pure martial is still a bad comparison since it is all it does, we should focus on wether it makes the druid better than before really, since if it is, it is creeping closer to the martials niche.
The original question is what a speed enhancement does on an amulet of mighty fists. And how is that broken if you allow it to add the speed enhancement to all natural weapons, correct? That is so easy to break I don't even know how things went on this long.
First off, no where was it limited to Player Characters. Just look at a monster.
Ancient Red Dragon CR 19
bite +35 (4d6+21/19–20), 2 claws +35 (2d8+14), 2 wings +33 (2d6+7), tail slap +33 (2d8+21)
Avg: 139 damage
Add speed to EVERY natural attack. That becomes:
2 bite +35 (4d6+21/19–20), 4 claws +35 (2d8+14), 4 wings +33 (2d6+7), 2 tail slap +33 (2d8+21)
Avg: 278 damage
So sure, if you want to allow the speed enhancement to stack for your characters, then they stack for my monsters as well.
Or how about the Marilith, CR 17.
With an amulet of might fists speed. That 45,000gp for an equivalent +3 bonus (you don't need a +1 on an amulet before adding properties).
12 slams +22 (1d8+7), 2 tail slaps +17 (2d6+3 plus grab)
That's 158 damage instead of 79. Not bad.
The original question is what a speed enhancement does on an amulet of mighty fists. And how is that broken if you allow it to add the speed enhancement to all natural weapons, correct? That is so easy to break I don't even know how things went on this long.
First off, no where was it limited to Player Characters. Just look at a monster.
Ancient Red Dragon CR 19
bite +35 (4d6+21/19–20), 2 claws +35 (2d8+14), 2 wings +33 (2d6+7), tail slap +33 (2d8+21)
Avg: 139 damage
Add speed to EVERY natural attack. That becomes:
2 bite +35 (4d6+21/19–20), 4 claws +35 (2d8+14), 4 wings +33 (2d6+7), 2 tail slap +33 (2d8+21)
Avg: 278 damage
Hm, I counted a bit higher, though I'm not surprised, given that the dragon is using about 1/3rd his entire wealth doing so. However, against a 19th level PC, I think the dragon isn't going to do nearly so much damage. Mages will have displacement cloaks, which reduces damage by 50% (because 1/2 of attacks will miss), bringing DPR down to the point a d6 class will survive at least 1 round of it. That's before dealing with AC (which probably isn't that bad*). Now martial classes can get ACs in the 50s easily enough at this level. A heavy armor wearer (which includes all medium armor wearers who spent a feat) will have an AC around 39 without a shield and 46 with a shield (with sourcebooks we can push it to about 50 AC, but in core we can do it with fighting defensively and dodge, or anything else anyone wants to add), and miss % as well.
I'm still not particularly impressed yet. Even if we round up the dragon's DPR to 300, the dragon's DPR vs AC 46 is cut to about 150. Then if we apply miss %, we cut it down to 75 per round. Given that our martial should have at least 230 HP at that level without feats or favored class bonuses, the dragon's wasting his actions that he could be using to play tag with the party.
So sure, if you want to allow the speed enhancement to stack for your characters, then they stack for my monsters as well.
I'm one of the foremost proponents of NPCs using their treasures; so this isn't exactly surprising to me. :P
Or how about the Marilith, CR 17.
With an amulet of might fists speed. That 45,000gp for an equivalent +3 bonus (you don't need a +1 on an amulet before adding properties).
12 slams +22 (1d8+7), 2 tail slaps +17 (2d6+3 plus grab)
That's 158 damage instead of 79. Not bad.
Same deal as the dragon, except her to-hit bonuses are much lower (so while she has true seeing constantly, plain ol' AC works well here). We could use greater magic weapon wands to push her longswords to be +5 longswords (making her more intimidating), and I'd preferably give her 3 masterwork composite (+7) longbows, let her buff those to +5 each, and then use her greater teleport and fly SLAs to play cat and mouse with enemies. I'd also have her use stoneskin via a wand, to give her DR 10/adamantine to go along with her DR 10/cold-iron and good. I'm sure you could see why.
The biggest thing is that speed will never be all that great unless you can get Pounce on it as well. The inability to reliably full-attack means that no matter what, your DPR is going to be very low unless you can constantly stay on your enemy, which is difficult when your enemies -- especially a team of enemies -- simply doesn't want you to do that. >.>
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I somehow think you're calculating average damage wrong.
it looks like you're ASSUMING all attacks hit, instead of using the probability of them hitting.
It's not wrong. It's just lazy. I'm also not calculating the crit chance. That probably doesn't balance it out, but it helps a little.
Really the point is that allowing the speed weapon property on an AoMF to effect all natural weapons essentially doubles the damage output of the creature.
A thought occurred to me on SKR's FAQ ruling. The issue is that he is a developer, not ruleslawyer. When developers are making rules they are obviously not worrying about what the rule says, as it hasn't been written yet. They are worrying about if it is balanced or not. So when asked, "Can the AoMF add speed to all natural weapons?" The best reason a developer can possible give for not allowing it is, "No, because it is too powerful." Then they write the rule to reflect that.
That said the FAQ should be using the rules as written. So the problem is not with the ruling, it is that he used the developer reason for the ruling instead of the RAW reason, which would be that multiple speed enhancements would be "similar" and wouldn't stack.
|
|
Really the point is that allowing the speed weapon property on an AoMF to effect all natural weapons essentially doubles the [Maximum, not necessarily the average] damage output of the creature.
(Bolded text inserted and bolded by me.)
A thought occurred to me on SKR's FAQ ruling. The issue is that he is a developer, not ruleslawyer. When developers are making rules they are obviously not worrying about what the rule says, as it hasn't been written yet. They are worrying about if it is balanced or not. So when asked, "Can the AoMF add speed to all natural weapons?" The best reason a developer can possible give for not allowing it is, "No, because it is too powerful." Then they write the rule to reflect that.
Yes. That is the pre-rules-design justification for a call. I would expect that as a precursor to a well designed errata, not as a weird exception to a rule that only applies in this one case just because.
It's been shown to not be too powerful though, as all the player options that have it are all still doing less damage than a basic THF with Greatsword.
On a dragon (it's most powerful application as yet) it's still not as good as it's been made out to be.
Finally, this is another instance that shows the monk is getting screwed because he has to share his only attack booster with dragons who have like 8 natural attacks.
That said the FAQ should be using the rules as written. So the problem is not with the ruling, it is that he used the developer reason for the ruling instead of the RAW reason, which would be that multiple speed enhancements would be "similar" and wouldn't stack.
That is one argument. It's been brought up in this thread. Another is that speed doesn't grant you an additional attack, it grants the weapon an additional attack, and therefore you're not stacking attacks on a character, you're stacking attacks on each weapon, which is why a weapon cannot have it more than once. And there has not been a dev ruling or faq or errata to clear up just where the extra attacks from speed are going.
Really the point is that allowing the speed weapon property on an AoMF to effect all natural weapons essentially doubles the Maximum, not average damage output of the creature.(Bolded text inserted and bolded by me.)
No, it doubles the average as well. For example Attack +10, 2d6+3 damage vs. AC 21. Average damage for the attack is 10, it hits only 50% of the time so average DPR is 5. If you add a second attack it also does 10 damage and hits 50% of the time so also does DPR of 5. If you are multiplying all attacks by 2, you are also multiplying the average damage by2.
Finally, this is another instance that shows the monk is getting screwed because he has to share his only attack booster with dragons who have like 8 natural attacks.
Well I agree 100% there.
That said the FAQ should be using the rules as written. So the problem is not with the ruling, it is that he used the developer reason for the ruling instead of the RAW reason, which would be that multiple speed enhancements would be "similar" and wouldn't stack.That is one argument. It's been brought up in this thread. Another is that speed doesn't grant you an additional attack, it grants the weapon an additional attack, and therefore you're not stacking attacks on a character, you're stacking attacks on each weapon, which is why a weapon cannot have it more than once. And there has not been a dev ruling or faq or errata to clear up just where the extra attacks from speed are going.
And both are valid ways to read it, the difference is that the entire development team for Pathfinder, as posted by SKR, has ruled it to work the way that I stated. It's is just that people don't like the (developer) reason given for it.