19th level fighter
14 full plate
7 shield
4 dex
5 RoP
5 Necklace of natural armor
1 went dwarf and took the feat that gives him nat armor
1 Improved natural armor
1 dodge
10 base
48 so far
combat expertise 53.
For the two-handed fighter who is more likely to power attack the AC is closer to 48
CR 19 red dragon
Uses limited wish to cast Divine Power for a +5
Haste still allows the +1 and since the dragon has quicken spell that is reasonable also. Yeah I know the attacks from haste and speed don't stack.
new stats
bite +41 (4d6+26/19–20), 2 claws +41 (2d8+19), 2 wings +38 (2d6+12), tail slap +38 (2d8+26)
To keep this simple I am going to calculate the DPR of each attack individually first. To right will be the normal DPR if the attack normally has more than one iteration such as claw attack. Finally the last DPR will show the DPR if speed doubled all natural attack for that one attack.
VS AC 52..
1 Bite=24.00
1 claw=14.7 x2= 29.4
1 wing=7.98 x2 =15.96
tail slap= 14.7
Normal DPR =84.06
Speed based DPR=164.12
I will then test the numbers against a two-handed fighter
AC 46
1 Bite=38.4
1 claw =23.52 x2= 47.04
1 wing=13.97 x2 =27.94
tail slap= 25.73
Normal DPR=139.11
Speed based DPR= 278.22
edit:the dragon also has access to True Seeing due to limited wish.
|
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.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.)
DR will change that, and after a couple levels, most creatures have DR.
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.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.)DR will change that, and after a couple levels, most creatures have DR.
No, DR doesn't change it at all.
Let's use Twigs figures:
Attack +10, 2d6+3 damage vs. AC 21 with DR 6. Average damage for the attack (after DR) is 4.028, it hits only 50% of the time so average DPR is 2.014. If you add a second attack it also does 4.028 damage and hits 50% of the time so also does DPR of 2.104. If you are multiplying all attacks by 2, you are also multiplying the average damage by2.
Speed double the average out put and the maximum, but since max damage is almost never dealt it is easier to look at the average.
Dr reduces the maximum and the average out put so it must be accounted for as well at least until you can get +5 enhancement just to hit. After that you only have to worry about epic DR and DR/-, unless you can smite of course.
Fighter vs. Dragon stuff.
Thanks wraithstrike, that's a lot more effort that I was willing to put in!
I was looking at the wild shape Druid though. It seems to me that a 20th level Druid wild shaped into a fairly standard Dire Tiger getting 6 attacks at full BAB on a charge (with 6 attempts to grapple) is a little overpowered for 45,000gp. But that may just be me.
Grappling high level monster is highly unlike which is why I did not add in the grapple-release tactic.
Now a ranger with the beast master archetype would do much better. He gets to use his ranger level as his druid level for the purpose of animal companions, and a ranger's animal companion also gets the use of favored enemy. That extra bonus to attack and damage would do a lot of negating DR.
it seems pretty rude to suggest I'm being disingenuous; don't you think?
It is the impression I've formed based on your posts.
You seem very focused on how things won't work, as if you are trying to make sure that they don't.
When you made the mistake in thinking that the enemy you put forth had DR cold iron & good, but it was really silver & good you then looked for other problems with the feat that would overcome the silver DR.
I had another tab open looking at the Balor for something else, so when I posted I wasn't paying a lot of attention and mentioned DR cold-iron and good rather than silver and good. Not that it mattered because I couldn't take the feat anyway; which you know.
You considered the existence of a spell that deals +1d6 piercing with each attack as a negative for a druid with (under your rule) 18 attacks.
I did? Where was that? In fact, what spell is that? I don't know what you're talking about. The only time I mentioned spells that added damage was commenting that in 3.5 there was some spell that allowed you to apply acid damage to natural attacks, but that it didn't exist in PF-core.
You went on how when in another shape the druid would not be able to use staves, rods, etc.. why would you meld them if you wanted to use them? Simply shape without them then pick them up. You gave issues for flying at 20th level! That's fairly absurd.
Please pay attention. The druid that can wild-shape willy nilly has sucktastic DPR trying to abuse this interpretation. The one who is trying to break it can only wild shape 5 times per day. Which means that every time you turn back into your normal form to activate a magic item, you have to turn back into an 15 x 15 ft. octopus to resume your strategy. That creates a lot of problems. Normally I would agree. Fly is not a concern at 20th level unless you're this druid, and that's because this druid cannot effectively fly with potions or activated magic items. Druids do not have fly on their spell list, which means that your only options are either have allies waste actions buffing you, or wild-shape. In other words, trying to break this creates problems where none would exist for you otherwise.
In short (because an older post got lost), you're looking for it to fail and trying to make it so. That is a strawman.
I'm not looking for it to fail. I just expect it, based on my experiences. That's one of the reasons I specifically asked for suggestions on how others would break it. Instead, you guys were like "Oh I'm sure you can do fine". So first, I tried druid 20 and gave that as an example (druid 20 was nice because it meant that if you needed mobility, nothing was stopping you from wild shaping as often as desired, which cut down on mobility issues while shapeshifted due to lack of item activation; but since you're limited to x/day in this method, you have to very carefully gauge your shifts). Instead of acting so haughty, perhaps if you find fault with the build I presented you could produce one that breaks it without the glaring weaknesses that it produces doing so.
You're ignoring easy things that give anything positive, giving unreasonable negatives, and just not presenting things in a neutral fashion whatsoever. It is disingenuous; it is as if you're looking to win some sort of debate rather than discuss how things are.
I don't see how you figure this. What am I ignoring that is positive? The DPR is the only positive thing about this build and it's really not special for the weaknesses it provides. The whole point of the DPR was to build the most DPR possible with 16 natural attacks, and it still wouldn't kill the CR 20 enemy of the day (before factoring in the NPC's wealth). My criticisms about the build are the same sort of criticisms I would have made if anyone else posted a build like this.
I mean, what exactly do you want from me? I posted an example of a character that would be very playable (a simple druid 20 that was capable in melee as well as casting) that has a wide variety of options at her disposal, and how that wasn't good enough to be overpowered. You pointed out the giant octopus and I was like "Hm, weird that this has 8 tentacle attacks and squid just have 'tentacles'", so then I ran the numbers with the giant octopus. Numbers came back not broken. So then you were like "Oh, well you're not trying to optimize DPR enough", so then I was like "How would you like me to optimize it", and you were like "Oh I'm sure you can do fine"; so I put my thinking cap on, and produced a natural attack build plus barbarian rage plus weapon training III plus using tons of your spells on greater magic fang (no less than 8 spell slots between 3rd-4th level out of your 6th level casting). I looked into multi-attack (illegal), the feat you suggested (illegal), Improved Natural Attack (illegal), and I was found wanting and had to extend my reach into splat material. The result was a DPR that was nearly enough to kill the pit fiend in 1 round if I was sufficiently buffed by other classes. For all that was given up, I was hoping for a higher DPR (I mean about 300 DPR at 20th level is a bit lackluster when there are DPR builds that push that kind of damage at 12th level).
I've seen you come up with a few reasonable builds. Perhaps you are geared only towards some and not others. But the places that I've seen lacking in these posts makes me lean towards you doing it for a purpose.
Define "reasonable"? I tend to build PCs like I'm going to play them. That generally means thinking about both defenses and offenses. As much as people say offense is everything, you have to be able to survive a sucker punch if you're going to be worth your coppers. That includes problem solving and adaptability. Raw damage, especially on a melee build is generally not something worth sacrificing your goodies for, since it's too hard to put into play. As levels rise, combat becomes more tactical and more mobile. Relying solely on full-attacks is not very useful at high levels because we don't have 3.0 haste.
I'd rather have had the barbarian I was comparing the druid to. Barbarian 20 (not optimized at all) would kill the pit fiend in 2 rounds on a full-attack (same as the druid), but with access to the same books would be more likely to get that full-attack off, would be more mobile, have better defenses, have AoE crowd control, could switch to a ranged weapon and plow enemies for ranged damage, could preform combat maneuvers like a god, sport a very high AC while raging, and do it for less money and with fewer buffs. Doing so wouldn't require him to lose access to his equipment abilities or intelligent magic items.
So I'm not sure what you mean by "reasonable". What do you consider a "reasonable build"?
Dragon DPR examples
Now that is more like it. :P
I shall consider your post good friend, and re-evaluate my position on the balance portion of the discussion.
If you remove the shield the Ac fo the Two hander fighters is 41 (since he wilk use power attak instead of combat expertise). I suppose that menas the Two handre recive more damage.
Good catch. I thought I had done that, but I had only taken combat expertise away.
edit:correction.
|
I just want to take this moment to say, I hate AoMF. I had playing all along under the assumption that monks COULD place enchantments on their UAS (there's a note in the desciption about how their UAS is treated as a manufactured weapon and a natural attack for effects that benefit such) until someone pointed out that a weapon has to be masterwork and one of the devs (I think SKR, but maybe James?) ruled that there is no masterwork equivalent of an unarmed strike. I allow my monks to enchant their UAS (I think of it thematically as magic tattooing) and generally just drop the AoMF altogether.
I had a build that was pushing 220 DPR at level 12 with an AoMF where speed doubled all the natural attacks. Even assuming some hefty DR at that level, their full attack would still take out the average critter at level 12.
But really, you don't need to look at the numbers to realize that this is too powerful. Just some knowledge of similar abilities and noticing that it goes far beyond what the game assumes.
Grappling high level monster is highly unlike which is why I did not add in the grapple-release tactic.
Now a ranger with the beast master archetype would do much better. He gets to use his ranger level as his druid level for the purpose of animal companions, and a ranger's animal companion also gets the use of favored enemy. That extra bonus to attack and damage would do a lot of negating DR.
Ah, there you go. That should break things pretty good! Throw Holy on the amulet for even more bonuses and damage. Cast Greater Magic Fang a few times (unfortunately this does not let you bypass DR) and you are doing some serious hurt. After a full move even.
Attack: 20 BAB +14 Str -1 size +5 GMF +2 Holy +10 FE +2 charge = +50
Damage: claws +50/+50 (2d4+2d6+24 plus grab), bite +50 (4d6+24/20 plus grab)
Add speed and you get: +50/+50/+50/+50 (2d4+2d6+24 plus grab), bites +50/+50 (4d6+24/20 plus grab)
He will hit a Pit Fiend on anything but a one and it's CMD is 53. So what are the odds it is grappled as well? DR is a problem. Both the GMF and GMW spells don't get through DR, and according to the Devs (although I can't find that FAQ right now).
Both the GMF and GMW spells don't get through DR, and according to the Devs (although I can't find that FAQ right now).
Actually it says that in the spell description. No FAQ needed. :)
Grappling high level monster is highly unlike which is why I did not add in the grapple-release tactic.
Now a ranger with the beast master archetype would do much better. He gets to use his ranger level as his druid level for the purpose of animal companions, and a ranger's animal companion also gets the use of favored enemy. That extra bonus to attack and damage would do a lot of negating DR.
Ah, there you go. That should break things pretty good! Throw Holy on the amulet for even more bonuses and damage. Cast Greater Magic Fang a few times (unfortunately this does not let you bypass DR) and you are doing some serious hurt. After a full move even.
Attack: 20 BAB +14 Str -1 size +5 GMF +2 Holy +10 FE +2 charge = +50
Damage: claws +50/+50 (2d4+2d6+24 plus grab), bite +50 (4d6+24/20 plus grab)
Add speed and you get: +50/+50/+50/+50 (2d4+2d6+24 plus grab), bites +50/+50 (4d6+24/20 plus grab)
He will hit a Pit Fiend on anything but a one and it's CMD is 53. So what are the odds it is grappled as well? DR is a problem. Both the GMF and GMW spells don't get through DR, and according to the Devs (although I can't find that FAQ right now).
Where is the 20 BAB coming from?
I had a build that was pushing 220 DPR at level 12 with an AoMF where speed doubled all the natural attacks. Even assuming some hefty DR at that level, their full attack would still take out the average critter at level 12.
But really, you don't need to look at the numbers to realize that this is too powerful. Just some knowledge of similar abilities and noticing that it goes far beyond what the game assumes.
Could you post the build?
It was just AMY ALCHY with a AoMF speed instead of AoMF +2. No other tweaks, although I could've done quite a bit. Builds don't tell the whole story though. They're just a single data point.
TBH, I don't know why people went to the druid for this. Whenever you add more attacks, classes that can situationally add bonuses to damage are going to be doing a lot better. Sneak attack, favored enemy, smite evil, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, having considered it further, I think the AoMF just sucks in general. Unless you have exactly 3 natural attacks, it sucks. Either you're paying too much or too little. Something in my mind clicked however, and I'd like to point out an item from Savage Species that basically does the amulet thing only more reasonably.
It's called a Necklace of Natural Attacks (as opposed to Amulet of Mighty Fists). It costs the same amount as a weapon plus 600 gp, multiplied by the number of natural attacks it affects. For example, if you wanted a +1 flaming necklace, it would cost 8,600 gp for 1 natural attack, 17,200 gp for 2 natural attacks, 25,800 gp for 3, and so forth (also unlike AoMF, you're not capped at +5, but must have a +1 before adding abilities).
I think that this (or a similar method to this) should be the basis for how the amulet of mighty fists works. That would at least allow monks to have weapons. They would have an amulet that only affected 1 unarmed attack. However, wraithstrike's dragon might have an amulet that affected ALL of its natural attacks, but it would be very expensive (costing enhancement bonus + 600 gp per natural attack).
EDIT: It would also prevent balance issues with speed if speed was interpreted to give an extra attack with that weapon, per weapon (as I actually believe it does). It would basically be impossible to abuse it (as a PC or GM) because PCs would need to pay for it appropriately, and most monsters with an ungodly number of natural attacks simply can't afford speed for all of them. Not even a CR 19 dragon. :P
Where is the 20 BAB coming from?
Sorry. I was thinking of the Ranger Shapeshifter archetype. My numbers were for a Ranger Shapeshifter using Master Shifter to polymorph himself using Beast Shape IV.
You know, having considered it further, I think the AoMF just sucks in general. Unless you have exactly 3 natural attacks, it sucks. Either you're paying too much or too little. Something in my mind clicked however, and I'd like to point out an item from Savage Species that basically does the amulet thing only more reasonably.
It's called a Necklace of Natural Attacks (as opposed to Amulet of Mighty Fists). It costs the same amount as a weapon plus 600 gp, multiplied by the number of natural attacks it affects. For example, if you wanted a +1 flaming necklace, it would cost 8,600 gp for 1 natural attack, 17,200 gp for 2 natural attacks, 25,800 gp for 3, and so forth (also unlike AoMF, you're not capped at +5, but must have a +1 before adding abilities).
I think that this (or a similar method to this) should be the basis for how the amulet of mighty fists works. That would at least allow monks to have weapons. They would have an amulet that only affected 1 unarmed attack. However, wraithstrike's dragon might have an amulet that affected ALL of its natural attacks, but it would be very expensive (costing enhancement bonus + 600 gp per natural attack).
I 100% agree!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, having considered it further, I think the AoMF just sucks in general. Unless you have exactly 3 natural attacks, it sucks. Either you're paying too much or too little. Something in my mind clicked however, and I'd like to point out an item from Savage Species that basically does the amulet thing only more reasonably.
It's called a Necklace of Natural Attacks (as opposed to Amulet of Mighty Fists). It costs the same amount as a weapon plus 600 gp, multiplied by the number of natural attacks it affects. For example, if you wanted a +1 flaming necklace, it would cost 8,600 gp for 1 natural attack, 17,200 gp for 2 natural attacks, 25,800 gp for 3, and so forth (also unlike AoMF, you're not capped at +5, but must have a +1 before adding abilities).
I remember this item.
The monk is being killed by sacred cows specifically the AoMF..
Where is the 20 BAB coming from?Sorry. I was thinking of the Ranger Shapeshifter archetype. My numbers were for a Ranger Shapeshifter using Master Shifter to polymorph himself using Beast Shape IV.
Ashiel: I 100% agree!
See, this is why I love having these discussions. I learned something, we tossed around some ideas, looked under the hood a little bit, and maybe figured out ways to improve our games. I've been fine with multiple speed weapons for ages (in fact, I never would have thought it worked otherwise), but I must admit that when combined with an AoMF it favored critters like the Dragon exceptionally well (I was so-so on the Marilith, but you guys convinced me with the dragon); which I think would be broken (even if normal speed-weapon stacking wouldn't be).
I think an item that allows you to simply enchant X natural attacks is a win for everyone. It's a win for monks who get to stop being robbed of their hard earned gp, and it's a win for folks with lots of natural attacks without getting nutty.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That said the FAQ should be using the rules as written.
The FAQ is written by the people who wrote the rules, presumably because they were unclear to someone.
If the RAW isn't clear as to developer intent, then they write an FAQ to clarify it.
At no time does what you think the RAW is over rule what the persons who wrote that rule say they were trying to say.
Not. Complicated.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Put another way...
The words on the page are there to convey a specific intent that the author had. They are a vehicle to deliver the intent of the author, but sometimes that vehicle doesn't work as well as the author desired, and so the author must clarify.
You know, having considered it further, I think the AoMF just sucks in general. Unless you have exactly 3 natural attacks, it sucks. Either you're paying too much or too little. Something in my mind clicked however, and I'd like to point out an item from Savage Species that basically does the amulet thing only more reasonably.
It's called a Necklace of Natural Attacks (as opposed to Amulet of Mighty Fists). It costs the same amount as a weapon plus 600 gp, multiplied by the number of natural attacks it affects. For example, if you wanted a +1 flaming necklace, it would cost 8,600 gp for 1 natural attack, 17,200 gp for 2 natural attacks, 25,800 gp for 3, and so forth (also unlike AoMF, you're not capped at +5, but must have a +1 before adding abilities).
I think that this (or a similar method to this) should be the basis for how the amulet of mighty fists works. That would at least allow monks to have weapons. They would have an amulet that only affected 1 unarmed attack. However, wraithstrike's dragon might have an amulet that affected ALL of its natural attacks, but it would be very expensive (costing enhancement bonus + 600 gp per natural attack).
EDIT: It would also prevent balance issues with speed if speed was interpreted to give an extra attack with that weapon, per weapon (as I actually believe it does). It would basically be impossible to abuse it (as a PC or GM) because PCs would need to pay for it appropriately, and most monsters with an ungodly number of natural attacks simply can't afford speed for all of them. Not even a CR 19 dragon. :P
I do think speed is too situational though, which is why I often suggest just getting the boots. A paladin with two speed weapons that both worked would own things. The rogue benefits also. The ranger which does better than the rogue otherwise, breaks even.
edit:changed post due to misunderstanding.
That said the FAQ should be using the rules as written.
The FAQ is written by the people who wrote the rules, presumably because they were unclear to someone.
If the RAW isn't clear as to developer intent, then they write an FAQ to clarify it.
At no time does what you think the RAW is over rule what the persons who wrote that rule say they were trying to say.
Not. Complicated.
Yet another statement I completely agree with. I'm not going to have anyone to argue with at this rate!
My point was that in an FAQ they should backup a clarification with the rules. If the rule turns out to not represent what they intended then they should issue an errata backed up by a statement of the original intent. In this case I think that SKR made the clarification, but then backed it up with the intent instead of the rules. I do not believe that this in anyway invalidates his ruling (or clarification or whatever you want to call it).
Why didn't I think of this before!
You know, having considered it further, I think the AoMF just sucks in general. Unless you have exactly 3 natural attacks, it sucks. Either you're paying too much or too little. Something in my mind clicked however, and I'd like to point out an item from Savage Species that basically does the amulet thing only more reasonably.
It's called a Necklace of Natural Attacks (as opposed to Amulet of Mighty Fists). It costs the same amount as a weapon plus 600 gp, multiplied by the number of natural attacks it affects. For example, if you wanted a +1 flaming necklace, it would cost 8,600 gp for 1 natural attack, 17,200 gp for 2 natural attacks, 25,800 gp for 3, and so forth (also unlike AoMF, you're not capped at +5, but must have a +1 before adding abilities).
I think that this (or a similar method to this) should be the basis for how the amulet of mighty fists works. That would at least allow monks to have weapons. They would have an amulet that only affected 1 unarmed attack. However, wraithstrike's dragon might have an amulet that affected ALL of its natural attacks, but it would be very expensive (costing enhancement bonus + 600 gp per natural attack).
EDIT: It would also prevent balance issues with speed if speed was interpreted to give an extra attack with that weapon, per weapon (as I actually believe it does). It would basically be impossible to abuse it (as a PC or GM) because PCs would need to pay for it appropriately, and most monsters with an ungodly number of natural attacks simply can't afford speed for all of them. Not even a CR 19 dragon. :P
Yes. For the love of God, yes!
Master Arminas
|
|
Fighter vs. Dragon stuff.Thanks wraithstrike, that's a lot more effort that I was willing to put in!
I was looking at the wild shape Druid though. It seems to me that a 20th level Druid wild shaped into a fairly standard Dire Tiger getting 6 attacks at full BAB on a charge (with 6 attempts to grapple) is a little overpowered for 45,000gp. But that may just be me.
While Ashiel is right about rake requiring a maintained grapple (and thanks, it is something that I had missed to notice), pounce allow its use:
Pounce (Ex) When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).
So they are 10 attacks for a dire tiger when charging.
As maintaining a grapple is a standard action it would be more beneficial for the druid/dire tiger no to maintain the grapple and make only 6 attacks the following round.
Fighter vs. Dragon stuff.Thanks wraithstrike, that's a lot more effort that I was willing to put in!
I was looking at the wild shape Druid though. It seems to me that a 20th level Druid wild shaped into a fairly standard Dire Tiger getting 6 attacks at full BAB on a charge (with 6 attempts to grapple) is a little overpowered for 45,000gp. But that may just be me.
While Ashiel is right about rake requiring a maintained grapple (and tanks, it is something that I had missed to notice), pounce allow its use:
Pounce (Ex) When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).
So they are 10 attacks for a dire tiger when charging.
As maintaining a grapple is a standard action it would be more beneficial for the druid/dire tiger no to maintain the grapple and make only 6 attacks the following round.
That's a good catch Diego, but it is nothing compared to the 24 attack pounce that I can get with my 12-headed hydra! Bwaahahaha!
If only Beast Shape IV allowed huge magic beasts instead of just large!
Fighter vs. Dragon stuff.Thanks wraithstrike, that's a lot more effort that I was willing to put in!
I was looking at the wild shape Druid though. It seems to me that a 20th level Druid wild shaped into a fairly standard Dire Tiger getting 6 attacks at full BAB on a charge (with 6 attempts to grapple) is a little overpowered for 45,000gp. But that may just be me.
While Ashiel is right about rake requiring a maintained grapple (and tanks, it is something that I had missed to notice), pounce allow its use:
Pounce (Ex) When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).
So they are 10 attacks for a dire tiger when charging.
As maintaining a grapple is a standard action it would be more beneficial for the druid/dire tiger no to maintain the grapple and make only 6 attacks the following round.
That's a good catch Diego, but it is nothing compared to the 24 attack pounce that I can get with my 12-headed hydra! Bwaahahaha!
If only Beast Shape IV allowed huge magic beasts instead of just large!
Slightly off topic, but a half-dragon 9 headed fast zombie hydra is scary. There's one active in one of my tabletop games (it was just a bad half-dragon hydra, but the PCs counted it as loot and now it's a zombie :P). It has 9 bite attacks, 2 claw attacks, and 2 slam attacks, and is big, beefy, and has a 30 ft. land and swim speed, and a 50 ft. fly speed (clumsy). Pretty awesome for what it is.
Slightly off topic, but a half-dragon 9 headed fast zombie hydra is scary. There's one active in one of my tabletop games (it was just a bad half-dragon hydra, but the PCs counted it as loot and now it's a zombie :P). It has 9 bite attacks, 2 claw attacks, and 2 slam attacks, and is big, beefy, and has a 30 ft. land and swim speed, and a 50 ft. fly speed (clumsy). Pretty awesome for what it is.Command Undead is an awesome 2nd level spell.
-James
It really is. I imagine that the party may be like "Wtf!?" at some point. There's quite a few low-level spellcasters in the game they are in, and I had already planned for them to have some undead commanding stuff from the get-go. The fact that they now have a big dragon-hydra-zombie just makes it amusing.
I can totally see the one who animated it getting into a shouting contest with someone who commanded it. "Get them!", "Kill them!", "No wait!", "Go faster!", "Turn around!", "Turn around again!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait... Why does the Hydra only have 12 heads?
When a hydra's head is destroyed, two heads regrow in 1d4 rounds. A hydra cannot have more than twice its original number of heads at any one time. To prevent new heads from growing, at least 5 points of acid or fire damage must be dealt to the stump (a touch attack to hit) before they appear. Acid or fire damage from area attacks can affect stumps and the body simultaneously. A hydra doesn't die from losing its heads until all are cut off and the stumps seared by acid or fire.
Cut each Head off, let it grow 2 in it's place, now it has 24 heads. Then toss on the Speed AoMF for a 48 attacks...
================================================
Developer FAQs aren't always right even when they source the rules. As an example, here's a thread I made some time ago on the Natural Invisibility and Invisibility Purge FAQ.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait... Why does the Hydra only have 12 heads?
When a hydra's head is destroyed, two heads regrow in 1d4 rounds. A hydra cannot have more than twice its original number of heads at any one time. To prevent new heads from growing, at least 5 points of acid or fire damage must be dealt to the stump (a touch attack to hit) before they appear. Acid or fire damage from area attacks can affect stumps and the body simultaneously. A hydra doesn't die from losing its heads until all are cut off and the stumps seared by acid or fire.Cut each Head off, let it grow 2 in it's place, now it has 24 heads. Then toss on the Speed AoMF for a 48 attacks...
================================================
Developer FAQs aren't always right even when they source the rules. As an example, here's a thread I made some time ago on the Natural Invisibility and Invisibility Purge FAQ.
Yeah, back in the day the poor Sage (was it Andy Collins? I don't remember...) had a horrible track record when it came to answering questions about psionics. So much so that the boardmembers playfully made a motivator about it. Behold the sage. XD
|
|
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait... Why does the Hydra only have 12 heads?
When a hydra's head is destroyed, two heads regrow in 1d4 rounds. A hydra cannot have more than twice its original number of heads at any one time. To prevent new heads from growing, at least 5 points of acid or fire damage must be dealt to the stump (a touch attack to hit) before they appear. Acid or fire damage from area attacks can affect stumps and the body simultaneously. A hydra doesn't die from losing its heads until all are cut off and the stumps seared by acid or fire.Cut each Head off, let it grow 2 in it's place, now it has 24 heads. Then toss on the Speed AoMF for a 48 attacks...
================================================
Developer FAQs aren't always right even when they source the rules. As an example, here's a thread I made some time ago on the Natural Invisibility and Invisibility Purge FAQ.
1. Devs are more right than random people on the internet.
2. Even if the devs are "wrong" their current wrong is by rule now right.
When you sit at a table with a group of people who all have their own beliefs of how things should be, the only agreement is that we will all abide by the rules of a third party.
The GM.
This is generally ceded to the GM under the assumption they are following standard rules written by the Devs. Short of house rules, everyone agrees that the rules are what the Devs said, until it is house ruled.
When the group ceases to care what the people who wrote the book say the rules are or should be, they are house ruling.
This is not the house rules forum.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait... Why does the Hydra only have 12 heads?
When a hydra's head is destroyed, two heads regrow in 1d4 rounds. A hydra cannot have more than twice its original number of heads at any one time. To prevent new heads from growing, at least 5 points of acid or fire damage must be dealt to the stump (a touch attack to hit) before they appear. Acid or fire damage from area attacks can affect stumps and the body simultaneously. A hydra doesn't die from losing its heads until all are cut off and the stumps seared by acid or fire.Cut each Head off, let it grow 2 in it's place, now it has 24 heads. Then toss on the Speed AoMF for a 48 attacks...
================================================
Developer FAQs aren't always right even when they source the rules. As an example, here's a thread I made some time ago on the Natural Invisibility and Invisibility Purge FAQ.
1. Devs are more right than random people on the internet.
2. Even if the devs are "wrong" their current wrong is by rule now right.
When you sit at a table with a group of people who all have their own beliefs of how things should be, the only agreement is that we will all abide by the rules of a third party.
The GM.
This is generally ceded to the GM under the assumption they are following standard rules written by the Devs. Short of house rules, everyone agrees that the rules are what the Devs said, until it is house ruled.
When the group ceases to care what the people who wrote the book say the rules are or should be, they are house ruling.
This is not the house rules forum.
Hmm... too bad the Developer is wrong in the case I mentioned. Either way, I am also of the opinion that Speed property allows for that weapon to make an extra attack, and if you have a second Speed weapon, it too can make an extra attack.
If a Developer makes a FAQ and cites rules as to why, and those rules are verified as to be true (which wasn't the case for Invisibility Purge), then I stand by the Developers decision. When I believe the Developer is wrong, and I have some written reason as to why I believe so, I will question them on it, or ignore their ruling in my own games.
In both cases, Speed and Purge, I think the Developer is wrong, and there is a written reason why. Speed gives an extra attack for the weapon it enhances, Haste gives an extra attack period, so too does Blessing of Fervor. Since Speed benefits only the weapon it enhances, wielding a second Speed weapon should also get the benefit.
|
|
If you don't want the Devs input, stay in the house rules forum and don't ruin the ability to get Dev input for the rest of us.
I am not saying you did this, your post was polite. That isn't the general approach of others. Quite a few people on here want play the "I'm more clever than the Dev" game.
Most people don't think those people are clever when they try to show up the devs, they just think they are a jerk.
And then the Devs stop coming on the threads, and it sucks for everyone.
You know Ciretose, I notice you seem to hold the Developers up on this almost deific pedestal. I don't know, not trying to insult your or anything, it's just that is seems like you've got an opinion that a Developer can't ever be wrong. And judging by a previous post, if a Developer is wrong, he is now, by his nature, right as he can change the rules.
This strikes me as odd. It also brings to mind a video I watched called Morality 2: Not-So-Good-Books. It's an Athiest video, and while I'm not certain what my religious viewpoints are, the video has some interesting points.
One of them is this: If a Lawmaker makes a Law, that Law is not Moral just because it was made by a Lawmaker; a Moral Law is Moral, because it is Moral.
I say that, because a Developer is a person, and as a person, they can make mistakes. Because of that, all FAQs should be treated as nothing more than a houserule, until they can be verified by others. As I've already shown, a FAQ can be wrong, but you seem to be of the opinion that since the Developers made the FAQ, it is by it's very nature, correct.
This is similar to one of the things that the video I linked showed. It first gives hypothetical laws given by a lawmaker that people would automatically call immoral. Then it goes on to show something else. That people believe that any command issued by what they believe to be a Perfect Moral Being, is by it's nature, Perfectly Moral. After this, it gives various examples of commands (that can be verified by looking them up yourself as myself and my sister did), that match the Immoral Laws exactly.
I don't know, I think I'm just rambling now. I'd like to point out that I'm not trying to insult you or infer that you're religiously devoted to the Developers or anything. I'm just curious about your viewpoint on the Developers.
[Edit] Linked to the wrong video.
[Edit] Fixed Link >:(
|
|
I actually just think a lot of the posters on here are failed developers who couldn't write themselves out of a paper bag.
If you've written a book of high enough quality that people buy it and log onto a messageboard to discuss it, I hold your opinion in higher esteem than some guy who lives in his moms basement.
I mean, even the guy in his moms basement read the rules enough to complain about them.
It isn't that they are perfect. It is that they are better than 99% of the posters on here. And the 1% they aren't better than, they often hire.
Devs can be wrong, just like GM's can*.
However, a dev is only wrong at certain times. Overlooking something like SU vs EX is different than sitting down and making a decision. If they sit down and decide the _____ is how it works they are not wrong, not matter how much we may dislike the ruling. The former is rare, and for the latter they are correct since they get to decide the rules.
*For all of you "the GM is never wrong people."
I'll have you know, I've graduated from the Basement to my Mom's Living Room :P
All kidding aside, I think I see where you're coming from, at least in reference to the Developers anyway. I think I just prefer reading the FAQs and rulings with the idea they could be wrong, and verifying for myself whether they are or not.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Devs can be wrong, just like GM's can*.
However, a dev is only wrong at certain times. Overlooking something like SU vs EX is different than sitting down and making a decision. If they sit down and decide the _____ is how it works they are not wrong, not matter how much we may dislike the ruling. The former is rare, and for the latter they are correct since they get to decide the rules.
*For all of you "the GM is never wrong people."
GMs can be wrong after you have left the table and are able to discuss what happened and show them the proper rule without derailing the entire night with a back and forth at the table that ruins the game for everyone.
And when that happens, the GM should use their near godlike powers to make it right for the next session.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being a jackass and pointing out a potential error are worlds apart.
If they say weapon focus adds +2 I will assume it is a typo, and make a post so they can fix it. <--Undeniable conflict with the book, similar to the example Tels used.
WTF why doesn't cleave work against mirror image? Another knee jerk reaction from SKR. We need new devs. <---The type of statements that cost us FAQ's.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I gotta say, if a thread contains:
Ashiel
Ciretose
Lord Wraithstrike
and myself
You can be pretty damned certain we're going to derail it :P
|
|
Being a jackass and pointing out a potential error are worlds apart.
If they say weapon focus adds +2 I will assume it is a typo, and make a post so they can fix it. <--Undeniable conflict with the book, similar to the example Tels used.
WTF why doesn't cleave work against mirror image? Another knee jerk reaction from SKR. We need new devs. <---The type of statements that cost us FAQ's.
Some people can make the distinction, some can't. The ones who can't ruined it for the rest of us.
Admittedly, as a probation officer I tend to lean toward the idiot proof solution to problems, as...well...that is who I deal with on a regular basis.
And unfortunately, this messageboard doesn't seem to have a very effective idiot screening tool.
Deference is all I'm asking. I don't think Tels approach is wrong, but if SKR came in to the thread to discuss it, I can guarantee the usual suspects would leap in to say "See! And if he's wrong on this I was totally right about what I said in the other thread because the Devs are dumb!"
As I said, I have disagreed with the devs before, I will again. But if I were better at it than they were I would write my own rulebook and publish it.
Which is kind of what they did with 3.5 to get us all to log on here to discuss it.
Well if people would just admit the many-eyed one was always right these things would not happen. ;)
edit:that was for Tels statement. :)
