The Songbird of Doom: A Guide to a most unlikely tank and Mechanism of Mass Destruction (Warning: GMs will hate you)


Advice

251 to 300 of 721 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

What about looking at the polymorph unarmed attacks as a proficiency issue?
In my opinion much of the problem is simply anatomy for many creatres, but even if they were capable of reasonable strikes with non-natural weapon parts of their bodies, the character would have no experience doing so in such a body.

Improved unarmed strike seems like it would refer to only one's natural body. If possible at all, one should have to take the feat again for any creature aside from it's natural form that it would want to do unarmed strikes with.

I don't really see how what I suggested is RAW, but it's yet another RAI (or at least logic/reason) reason for it to not work in my view.

Grand Lodge

I agree with Imbicatus. Once (and as long as) you meet the prereqs, you get the benefit. The benefit is you grow claws. They do not become part of the form. You're imposing rules that simply don't exist within the writing of the feat.


claudekennilol wrote:
I agree with Imbicatus. Once (and as long as) you meet the prereqs, you get the benefit. The benefit is you grow claws. They do not become part of the form. You're imposing rules that simply don't exist within the writing of the feat.

This whole tangent has been enough of a side track from the original post. Everyone is free to rule it how they want. If anyone gets this sort of thing to fly at a PFS table, I'll be amazed frankly.

Lastly, those of you that rule this route, I shudder at what a competent druid player will do with this feat. It's also going to spawn a few important follow up questions. A Druid that shape shifts to a Large or larger form... are the claws Medium or the size of the new form? Shifts to a tiny creature... how do the claws function... Medium or Tiny? If the Druid shifts to a new form that already has claws, what happens, and more importantly why? Can the druid use his claws while shifted to an elemental form? These are only the questions about the claws... there is a list of abilities for Aspect of the Beast that can be piled on for some really abusive shifting shenanigans with this viewpoint.

This build is amusing, but open these flood gates for a Druid and you will regret it.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber

The feat says you grow claws.

You now have a natural attack

Natural attacks based on your form go away.

Polymorph specifically says abilities that let you grow claws work but not your natural attacks.

If the feat said, you can grow claws at will, or you can activate this feat to grow claws it would work. It doesn't. It says you grow claws.

Feel free to rule this at your table. I generally play PFS so I am hesitant to incorporate rules into characters that are not firmly based in RAW and I do not see how your interpretation is RAW based on reading the feat. Expect table variation at best.


What about eldritch heritage to get dragon claws? There duration is poor.

Couple bloodrager lines get claws. Bloodraging on a dex build is less then ideal.

6th level Viking can get a rage power and still be lawful.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm surprised that no one has brought up the fact that the claws are moot in the build no matter how you get them because claws are Bludgeoning and Slashing and not Piercing and therefore don't get the Weapon Finesse from Swashbuckler.


Soup wrote:
I'm surprised that no one has brought up the fact that the claws are moot in the build no matter how you get them because claws are Bludgeoning and not Piercing and therefore don't get the Weapon Finesse from Swashbuckler.

It is covered by the rule of creatures being a certain size they get to use Dex instead of Str. It was actually in one of the posts in this thread (I believe it was in the one explaining how the build worked, I'm going to guess you skipped through and didn't read all the posts). It is a blanket rule to not overly penalize small creatures and make them completely useless in battle.

That being said, the only issue with this being PFS legal is the claws, which is why people are discussing it. For it to work as intended, the character needs to find a way to "activate" claws on demand via class ability or an item/ability that grants them that wouldn't be overridden by the polymorph effect.


Skylancer4 wrote:
Soup wrote:
I'm surprised that no one has brought up the fact that the claws are moot in the build no matter how you get them because claws are Bludgeoning and not Piercing and therefore don't get the Weapon Finesse from Swashbuckler.

It is covered by the rule of creatures being a certain size they get to use Dex instead of Str. It was actually in one of the posts in this thread (I believe it was in the one explaining how the build worked, I'm going to guess you skipped through and didn't read all the posts). It is a blanket rule to not overly penalize small creatures and make them completely useless in battle.

That being said, the only issue with this being PFS legal is the claws, which is why people are discussing it. For it to work as intended, the character needs to find a way to "activate" claws on demand via class ability or an item/ability that grants them that wouldn't be overridden by the polymorph effect.

Wait, what? Can you point that rule out to me Skylancer? I seem to have completely missed it in here. :o


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Woodoodoo wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Soup wrote:
I'm surprised that no one has brought up the fact that the claws are moot in the build no matter how you get them because claws are Bludgeoning and not Piercing and therefore don't get the Weapon Finesse from Swashbuckler.

It is covered by the rule of creatures being a certain size they get to use Dex instead of Str. It was actually in one of the posts in this thread (I believe it was in the one explaining how the build worked, I'm going to guess you skipped through and didn't read all the posts). It is a blanket rule to not overly penalize small creatures and make them completely useless in battle.

That being said, the only issue with this being PFS legal is the claws, which is why people are discussing it. For it to work as intended, the character needs to find a way to "activate" claws on demand via class ability or an item/ability that grants them that wouldn't be overridden by the polymorph effect.

Wait, what? Can you point that rule out to me Skylancer? I seem to have completely missed it in here. :o

I also would like to know. I had read almost every post prior posting to my comment and just reread the thread now. I was still unable to find what allowed the swashbuckler's special weapon finesse (and thus agile, piranha strike, etc.) to claws. If the feral combat training feat was taken and applied to claws, I could see it work though.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber

Actually that applies specifically to CMB checks and not to weapon finesse.

pg 198 of Core Rulebook:

Creatures that are size Tiny or smaller use their
Dexterity modifier in place of their Strength modifier
to determine their CMB.

Familiars use Dex or Str for melee attacks, not the same as weapon finesse. Should be noted, without weapon finesse agile aomf won't work anyway so you have to have some form of weapon finesse or the swashbuckler version.

pg 83 of Core Rulebook:

Attacks: Use the master’s base attack bonus, as calculated
from all his classes. Use the familiar’s Dexterity or
Strength modifier, whichever is greater, to calculate the
familiar’s melee attack bonus with natural weapons.

Also Tiny and smaller creatures use Dex for Climb and Swim checks.


Bleh it was the CMB I was thinking of, you are correct. Though I don't think the OP ever claimed it worked on the natural attacks (at least not in the opening post), it looks like it is there for the unarmed snake style strikes. Re reading the posts now.

Edit: Page 3's break down isn't broken down totally to know where the bonuses are coming from so chances are you are correct about the Weapon Finesse being figured in. That being said, it probably doesn't hurt the build too much as fury builds to hit and you could take multiattack to offset penalties on your natural attacks, assuming you can get them post poly.


I just skipped 70 posts of probably argument, but I was working on a way to do this without dipping Swash and I figured out that without too much trouble you can actually prestiege to Duelist at level 7.

Unarmed Fighter 1: IUS, Monkey Style, Weapon Finesse
UAF 2: Combat Reflexes
UAF 3: Snake Style
MoMS 1: Snake Fang
MOMS 2: Monkey Shine, Dodge
UAF 4: Mobility
Duelist 1: W/E

I actually like this build a lot because with Canny Defense you get 3 fricking stats to your bloody AC. Dex+Int+Wis+10+4(Songbird)+1(Natural Armor)+4 Monkey Style

The reason I made this was because my GM has some kind of stick up his britches about the ACG, so I was looking for a way to do it without touching that guide.


The same question remains, how are you getting claws? Are you only using the one attack?


While some may be trying to set this up as a PFS character, I would point out that home games that include custom item crafting would allow some other forms. The ring in question uses Beast Shape IV, which also allows Tiny Magical Beast forms. This will get you more attacks if you can get the forms approved, along with some interesting additions. Some quick examples:

Witchcrow: 2 Talons, Fly
Sin Seeker: Only a bite, but Fly and Blindsight
Wolpertinger: Bite, Gore, Fly
Zoog: No Fly but 30' speed and 30' climb, 2 Claws & Bite, Scent
Dweomercat Cub: No Fly and 20' speed, but 2 Claws & Bite, Scent, Pounce, Rake

Pretty sure all of those have Darkvision and Low Light Vision as well.

The item would probably be more expensive than the one in the OP, but I'm not well versed with the item creation rules... the Ring of Seven Lovely Colors seems pretty cheap to me.


Darkbridger wrote:

While some may be trying to set this up as a PFS character, I would point out that home games that include custom item crafting would allow some other forms. The ring in question uses Beast Shape IV, which also allows Tiny Magical Beast forms. This will get you more attacks if you can get the forms approved, along with some interesting additions. Some quick examples:

Witchcrow: 2 Talons, Fly
Sin Seeker: Only a bite, but Fly and Blindsight
Wolpertinger: Bite, Gore, Fly
Zoog: No Fly but 30' speed and 30' climb, 2 Claws & Bite, Scent
Dweomercat Cub: No Fly and 20' speed, but 2 Claws & Bite, Scent, Pounce, Rake

Pretty sure all of those have Darkvision and Low Light Vision as well.

The item would probably be more expensive than the one in the OP, but I'm not well versed with the item creation rules... the Ring of Seven Lovely Colors seems pretty cheap to me.

Funny you should mention that. I just made a thread about that:

Ring of Seven Lovely Colors Raven only?. My list:
Thrush: Diminutive animal with bite -1 (1d2-5) speed 10 ft., fly 40 ft. (average)
Bat: Diminutive animal with bite +6 (1d3-4) speed 5 ft., fly 40 ft. (good)
Raven: Tiny animal with bite +4 (1d3-4) speed 10 ft., fly 40 ft. (average)
Arctic Tern: Tiny animal with bite +4 (1d3-4) speed 10 ft., fly 40 ft. (average)
Hawk: Tiny animal with 2 talons +5 (1d4-2) speed 10 ft., fly 60 ft. (average)
Owl: Tiny animal with 2 talons +5 (1d4-2) speed 10 ft., fly 60 ft. (average)
Sun Falcon: Tiny magical beast with 2 talons +11 (1d3 plus 1d6 fire and burn) speed 10 ft., fly 60 ft. (good)
Witchcrow: Tiny magical beast with 2 talons +4 (1d3-1) speed 20 ft., fly 50 ft. (good)
Trumpeter Swan: Small animal with bite +1 (1d4), 2 wings -4 (1d3) speed 10 ft., fly 100 ft. (average)
Great Horned Owl: Small animal with 2 claws +3 (1d4-1) speed 10 ft., fly 60 ft. (average)
Eagle: Small animal with 2 talons +3 (1d4), bite +3 (1d4) speed 10 ft., fly 80 ft. (average)
Greater Witchcrow: Small magical beast with 2 talons +7 (1d6+1) speed 20 ft., fly 60 ft. (good)

My thread has links to each critter, the ring, and the referenced spells.

If you check your critters, I don't think they all can be called "songbirds".
Sin Seeker: This strange flying creature is the size of a house cat and has tender pink skin and the stubbed features of a pig. Its porcine face is eyeless and its nose never stops sniffing at the air
Wolpertinger: This creature appears to be a large hare with long fangs, feathered wings, and a set of antlers.
Zoog: This skittish amalgam of beast parts has luminous eyes, a rat's tail, simian appendages, and tendrils extending from a mole-like nose
Dweomercat Cub: Its coat shining vividly, this majestic tiger looks exotic and otherworldly. It gazes with piercing yellow eyes and stands calmly, as though fearless.

/cevah


Cevah wrote:
If you check your critters, I don't think they all can be called "songbirds".

Hmmm, I wasn't trying to get new forms out of the existing item. I was suggesting the creation of a new item that simply carried Beast Shape IV, which allows a whole swath of forms instead of just one in particular.

The reason the cost of the original item baffles me, is that Beast Shape IV is level 6, requiring a level 11 caster. The +1 protection aspect is 2,000gp alone. Even restricting the form, it seems like a massive discount on the price to get a 6th level effect for an additional 2,000gp. Also, at the minimum casting level, the duration should be 11 minutes per use, not 10. But again, I'm not well versed on the item creation system, and I know it's kind of a fuzzy science at best. <shrug>


Darkbridger wrote:
Cevah wrote:
If you check your critters, I don't think they all can be called "songbirds".
Hmmm, I wasn't trying to get new forms out of the existing item. I was suggesting the creation of a new item that simply carried Beast Shape IV, which allows a whole swath of forms instead of just one in particular.

I realized after my post, you were not trying to use "songbirds".

Darkbridger wrote:
The reason the cost of the original item baffles me, is that Beast Shape IV is level 6, requiring a level 11 caster. The +1 protection aspect is 2,000gp alone. Even restricting the form, it seems like a massive discount on the price to get a 6th level effect for an additional 2,000gp. Also, at the minimum casting level, the duration should be 11 minutes per use, not 10. But again, I'm not well versed on the item creation system, and I know it's kind of a fuzzy science at best. <shrug>

BS2 is 4th level, CL7, so it might be a better match. Also, the Raven called out only needs BS2 not BS4.

As for the discount, you have a severe restriction on what you can change into. That usually means a big discount. By rule, CL7*SL4@7/day is 78,400, but 10 minutes argues for CL10 and 112,000 gp. How this becomes +1,334 (+666 for 50% second function), I don't know.

That said, this is still a great item.

/cevah


Also don't forget, the effect is probably meant as more a utility non combat purpose. It just so happens this build can make so much more of it. Many many times, the pricey stuff is due to its impact on combat.


what about Feral COmbact Training? you need it to use styles with natural attack!

and also you can't use styles in bird form!

Scarab Sages

Forcy wrote:


and also you can't use styles in bird form!

There is nothing in any style feat that limits it to a humanoid form.


Both playtest releases included rules that you could not multiclass any Advanced Class with it's Parent Class.
Did they remove that rule in the final product?

Scarab Sages

Neo2151 wrote:

Both playtest releases included rules that you could not multiclass any Advanced Class with it's Parent Class.

Did they remove that rule in the final product?

Yes.


Then what's the point of listing the parent class?

Scarab Sages

Some class features don't stack. From the PRD:

Parent Classes wrote:
Each one of the following classes lists two classes that it draws upon to form the basis of its theme. While a character can multiclass with these parent classes, this usually results in redundant abilities. Such abilities don't stack unless specified. If a class feature allows the character to make a one-time choice (such as a bloodline), that choice must match similar choices made by the parent classes and vice-versa (such as selecting the same bloodline).


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Then why try to use an advice thread for your soap box?

I am doing no such thing. I am giving my best advice in good conscience to the OP at his request, and now I am defending my position against an extremely rude attacker.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
uses raw as a veneer for rules lawyering a power advantage.

No veneer, no pretense, no apologies.

I am using the RAW to rules-lawyer a power advantage.

I am an unapologetic minmaxer. I use the rules aggressively to create powerful effects in character builds. Of course, that doesn't make me special. Nearly every single person I've seen play this game uses the rules aggressively to create powerful effects in their characters.

Furthermore, the first thing I do when I sit down at a PFS table is ask the other characters about the cool things they do with their characters and share my character's features with them. Then I try to look for ways our different characters' abilities can mesh together to create tactical advantages for the whole group like the party Wizard might be more comfortable about casting a Web Spell if he knows that the party member that gets caught in it is a Grappler and won't be impeded by the webs. Or maybe people can put on Swarmsuits in anticipation of the Bard casting lots of Summon Swarm Spells or Cleats in anticipation of Grease Spells.

I am not hiding my behavior nor looking for forgiveness. If that means you don't like my advice, don't follow it.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
You do not build a character concept around gray areas in the rules.

No, you don't. But I am neither doing that nor advising that on either count. Is it not a gray area, and the character is not built around this concept.

The concept is merely an add-on that helps the character build, and if the referee breaks with the RAW by ruling against it, the OP's character concept is neither ruined nor even disadvantaged from an opportunity lost of having made some other build decision.

The OP has already said that he intends to mix Unarmed Stikes in with his natrual attacks and suffer the -5 penalty, and I am saying that he doesn't suffer the -5. I have explained this within the rules. And while anyone may disagree, and even prove me wrong, my advice is clearly not out of place in a thread with

the title of this thread wrote:
GMs will hate you

in its title.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
You're just making stuff up… Because all you've offered is a bellicose assertions, not an argument.

Well, that's just crazy talk nonsense. I have made an argument. I have offered factual evidence from the rules to support my argument, and I have logically bridged the facts to my argument.

It's one thing to say my argument is weak, that I have failed to demonstrate my point, that you feel it is somehow inappropriate, to outweigh it with counter evidence, but here, you are saying that my argument and my evidence don't even exist when I have given both for everyone to see. That is scary.

My argument:
a Monk does not take a -5 on any Primary Natural Attacks made as part of the Full Attack Action even if he makes Monk Unarmed Strikes as part of the same action.

My explanation:
It is combining Manufactured Weapons with Natural Weapons that demotes primary natural attacks to secondary, and that is the source of the -5.

A Monk Unarmed Strike counts as a Natural Weapon for the purposes of effects that improve Natural Weapons.

Not counting as Manufactured Weapons, they do not demote Natural Weapons from primary to secondary, therefore

no -5.

My factual evidence to support my argument:

Core Rulebook, Monk Class description, subheading Unarmed Strike wrote: wrote:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

Do you really not understand that to be an evidence-backed argument? Do you really need me to explain further?

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Why do developer examples of mixing natural attacks and monk strikes work as if the monk strikes were manufactured weapons?

Show me!

Show me a character build or a monster produced by Paizo Publishing where a Monk mixes Unarmed Strikes and Natural Attacks and takes a -5 on his Natural Attacks. Cite chapter and verse. Link to it. If you can give that to me in a Paizo Pathfinder rules book, an FAQ, the Errata, or an Offical Rules Post, and I will admit that I am wrong and you are right.

You made a lot of other arguments, but if you can give me such a strong counter-example, then that is the only one you needed to make. I have a lot more to say--and I intend to say it--but not if you have evidence like that.

I am only ever trying to arrive at the truth and speak the truth, never to cover, to create nor to change the truth.

Scarab Sages

Jiang-Shi?

Scarab Sages

Tataka Rakshasa for purely Unarmed Strike, rather than Flurry of Blows?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber

Unarmed strike is a weapon and listed on the weapon table. It follows the rules for weapons.

A monk can attack with an unarmed strike or weapon. If he had a bite attack he could mix that in. Why would the bite damage change because he punches with one hand or uses a temple sword with the other, in both cases not flurrying.

Since flurry says you cannot make natural attacks as part of a flurry of blows, does that mean you can't make unarmed strikes as part of a flurry?

The quote you base your entire argument around indicates unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon for spells and effects. Being a weapon, as listed on the Core Rulebook weapon table is not an "effect" rather this clause allows a monk to have his unarmed strike increased by spells like magic fang and strongjaw, feats that can improve natural weapons, unless specified otherwise, other effects as if it were a natural weapon.

If unarmed strikes were a natural weapon, this clause would not have to exist at all. In fact, this clause actually explains that monks unarmed strike are not natural weapon but can affected by effects that can be used on them.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

You're trying to make a corner case that people aren't buying, Scott.

UA strike is clearly treated as a weapon in all cases applicable.

Natural attack makes no distinction between UA being both a weapon and a natural weapon. It's a weapon, despite it selectively being treated as a Nat Weapon by certain other effects...but it clearly is not treated as a Nat Weapon for combat purposes.

Basically, the only thing I can see where you treat UA as a nat weapon is for Magic Fang effects.

It's treated as a weapon.

And thus all NAt Attacks become secondary and take the -5.

Feral Combat training raises Nat Weapons of UA so you don't have to take the penalty.

==Aelryinth


So a small bird can go around being a death machine are we playing TOON

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

its one of the reasons why Dex to damage is not considered viable. A housecat becomes a terrifying opponent. Pixies rock. Quicklings dominate.

And Songbirds terrify.

Ugh.

==Aelrynth


more rules lawyering and rules interpretation philosophy. ohmmmmmm:

Scott Wilhelm wrote:


I am doing no such thing.

You are.

You know full well that most people do not agree with your reading of the rule. You in fact, seem to be about the only person that reads it that way. You are advising someone else to read it that way to increase the power of their character and that is munchkining. It is not something to be encouraged especially for a PFS character where the DM keeps changing. You are taking it upon yourself to INTERPRET a rule that you don't think is clear. That isn't your job its the DMs.

Quote:
I am using the RAW to rules-lawyer a power advantage.

Don't do that in an advice thread. Try that in the rules forums. And above all, do NOT present something you admit you have to aggressively rules lawyer as the one true reading of the text like you have been.

Advising someone to belligerently rules lawyer with one DM is a bad idea. Advising someone to spend very valuable session time trying a very bad argument to increase the power of an already complicated and wonky build is even worse. You may as well go up to the dm and announce "I am a cheese weasel!". Its going to get your entire build a half hour review or, frankly "you're cheating, I can't audit a character this complicated, get off my table". Advising someone to simply do something shady and not even let the dm rule on it is outright cheating.

Quote:
I am an unapologetic minmaxer.

You've gone past that. I don't normally hold to strict definitions for gaming definitions, but a minmaxer has what it is right in the definition and this isn't it. A minmaxer minimizes penalties for things they don't care about to maximize the benefits, for example a two handed fighter dumping charisma into the toilet to put more points in strength. You dump charisma, nothing bad happens, your strength, hit, and damge go up. No muss no fuss no interpretation required.

This is attempting to loophole a rather strained reading of the words into a power advantage. I call that munchkining. Thats the nice word for it.

Quote:
Furthermore, the first thing I do when I sit down at a PFS table is ask the other characters

Teamwork is cool, but telling people that they can do X is vastly different than telling them that the dm might let them do x, which is vastly differenf from "I think they can do X but 99 percent of people don't"

Quote:
I am not hiding my behavior nor looking for forgiveness. If that means you don't like my advice, don't follow it.

Which means it falls to other people to put out the giant warning sign that you're trying something underhanded.

Quote:

, my advice is clearly not out of place in a thread with

the title of this thread wrote:

GMs will hate you

I disagree. If your build is making the dm hate you that is the time where you need EVERY I dotted, T crossed, and need to be firmly within both the raw and the rai. Because annoying the dm is a good way to get audited and if i caught you adding natural attacks on an argument THAT bad I'd think you were cheating.

Quote:
Do you really not understand that to be an evidence-backed argument?

Its not an evidence based argument. It is an argument based argument. There is a difference between quoting a section from the rules and showing that it says what you think it does.

I have already repeatedly explained the flaw in your argument. You don't address that. Effects that enhance the unarmed strike are not necessarily things that the unarmed strike affects. A--> B does not mean that B--->A. Chocholate causes happiness, therefore happiness causes chocholate.

Without biting, Chewy a toothy half orc monks kick to the head does

+4 kick for (1d6+4) damage.

With biting Chewy's kick to the head does

+4/-1 for (1d6+4)/(1d3+2)-2 damage

Note that Chewy's kick is not affected by the bite: its the same either way, the bite is affected by the kick. Since the bite doesn't affect the kick at all, it is not a spell or effect that enhances unarmed strikes. It does nothing to unarmed strikes at all, so they don't interact.

By what argument does the bite fall into a category of things that affect unarmed strikes?

Quote:

Why do developer examples of mixing natural attacks and monk strikes work as if the monk strikes were manufactured weapons?

Show me!

Unarmed strikes use the rules for manufactured weapons.

Quote:
Show me a character build or a monster produced by Paizo Publishing where a Monk mixes Unarmed Strikes and Natural Attacks and takes a -5 on his Natural Attacks. Cite chapter and verse. Link to it. If you can give that to me in a Paizo Pathfinder rules book, an FAQ, the Errata, or an Offical Rules Post, and I will admit that I am wrong and you are right.

Still looking for the example. The example i thought i had used twf, not flurry. Still digging.

You made a lot of other arguments, but if you can give me such a strong counter-example, then that is the only one you needed to make. I have a lot more to say--and I intend to say it--but not if you have evidence like that.

Quote:
I am only ever trying to arrive at the truth and speak the truth, never to cover, to create nor to change the truth.

There's a huge problem with this. I call it the assumption of perfection in rules argumentation. You're assuming that since the rules are perfectly clear and non contradictory that any argument you can make for a position means that the position must be THE right one. If that were possible to do in the english language lawyers were out of business. The same words can have multiple meanings and interpretations even when you don't screw it up yourself. You can't just say "this one argument points this way" so thats the end of it, you have to consider whats the strongest argument.


Unfortunately, this build is mechanically unsound (unless something in this build allows for qualifying for combat feats without having to qualify for them):

Monkey Shine is just a combat feat, not a style feat and thus cannot be taken as the Monk (MOMS) bonus feat.

All the style feat lines work this way. The initial feat is considered to be a style feat and the rest are combat feats.

Monkey Shine:

Monkey Shine (Combat)
You combine acrobatics and opportunity to devastating effect against your opponent.
Prerequisites: Wis 13, Improved Unarmed Strike, Monkey Moves, Monkey Style, Stunning Fist, Acrobatics 11 ranks, Climb 11 ranks.
Benefit: While using Monkey Style, if you successfully deliver a Stunning Fist attempt, in addition to the normal effect of Stunning Fist, you can spend a free action to enter a square adjacent to you that is within your opponent’s space. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity. While you are in your opponent’s space, you gain a +4 dodge bonus to AC and a +4 bonus on melee attack rolls against that opponent. If otherwise unhindered, the opponent can move away from you, but if he does, he provokes an attack of opportunity from you even if his choice of movement does not normally do so.
Normal: You cannot enter an opponent’s space.


Quintain wrote:

Unfortunately, this build is mechanically unsound (unless something in this build allows for qualifying for combat feats without having to qualify for them):

Monkey Shine is just a combat feat, not a style feat and thus cannot be taken as the Monk (MOMS) bonus feat.

All the style feat lines work this way. The initial feat is considered to be a style feat and the rest are combat feats.

** spoiler omitted **

from Master of Many Styles:

"Alternatively, a master of many styles may choose a feat in that style’s feat path (such as Earth Child Topple) as one of these bonus feats if he already has the appropriate style feat (such as Earth Child Style).The master of many styles does not need to meet
any other prerequisite of the feat in the style’s feat path."


Jayder22 wrote:
Quintain wrote:

Unfortunately, this build is mechanically unsound (unless something in this build allows for qualifying for combat feats without having to qualify for them):

Monkey Shine is just a combat feat, not a style feat and thus cannot be taken as the Monk (MOMS) bonus feat.

All the style feat lines work this way. The initial feat is considered to be a style feat and the rest are combat feats.

** spoiler omitted **

from Master of Many Styles:

"Alternatively, a master of many styles may choose a feat in that style’s feat path (such as Earth Child Topple) as one of these bonus feats if he already has the appropriate style feat (such as Earth Child Style).The master of many styles does not need to meet
any other prerequisite of the feat in the style’s feat path."

Ah, thank you! I knew I was missing something, just couldn't put my finger on it (probably didn't read far enough).

Grand Lodge

Monstrous extremities will not work with the ring of seven lovely colors. You can only have one polymorph spell on at a time. You can only be affected by one or the other.

The ring lets the user use beast shape IV to transform into a songbird. Both beast shape and monstrous extremities are transmutation(polymorph) spells.

PRD on transmutation(polymorph) wrote:
You can only be affected by one polymorph spell at a time. If a new polymorph spell is cast on you (or you activate a polymorph effect, such as wild shape), you can decide whether or not to allow it to affect you, taking the place of the old spell. In addition, other spells that change your size have no effect on you while you are under the effects of a polymorph spell.


How does this work with a bat skinwalker with the bat shape feat?

Also you can gain some first level feats with the following

Arcane strike:bard arcane duelist
Various:gendarm cavalier
Various:crusader cleric

;)


The use of bat shape also opens up a bite attack instead of claws, this lets you use noxious bite or tripping bite, which is nice.
With your high dex you could go for a multi aoo buuild with trip attacks, throw in wolf style instead of snake, and be truly horrifying

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

ten ounces of leathery fury nips the hill giant on the ankle with such precision he topples over, and then tears open his throat with a transcendentally precise and large gash that emits a gout of blood weighing more then he does!

And people wonder why I hate dex to damage.

:P

==Aelryinth


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

ten ounces of leathery fury nips the hill giant on the ankle with such precision he topples over, and then tears open his throat with a transcendentally precise and large gash that emits a gout of blood weighing more then he does!

And people wonder why I hate dex to damage.

:P

==Aelryinth

If we're going to bring physics into this a 50 ton dragon really shouldn't care whether you're a 300 pound dwarf or a 90 pound human wizard, you're just a smear when it hits you.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
If we're going to bring physics into this a 50 ton dragon really shouldn't care whether you're a 300 pound dwarf or a 90 pound human wizard, you're just a smear when it hits you.

And now I'm envisioning a tiny songbird burrowing through the dragon's eye and into it's brain.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I read that as "Ten ounces of leathery furry nips on the hill giant".

I literally, laughed out loud.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

ten ounces of leathery fury nips the hill giant on the ankle with such precision he topples over, and then tears open his throat with a transcendentally precise and large gash that emits a gout of blood weighing more then he does!

And people wonder why I hate dex to damage.

:P

==Aelryinth

If we're going to bring physics into this a 50 ton dragon really shouldn't care whether you're a 300 pound dwarf or a 90 pound human wizard, you're just a smear when it hits you.

To say nothing of the physics of just being a 50 ton animal that flies. The chief concern of whale handlers who transport their animals by truck is their 3 ton animals overheating, and out of water, all a whale does is lie there and wait for death or deliverance.

Now picture the calorie consumption of a 50 ton animal that flies. That's an animal that will generate enough heat to cook in its own juices. What would you say, that breathing fire is the way the animal keeps cool? but that doesn't explain dragons who breathe clouds of gas or even cones of frost.

I am forced to agree with BigNorseWolf. Every time you attempt to bring real science into your fantasy/scifi, somewhere in the world, a catgirl dies.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Its been established that you can't simply keep adding limbs to multi weapon fight with.

Has it? I really thought that if I were Tengu or Tiefling or something with Claws, and I then Polymorphed into a 4-armed sahaugin or an Aurumvorax, I would indeed get 4 claw attacks, and no longer 2.


Aelryinth wrote:
You're trying to make a corner case that people aren't buying, Scott.

Just because something is unpopular, doesn't make it wrong. If I am playing the game in a way that does not go against the rules, it's not right to bully me from a PFS table just because they're unpopular.

For a homespun campaign, what's legal is not up to you, me, or the OP: it's up to the DM. I always vet my builds with homespinning DMs in advance. In a new campaign with a new DM, I always begin by explaining the character I want to run, as should we all.

Meanwhile, consider the possibility that many people do agree with me, but look at the level of verbal abuse and ad hominem attacks BigNorseWolf is throwing at me just for putting forth an idea and supporting it with a quote from the rules. I have been accused of cheating, ruining the game, of spreading hatred. I've been called a cheese weasel, whatever that is. BigNorseWolf has even been saying that my arguments don't even exist and accusing me of using the thread for some political agenda when all I did was give advice based on a rule I found. Maybe the majority of players think I'm right, but they are afraid to speak out because they are afraid of the level of verbal abuse and online bullying BigNorseWolf and people like him are willing to bring.

Seriously, Aelryinth, read BigNorseWolf's posts and imagine he was saying that to you. How would that make you feel? Now imagine you aren't you: now imagine you are an emotionally sensitive middle schooler who gets made fun of at school because he plays Dungeons and Dragons, the gets made fun of more when he tries to explain the difference between Dungeons and Dragons and Pathfinder, you know, the kind of child we read about in the papers committing suicide because he's being bullied and comes onto these forums to connect with like-minded people.

When is BigNorseWolf's tone appropriate? It's not easy for me to take.

ShadowDax wrote:
I would like to thank you all for a cordial discussion on the issue. I do not see this board as hostile or heated in any way.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
I have already repeatedly explained the flaw in your argument. You don't address that.

I am addressing counter arguments in turn. I have been devoting whole posts to your counterpoints, only stopping because my posts get too long. You could have won this argument in your last post by simply citing the evidence you alluded to and I requested. But by your own admission, your example was a false one.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Still looking for the example. The example i thought i had used twf, not flurry. Still digging.

I beg some of the patience that you ask of me. I have been addressing your points. I still haven't gotten to all of them.

I would like to encourage you to cite your 2weapon fighting example anyway. Even bearing your admission in mind, it might bring something relevant to the discussion. I think it will, because my point extends to 2weapon fighting as well.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Becoming secondary is something that happens to the natural attacks, they're not remotely covered by anything that applies to the monk unarmed strike.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that nothing about an unarmed strike would affect a natural attack, and were that the case, then an unarmed strike would not interfere with natural attacks anyway and would never impose a -5 on anything, and no special ability is even needed.

I just don't think this is the case. I think that ordinarily, when you combine unarmed strikes with natural attacks in a Full Attack Action, the unarmed strikes interfere with primary natural attacks, demoting them to secondary, and causing -5 on the attack roll. I'm saying that Monks and Brawlers have a special ability connected with their Unarmed Strikes that make it so they do not interfere with primary Natural Attacks.

So, does a Monk Unarmed Strike count as a Natural Weapon for the purposes of effects that improve Claw Attacks?

Well, the rule says

Core Rulebook, Monk Class description, subheading Unarmed Strike wrote:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

So, yes. A Monk can treat his unarmed strike as a natural weapon for the purposes of effects that improve Claw Attacks because a Claw Attack is a natural weapon. That's what the rule says.

Is being relieved of a -5 penalty an effect that improves a Claw attack? Well, sure!

Scarab Sages

Cao Phen, from yesterday wrote:
Jiang-Shi?

With Clarification:

The Jiang-Shi has a Flurry BAB of +3. It also has Weapon Finesse, with a DEX of 23 (+6), resulting in the +9/+9.

Its bite attack, which it can use during the Flurry of Blows, has a BAB of +3. Because the Bite is considered a Light Weapon, Weapon Finesse applies to it, adding +6 via Dexterity, giving it a total of +9. However, in the statblock, it shows that the attack bonus for the Bite is a +4. This possible reason for that is that it took the Secondary Natural Attack penalty of -5.

The Jiang-Shi is in Bestiary 3.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Scott, that 'effect' that improves a claw attack refers to the UA strike itself. You're trying to wordbend it so that an effect which targets the UA instead improves ANOTHER, non-UA attack.

This is exactly analogous to targeting your Sword with Greater Magic Weapon and having it instead improve your shield. Natural attacks becoming primary and naturals secondary is not a targeted effect. It is simply something which happens in the rules.

When an effect targets the UA, it counts as Manu or nat. What happens to any other natural attacks is completely superfluous and beyond the reach of discussion here.

The natural attacks are at -5. It's very cut and dried.
================

And big Norse wolf is actually being fairly patient with you, he's just frustrated because you're wordbending to metagame, and trying to claim it's RAW.

If you preface everything you said with "This might not be RAW, but this is how we play it", then there is no argument.

But your continued attempts to justify it as the 'right' way to play aren't winning you friends. You're saying it's 'House Rule' on one hand and then arguing vociferously that it's the 'correct way' on the other.

I'd say he's being very patient with you. The people who do it to me tend to accuse me of willfully misleading others, or just flat dismiss it out of hand without coming up with viable counter-arguments. So, he's been pretty good so far, actually.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

ten ounces of leathery fury nips the hill giant on the ankle with such precision he topples over, and then tears open his throat with a transcendentally precise and large gash that emits a gout of blood weighing more then he does!

And people wonder why I hate dex to damage.

:P

==Aelryinth

If we're going to bring physics into this a 50 ton dragon really shouldn't care whether you're a 300 pound dwarf or a 90 pound human wizard, you're just a smear when it hits you.

There's such a thing as suspension of disbelief.

And the idea that the smaller you get, the more fearsome a combatant you are just doesn't ring well with me. I can see AC going up, I have no problem with that...it's a trope that fast small guys can be a true PITA to hit.

But for them to do MORE DAMAGE as they get smaller? Ugh. It's why I hate dex to damage...it just runs against suspension of disbelief. I simply allow Weapon Finesse users who take Expertise to add their Expertise bonus to damage with finessable weapons...caps at a nice +6, stacks with strength, and accurately reflects the additional skill needed to do damage with an inferior combat style.

==Aelryinth

251 to 300 of 721 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / The Songbird of Doom: A Guide to a most unlikely tank and Mechanism of Mass Destruction (Warning: GMs will hate you) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.