I hijacked another thread with this question but I think it would be better to make a new thread.
If a Bloodrager holding a bardiche turns into a Dire Ape or Girallon (the 1st is a large animal, the 2nd a large magical beast) by way of the 16th level arcane bloodline power, can he keep his bardiche or does it meld into the new form?
Because some sources say morphing into an animal or magical beast always melds your gear into your new form, other sources say the gear melds if it can't be used by your new form (and a Dire Ape or Girallon can, IMO, use a weapon).
Edit: and if it doesn't meld, can the Bloodrager use a free action to release the grip on his weapon, another free action to rage and morph and a last free action to grip his weapon again (as the weapon didn't have time to fall to the ground)? When he morph the bardiche is no longer "his gear" so it doesn't meld, and there's nothing stating something you once possessed melds into your new form when you pick it up again. Is it right?
Polymorph Subschool wrote: When you cast a polymorph spell that changes you into a creature of the animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin type, all of your gear melds into your body. That's pretty non-negotiable, there. Monstrous Humanoids and Undead are the two prime sets of polymorphs that don't meld gear, but that rule makes it rather explicit that it's based on creature type rather than if the creature can use the gear. Dire Ape is an animal, so no.
From the edit: No. He can free action drop, free action rage, move action retrieve item though.
I had a doubt because a well referenced guide on polymorphism states: "If your new form is capable of using your gear, then it transforms along with you to accommodate the new
shape of your body and continues to function as normal"
Guide: On Skin Changing
About the actions, as I'm changing form as a free action (when I enter rage), I figured it would be instantaneous and thus I would only need another free action to close my grip on the weapon again, not pick it up on the ground or retrieve it from a scabbard or whatever.
The guide is not the rule and is probably paraphrasing. Here is the rule:
CRB p212 wrote: When you cast a polymorph spell that changes you into a creature of the animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin type, all of your gear melds into your body. Items that provide constant bonuses and do not need to be activated continue to function while melded in this way (with the exception of armor and shield bonuses, which cease to function). Items that require activation cannot be used while you maintain that form. While in such a form, you cannot cast any spells that require material components (unless you have the Eschew Materials or Natural Spell feat), and can only cast spells with somatic or verbal components if the form you choose has the capability to make such movements or speak, such as a dragon. Other polymorph spells might be subject to this restriction as well, if they change you into a form that is unlike your original form (subject to GM discretion). If your new form does not cause your equipment to meld into your form, the equipment resizes to match your new size. In short, you change into an animal so ALL of your gear melds with you. It will become unavailable for use even if the form you change into has hands (such as a Dire Ape).
You will need to do as kestral287 stated, drop the weapon, change, then pick it up.
Gauthier Descamps wrote: I had a doubt because a well referenced guide on polymorphism states: "If your new form is capable of using your gear, then it transforms along with you to accommodate the new
shape of your body and continues to function as normal"
Guide: On Skin Changing
About the actions, as I'm changing form as a free action (when I enter rage), I figured it would be instantaneous and thus I would only need another free action to close my grip on the weapon again, not pick it up on the ground or retrieve it from a scabbard or whatever.
The guide's wrong, simple as that.
Action-wise, "free" =/= "instantaneous". Talking is a free action, but certainly not instantaneous; even people who specialize in talking really, really fast can't do better than about four-six hundred words per minute and still remain comprehensible. This is actually why the rule allowing your GM to limit how many free actions you can take in a round exists, because they do take time.
Why is there an assumption with no opposable thumb that a gorilla of any size would be able to proficiently use a sword or bardiche?
PRD wrote: ...the GM is the final arbiter of what abilities depend on form and are lost when a new form is assumed.
Thanks guys it's quite clear now.
@meabolex: First, there's the Derhii (bestiary 3) which is described as a "flying ape" and which is using a falchion and javelins.
Second, there's a popular thread right now in the Advice section where no one objects to a songbird (thread "songbird of doom") being able to proficiently make a humanoid monk's martial moves. And that's a LOT more ridiculous and illogical than an ape using a tool.
Gauthier Descamps, any creature can use unarmed strikes. Your statement that they are a 'humanoid monks martial moves' is flawed. In any case, that does not mean they are physically capable of using manufactured weapons.
A tiny bird using unarmed strikes is no more ridiculous than a tiny humanoid doing using unarmed strikes (ever see a bird smash a window with it's body?).
What you describe is a bird making a bullrush against a window, not a bird making kung-fu with 5-6 body attacks AND his natural attacks.
There's a reason why monsters in the bestiary don't have full iterative unarmed strikes in addition to their natural attacks (eventhough you're saying all creatures can make them), and that's because their natural attacks ARE their unarmed strikes. So why would you keep your old unarmed strikes AND gain your new form's ones when you polymorph?
Anyway that wasn't the point of this thread. But it cracks me up to see people objecting to an ape using tools (which is quite realistic AND is in the rules, see the Derhii), but not to a monk transformed into a songbird making his old kung-fu moves AND his new form's natural attacks (I guess his years of martial practice with his former body were for nothing, as he can do the exact same moves the second he assumes a completely new and different form).
A bull rush does does not do damage, so no, it is not a bull rush.
Unarmed Strikes use iteratives just like manufactured weapons. Natural Weapons do not. Combining the two results in all natural weapons being considered secondary (-5attack, 0.5x strength damage).
The design is intentional, if an orc has a natural weapon and uses unarmed strikes his natural weapon suffers a -5 attack penalty and 1/2 strength damage.
The game does not differentiate between forms. Claws in feline form or claws in humanoid form are still claws. Just because you are practicing claws in humanoid form and then change to a feline form does not mean you are suddenly not proficient with the claws in the feline form.
Unarmed Strikes are unarmed strikes regardless of form.
So you're basically saying all monsters in the bestiary, Tarrasque included, are able to perform full iterative unarmed strikes in addition to their natural attacks (which will become secondary). I've never seen anything like the mechanic you're defending, and the basis of this songbird build, in any Paizo material so I'm not convinced. it's both illogical, irrealistic, ridiculous flavor wise and not supported by any official material.
CRB p141 wrote: All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons possessed by their race. There is your official material.
The option is typically subpar and most creatures will not default to it, so it is not listed.
Do you see "Unarmed Strike" in humanoid statblocks when they do not possess the feat "Improved Unarmed Strike"? No
Does that mean that they cannot do it? Again, No.
Why? Everyone is proficient with unarmed strikes.
That's about proficiency, what does it have to do with the matter at hand? Besides it's about "characters" who are always humanoids, if it was applied to everything it would say "creatures".
Do you really want us to compare the tarrasque in my version of pathfinder (the tarrasque as listed in the bestiary) and the terrasque in your version of the game (the tarrasque with full iterative unarmed strikes and all its natural attacks as seconday)? The 2nd version will of course deal much better DPR, so if it's not the configuration listed in the bestiary it must be for a reason. That reason is, simply put, that it doesn't work.
Avoid the "unarmed strikes draw AoO", who would think a monster such as this wouldn't have improved unarmed strike IF your version of the rules was the correct one?
Another question that should settle it: are you able to tell me how much damage the unarmed strike of a tarrasque does? You won't be able to without referring to the table in the universal monster rules with slam damage by size which is titled... "natural attacks by size". Natural attacks. And I don't need to remind you the rules about natural attacks and polymorph.
As Gauss has stated, all creatures can make unarmed strikes, Tarrasque included, although many will not do so out of habit.
Combat rules that apply to characters also apply to creatures in general. It's just wording. Or are you claiming that a humanoid controlled by the GM can no longer make unarmed strikes?
Unarmed strikes are not necessarily kung-fu moves. They're just bludgeoning attacks used with some portion of the body. If a creature has a corporeal body, it can whack a portion of it against the enemy if it desires. These are what unarmed strikes are.
You figure the damage out like any other weapon. Look on the weapons table for the base damage (1d3 for a medium creature), then increase the damage dice based on Tarrasque's size. (using the new FAQ)
Gauthier Descamps, please show me a rule that states "characters are always humanoids". They aren't. In fact, in one section the CRB states that "characters" and "creatures" are synonymous.
You seem to be missing a couple things about Unarmed Strikes and how they apply to a Tarrasque.
A) they provoke unless you have Improved Unarmed Strike. This alone makes most intelligent creatures opt to NOT USE THEM. Low or unintelligent creatures wouldn't bother with it, defaulting to their best attack sequence.
B) Having the Tarrasque attack with Unarmed Strike and then make natural attacks secondary DROPS it's DPR, it does not raise them.
First, all of it's primary attacks become secondary. That gives them all a -5 penalty. That alone is enough to seriously reduce it's DPR. How do we know this? Because it's unarmed strike sequence of (BAB bonuses) +30/+25/+20/+15/+10/+5 is not enough to raise it's DPR when FIVE (again, BAB) +30 attacks drop to +30-5=+25.
Second, with all of those primary attacks becoming secondary, their +15 damage becomes +7. +30/+25 is not going to make up for that and the +20/+15/+10/+5 certainly isnt.
C) Finally, as Byakko stated, there is now FAQ regarding damage dice increases that unifies all damage dice increase rules. A Tarrasque's unarmed strike damage is 2d6 (1d3->1d4->1d6->1d8->2d6 as per the FAQ).
Summary: all creatures can make unarmed strikes although due to AoOs and preferred attack styles that do much better damage most will not (note: there may be exceptions, such as incorporeal creatures which are usually unable to make physical attacks, including unarmed strikes).
As I already stated, don't you honestly think a creature such as the tarrasque would have improved unarmed strike if it was working like this? So the AoO are irrelevant.
You're both saying those statistics are perfectly legit for the tarrasque?
bite +32 (4d8+7/15–20/×3 plus grab), 2 claws +32 (1d12+7), 2 gores +32 (1d10+7), tail slap +32 (3d8+7), unarmed strike +37/+32/+27/+22/+17/+12 (2d6+7)
Or for a tyrannosaurus, instead of bite +20 (4d6+22/19–20 plus grab), you'd have bite +15 (4d6+11), unarmed +20/+15/+10 (1d8+5)
I don't know, I feel there's something wrong with that. And really easy to manipulate (with static bonuses to damage, it's true that when you only factor in Strength bonus it's not THAT overpowered) to make all melee characters want to polymorph. And again, I've never seen any official paizo material with iterative unarmed strikes added this way, when a few static damage bonuses (such as +xd6 from fire, +2 from moral, +3 from arcane strike etc) would be enough to make it worthwile and thus a viable configuration. Or when an opponent is helpless or have a low AC: in such case it's often more beneficial to add the iterative unarmed strikes (it is for the tarrasque and the tyrannosaurus for example). Yet I've never seen it done, explained, specified etc in any paizo material that it was a possibility.
You are missing the point. The Tarrasque would not have Improved Unarmed Strike. It is a feat it has not taken. You cannot simply state "everyone has Improved Unarmed Strike" in order to discuss this.
Either:
A) a character has Improved Unarmed Strike in which case unarmed strikes are considered a major attack option and the major attack option will be listed in the statblock.
or
B) a character does not have Improved Unarmed Strike in which case unarmed strikes are generally considered to be a last resort option and there is no real reason to list the option in the statblock.
Without Improved Unarmed Strike characters do not have the unarmed strike attack sequence listed because it is not something most characters do due to the AoO and the -4 penalty to attack (assuming they want to actually do lethal damage and not the default non-lethal damage).
As for your attack sequences I am not going to run through your numbers, but if your numbers are right, then yes..basically, that is the sequence when if your math is correct.
The point here is this: All creatures (again, except perhaps incorporeal creatures) can make unarmed strikes. However, without the feat it is almost always a really bad idea. AoOs, low damage dice, a -4 attack penalty for lethal damage, and a -5 attack penalty and half strength damage for their primary natural weapons all combine to making unarmed strikes a lackluster option for most creatures.
Why don't they list them? do you want to pay for 20 extra pages in your book for an option NOBODY is going to use when people can figure it out on the rare chance it comes up? I sure as heck don't.
Edit: BTW? Have you ever seen backup weapons in a creature's equipment (such as Daggers) that are not in the attack sequence statblock? If they are not likely to be used, they wont bother to put it in the statblock because that would take up extra space.
Your logic is flawed. My argument is precisely that the tarrasque doesn't have this feat because what you're explaining doesn't work that way, so you can't just say "yes it works that way but the tarrasque doesn't do it because it doesn't have the feat to make it a viable tactic". I'm not sure I'm clear, sorry for my english :/
It can often be a viable tactic: creatures with low strength but static damage bonuses for example, or a creature even with huge strength against a low AC or defenseless opponent. I haven't really looked into the bestiaries but I'll do and try to find good examples. By your last post, I understand that if a creature DPR is better with your weird rule, then it would be its major attack option and thus be the one included in its stat block, right?
And when I was talking about this tactic not appearing in any paizo material, I was thinking more along the line of a simple entry at the beginning of the bestiary (like "all creatures have the possibility of..." with the table of unarmed strike damage according to the creatures size). Of course not in every stat block!
Finally, you gave me the example of a bird smashing a window with his body to say that all creatures can do it and that it's realistic, but if it doesn't have improved unarmed strike how is it breaking a window with non lethal damage? :)
Whether it's realistic or not, this is something that's been touched upon many times in various other threads, some with official input. (although my memory isn't good enough to recall if they specifically addressed your question, they have certainly discussed related issues)
As a general rule, all creatures can make untrained unarmed strikes. We've already provided some evidence. If you want more, go goggle and read all those other threads.
Ok, you seem to think that in order for creatures to make unarmed strikes normally then a feat is required. It is not. ANY creature can make unarmed strikes. I already cited the rule.
Failure to possess the feat to remove the AoO and the -4 attack penalty for making lethal unarmed strikes does not mean they cannot make unarmed strikes.
Your logic is flawed if you think that this is how feats work.
As for the bird example, I was just trying to show how a creature was making an attack but not using it's natural weapons. As for how? -4 attack penalty = lethal damage. Read the rules.
Look, this is all in the rules. It has been explained.
1) All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes. Note: characters is synonymous with creatures, they are used interchangeably.
2) Without the feat Improved Unarmed Strike you provoke an AoO each time you make an unarmed strike.
3) Without the feat Improved Unarmed Strike you suffer a -4 attack penalty when making a lethal attack using unarmed strike.
4) If you combine unarmed strike attacks with natural attacks the natural aeapons become secondary and thus suffer a -5 attack penalty and 1/2 strength bonus to damage.
The summary: Yes, ALL creatures can make unarmed strikes. Very few will choose to do so because of the ridiculous penalties and loss of DPR.
Having a -4 penalty to attack with iteratives, provoking an AoO with iteratives, having a -5 penalty to attack with natural weapons, and having a 1/2 strength bonus to damage with natural weapons means most creatures are going to suck at using unarmed strikes+natural attacks.
If you cannot understand those rules, I am sorry, I cannot help you further.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Gauthier Descamps wrote: Your logic is flawed. My argument is precisely that the tarrasque doesn't have this feat because what you're explaining doesn't work that way, so you can't just say "yes it works that way but the tarrasque doesn't do it because it doesn't have the feat to make it a viable tactic". I'm not sure I'm clear, sorry for my english :/ Why? 'Cause that's kind of... fact. The Tarrasque would have to be some kind of idiot-savant to bother with this.
Let's assume the Tarrasque has to go against a target with its own AC. 40's pretty easy to reach for a human at the requisite level, maybe a little low on the whole but since we're not accounting for other defensive measures, close enough.
Damage per round = hit%*damage + hit%*crit%*(crit mod -1)*damage multiplied on crit.
bite +37 (4d8+15/15–20/×3 plus grab), 2 claws +37 (1d12+15), 2 gores +37 (1d10+15), tail slap +32 (3d8+7) is the normal routine
That becomes bite +32 (4d8+7/15–20/×3 plus grab), 2 claws +32 (1d12+7), 2 gores +32 (1d10+7), tail slap +32 (3d8+7), UAS +37 (2d6+15), UAS +32 (2d6+15), UAS +27 (2d6+15), UAS +22 (2d6+15).
If you run the math out, against AC40 the baseline Tarrasque has a DPR of 140.8913. Against AC40 the wannabe Monk Tarrasque has a DPR of 123.9913. Dropping all those shots from a 90% hit chance to a 65% hit chance, and taking 8 damage off each one, hurts. Since the Unarmed Strikes walk down the BAB chain and that's capped at four shots, you only get one more actual accurate strike out of it, then a bunch of crapshoots.
The reason the Tarrasque didn't bother to take the feat is that the feat sucks for it. The above even made the liberty of assuming that unlike non-Monk humanoids, it wouldn't even have to give up its Claw attacks to make the UAS routine.
There are creatures when it doesn't-- those with terrible natural attacks mostly. And there are even occasions for the Tarrasque when it doesn't-- when the target's AC is so much massively lower that it doesn't matter how inaccurate the shot is. But it doesn't need to bother with special training when the result is basically "this is good for when I outclass my victims massively". That's wasteful, because at that point who cares about the AoO?
kestral287, the DPR of the Tarrasque is even worse than that, you forgot to subtract -4 from each of the UAS attacks due to doing lethal damage.
Nonlethal damage is strictly worse than lethal damage since it can be healed simultaneously with lethal damage (1pt nonlethal is healed for each point of lethal damage healed) so it needs to be -4attack unless the creature using UAS has Improved UAS.
Ah, my assumption was with the IAS feat. Without the feat, yes, it's even more terrible.
That was more-or-less the thought behind my 'idiot-savant' line. It would have to be smart enough to figure out that learning how to body-slam something without getting stabbed might be helpful (savant) but not smart enough to remember that it's a big, spikey beast covered in weapons (idiot).
I worked under assumptions that are fairly generous to the Tarrasque-- that it gets Improved Unarmed Strike without giving up a useful feat (plausible, since it burned a feat on /Run/), that it can use unarmed strikes without interfering with its natural weapons, and, frankly, that the target AC was only 40 when any level 20 character who cares about their AC will be higher than that. Even under those assumptions, the reason the Tarrasque doesn't bother with the feat isn't because it can't-- Gauss has done an excellent job with that line of conversation-- but because it is strictly better off following its instincts and just biting you to death.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
