I am trying to do my due diligence on this:
Ratfolk Druid 10/Brawler 2
1. Use Wildshape to become Behemoth Hippopotamus (has 4d8 bite attack)
2. Use Strong Jaw to increase bite to 8d8
3. Use Vital Strike to increase bite to 16d8
Are there some holes in this my players and I aren't seeing?
Why brawler? 2 levels of natural weapon ranger for improved natural attack would give you some more dice to roll. Plus then you can take shapeshifting hunter for 12th level favored enemy.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2 levels of natural weapon ranger for improved natural attack would give you some more dice to roll.
INA doesn't stack with Strong Jaw.
I prefer the Arsinotherium, large size same dice. Easier to move around in exchange for the extra +2 STR Hippo gets.
|
FAQ:
Size increases and effective size increases: How does damage work if I have various effects that change my actual size, my effective size, and my damage dice?
As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, so if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies. The same is true of effective size increases (which includes “deal damage as if they were one size category larger than they actually are,” “your damage die type increases by one step,” and similar language). They don’t stack with each other, just take the biggest one. However, you can have one of each and they do work together (for example, enlarge person increasing your actual size to Large and a bashing shield increasing your shield’s effective size by two steps, for a total of 2d6 damage).
Beast Shape III
School transmutation (polymorph); Level sorcerer/wizard 5
This spell functions as beast shape II, except that it also allows you to assume the form of a Diminutive or Huge creature of the animal type. This spell also allows you to take on the form of a Small or Medium creature of the magical beast type. If the form you assume has any of the following abilities, you gain the listed ability: burrow 30 feet, climb 90 feet, fly 90 feet (good maneuverability), swim 90 feet, blindsense 30 feet, darkvision 60 feet, low-light vision, scent, constrict, ferocity, grab, jet, poison, pounce, rake, trample, trip, and web.
Strong JawSchool transmutation; Level druid 4, ranger 3
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range touch
Target creature touched
Duration 1 minute/level
Saving Throw Fortitude negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
Laying a hand upon an allied creature's jaw, claws, tentacles, or other natural weapons, you enhance the power of that creature's natural attacks. Each natural attack that creature makes deals damage as if the creature were two sizes larger than it actually is. If the creature is already Gargantuan or Colossal-sized, double the amount of damage dealt by each of its natural attacks instead. This spell does not actually change the creature's size; all of its statistics except the amount of damage dealt by its natural attacks remain unchanged.
You are changing your shape to that of a huge animal, so you are increasing your size. Strong jaw give a virtual size increase.
It seem they fall under the FAQ, so you can't stack them.I am no expert, so there can be a way to make it work, but the FAQ seem explicit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lets use the proper terminology here, which should clear things up.
Beast Shape III is an Actual size increase. You are actually becoming a huge creature.
Strong Jaw is an Effective size increase, you deal damage As If you were two sizes larger...
According to this line in the faq:
However, you can have one of each and they do work together (for example, enlarge person increasing your actual size to Large and a bashing shield increasing your shield’s effective size by two steps, for a total of 2d6 damage).
They (as you so kindly provided the proper terminology for, Diego) Explicitly work together.
prototype00
I'm behind on a couple of these threads. I thought you could only Vital Strike with manufactured weapons because you get added dice for not taking the iterate attack (and Improved Vital Strike gives one more set of dice for missing your third iterate attack, etc.)
Is Vital Strike valid for natural attacks that aren't a part of any form of iterate-ness? By re-reading the feats I guess there is nothing against it specifically, but it seems to be against intent. I mean the reason for the extra damage is giving up attacks. If the creature in question only has 1 attack ever (wolf for example) it just seems cheesy to get something without giving anything up. I mean if you only get one attack anyway, why wouldn't you add damage to it with Vital Strike?
It seems that if you have 1 feat to spend, Vital Strike will always be superior to Improved Natural Attack if that were the case. T-Rex does 4d6. INA increases it to 6d6, but VS would increase it to 8d6. Granted if it works, taking both would be ideal, but if you could only take one, it seems you would always choose Vital Strike (especially since it avoids all "damage as if one size" stuff from the FAQ).
Animal Companions are a little bit of a corner case since they get +6 BAB (required for VS) at 9th level Druid and they also get the special Multiattack at the same level giving Wolf and other "One Natural Attack" companions a second "iterate" attack. So that wolf would give up an attack to add extra damage, but I would think normally could not.
Food for thought anyway. (My table has played using many of the "Elephant in the room: Feat Taxes" changes for a long time, including the "free" Vital Strike, Improved Vital Strike, and Greater Vital Strike when your BAB becomes high enough. We have always just assumed that it was for iterate attacks only since gaining those attacks is what opens the option for you. No one has ever asked to apply it to natural weapons before)
Natural Weapons using Vital Strike is well within intended use. A lot of creatures have it, such as many dragons.
Like I said, I could see it for creatures with multiple attacks (like Dragons) since you are giving up attacks to do more damage with one, but I think using it with creatures that only have one to begin with (thus giving up nothing) is against the flavor/intent of the feat.
|
Natural Weapons using Vital Strike is well within intended use. A lot of creatures have it, such as many dragons.Like I said, I could see it for creatures with multiple attacks (like Dragons) since you are giving up attacks to do more damage with one, but I think using it with creatures that only have one to begin with (thus giving up nothing) is against the flavor/intent of the feat.
I don't agree with you that it's against the intent. Either way, it's not against the actual rules.
|
Natural Weapons using Vital Strike is well within intended use. A lot of creatures have it, such as many dragons.Like I said, I could see it for creatures with multiple attacks (like Dragons) since you are giving up attacks to do more damage with one, but I think using it with creatures that only have one to begin with (thus giving up nothing) is against the flavor/intent of the feat.
You could also propose that it's an option for allowing such single-attack creatures to keep pace with their multi-attack brethren.
After the faqs about damage increases, I'm pretty sure that cloak of fangs, strong jaw and bestial aspect don't stack.
prototype00
|
|
Careful. When you phrase it like that, it places the FAQ process in a negative light. Like "this FAQ took something away from me". Over time those sentiments create a disdain for FAQs in general (which perhaps you have).
But you are incorrect in stating that before the FAQ they stacked. Many people did not believe they stacked, and that the wording on actual size increases was already clear. Others thought it was ambiguous, and so an FAQ was issued to clear it all up.
The better way to phrase this, and to not make it seem like you lost something, would be "My belief was that they stacked, but it turns out they didn't".
One phrase is an absolute, and makes it seem that truth was altered to your detriment, while the other recognizes that there was ambiguity, and that you've accepted the FAQ and moved on.
|
|
The other option is Cave Druid with Carnivorous Crystal or Immortal Ichor. 7d8 slam plus strongjaw plus vital strike.
I dont think a druid gets 7d8 because it is based off of a rce ability.
Razor Sharp (Ex) A carnivorous crystal's slam attack deals devastating piercing and slashing damage, and threatens a critical hit on a roll of 18, 19, or 20.at my table I would not allow it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other option is Cave Druid with Carnivorous Crystal or Immortal Ichor. 7d8 slam plus strongjaw plus vital strike.I dont think a druid gets 7d8 because it is based off of a rce ability.
Razor Sharp (Ex) A carnivorous crystal's slam attack deals devastating piercing and slashing damage, and threatens a critical hit on a roll of 18, 19, or 20.
at my table I would not allow it.
That ability changes the threat roll for a crit, not the damage dice.
We can disagree.
I don't see how we can disagree on plain facts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We can disagree.I don't see how we can disagree on plain facts.
It is right there in plain, unambiguous text. The ability only says it changes crit range, and says nothing about damage dice.
|
|
This- medium creature doing 7d8 from this- A carnivorous crystal's slam attack deals devastating piercing and slashing damage,
Than it says AND threatens a critical hit on a roll of 18, 19, or 20.
Yall and me are reading the same text and disagreeing. Im OK with that. If you play PFS and sit at my table, I am going to rule that it dosnt work like that.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I would suggest a different ooze since cant figure it out without the racial special.
Assuming Strong Jaw:
Carnivorous Crystal = 7d8 (FAQ 8d6) + 2 size (SJ) = 16d6 = 56 average damage
Tyrant Jelly = 6d6 + 2 size (SJ) = 12d6 + 1d6 acid + grab + poison = 45.5 average damage + Grapple for 6d6+1d6 or 24.5 additional damage + poison
70 damage is better than 56. If you optimize Grapple, you should be able to manage to get that a fairly easy check.
This song and dance again? I don't know how people read devastating as 7 d 8, but RAW that racial ability is talking about the critical hit range.
Quite a few creatures do damage higher than their size would warrant, (the T-Rex for example) and nobody bats an eyelid about them.
prototype00