I'm building a dex based murder machine druid who grabs an agile Amulet of Mighty Fists and mixes Planar Wild Shape with being able to pounce.
Thing is, I can find small animals with at least 3 attacks and pounce, but finding tiny or diminutive animals with those same qualifications is proving quite difficult, mostly because I don't think they exist.
Maybe I can get my GM to allow me to make a tiny and diminutive Margay cat, but short of circumventing the actual rules to invent something that isn't there, there doesn't appear to be a way to make this happen.
For simplicity sake:
Are there any tiny or diminutive animals with pounce?
I just did a search using the bestiary tool on d20pfsrd and from what I saw there isn't anything like that. Maybe just stock up on adorable miniature animal clothing that's enchanted as per Quick Runner Shirts.
If you can't find any perhaps going plains domain will help. And if that's not enough dip a level into battle oracle to get Surprising Charge.
In addition to what chaoseffect wrote.
Edit: Do magical tattoos merge with your body, too? If not a tattooed version of the quick runner's shirt would work 1/day, too.
Dip two level of Master of Many Styles Monk for pummeling charge. Grab WF and feral combat training for using it with your natural weapon. Sadly i can't find an appropriate critter. It does also give WIS to AC.
Wolf shaman can take Travel domain and eventually go into Dimensional Dervish. Same if you take three levels of Horizon Walker.
Reduce Animal Potion on a small?
Dip two level of Master of Many Styles Monk for pummeling charge. Grab WF and feral combat training for using it with your natural weapon. Sadly i can't find an appropriate critter. It does also give WIS to AC.
Wolf shaman can take Travel domain and eventually go into Dimensional Dervish. Same if you take three levels of Horizon Walker.
Doesn't work.
Change the Pummeling Charge feat’s Benefit
section to read “Benefit: You can charge and make a full
attack or f lurry of blows at the end of your charge as part
of the charge action. You can use Pummeling Charge
in this way only if all of your attacks qualify for using
Pummeling Style against a single target.” and change the
Normal section to read “Normal: You cannot make a full
attack on a charge.” Change the Pummeling Style feat’s
introduction to “Your unarmed strikes weave together
in an effortless combo, focusing on the spots you’ve
weakened with the last hit.” Change its Benefit section
to “Benefit: Whenever you use a full-attack action or
f lurry of blows to make multiple attacks against a single
opponent with unarmed strikes, total the damage from
all hits before applying damage reduction. This ability
works only with unarmed strikes, no matter what other
abilities you might possess.”
|
Depending on the interpretation of "as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike." from Feral Combat Training. I'd rule Pummeling Charge augments unarmed strikes because you are doing something with Unarmed Strikes that you can't normally do without taking the feat (Pummeling Charge).
Except they specifically added that last sentence so that it wouldn't work.
They specifically added that line so it was clear that it doesn't work.
And already people are trying to worm their way around the meaning.
Pummeling Strike only works on Unarmed Strikes, regardless of other abilities. Feral Combat Training is an "other ability" which would normally change natural attacks to gain the benefits given to unarmed strikes. But Pummeling Style specifies that regardless of that ability, it only applies to Unarmed Strikes.
Feral Combat Training still works with plenty of other things.
They just didn't want Pummeling Strike to work with anything but fists.
Everything is working exactly as intended now.
Edit: Besides which, I think more of the problem was the feat Martial Versatility. It allowed a human to use Pummeling Strike with any close weapon group, monk weapon group, or natural attack through that feat. At least people thought it did theoretically.
But it was never intended to, and the feat didn't actually affect Pummeling Style because you didn't get to make a weapon selection but people continued to try to use it.
Reduce Animal Potion on a small?This doesn't work since Wild Shape is a polymorph effect.
In addition, other spells that change your size have no effect on you while you are under the effects of a polymorph spell.
Take animal soul as a feat, then it does work. if you take wild spell, you can even cast diminish animal on yourself without the need for the potion
|
|
Take animal soul as a feat, then it does work. if you take wild spell, you can even cast diminish animal on yourself without the need for the potionReduce Animal Potion on a small?This doesn't work since Wild Shape is a polymorph effect.
In addition, other spells that change your size have no effect on you while you are under the effects of a polymorph spell.
1. That's not what animal soul does anymore
2. That's not at all what he was saying. He's saying it doesn't work because Wild Shape changes your size and that stops reduce animal (or reduce person, enlarge person, etc) from working because those spells specifically say they don't work if you're already a different size.
Take animal soul as a feat, then it does work. if you take wild spell, you can even cast diminish animal on yourself without the need for the potionReduce Animal Potion on a small?This doesn't work since Wild Shape is a polymorph effect.
In addition, other spells that change your size have no effect on you while you are under the effects of a polymorph spell.1. That's not what animal soul does anymore
2. That's not at all what he was saying. He's saying it doesn't work because Wild Shape changes your size and that stops reduce animal (or reduce person, enlarge person, etc) from working because those spells specifically say they don't work if you're already a different size.
ah yeah, sorry. But animal soul does allow you to be affected by spells like diminish animal
|
|
ah yeah, sorry. But animal soul does allow you to be affected by spells like diminish animal
Not since last week's errata.
Benefit: You can choose not to allow spells and effects
to effect you if they would not be capable of affecting
both your original creature type and the animal
creature type.
Now it only lets spells not affect you. Like Dominate Person does not affect animals, so you can choose to have it not affect you. It no longer lets animal-only spells affect you.
ah yeah, sorry. But animal soul does allow you to be affected by spells like diminish animalNot since last week's errata.
Now it only lets spells not affect you. Like Dominate Person does not affect animals, so you can choose to have it not affect you. It no longer lets animal-only spells affect you.Benefit: You can choose not to allow spells and effects
to effect you if they would not be capable of affecting
both your original creature type and the animal
creature type.
Prerequisite: Animal companion or mount class feature.
Benefit: You can allow spells and effects that affect animals, animal companions, and special mounts to affect you, even if the spells do not normally affect creatures of your type. For example, you could cast animal growth or reduce animal on yourself, even though those spells normally affect only animals. An ally could cast raise animal companion on you to bring you back from the dead. An opponent could not cast charm animal or dominate animal on you unless you chose to allow the spell to affect you as if you were an animal.
If there is an errata, please point me too it. I did forget that polymorph effects dont stack
Not since last week's errata.Benefit: You can choose not to allow spells and effects
to effect you if they would not be capable of affecting
both your original creature type and the animal
creature type.
Hold on, that basically says, if it cant effect you, you can choose to have it not effect you.
"both your original creature type and the animal
creature type"
That says if it cant affect you or the animal
"You can choose not to allow spells and effects to effect you"
No, it says if the spell doesn't affect both your original creature type and the animal creature type then you can choose to have it not affect you.
As far the errata document, you need to go to the Advanced Class Guide product page. You can find a link to download it there, assuming you have purchased the Advanced Class Guide. I'm not sure if it appears if you have not purchased the ACG.
if they would not be capable of affecting
both your original creature type and the animal
creature type
That say, It is unable to effect my base type, AND is unable to effect the animal type, I can then then choose to not have it affect me. Which it would not be able to do anyway because it cant affect my base type
No, you're still not understanding it. They worded it poorly, but you're not understanding.
It is literally as I said:
If the spell cannot affect both your original creature type and the animal creature type, you can choose to have it not affect you.
Example, dominate animal affects animal type, but not humans. Spell wouldn't affect you because you're human.
Dominate person, affects humanoids. But does not affect animal creature type. You can choose to not be affected because it doesn't affect both animals and humans.
Your reading it as: If a spell doesn't affect humans or doesn't affect animals then it doesn't affect you.
Which does happen to be true, but not because of the feat.
Ohk, that makes a lot more sense. It still takes an amazing feat and makes it absolutely horrible
I was reading it as:
a spell cannot affect humans, and it cannot affect animals: you can choose to not be affected by it.
I think you are reading it as "or". It can affect humans but not animals, therefore you can choose to ignore it. 1 or the other.
It can affect animals but not humans, so you can ignore it. 1 but not the other.
The deffinition of "or"
See why its confusing?
"and" means, both conditions must be met for condition to register as true, "or" means 1 or the other
|
|
Ohk, that makes a lot more sense. It still takes an amazing feat and makes it absolutely horrible
I was reading it as:
a spell cannot affect humans, and it cannot affect animals: you can choose to not be affected by it.I think you are reading it as "or". It can affect humans but not animals, therefore you can choose to ignore it. 1 or the other.
It can affect animals but not humans, so you can ignore it. 1 but not the other.
The deffinition of "or"See why its confusing?
"and" means, both conditions must be met for condition to register as true, "or" means 1 or the other
It doesn't make it absolutely horrible. It's still good, just in a completely different way.
It doesn't make it absolutely horrible. It's still good, just in a completely different way.Ohk, that makes a lot more sense. It still takes an amazing feat and makes it absolutely horrible
I was reading it as:
a spell cannot affect humans, and it cannot affect animals: you can choose to not be affected by it.I think you are reading it as "or". It can affect humans but not animals, therefore you can choose to ignore it. 1 or the other.
It can affect animals but not humans, so you can ignore it. 1 but not the other.
The deffinition of "or"See why its confusing?
"and" means, both conditions must be met for condition to register as true, "or" means 1 or the other
Its not an errata, as in an error fix. Its a complete rewrite of the rule. Which i think is strange
Ohk, that makes a lot more sense. It still takes an amazing feat and makes it absolutely horrible
I was reading it as:
a spell cannot affect humans, and it cannot affect animals: you can choose to not be affected by it.I think you are reading it as "or". It can affect humans but not animals, therefore you can choose to ignore it. 1 or the other.
It can affect animals but not humans, so you can ignore it. 1 but not the other.
The deffinition of "or"See why its confusing?
"and" means, both conditions must be met for condition to register as true, "or" means 1 or the other
I'm not reading it as or, the sentence is simply written in a negative.
Benefit: You can choose not to allow spells and effects
to effect you if they would not be capable of affecting
both your original creature type and the animal
creature type.
Lets reverse two section of the sentence to read like this:
If they (spells and effects) would not be capable of affecting both your original creature type and the animal creature type, you can choose not to allow spells and effects to effect you.It is more clear now? Even though the sentences literally says and, it creates an or condition. However, your initial read of it was if it does not affect your creature type or does not affect the animal creature type you could choose to have it not affect you. Which wouldn't make sense since the spell couldn't affect you anyways.
As for errata not being error fixes...well it is an error fix if they consider the initial effect to be undesired (e.g. an error).
i still dont see why it creates an or condition. It still states, It must be incapable of affecting BOTH types before you can choose to have it noth affect you
i still dont see why it creates an or condition. It still states, It must be incapable of affecting BOTH types before you can choose to have it noth affect you
I truly don't know how to explain this to you in a way you will understand I guess. I've exhausted my thoughts on how to do so.
Sorry.
But you do understand that the way your interpreting means the feat doesn't work, it wouldn't do anything. So it is wrong, agreed?
Basically effects that affect:
Both animal and your type, work on you
An animal but not your type, would not work anyways (assuming your creature type isn't animal)
Your type but not the animal type, do not work on you if you choose so
Do not affect your type or the animal type, wouldn't have worked on you anyways.
i know that that is what they are trying to say. If it said, If it was incapable of affecting animal or base, but not both, you can choose to ignore.
If they had said incapable of A and B then makes sense,
My issue is with "both and", it indicates a concurrency.
I know its wrong. but they wrote it REALLY badly
Sorry for the mass derailment
back to the regular thread
I came to the realization that an Alchemist makes a far superior shapeshifting character due to the simple reality that stacking belt of incredible dexterity, mutagens and beast shape being capable of attaining far higher dex.
Plus, Spontaneous healing and Healing Touch with a protector tumor familiar is just plain awesome.