|
So I'm posting this because I stated it out while trying to decide if I want to go
Mesmer Fox
Voxy Fox (Gains 1d6+lvl dmg 7/day)
Must be PFS legal - Still trying to figure out what kind of table variation I will encounter.
Compelling Voice: A vox can focus the sound of his voice on one creature within 30 feet.
The target does not need to be able to understand what the vox is saying, but does need to be able to hear the sound of the vox's voice.
Is there any reason why RAW would not allow me to use the foxes howls to fulfill these requirements?
Stats
STR 8
DEX 19
CON 12
INT 10
WIS 10
CHA 16
Level 1
Urban Barbarian
Feat: Extra Rage
Rage (+4dex 12rnd/Day)
Level 2
Mouser (swashbuckler)
Swashbuckler Finesse
Level 3
Vox Mesmerist
Feat: Piranha Strike
Level 4
Vox Mesmerist
Level 5
Vox Mesmerist
Feat: Fox Form
Wounding Word (15DC with -2 will)
Bold Stare: Disorientation
Level 5 example:
Stats (as Fox)
STR 6
DEX 26
CON 12
INT 10
WIS 10
CHA 18 (16 if you cant afford headband yet)
Attack (7/day)
Raging Sonic Piranha Strike
+14 1d3+2d6+17
23 AC and -2 to one target's attack
Acrobatics +18
Bluff +11
Disguise +10
Stealth +24
Tricks 5/day
Fearsome Guise, Meek Facade (effectively adds 6ac to ally with mouser combo)
From here on most levels will be in mesmer with the ability to pick up the second barb level if you feel it necessary. An alternative is to take Defensive Strategist trait.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
But a ring of elequence otherwise most (all? Some?) will say you can't speak so you have no voice (howl isn't a voice). The "understand" stuff covers "he is talking in Aklo, I don't speak Aklo so it doesn't affect me.
Wounding Word isn't a light weapon, so Piranah Strike doesn't work. Deadly aim doesn't work because it prohibits touch attacks.
|
|
From sibilant whispers to overwhelming imprecations that resonate with the force of pure will, a vox unleashes the power of his mind with every silken syllable and shattering shout.
Compelling voice: sound of his voice
sounds, syllables and shouts
There is nothing about spoken words.
If a human can use shouts why cant the fox use it's grunts, howls, etc.
I know I'm going to face some push back on this (which is why I came here to argue instead of doing it at a table) but I do not see anything RAW that prevents this.
Wounding Word isn't a light weapon, so Piranah Strike doesn't work. Deadly aim doesn't work because it prohibits touch attacks.
Wounding word: Alternatively, he can make a single attack with a melee weapon as a standard action, adding the listed sonic damage to the damage dealt by his weapon on a successful attack
It's adding dmg to the bite attack which counts as a light weapon
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If you insist on that stance, you will meet table variance. I'm cautioning you of this fact.
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
You have to convince your GM of one of these:
- A fox can speak when animal form doesn't allow it per Polymorph rules
- Despite that ability saying "sound of his voice", they don't need to speak.
At my table, you can't do this without a Ring of Eloquence short of getting a developer response, PDT post, or FAQ. Good luck on any of those.
I'm good with Wounding Word riding the light natural bite attack.
If you plan on doing this in PFS, why won't you just buy the ring? It isn't like a forum post will sway most any GM unswayed by your position at the table.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I know. I'm saying you will run into table variance, because of the wording and the similarity to the rules for spells.
That is a battle you can't win unless you have a better position. In PFS, you don't want to be that guy (rules debate) and you don't want to sit down at a table and not be able to handle playing your character the way you'd like. I know, I've been at those tables. Despite trying to always take the conservative approach to rules interpretations in an effort to prevent it.
|
|
Verbal (V)
A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice.
Compelling Voice (Su)
A vox can focus the sound of his voice
My contention is that these are no where near the same thing.
One requires SPOKEN INCARNATION the other simply requires SOUND.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Define Voice:
the sound produced in a person's larynx and uttered through the mouth, as speech or song.
If you can't speak, you can't use that ability.
I get you think you have a "RAW" but that isn't how RAW works. Just because you think you have an interpretation that works, doesn't mean the GM must us it. I think you will find most GM of actual tables will not agree with your RAW interpretation.
For example, if you play at my table you will need a Ring of Eloquence (3400 gp item).
What I don't understand is why you don't want to just buy the cheap item. You can even use an Expedition Map boon and 6 PP to get it for free. Why put yourself through the real chance you will be at a table an unable to use the ability?
|
|
Definition of voice
sound produced by vertebrates by means of lungs, larynx, or syrinxthe sound or sounds uttered through the mouth of living creatures
the faculty or power of uttering sounds through the mouth by the controlled expulsion of air
a range of such sounds distinctive to one person, or to a type of person or animal
Speech and Humans are refereed to in the definition because we are most familiar with it and so it's used as an example. This does not make them the same thing. The definition of voice in the English language includes sounds made by animals
It seems they went out of their way to NOT include speech/spoken when describing this ability. They used syllables as one example which while this is distinctive to speech makes it seem like the sound matters more than the words, then they use shout as another example which can be words but doesn't have to be, finally the actual ability itself refers to a requirement of sound. They had AMPLE opportunity to write spoken or speech or verbal anywhere in these paragraphs yet they didn't once do so.
It seems fully intentional to me that this was written this way.