I got into an argument with my DM about this.
We were playing Rise of the Rune Lords and fighting the Barghest. Since the Advanced Grater Barghest is being used and it is on the unique monster list on PFSRD20 his position is that the DC to identify the creature is 15+CR rare monsters.
My position is that even though it is on the unique monster list, it is still a Barghest and, therefore, 10+CR for uncommon monsters.
Just for comparison, here are some other creatures that are also on the unique monster list.
Human Cleric 4
Drow Ranger 16
Human Barbarian 3
Bugbear Ranger 1
Human Graveknight Antipaladin 17
Human Witch 20
Kobold Ranger 3
Sorry about the multiple post, didn't think it went through.
I would play it as
10+CR to know it's a barghest
15+CR to know it has the Advanced/Greater templates as well.
This is going to be a GM’s call. How common a particular monster is, is going to depend on the campaign world. In a campaign where kobolds are almost nonexistent a kobold could be considered a rare creature. If a Barghest is a rare creature in the GM’s setting the DC of 15 is appropriate.
That being said I personally would not count things like the advanced template as a factor on how rare a creature is. The advanced template is just a bigger tougher version of the base creature. The template really does not add any actual abilities it is simply a tougher version of the base creature. Since the template increases the CR of the creature there it already boosts the DC to identify abilities. Adding something like the half dragon template on the other hand is a different story.
I would not automatically use the fact it is classified as a unique creature as the basis for how rare the creature is. Technically every member of a playable race is a unique creature.
In the end it is still up to the GM.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The problem, as usual for a lot of Knowledge checks, is what the player knows against what the character knows.
RAW, "A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information."
So, with a successful check, you should get something like: "It is a barghest, a creature from Hell." In reality even that gives several useful information, not only one. As a minimum, it translates to: "It is a LE outsider." and those are 3 useful pieces of information.
Knowing its plane of origin you know that it is an outsider with the Lawful and Evil subtypes, and that allows you to know 2 kinds of bane weapons that work against it and that Anarchic and Holy weapons do extra damage.
Knowing that with a basic check can be acceptable, but a lot of players will know way more, as they read the different bestiaries. They will recall what type of DR it has, probably have some idea of its spells and attack routine, and other special abilities (if any).
The best solution I have found so far is to give out information without giving the name of the creature.
"It is one of the canine creatures from Hell."
The players still know that it is a LE outsider, but are unsure if it is a Hell Hound, Barghest, or some other creature.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Mysterious Stranger wrote: In the end it is still up to the GM.
I just wanted to amplify this. It is what you are told it is.
Personally, I don't tell the players what the DC is they are trying to hit; only if they've made it or not.
Considering it is for a Paizo published AP, and he is running it as such, the creature would be as common as it is in the Paizo standardcampaign setting Diego Rossi wrote: The problem, as usual for a lot of Knowledge checks, is what the player knows against what the character knows.
RAW, "A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information."
So, with a successful check, you should get something like: "It is a barghest, a creature from Hell." In reality even that gives several useful information, not only one. As a minimum, it translates to: "It is a LE outsider." and those are 3 useful pieces of information.
Knowing its plane of origin you know that it is an outsider with the Lawful and Evil subtypes, and that allows you to know 2 kinds of bane weapons that work against it and that Anarchic and Holy weapons do extra damage.
Knowing that with a basic check can be acceptable, but a lot of players will know way more, as they read the different bestiaries. They will recall what type of DR it has, probably have some idea of its spells and attack routine, and other special abilities (if any).
The best solution I have found so far is to give out information without giving the name of the creature.
"It is one of the canine creatures from Hell."
The players still know that it is a LE outsider, but are unsure if it is a Hell Hound, Barghest, or some other creature.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
TR_Merc wrote: Considering it is for a Paizo published AP, and he is running it as such, the creature would be as common as it is in the Paizo standardcampaign setting your argument is not sound.
The DC is set by theorhetical frequency of encounter rather than by published product line.
For example, If a rune lord out of circulation some 5000 years were to pop in an AP his base knowledge check would be DC 20 or so... it could happen...
IMO (as the checks tend to be 'some' or nothing) your GM needs to create a sliding scale of info so you gain various bits at different results. That IS the best solution and there are published examples in later products. So ask for that rather than complain about RAW.
Player knowledge is not Character knowledge.
To a degree. It is about frequency of encounter, but as a whole. Knowledge isn't just first hand it is learned through verbal communication and books as well.
If you grew up in a cold environment you wouldn't have seen a kobold often probably, but they are very common in some areas so there would be a lot of books written about them or have them in it.
So if people could summon a barghhest often they could study it and write books about them, or people fighting them often would lead to them sharing what worked and what didn't.
Really wish a dev would chime in on this.
Mysterious Stranger wrote: I just wanted to amplify this. It is what you are told it is.
Personally, I don't tell the players what the DC is they are trying to hit; only if they've made it or not.
He is a new DM and doesn't know the rules that well.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Even if it is a published AP in a published setting does not mean the GM has not altered things. It is not uncommon for a GM to make changes to either a setting or an AP. Even if the GM has made no conscious changes that does not mean the setting is the same. The setting is dependent on the GM and his perception as per rule 0.
A developer is not going to respond in a Pathfinder 1E forum. Since the publication of 2E Paizo no longer actively supports 1E. They keep the forums up, but the developers do not participate in them in any way.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
How many barghests are there to encounter in the AP? How common is graffiti depicting the monster, or scenes of folks sitting around in taverns swapping stories about them?
I haven't played the AP but reading entries about Sandpoint it seems fairly common knowledge that there's a couple goblin tribes living near the town. In turn, Goblins seem a pretty safe bet for a common monster to make a knowledge check for.
You COULD then make the argument that Barghests, often associated with being leaders of goblin groups, are talked about often by those who make it their profession to deal with goblins: adventurers, military folk, religious or arcane leaders, and so on. A town library, if well curated, might contain material on such creatures if goblins are frequently encountered in the hinterlands and so on.
My point is, there's an argument that can certainly be made, around Sandpoint, that "barghest" could be a Knowledge check with a DC = 10+ CR. Knowing this particular barghest is named Bob and has ingested specific sacrifices that make it even more developed than the 2 stages the creature normally has might not be in scope for that roll however.
Tables will vary. As this is the rules forum, I don't know that there's a specific RAW that will support either interpretation. I'm just saying the argument to make a Barghest common exists in RotRL.
TR_Merc wrote: He is a new DM and doesn't know the rules that well. To be honest, it doesn't seem you know the rules that well either at this point.
By now you have:
1. Been told how your DM rules it
2. Run to the internet in hopes of being supported against your DM
3. Not been supported the way you hoped
4. Argued again about what the rules as written mean
5. Belittled your DMs knowledge of the rules, despite it being evident that your own knowledge is no better
At this point, if I was your DM and even tangentially aware of this thread, I'd boot you as too much effort and move on with my game without you.
What are you trying to prove?
Why are you trying to prove it?
What can't you accept that your interpretation isn't widely accepted?
What do you hope to get out of this?
Why are you playing with someone if you feel the need to pull this nonsense against them?
Do you want to not be allowed to play anymore because your DM feels you're needlessly argumentative?
Is that worth continuing to argue a point that nobody supports you in?
TR_Merc wrote: Really wish a dev would chime in on this. Each and every single dev who has ever worked on this game would tell you to listen to your DM.
Maybe do that or find another game.
Another problem I will note is that as you progress in the game, all the monsters inherently stop becoming "common" except maybe relative to one another at similar CR, so the whole 5/10/15+CR difference really just gets thrown up into the air for GMs to basically just decide whatever.
Personally, I just lock it at 10+CR, because lower CR monsters are inherently common, and vice a versa for high CR monsters.
To others reading this, sorry in advance.
To Carrauntoohil
Carrauntoohil wrote: 1. Been told how your DM rules it
2. Run to the internet in hopes of being supported against your DM
3. Not been supported the way you hoped
I came here for a rule clarification, not vindication. So far, the majority seems to be rule 0. GM is always right. I've met a lot of GMs who did that a lot, and a lot of them eventually ran out of players.
Carrauntoohil wrote: 4. Argued again about what the rules as written mean I have not argued against the rules as written. I've made statements about the classifications and how I view them, but I haven't argued that the rule as written is wrong. It didn't list a DC to identify that specific creature in the book or anywhere else I could find.
Carrauntoohil wrote: 5. Belittled your DMs knowledge of the rules, despite it being evident that your own knowledge is no better So you agree with his rule that you can't take 10 on a skill check you can potentially fail if you roll less than 10, that spells that state they give off the same light as a torch have less light than a torch, that charging into melee range of a creature with only a 5 ft reach provokes an attack of opportunity, bleed damage and normal damage are the same thing, and there are others, but I can't recall them at the moment. Guess I have a lot to learn about the rules.
Carrauntoohil wrote: What are you trying to prove?
Why are you trying to prove it?
Nothing, I asked a question which is to get an answer.
Carrauntoohil wrote: What can't you accept that your interpretation isn't widely accepted? The only thing I've stated about responses is that frequency is a whole.
Carrauntoohil wrote: What do you hope to get out of this? Knowledge and understanding.
Carrauntoohil wrote: Why are you playing with someone if you feel the need to pull this nonsense against them? I'm not playing with them anymore, and how is asking a question for rule clarification nonsense?
Carrauntoohil wrote: Do you want to not be allowed to play anymore because your DM feels you're needlessly argumentative? I don't care if I'm not allowed in his games anymore.
Carrauntoohil wrote: Is that worth continuing to argue a point that nobody supports you in? Again, I'm not arguing agianst anyone here. I've posted 3 times since my initial post.
TR_Merc wrote: Considering it is for a Paizo published AP, and he is running it as such, the creature would be as common as it is in the Paizo standard campaign setting Clarifying that this isn't a homebrew campaign setting. In fact he was very adiment about using the in book world requiring some of the traits and languages that are inside of it.
TR_Merc wrote: To a degree. It is about frequency of encounter, but as a whole. Knowledge isn't just first hand it is learned through verbal communication and books as well.
If you grew up in a cold environment you wouldn't have seen a kobold often probably, but they are very common in some areas so there would be a lot of books written about them or have them in it.
So if people could summon a barghhest often they could study it and write books about them, or people fighting them often would lead to them sharing what worked and what didn't.
Really wish a dev would chime in on this.
My view on the rule that the DC should be based on how common the creature is in the world. I've never encoutnered an anaconda in real life, but I know a lot about them because of reading and videos I've watched. But should it be considered rare because I've never encountered one?
TR_Merc wrote: He is a new DM and doesn't know the rules that well. I was responding to someone, not saying the rule is wrong or arguing agianst the person's point.
but I'm sure Carrauntoohil you're going to go on futher to belittle and berate me about how wrong I am seeing a rule clarification.
TR_Merc wrote: My view on the rule that the DC should be based on how common the creature is in the world. I've never encoutnered an anaconda in real life, but I know a lot about them because of reading and videos I've watched. But should it be considered rare because I've never encountered one? I think this is one of the mismatches between Golarion and real life that gives you problems with this particular rule.
Golarion is a world where the printing press is something recent and available only in some places, paper is costly, and books are even more costly.
Average people in Sandpoint (to name a place in the setting) probably don't know anything about Anacondas. There is no Internet, no educational TV, no film set in the jungle, probably no book about jungle flora and fauna, and if there is one it is in a private collection.
So, anacondas would be a rare monster when you have lived all your life in Sandpoint and searched for information there.
If you instead lived in the Mwangi jungle they would be a common monster.
Mark Hoover 330 has made a good argument why a barghest would be only an uncommon monster for people of Sandpoint. Personally, I don't think that even a single goblin tribu out of a hundred has a barghest chieftain.
The common opinion would be based on tales of some tribu having a "magical" chieftain that can kill tens (or hundreds) of militia members or soldiers. That can be the common and even uncommon level of information.
Knowing that a barghest is a juvenile form of an extraplanar creature is way more advanced knowledge.
On the other hand, the greater barghest (that isn't an advanced version of the barghest, it is the adult version) has a "built-in" increased difficulty at identifying it, as its CR is higher.
All things included, it is the job of the GM to decide how common a creature is in his world, even when playing in an official setting.
Diego Rossi wrote: I think this is one of the mismatches between Golarion and real life that gives you problems with this particular rule.
Golarion is a world where the printing press is something recent and available only in some places, paper is costly, and books are even more costly.
Average people in Sandpoint (to name a place in the setting) probably don't know anything about Anacondas. There is no Internet, no educational TV, no film set in the jungle, probably no book about jungle flora and fauna, and if there is one it is in a private collection.
So, anacondas would be a rare monster when you have lived all your life in Sandpoint and searched for information there.
If you instead lived in the Mwangi jungle they would be a common monster.
This is true, though teachers were often more prolific. Character classes that often have planes as a class skill are the educated ones, meaning they would have had teachers. Paladin orders would spread teachings on how to kill them, and clerics and wizards would learn from paladins, and information proliferated.
This whole thing seems to be making a mountain out of molehill. The difference is only 5 points in any case. Unless the character making the roll has no ranks in Knowledge Planes it probably is only going to mean they get 1 less fact. If the character making the roll does not have any ranks in knowledge Planes the DC means they do not even get a roll. Knowledge skills cannot be used unless the DC is 10 or less. The CR of an Advanced Greater Barghest is 8. So, even if it was a very common creature the DC would be 12.
At level 4, there can be a big difference between making the roll and not.
1d20+7+Int to make a DC 23 requires a 16 or higher, meaning a 25% chance of success vs a DC 17, which requires a 10. 50% chance of success.
Plus, at a 16 or higher, a DC 17 would allow 1 additional useful piece of information. I was trying to get an in-game reason why my character, who had been using an MW Battleaxe the entire campaign so far, would switch to a +1 dagger without metagaming.
An advanced greater barghest is a CR 8 creature. If your party is 4th level a single CR 7 creature with no other opponents is considered an epic fight. A CR 8 creature is tougher than the maximum recommended creature. It will probably take you about 12 rounds to kill the Barghest, and he will kill about 1 party member per round without a lot of difficulty.
You have a lot worse problems than the DC of the knowledge planes check. He can blink at will so all your attacks have a 50% miss chance, and its AC is pretty high. That means you probably have less than a 20% chance of hitting him. He can also cast invisibility sphere at will so he can be invisible casting spells to buff himself (and any goblins he has as followers.). That will give him a chance to bring up Mass Bull’s Strength and Mass enlarge person. That gives him 3 attacks at +18 to hit doing 2d6+11 for the bite, and 1d8+11 for each claw. Assuming an AC of 20 that puts his DPR to 48.51, compared to a barbarian with an 18 STR using a +1-dagger doing 2.4 DPR. The DPR with the battle axe is 1.9, which really is not that much different.
while rule one is listen to gm, what I would have done in this case (and do in any case of an upgraded or unique\altered monster) is to stage up the dc.
say the dc to find out about the normal monster was 20 and the unique is set at 27 i would make one roll (or let the player roll, sometime letting the players roll tell them too much. even a high dc let them know the enemy is a tough one, something the character wouldn't know just by not knowing what monster they face) and depending on the result tell the player the info related:
- if they fail to even make the lower dc they learn nothing or close to it (some things are common knowledge aka dc 5/10, even if you fail to learn the exact creature type. you see a dragon, and pass dc 5, you at least know you see a dragon.).
- if they roll enough to pass the lower dc but not the 2nd I tell them the info about the common creature, maybe also let them throw in a perception to notice this one is a bit abnormal (bigger then normal. is on fire etc).
- if they make the higher dc they gain info related to the unique creature.
Wait how did I get this far down the forum list? I came in thinking this was another discussion about how technically the DC to identify a named (and therefore 'unique') monster is 10 + their level DC, and it took a moment to get my bearings.
While I'm here--I know the standards and mechanics of 2e hold little water around here, but for what it's worth the barghest is considered a Common creature in 2e, while the greater barghest has both the uncommon and mutant traits. It's a bit simpler since every monster has its rarity listed in the bestiary (default 'common') but the GM is still free to decide when those rarities differ by region.
Even so, confusions sometimes arise like the one described - what is the DC to recognise a more powerful version of a barghest when a barghest is normally a recognisable creature (especially compounded since monster level adjusts DC in 2e, too). The usual answer to this conundrum is that recognising, for example, the ghoul abilities of a high level ghoul is only low level, but recognising what abilities it might have from being high level are high level (and recognising that this is General Scarra, a ghoul warlord and unique details about her life and personality is higher still).
Hope any of this helps or adds to your perspectives, I'm heading back up top!
Mysterious Stranger wrote: Assuming an AC of 20 that puts his DPR to 48.51, compared to a barbarian with an 18 STR using a +1-dagger doing 2.4 DPR. The DPR with the battle axe is 1.9, which really is not that much different. It was the monster in the AP. The pdf I found listed it as a standard greater Barhghest, but we were using the roll20 module which he said used the advanced one as the encounter.
Are the battle axe numbers taking into account DR of 10/Magic?
I also had power attack which helped increase the damage output, but ya the thing dropped my fighter 1/2 HP round 1 because of invisibility.
The DPR does take into account the DR 10 (magic). Without the DR the barbarians DPR with the axe becomes 3.9. The 50% miss chance of the blink is what is dropping the DPR. Even if you got rid of the blink and gave the barbarian a magic axe his DPR only goes to 7.9. Assuming the rest of the party can deal similar damage it will take the party about 6.5 rounds to defeat it. That does not take into account the Barghest is probably killing on the average 1 character per round.
I actually made a mistake on the Barghest in that it cannot use enlarge person on itself. I did not take into account it is an outsider not a humanoid. This drops its DPR to 41. Which is still high enough probably take out 1 character per round. This also does not factor in the fact the Barghest gets 5 AoO per round from Combat Reflexes.
Mysterious Stranger wrote: The DPR does take into account the DR 10 (magic). Without the DR the barbarians DPR with the axe becomes 3.9. The 50% miss chance of the blink is what is dropping the DPR. Even if you got rid of the blink and gave the barbarian a magic axe his DPR only goes to 7.9. Assuming the rest of the party can deal similar damage it will take the party about 6.5 rounds to defeat it. That does not take into account the Barghest is probably killing on the average 1 character per round.
I actually made a mistake on the Barghest in that it cannot use enlarge person on itself. I did not take into account it is an outsider not a humanoid. This drops its DPR to 41. Which is still high enough probably take out 1 character per round. This also does not factor in the fact the Barghest gets 5 AoO per round from Combat Reflexes.
Ya, it is a difficult fight. Which is why I was upset that he was making the check to find out weaknesses of the Barghest harder. An advanced Barghest and a regular seem to have all the same abilities. The major differences seem to be AC, Stats, HD, and BAB. Not enough in my opinion to make it a completely different creature from the base creature that it would be considered rare.
By that logic leveling up would make any core race uncommon or rare depending on level and how many of that race go into that class.
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote: While I'm here--I know the standards and mechanics of 2e hold little water around here, but for what it's worth the barghest is considered a Common creature in 2e, while the greater barghest has both the uncommon and mutant traits. It's a bit simpler since every monster has its rarity listed in the bestiary (default 'common') but the GM is still free to decide when those rarities differ by region. That is something I like about 2e. I tried it, but didn't like how some feats became class specific abilities and some other rules, like holding your breath which lasts like 3 rounds. I can hold my breath for longer than 18 seconds and I'm out or shape.
There is a big difference between a standard barghest and a greater barghest so identifying the greater barghest being more difficult. I kind of agree with you about the advanced template, but it is still up to the GM. If you have already presented your point of view and the GM rejected it, there is not much you can do.
I don’t have the specs of your party but from what I can see this is not a fight that you are going to win. If all you have for magic weapons at 4th level is a +1 dagger it appears you are behind in the WBL. By 4th level you should have about 6,000 gp worth of equipment. I used a fairly optimized 4th level barbarian designed specifically to fight something like this and it came up way short.
An advanced greater barghest has an INT and WIS of 22 so should be using very good tactics. It can use Blink, and Invisibility Sphere at will. It has a stealth of +12 before factoring for invisibility. That puts it to +32 to stealth. It has a perception of +18, so is probably going to spot the party and be able to activate its invisibility. That means it will have a chance to prepare and have blink running before it attacks. It is likely to get a surprise round so get in at least one attack before the party can do anything. It has a +8 Initiative so will probably go first in the regular round. It has crushing despair with a saving throw of 20. Most of the martial classes are going to fail that save, and even a cleric with an 18 WIS only has a 40% chance of making.
I could be wrong, but I don’t see how this fight can be won.
TR_Merc wrote: At level 4, there can be a big difference between making the roll and not.
1d20+7+Int to make a DC 23 requires a 16 or higher, meaning a 25% chance of success vs a DC 17, which requires a 10. 50% chance of success.
Plus, at a 16 or higher, a DC 17 would allow 1 additional useful piece of information. I was trying to get an in-game reason why my character, who had been using an MW Battleaxe the entire campaign so far, would switch to a +1 dagger without metagaming.
1d20+7+Int requiring a 16 to hit a DC 23 means you have no bonus from Int. Do I have this correct?
Assuming an Int based PC has the Knowledge (Planes) skill and it's a Class skill, I'd figure the PC is at least +9; Class Skill +3, 4 ranks, and Int bonus of +2. In fact, I'd figure it'd be higher.
I don't know the area in which the PCs are encountering the barghest, but at the end of the day it is a CR8 creature. Your PCs are under WBL and only APL4 to start with, so I'm guessing this fight was being issued by your GM to either urge you to learn how to run away, negotiate with your foes, or to so severely challenge the PCs physically as to discourage or end your current plan of action in the AP.
My advice, for future encounters regardless of the DC of the knowledge checks: get your Int based PC to an 18 or better Int, pay the GP for the spell and it's costly components to have Visualization of the Mind somewhere in the party (200 GP components, but 24 hrs of +5 on Int based checks), figure a way for the Int based PC to have a Familiar for potential Aid Another on Knowledge checks, scout ahead whenever possible.
And until the GM gets you up to your WBL, start buying or making a lot of consumables. Potions, Scrolls and Wands, though they eat up actions to use, will give you +1 weapons, Bless, possibly even Divine Favor or Magic Stone for stonebows. If your GM isn't giving you +1 weapons but they're throwing such powerful bosses at you, every +1 helps.
Well, without getting into spoilers that fight is known as a very hard pinch point in that AP, but there are extenuating circumstances. If the GM misses certain facts or the party doesn't pick up on some clues it is brutal. But a fair number of tables have no issues. As for WBL, this group has somehow missed or misidentified a lot of stuff if they have that little and made it to the barghest.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
And until the GM gets you up to your WBL, start buying or making a lot of consumables. Potions, Scrolls and Wands, though they eat up actions to use, will give you +1 weapons, Bless, possibly even Divine Favor or Magic Stone for stonebows. If your GM isn't giving you +1 weapons but they're throwing such powerful bosses at you, every +1 helps
It is the rise of the time lords adventure path. The pdf I found was just the standard greater barghest, though he said it was an advanced greater barghest based on what he found on pfsrd.
Java Man wrote: Well, without getting into spoilers that fight is known as a very hard pinch point in that AP, but there are extenuating circumstances. If the GM misses certain facts or the party doesn't pick up on some clues it is brutal. But a fair number of tables have no issues. As for WBL, this group has somehow missed or misidentified a lot of stuff if they have that little and made it to the barghest. Oh we had a lot of stuff, just all the magical weapons were all bladed weapons and my fighter was focused on using axes. We didn't get enough gold individually to get magic weapons we wanted leaving him with a +1 cold iron returning dagger that he allowed to side up to match the user as my character did use throwing weapons for ranged combat.
So you -had- better weapons and chose not to use them? That is certainly going to make things harder.
Java Man wrote: So you -had- better weapons and chose not to use them? That is certainly going to make things harder. If I hadn't looked the monster up before the game started because it was a particularly big discussion about what happened during a previous game I wouldn't have known it had DR 10/magic. My character wouldn't have known that. I like to role play, not roll play. I try not to use out-of-game information unless it makes sense.
Fighting skeletons? Why use a rapier that requires you to hit with a point when a club is not only easier to hit with (theoretically) but is also typically used to break bones?
Yeah, it sure sounds like some key clues were missed, or maybe the new GM didn't emphasize some information. Really is too bad, that adventure is solid.
Java Man wrote: Yeah, it sure sounds like some key clues were missed, or maybe the new GM didn't emphasize some information. Really is too bad, that adventure is solid. I did find out he is running the pre-updated version. So they might have added that information later.
Mysterious Stranger wrote: I actually made a mistake on the Barghest in that it cannot use enlarge person on itself. You did make a mistake, but it wasn't that the greater barghest can't enlarge himself, it's that you wrote that he uses (mass) enlarge person.
The spell-like ability that the greater barghest has is mass enlarge not mass enlarge person. While sites might link to enlarge person that is only because the effect is identical but not linked to the humanoid or 'person' aspect of spells like enlarge person or charm person. Granted, in 3.5 a greater barghest had mass enlarge person, so you could argue it was a typo, but it would be a very conspicuous typo, since the Pathfinder version is otherwise an identical cut and paste and they would have to have done that for every variant. It's most likely a conscious decision made to allow the creature to affect itself.
Similar to how creatures like djinn can enlarge (or reduce) themselves, the reason it's not just put in a Change Size ability is that, 1. It's an SLA, and 2. It's a mass effect that affects others. When written anywhere else, ie. the Stone Giant Elder it will be specified as mass enlarge person (granted that's a spell, not a SLA, but it still shows they will write out the 'person' part). This isn't the case with any of the barghests or their variants.
Hero Lab has it listed as Enlarge Person, Mass (1/day). I was using that to compare to some 4th level characters to run the numbers. I double checked the stats online and it does say Enlarge, Mass, but no such spell exists. I did not find anything to clarify it so it could be a mistake. In any case it does not really matter because the advanced greater barghest can destroy a 4th level party without it. If it can it makes it even worse because that would make the creature huge and give it a 10’ reach. That would allow it to make an AoO on up to 4 targets trying to get into melee range with it.
TR_Merc wrote: Sibelius Eos Owm wrote: While I'm here--I know the standards and mechanics of 2e hold little water around here, but for what it's worth the barghest is considered a Common creature in 2e, while the greater barghest has both the uncommon and mutant traits. It's a bit simpler since every monster has its rarity listed in the bestiary (default 'common') but the GM is still free to decide when those rarities differ by region. That is something I like about 2e. I tried it, but didn't like how some feats became class specific abilities and some other rules, like holding your breath which lasts like 3 rounds. I can hold my breath for longer than 18 seconds and I'm out or shape. Hah, yeah, to each their own style of play. Just before 2e was announced I was starting to get burnt out on deciphering creature stat blocks, and as player who suffers from analysis paralysis, character creation was sometimes a struggle hammering out where my bonuses were coming from.
Albeit, if I were to be nitpicky, every creature can hold their breath for 5 rounds with no Con mod, it's when you're engaged in vigorous activity that this number shrinks to 3ish... albeit I'm with you that these numbers are too deflated. It feels like they forgot to put the numbers back up when they took the "Breathe Deep" action that doubles your breath timer out from the playtest. Failing that, you shouldn't go unconscious immediately when you 'run out' allowing you to make saves until you start to pass out.
Currently wondering how my post about DC for knowledge checks has turned into combat statistics against an advanced greater barghest and talks of holding breath in pathfinder 2e.
I know I can go back and read the progress, it is a rhetorical comment.
Ha! Yep, discussions can wander a bit....
Your original complaint was that your GM was making it harder to know that you should use the magic dagger instead of you battle axe. My first post pointed out that it really did not matter which weapon you used and there was only a half a point difference in the DPR for using the dagger. Your actual problem looked to be that your GM set up an encounter that could not be won by the party.
After that things wandered, but that is fairly common.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
