Our campaign currently has us facing a plethora of Shadows and other creatures whose touch attacks can inflict ability damage. Per out table's rules, touching such a creature results in the same amount of ability damage. That obviously is a limiting factor for those of our party who rely on natural attacks and unarmed strikes (as that damage is applied with every successful natural attack/unarmed strike).
The best way I can think of to prevent that kind of damage (as opposed to healing it after the fact) is a Greater Ring of Inner Fortitude (which reduces ability damage by 6). That still leaves a 1 in 4 chance that a character would suffer 1-2 points of Strength damage against a Greater Shadow, per attack. On a full attack, that can become an issue.
Are there any better feats, magic items, or spells for this challenge?
Would using gloves or something similar work for those using unarmed damage? If bashing them with a shield does not trigger the damage, why does hitting them with a glove or a gauntlet do so?
Is your GM trying to get you to use a secondary/weaker attack? It's not like you have to use your optimal attack for every fight. Some fights should require different strategies or methods of attack even if they're weaker than your usual.
|
Honestly, the best solution is to get a different set of Table Rules: This one is particularly bad as it is both extremely erratic (only impacts natural attackers) and extremely powerful (basically neutralizes impacted characters), which is just bad for the game: It might make 'logical' sense, but logic really needs to yield to the game being playable.
This why when a character falls into a pit and a giant stone plug drops on them, filling the pit completely, the PC still get a saving throw of some sort to avoid what is logically an inevitable shift from having three dimensions to only having two...
If 'changing the rules' is not an option:
Death Ward is the classic counter to negative energy attacks, but if you are fighting shadows, I'm guessing you are too low level to cast it as often as you probably need it.
Litheria Blossom looks pretty good as a consumable option.
The Ruby Skull of Chast would be extremely good for you, but it requires specific alignment or faith to work and isn't PFS Legal (which may or may not matter to your GM).
Would using gloves or something similar work for those using unarmed damage? If bashing them with a shield does not trigger the damage, why does hitting them with a glove or a gauntlet do so?
Gauntlets and similar objects do provide the required protection. Unfortunately, the unarmed strike individual makes very heavy use of Pummeling Style.
Is your GM trying to get you to use a secondary/weaker attack? It's not like you have to use your optimal attack for every fight. Some fights should require different strategies or methods of attack even if they're weaker than your usual.
Not exactly.
Our table often supplements RAW with interpretations of second and third order effects (generally on a "this makes sense" basis). Sometimes, there is also an underlying desire to increase the challenge behind these decisions. This is not one of those cases. The added challenge is incidental.
...
If 'changing the rules' is not an option:
Death Ward is the classic counter to negative energy attacks, but if you are fighting shadows, I'm guessing you are too low level to cast it as often as you probably need it. ...
Death Ward is perfect. I just revealed how little experience I have playing divine spellcasters, as I'd completely forgotten that the type of ability damage we're talking about is a negative energy effect. :facepalm:
|
|
...
Death Ward is perfect. I just revealed how little experience I have playing divine spellcasters, as I'd completely forgotten that the type of ability damage we're talking about is a negative energy effect. :facepalm:...
If 'changing the rules' is not an option:
Death Ward is the classic counter to negative energy attacks, but if you are fighting shadows, I'm guessing you are too low level to cast it as often as you probably need it. ...
Back in AD&D 2.0, this was a weaker spell called Negative Plane Protection (lower level, gave a save against these attacks, but only blocked one attack) that kinda undersold its effectiveness against Death effects: They split the death effect protection into a separate 'Death Ward' spell in 3.0, and then rolled the Negative Energy effect into it in 3.5 giving us the version PF1 uses that kinda undersells its effectiveness against negative energy.
An issue with Death Ward is Shadows (both normal and greater) become completely impotent against someone warded with this spell: All they can do is Strength damage, which the spell negates.
The other problem with this spell is its fairly high level and not-long duration: It's great if you are making brief forays into areas with shadows, but problematic if you are facing them all day long...
This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplates) come with gauntlets. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.
Benefit: Whenever you use a full-attack action or flurry 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.
Gauntlets specify they are an unarmed strike, so why would using them with pummeling style be a problem? Pummeling Style requires you to use an unarmed strike which a gauntlet is.
Handwraps?
This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplates) come with gauntlets. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.
Benefit: Whenever you use a full-attack action or flurry 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.
Gauntlets specify they are an unarmed strike, so why would using them with pummeling style be a problem? Pummeling Style requires you to use an unarmed strike which a gauntlet is.
I'm not going to say the following is authoritative, but whether the character in question is a monk or unchained monk, both have a restriction that they must used an unarmed attack or weapon with the monk trait. Gauntlets appear in the weapon table and lack the monk trait. Unfortunately, gauntlets are weapons and I'm pretty sure monk's can't flurry with them.
That said, it seems plausible to imagine a boxing glove or other non-weapon that can cover the fist without turning it into not a fist weapon.
Handwraps?
That question will be raised.
As far as I am concerned, that house rule is absurd. The ability damage is a product of the creature's attacks (ie, a focused attempt to use its nature to harm another creature), and unless it has a separate ability the broaden being stuck as inflicting the same damage, that house rules is drastically increasing the CR rating of the creature. At the very least, a saving throw should be allowed to avoid the effects of this houserule for each attack. As far as it 'makes sense' for the creature, it doesn't, unless you are also treating every living thing that it brushes up against as taking negative energy damage (including plantlife).
But, to answer your question, aside from Death Ward, there is a magic item called the Scarab of Protection that would help to ward you from 12 such attacks before it is used up.
That said, it seems plausible to imagine a boxing glove or other non-weapon that can cover the fist without turning it into not a fist weapon.
Like Handwraps?
Gauntlets appear in the weapon table and lack the monk trait. Unfortunately, gauntlets are weapons and I'm pretty sure monk's can't flurry with them.
Indeed you cannot flurry using gauntlets as your weapon, but that doesn't mean you can't make unarmed strikes while wearing them. Normally gauntlets don't do anything for an US based character with IUS, but for this particular ill-thought of houserule, they'd help.
Of course, the character could just wear ordinary gloves. You don't need an item with specific rule text, when ordinary clothes work.
Our table often supplements RAW with interpretations of second and third order effects (generally on a "this makes sense" basis).
- This assumes that the strength damage is an inherent property of their 'body', instead of an effect they deliberately inflict with their touch.
You know, similar to how you can touch, lick, or even eat a toxic snake just fine because it's venomous, not poisonous.
The description say a shadow "hunts living creatures", this very much sounds like an active thing, and not a 'people get weaker because they happen to come in touch with it'. Indeed, creatures hurting those who attack them with natural attacks or unarmed strikes exist in the game, e.g. the Baubau.
Gauntlets appear in the weapon table and lack the monk trait. Unfortunately, gauntlets are weapons and I'm pretty sure monk's can't flurry with them.Indeed you cannot flurry using gauntlets as your weapon, but that doesn't mean you can't make unarmed strikes while wearing them. Normally gauntlets don't do anything for an US based character with IUS, but for this particular ill-thought of houserule, they'd help.
Of course, the character could just wear ordinary gloves. You don't need an item with specific rule text, when ordinary clothes work.
Our table often supplements RAW with interpretations of second and third order effects (generally on a "this makes sense" basis).This assumes that the strength damage is an inherent property of their 'body', instead of an effect they deliberately inflict with their touch.
You know, similar to how you can touch, lick, or even eat a toxic snake just fine because it's venomous, not poisonous.The description say a shadow "hunts living creatures", this very much sounds like an active thing, and not a 'people get weaker because they happen to come in touch with it'. Indeed, creatures hurting those who attack them with natural attacks or unarmed strikes exist in the game, e.g. the Baubau.
In my head I conflated pummeling style and Flurry, which may or may not be applicable. You don't have to use flurry of blows to make a full attack action that benefits from pummeling blows, thought it is commonly used in conjunction with FoB.
Anyways, to your point, wearing normal gloves could resolve the issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my head I conflated pummeling style and Flurry, which may or may not be applicable. You don't have to use flurry of blows to make a full attack action that benefits from pummeling blows, thought it is commonly used in conjunction with FoB.
Not what I meant. I too assume FoB. But you can flurry while wearing Gauntlets, they just won't do anything. It wouldn't be weapon attacks, you wouldn't benefit from the gauntlets being made out of special materials or being enchanted, and you wouldn't benefit from e.g. Weapon Focus (Gauntlet). But wearing gauntlets does not prevent you from making unarmed strikes with your hands (with or without FoB).
Of course, unlike the unMonk's style strikes, Pummeling Style doesn't restrict which body part you have to use for your unarmed strikes, so you could just kick the Shadow (assuming you're wearing boots). Or elbow slam them if you're wearing long sleeves. Any clothed body part would work. The feat's name may make one think of punches, but the description is actually written in a way to apply to anything, and that looks very intentional to me.
But wearing gauntlets does not prevent you from making unarmed strikes with your hands (with or without FoB).
I'm not sure I agree with that. As a GM, I'd rule that while you're wearing gauntlets, you couldn't make unarmed strikes with your hands that don't take on the benefits (and drawbacks) of making gauntlet attacks.
However, if gauntlets would avoid the damage, then regular gloves should too, and those definitely won't interfere with FoB.
Of course, unlike the unMonk's style strikes, Pummeling Style doesn't restrict which body part you have to use for your unarmed strikes, so you could just kick the Shadow (assuming you're wearing boots). Or elbow slam them if you're wearing long sleeves. Any clothed body part would work. The feat's name may make one think of punches, but the description is actually written in a way to apply to anything, and that looks very intentional to me.
And to this point, since a monk only needs to flurry with unarmed attacks, kicks or elbow blows (or any kind of strike with a portion of the body that isn't bare skin) would theoretically work to avoid the OP's group's house rule.
Though it does kind of highlight the silliness of such a rule.
Pummeling Style does not require using your bare hands the requirements are you need to be using unarmed strikes. The gauntlet specifies that it is an unarmed strike. Furthermore, the description of flurry of blows for both the core monk and unchained monk also specify that they can be used with any combination of unarmed strikes and monk weapons. Unarmed strikes are a defined game mechanic, so unless there is a rule or a FAQ stating otherwise you should be able to use both pummeling style and flurry of blows with a gauntlet. Doing so would mean you use the damage of the gauntlet instead of the weapon but other than that it should work.
Considering the whole problem is due to a house rule that states striking a shadow causes the character to take STR damage because it “make sense”, I do not think they are strictly following RAW. If you are going to break RAW and make it so that hitting a shadow causes the attacker to take STR damage because it makes sense, you should be able to flurry with blows with a gauntlet for the same reason. By the same line of reasoning the character should also be able to use gloves instead of gauntlets to allow them to get the full benefit of their unarmed strike damage.
The RAW answer to this question is that striking a shadow with an unarmed strike does not cause the striking character to take STR damage.
Pummeling Style does not require using your bare hands the requirements are you need to be using unarmed strikes. The gauntlet specifies that it is an unarmed strike. Furthermore, the description of flurry of blows for both the core monk and unchained monk also specify that they can be used with any combination of unarmed strikes and monk weapons. Unarmed strikes are a defined game mechanic, so unless there is a rule or a FAQ stating otherwise you should be able to use both pummeling style and flurry of blows with a gauntlet. Doing so would mean you use the damage of the gauntlet instead of the weapon but other than that it should work.
Gauntlets are a weapon though, a weapon without the monk trait (the use of which would preclude flurry of blows [with hands]). It is a weapon that a monk wouldn't normally even consider using except in this niche case of inflicting damage on yourself when attacking. Ultimately it matters little to the game if you could flurry with a gauntlet because there's no reason to do so. But I remain adamant that you couldn't flurry with a gauntlet.
In probably any other campaign there is not going to be a need for a monk to flurry with a gauntlet. The only reason they need to in this campaign is to avoid STR damage that they should not be taking.
My suggesting that the monk should be allowed to flurry with gauntlets are specific to this campaign or those following a similar rule. It is also based on the logic of the campaign not official rules. As I said the RAW solution is that a character striking a shadow does not take STR damage. But since the campaign is breaking RAW for this, I see no reason not to break RAW for the flurry of blows.
In probably any other campaign there is not going to be a need for a monk to flurry with a gauntlet. The only reason they need to in this campaign is to avoid STR damage that they should not be taking.
Agreed, in any "standard" campaign the monk would never consider using a gauntlet.
My suggesting that the monk should be allowed to flurry with gauntlets are specific to this campaign or those following a similar rule. It is also based on the logic of the campaign not official rules. As I said the RAW solution is that a character striking a shadow does not take STR damage. But since the campaign is breaking RAW for this, I see no reason not to break RAW for the flurry of blows.
I don't quite agree with this, because the monk should just be allowed to wear regular leather gloves with what would normally be no mechanical impact. But that barrier between their skin and the enemy should prevent this reflexive damage that the OP's group's house rule causes.
In my mind there is no reason to further break the rules to allow a gauntlet flurry, when using a glove is sufficient to accomplish the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the best ideas have already been covered. But with this particular house rule, I wonder if having Mage Armor or Bracers of Armor active should be protective as force effects against incorporeality. Not at all RAW, but "makes sense", if the other condition "makes sense." Normally the concern would be this trying to undercut the need for ghost-touch or magic weapons to hit, but in this case is just being used as protection against the effects of hitting.
I'm almost positive that Mage Armor would be well received!
I don't quite agree with this, because the monk should just be allowed to wear regular leather gloves with what would normally be no mechanical impact. But that barrier between their skin and the enemy should prevent this reflexive damage that the OP's group's house rule causes.
In my mind there is no reason to further break the rules to allow a gauntlet flurry, when using a glove is sufficient to accomplish the same.
Gloves do indeed suffice for this purpose.