|
awesome blow is as bad and clunky as it is because it's an adaptation of an also bad and clunky feat that existed since the early days of 3e
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 05:39 |
|
|
yea p. sure Awesome Blow was like a 3e monster feat
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
Olesh posted:Awesome Blow isn't just "hit the target and knock them back 10 feet" - it requires the attacker to succeed on a check using their CMB vs the target's CMD. It's a dubious enough consideration for a creature like a dragon who has a large number of natural attacks and the ability to hit even heavily armored targets reliably to give up their multiple attacks in favor of a single slam plus knockback, but it's not even a reasonable guarantee. A Young Red Dragon (CR 10) has a CMB of +19 which might seem like a lot, but a 10th level fighter is typically going to have a CMD comparable to the dragon's own (CMD 30), meaning Awesome Blow is only going to work half the time - and if the maneuver fails, not only does the target not get knocked back, but it doesn't even take damage. But that is "just hit the target and knock them back 10 feet." Sure, it's targeting a defense other than AC, but there's nothing complicated about that. And nothing about that changes what I said, at any rate. You can end up with the situation where a larger but weaker creature pushes back a smaller but stronger creature with it and have them go exactly the same distance as a much stronger creature doing the same thing. And no, it's still pretty awful. If you want to build an animal companion around making things easier to hit for your allies you're far better off making it a grappler or tripper, since you can boost specific checks far higher than base CMB. Oh and they'll have the advantage of being able to actually use a full attack, assuming they have more than one attack to use. gradenko_2000 posted:yea p. sure Awesome Blow was like a 3e monster feat It was. As I mentioned previously, it gave a reflex save to negate the effect, with the DC equal to the damage dealt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
To be fair, it was designed for monsters to make encounters more interesting. To be more fair, it's still terribly designed, and not nearly as powerful as they've treated it since.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
senrath posted:But that is "just hit the target and knock them back 10 feet." Sure, it's targeting a defense other than AC, but there's nothing complicated about that. And nothing about that changes what I said, at any rate. You can end up with the situation where a larger but weaker creature pushes back a smaller but stronger creature with it and have them go exactly the same distance as a much stronger creature doing the same thing. I mean, you're correct - it's possible - but every time a monster goes up in size, it gets a free +8 strength, so you don't generally find Large creatures with a lot more strength than Huge creatures or Huge creatures with more strength than Gargantuan, etc.. It's just not a realistic scenario in actual play. But really, what alternatives do you have? Animal companions don't normally qualify for feats like Improved Grapple and Improved Trip, so actually boosting specific checks is out. Grab, at least, gives a +4 bonus to compensate, but can't be used on bigger targets (not that the companion would realistically be succeeding on such an attempt). Creatures with trip don't get a bonus to their trip checks (but might get multiple attacks, at least). Awesome Blow at least has one advantage over trip, beyond not being limited to those animal companion templates that have a trip attack - it's not trip. Any creature with more than two legs gets bonuses vs trip, and flying creatures can't be tripped at all outside of one-off exceptions like the dragoncatch guisarme, which an animal companion isn't going to be able to use for obvious reasons. With Awesome Blow, at least you can conceivably knock low-flying creatures to the ground. Realistically, your best option for an animal companion is always going to be a big cat (which gives you grab, pounce, and rake on top of its three natural attacks). Grab is a nice bonus when you can get it, but an animal companion is never going to be the equal of your dedicated martial types and unless it's being ridden (and controlled through the Ride skill), you're limited to controlling it through the tricks it knows via the Handle Animal skill.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 08:23
|
|
|
Why do monster feats exist anyway? I'm sick of looking that poo poo up. Can't the statblock just say 'when he hits you you get whacked back X feet unless you pass a reflex save or something'
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 08:49
|
|
|
ZeroCount posted:Why do monster feats exist anyway? I'm sick of looking that poo poo up. Can't the statblock just say 'when he hits you you get whacked back X feet unless you pass a reflex save or something' 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 08:52
|
|
|
senrath posted:Ah, you're right. Misread it. Still, you can have a massively stronger creature get pushed back by a much weaker (but bigger) one with it. Yes? Being strong doesn't mean you magically root into the ground.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 09:12
|
|
|
ZeroCount posted:Why do monster feats exist anyway? I'm sick of looking that poo poo up. Can't the statblock just say 'when he hits you you get whacked back X feet unless you pass a reflex save or something' Because everything must be feats the system is a physics engine you know. More seriously, it's probably to standardize effects and avoid the previous edition problem of every monster having its own special rules + spell-like abilities. It also cuts down on word count, since a lot of later edition monster text was much shorter--you'd just put 'Awesome Blow' and not have to add more sentences.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 09:15
|
|
|
Olesh posted:I mean, you're correct - it's possible - but every time a monster goes up in size, it gets a free +8 strength, so you don't generally find Large creatures with a lot more strength than Huge creatures or Huge creatures with more strength than Gargantuan, etc.. It's just not a realistic scenario in actual play. Going up a size category granting +8 strength is a guideline to use when advancing monsters, and if there's one thing that 3.X writers love doing is ignoring their own guidelines. And animal companions 100% can qualify for Improved Trip, Improved Grapple, and similar as soon as their Intelligence is raised to 3 (and they pick up any prerequisites). Jedit posted:Yes? Being strong doesn't mean you magically root into the ground. I just found it to be an amusing mental image going in the other direction of the original murphy. No matter how much stronger or weaker they are, it's always 10 feet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 09:23
|
|
|
occamsnailfile posted:Because everything must be feats the system is a physics engine you know. More seriously, it's probably to standardize effects and avoid the previous edition problem of every monster having its own special rules + spell-like abilities. It also cuts down on word count, since a lot of later edition monster text was much shorter--you'd just put 'Awesome Blow' and not have to add more sentences. At will: Vs. Size(Smaller): On attack, shift 10 The only reason they dont is some weird overattachment to natural language. Fk ur nat lang And whats the point of having 10 different monsters that all do the same things. And the monstrous feat thing more often than not results in monsters that all have the same cachet of abilities including their own unique ones which of course they wont ever use the former because their unique options are so much better and thematic to what they are. Rigged Death Trap fucked around with this message at 10:08 on Sep 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 10:05
|
|
|
ZeroCount posted:Why do monster feats exist anyway? I'm sick of looking that poo poo up. Can't the statblock just say 'when he hits you you get whacked back X feet unless you pass a reflex save or something' At least originally, it was to give GMs options for customizing monsters, since the design paradigm was "monsters and PCs are built using the exact same system". In theory, you could take any monster and turn it into a PC and/or advance it by giving it class levels or racial hit dice or a template. This was to help defray the problem were certain monster types just stopped being a credible threat to the party due to the differences in the way hit chances, saving throughs, hit points, and damage scaled in 3.X compared to previous editions. In practice, this doesn't work out great, and monster feats exist mostly as a vestigial system to help sell the illusion that PCs and monsters are built using the same building blocks and play by the same basic rules. Newer systems, including D&D 4E, dispensed with this idea entirely and the end result is mostly for the good - monster statblocks are entirely self-contained and it's not necessary to reference anything beyond the statblock itself to run the monster. senrath posted:Going up a size category granting +8 strength is a guideline to use when advancing monsters, and if there's one thing that 3.X writers love doing is ignoring their own guidelines. And animal companions 100% can qualify for Improved Trip, Improved Grapple, and similar as soon as their Intelligence is raised to 3 (and they pick up any prerequisites). Well, Improved Grapple at any rate. Improved Trip, not so much - it has an Int requirement of 13, which is out of reach short of a sizable permanent inherent bonus (from multiple castings of Wish or the equivalent magic item) alongside a +6 Int item. All assuming GM approval - Ultimate Combat expands upon the core rules for animal companions and includes the section talking about expanding the list of available feats for animals with Int 3 or higher, but cautions the GM against permitting players to have complete unchecked control over companions' actions and advancement. An Int 3 wolf companion can theoretically take the Additional Traits feat to gain a trait, take Heirloom Weapon as one of their traits, and gain a greataxe and proficiency with that greataxe or trait bonuses when wielding said heirloom greataxe, and in a vacuum this is perfectly legal. Just, y'know, a bit silly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 10:34
|
|
|
Olesh posted:Well, Improved Grapple at any rate. Improved Trip, not so much - it has an Int requirement of 13, which is out of reach short of a sizable permanent inherent bonus (from multiple castings of Wish or the equivalent magic item) alongside a +6 Int item. All assuming GM approval - Ultimate Combat expands upon the core rules for animal companions and includes the section talking about expanding the list of available feats for animals with Int 3 or higher, but cautions the GM against permitting players to have complete unchecked control over companions' actions and advancement. An Int 3 wolf companion can theoretically take the Additional Traits feat to gain a trait, take Heirloom Weapon as one of their traits, and gain a greataxe and proficiency with that greataxe or trait bonuses when wielding said heirloom greataxe, and in a vacuum this is perfectly legal. Actually, that's another example of how much stuff Pathfinder has stuffed into the system. See, they introduced a feat called Dirty Fighting, which lets you perform combat maneuvers without provoking on things you're flanking by giving up your flanking bonus (or just increase the flanking bonus if you already don't provoke). But it has a Special line that says that if you have Dirty Fighting, you count as having Dex 13, Int 13, Combat Expertise, and Improved Unarmed Strike for the purposes of qualifying for the various Improved Combat Maneuver feats, plus any feat that has one of the Improved Combat Maneuver feats. Dirty Fighting itself has no prereqs, so an animal with Int 3 can take it easily (although as you said, it's up to GM approval, as is pretty much everything to do with companions in Pathfinder). Speaking of Murphies, actually, the weapon thing reminds me that they ruled that you can't do that. Ultimate Campaign says that while certain animals could be trained to use a weapon, even if you did bother to train it to do so it wouldn't ever use the weapon because it won't ever be comfortable using it. Because it's impossible to train an animal to do things it's not normally comfortable with, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 10:53
|
|
|
A developer tried to teach their housecat to use a kitchen knife and failed so obviously it's impossible in all situations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 12:14
|
|
|
Mr. Maltose posted:A developer tried to teach their housecat to use a kitchen knife and failed so obviously it's impossible in all situations. I have no doubt that a skilled animal trainer could teach a tabby to use a knife to stab people. Teaching it to stop, however...
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 12:25
|
|
|
 I'm just saying, there's precedent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
Solid Spaniel
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
Olesh posted:An Int 3 wolf companion can theoretically take the Additional Traits feat to gain a trait, take Heirloom Weapon as one of their traits, and gain a greataxe and proficiency with that greataxe or trait bonuses when wielding said heirloom greataxe, and in a vacuum this is perfectly legal. Animals have always qualified for Weapon Proficiency feats, and have still never been able to use them. A greataxe is a two-handed weapon, and wolves have zero hands.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
What about a gorilla, then?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
raverrn posted:What about a gorilla, then? Totally okay. There are awakened gorillas in Pathfinder and they use weapons. Edit: The Silverback King is a human who was reincarnated as a dire ape by a demon lord; he has intelligent ape minions. All of them use weapons (the Silverback King is actually a fighter). Prism fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Sep 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
raverrn posted:What about a gorilla, then? Makilla Gorilla
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
PJOmega posted:Makilla Gorilla Enlarge and Prestidigitation: Grape Ape
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Animals have always qualified for Weapon Proficiency feats, and have still never been able to use them. A greataxe is a two-handed weapon, and wolves have zero hands. Do the hands need to be functional beyond "can hold said object"? Like if I staple to hands onto a wolf because Im morally bankrupt aka a wizard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Barudak posted:Do the hands need to be functional beyond "can hold said object"? Like if I staple to hands onto a wolf because Im morally bankrupt aka a wizard. They can be proficient in the weapon but they still need functional hands to wield it. So they could take the feat and then have a morally bankrupt wizard polymorph them into a Gnoll.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
As i recall there was actually a weapon enchantment in 3.5 that let creatures with a bite attack and no hands wield a weapon in their mouth. I forget the book name but it was about aberrations and the enchantment was designed for Beholders?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Define "hands". I hear a horse can have, like, 18 hands.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
And they're all high. That's a lot of horsenip.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Animals have always qualified for Weapon Proficiency feats, and have still never been able to use them. A greataxe is a two-handed weapon, and wolves have zero hands. It's less about the proficiency, and more about the animal companion suddenly gaining a greataxe that's been passed down through generations of the wolf's family.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Define "hands". I hear a horse can have, like, 18 hands. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Define "hands". I hear a horse can have, like, 18 hands. Well, that's only if they're in a stable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Olesh posted:It's less about the proficiency, and more about the animal companion suddenly gaining a greataxe that's been passed down through generations of the wolf's family. Angvar the Wolf-Slayer met a very ironic end.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Barudak posted:Do the hands need to be functional beyond "can hold said object"? Like if I staple to hands onto a wolf because Im morally bankrupt aka a wizard. Yes. Pathfinder actually has pretty detailed, clear rules about what items animals/familiars/etc can use. There's breakdowns for most types of animals and so on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Angvar the Wolf-Slayer met a very ironic end. It's another case where punctuation is important. Angvar the Wolf-Slayer or Angvar the Wolf Slayer?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
Prism posted:It's another case where punctuation is important. Angvar the Wolf-Slayer or Angvar the Wolf Slayer? Angvar-the-Wolf Slayer. It's a very specific job.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:As i recall there was actually a weapon enchantment in 3.5 that let creatures with a bite attack and no hands wield a weapon in their mouth. I forget the book name but it was about aberrations and the enchantment was designed for Beholders? The book was Lords of Madness; the enchantment was Mouthpick, which is a +1 enchantment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
Prism posted:Totally okay. There are awakened gorillas in Pathfinder and they use weapons. That's because in Pathfinder awakened animals (animals affected by the Awaken spell or similar) are explicitly different from intelligent animals (animals that have their intelligence raised to 3+ any other way). The former can use weapons, the latter cannot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
the awaken spell doesn't say anything about granting weapon proficiencies
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 05:39 |
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:the awaken spell doesn't say anything about granting weapon proficiencies It doesn't, but that's not the point. Pathfinder allows awakened animals to learn Weapon Proficiency feats and use them, but disallows the same of intelligent animals.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 05:17
|
|