9th-level Druid build, 200 damage/round

[Iku Rex]

What the heck was I thinking, arguing against self-evidence?!

Beats me. :\

 

[IcyCool]

Ah, yes. The good ole strategy of using a "self-evident" argument. I can't beat that. What the heck was I thinking, arguing against self-evidence?!

The arguement is evident to Iku Rex. i.e. It is his opinion.

A self-evident proposition is one that can be understood only by one who knows that it is true.

Clearly, Iku Rex knows it to be true. But since you do not, then it is not self-evident to you. It's just a fancy way of saying that it is his opinion.

 

[Infiniti2000]

1. The rule says humanoid so therefore it's self-evident that it's referring to humanoids.
2. The rule says humanoid so therefore it's self-evident that it's referring to body shape.

Pick one and go with it.

 

[Iku Rex]

1. The rule says humanoid so therefore it's self-evident that it's referring to humanoids.
2. The rule says humanoid so therefore it's self-evident that it's referring to body shape.

Pick one and go with it.

That's a good example of the fallacy of "false dilemma".

1. The word "humanoid" is used to refer to a specific, defined creature type in the DnD rules. (This everyone agrees with.)
2. The word "humanoid" is used to refer to a general body shape in the DnD rules. (I offered several rule quotes earlier in the thread proving this.)
3. Using "humanoid" as a specific creature type with regards to armor leads to absurdity.
4. Using "humanoid" as a general body type with regards to armor makes sense.

Conclusion: The armor cost table uses "humanoid" to refer to a general body shape.

Is it [3] you disagree with? Or [4]?

Do you think it's sensible for two characters with completely identical body shapes to be unable to wear each other's armor? What happens when a spellcaster changes his creature type (but not his body shape) from humanoid to non-humanoid with a spell?

 

[kerbarian]

- The character isn't proficient with heavy armor. Use darkleaf (A&EG or ECS) armor instead, to make it medium armor.

Hmm, forgot about that. I just checked both those sources, and neither seems to actually give a price for darkleaf armor. ECS gives two examples (breastplate & banded mail) with prices, but nothing that says how much it would cost for full plate.

- I'm one of those who'd "debate" allowing the use of Leap Attack on all the attacks at the end of the charge. However, if you can trick a DM into allowing all those attacks as "charge attacks" you can do som truly sick damage. List of "charge-boosters": http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2903115&postcount=36 . (Most aren't applicable to pounce/natural weapons, but some are.)

Another option for armor besides darkleaf could be the Rhino Hide. 5 points of AC would be a huge amount to give up, though.

But yeah, I'm guessing that most DMs would rule that charge-enhancing effects generally only apply to the first attack.

- I don't think you'd have to put your gear on several times a day. You can use the wild shape ability in cave troll form.

The way they've reworded wild shape is pretty awkward. "Any gear worn or carried by the druid melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional."

So you could wild shape while still in cave troll form, but I believe that anything you've donned in that form would then get absorbed into the new cave troll form. To prevent that, I think you'd need to take it all off first (or cause it to be dropped at your feet by ending the wild shape) and then put it back on after re-assuming cave troll form.

- Technically, haste doesn't work with natural weapons. "[A] hasted creature may make one extra attack with any weapon he is holding". (I'd allow it though, and so would most DMs I think.) However, why not use a weapon? As written, Leap Attack triples the extra damage from power attack (12x3), making the first attack very impressive. (The first two attacks with your interpretation of Leap Attack.) It's probably better even if you "just" use 12x2 from Leap Attack.

I hadn't noticed that about Haste. Still, if you follow the literal wording, then Monks are kindof screwed. I agree that most DMs would allow it.

The 12 from power attack was already doubled for Leap Attack. It's actually only 6 points of power attack, so 18 for leap attack with a 2h weapon.

A 9th-level Druid/MMF would have a BAB of +6/+1. The only 2-handed weapon he'd be proficient with is a quarterstaff, which is 1d8 damage for a large creature. The damage would be better per hit, but it works out to less overall due to the lower chance to hit on the 2nd attack and no chance of rending and dazing:

3 claws + rend vs. AC15 w/6 pts of power attack:
((.95 * 3 * (7 + 10 + 1 + 2 + 6)) * 1.05) + (.993 * 29) = 107 damage + 99% chance of dazing blow

3 quarterstaff attacks vs. AC15 w/6 pts of power attack:
((.95 + .95 + .7) * (4.5 + 15 + 1 + 2 + 12)) * 1.05 = 94 damage

Leap attack would add 6 damage to each claw or quarterstaff hit, and the claws are more likely to hit, so adding that would actually be slightly in favor of the claws.

- Other spells worth noting: Girallon's blessing (SC, 3rd) - even if the DM doesn't allow two rend attacks (I wouldn't) and lowers your regular cave troll claw damage, it will help your overall damage.

Hmm, that's interesting. The wording is a little odd -- I'd assume that the claw attacks just replace the normal Cave Troll claw attacks and still allow the bite and rakes. I think you'd probably lose the Cave Troll's Dazing Blow ability, though, which is kindof significant. Let's see what the damage would be, though:

Normal Cave Troll attacks, no Leap Attack:
(((.95 * 3 * 26) + (.95 * 2 * 21) + (.85 * 18.5)) * 1.05) + (.993 * 29) = 165 damage

With Girallon's Blessing:
(((.95 * 5 * (2.5 + 10 + 1 + 2 + 6)) + (.95 * 2 * 21) + (.85 * 18.5)) * 1.05) + (~1 * (5 + 15)) = 186 damage

So more damage but no Dazing Blow. Potentially worthwhile if there are enough spell slots for it.

Charge of the triceratops (SC, 3rd) adds yet another natural attack, if you have a 3rd level spell to spare and the time to cast it. Lion's Charge (SC, 3rd) lets you pounce in any form (handy if you want to change your perferred form to war troll later.)

The Lion's Pounce wild feat is another good way to get a full attack without using spell slots.

Charge of the Triceratops looks pretty good -- my only concern would be the short duration, which means you'd need to cast it during combat. I don't know if the extra damage would end up being as valuable as an extra round of attacks, especially since it would have to be used as a secondary attack.

 

[Iku Rex]

Hmm, forgot about that. I just checked both those sources, and neither seems to actually give a price for darkleaf armor. ECS gives two examples (breastplate & banded mail) with prices, but nothing that says how much it would cost for full plate.

The table in the A&EG has it at +3000 gp for heavy armor, and that's how the banded mail in the ECS is priced too.

The way they've reworded wild shape is pretty awkward. "Any gear worn or carried by the druid melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional."

Right. I forgot about that.

The 12 from power attack was already doubled for Leap Attack. It's actually only 6 points of power attack, so 18 for leap attack with a 2h weapon.

It's a -6 penalty on attacks which means 12 extra damage from power attack. Here's an example from the Complete Warrior errata on the frenzied berserker (using the exact same language as the Complete Adventurer errata on Leap Attack).

Supreme Power Attack: A 10th-level frenzied
berserker deals +100% the normal damage from her use
of the Power Attack feat. In other words, when using
the Power Attack feat, a frenzied berserker wielding a
two-handed weapon gains a +4 bonus on damage rolls
(instead of a +2 bonus) for each –1 penalty she applies
to her attack rolls.

Leap Attack says to triple the extra damage, for a total of +6 damage for each -1 penalty. (IMO they intended to remove that line about tripling and make Leap Attack identical to Supreme Power attack.)

A 9th-level Druid/MMF would have a BAB of +6/+1. The only 2-handed weapon he'd be proficient with is a quarterstaff, which is 1d8 damage for a large creature. The damage would be better per hit, but it works out to less overall due to the lower chance to hit on the 2nd attack and no chance of rending and dazing: ...

Ah - rend ups the damage quite a bit.

Still, a quarterstaff can be buffed up with spells like shillelagh, brambles (SC) or spikes (SC). (If you have the time and spell slots for it. Pearls of power can provide a lot of cheap extra first level spells. )

I think you'd probably lose the Cave Troll's Dazing Blow ability, though, which is kindof significant.

That seems overly strict to me. You still have claw attacks and you're still a cave troll. I can see how one might conclude that they're not the "claw attacks" referred to in the dazing blow description though.

 

[Rystil Arden]

1. The rule says humanoid so therefore it's self-evident that it's referring to humanoids.
2. The rule says humanoid so therefore it's self-evident that it's referring to body shape.

Pick one and go with it.

Are you trying to argue that a Nymph, for instance, which is exactly the same body shape as an elf, would be unable to wear normal armour and have to pay double? What about a Succubus in Alternate Form? They're type outsider. A doppleganger? Monstrous humanoid. Until I saw your posts, I did not believe anyone would try to argue that you have to pay double based on creature type alone.

"Hey Bob, why are buying new armour? The old one was fitted exactly to your size."

"I...uhh...I just don't feel right without paying double."

"Aha! You're a doppleganger posing as Bob! You're Monstrous Humanoids, so you have to pay double despite being exactly the same body shape!"

 

[Infiniti2000]

That's a good example of the fallacy of "false dilemma".

Definitely not. I don't think you are using the correct definition of false dilemma. What's the third point of view that might be correct?

3. Using "humanoid" as a specific creature type with regards to armor leads to absurdity.

This is a meaningless and leading statement. It's purely your opinion that it leads to absurdity. I have no idea why you feel it's so, but your opinion is unsubstantiated. I really have no clue why you're coming up with these antagonist qualifiers like "absurd" and "silly". You have no basis for these comments. It's your opinion, but if you keep wanting to use them, please justify them.

4. Using "humanoid" as a general body type with regards to armor makes sense.

Yet again, see above. This is probably some other logical fallacy like an appeal to reason ("believe me even though I offer no proof, what I say makes sense and the opposing viewpoint is silly and absurd").

Do you think it's sensible for two characters with completely identical body shapes to be unable to wear each other's armor? What happens when a spellcaster changes his creature type (but not his body shape) from humanoid to non-humanoid with a spell?

Absolutely I think it's sensible. The rules are quite clear on this.

"Each suit of full plate must be individually fitted to its owner by a master armorsmith, although a captured suit can be resized to fit a new owner at a cost of 200 to 800 (2d4×100) gold pieces."

If you believe what you say, then you must be houseruling full plate not to require the above.

 

[kerbarian]

- Other spells worth noting: Girallon's blessing (SC, 3rd) - even if the DM doesn't allow two rend attacks (I wouldn't) and lowers your regular cave troll claw damage, it will help your overall damage.

Actually, Girallon's Blessing could be pretty interesting even without the Cave Troll form. What happens if you give 4 ape arms to, say, a Dire Lion? Would it get 4 arms replacing its forelegs, or just 2 new arms with all 4 legs remaining intact? I'll guess just 2 new arms.

So here's an 8th-level build if Master of Many Forms isn't allowed -- straight Druid 8.

[major edit: changed to use quarterstaff]

Dire Lion form, and with Girallon arms, it could wear gloves and bracers. So keep the gauntlets of ogre strength and armbands of might. No boots of speed, but for comparison we'll assume someone has cast haste on him.

Now here's where it gets weird... say he wields a quarterstaff with the two Girallon arms. I seem to remember something about all natural attacks being treated as secondary if you're wielding a weapon. If that's the case, then the attacks on the charge would be:

3 quarterstaff attacks (2 for BAB + 1 for haste)
2 claws (secondary instead of primary)
2 rakes (full attack bonus -- rake attacks always get that)
1 bite (secondary)

Is that correct? Does anyone have a reference for the rules on wielding a weapon and still being able to use all the remaining natural attacks for limbs that aren't tied up wielding a weapon? For example, could a regular Cave Troll wield a longsword in one hand and still use his other claw as a secondary natural attack without using the two-weapon fighting rules? Anyway... proceeding on, assuming all that's correct.

Shillelagh is only 1 min/level, but I'll assume that's in effect on the quarterstaff (good call Iku Rex).

Attack bonus is +6 (base) + 8 (str) + 1 (haste) + 1 (magic fang/shillelagh) + 2 (charge) - 1 (size) -5 (power attack) = +12

vs. an AC15 target (no Leap Attack), damage would be:

((.9 + .9 + .65) * 35.5) + (.8 * 2 * 15.5) + (.9 * 2 * 15.5) + (.8 * 16.5)) * 1.05) = 161 damage.

That compares to 165 for the original build or 186 for the Cave Troll + Girallon's Blessing (though the Troll could probably do better using a quarterstaff w/shillelagh). So not half bad for staying in animal form.

If you add on Brambles, the damage goes up to 179. With Spikes instead, it's 186. Starting to look pretty good for a Dire Lion wielding a quarterstaff and wearing full plate . Speaking of which...

AC won't be nearly as good. You can still get darkleaf full plate made for a dire lion, but it would be 9150 for the nonmagical version. So assume it's only +1 to end up at the same price. That gives a total AC of:

10 + 4 (natural) + 4 (barkskin) + 2 (dex) + 9 (armor) + 1 (haste) + 1 (ring of prot) -1 (size) - 2 (charge) = 28.

Not bad, but a significant decrease. The other major losses would be fast healing 8 (ouch), dazing blow, and the ability to speak. Plus you can't keep Girallon's Blessing up all the time -- only 80 mins per casting. You'd need some warning ahead of time that a fight was coming or you'd be far less effective. You would keep full Druid casting progression, though, which is nice.

Unfortunately, the unable-to-speak thing seems like an insurmountable barrier to adventuring in wild shape as a straight Druid. Other than the Shifter's Speech class ability of the MMF, I don't see any way to communicate as a wild-shaped Druid.

 

[Iku Rex]

Definitely not. I don't think you are using the correct definition of false dilemma.

You offered two options and demanded that I choose one. In fact those were not the only available options. Sounds like textbook false dilemma to me.

What's the third point of view that might be correct?

How about:
3. The rule says "humanoid" so therefore it's referring to general body shape or creature type.

3. Using "humanoid" as a specific creature type with regards to armor leads to absurdity.

This is a meaningless and leading statement. It's purely your opinion that it leads to absurdity. I have no idea why you feel it's so, but your opinion is unsubstantiated.

It leads to absurdity because an armor self-evidently fits ("conforms correctly to the shape or size of") a creature or not based on the shape (or size) of the body it's fitted to. Do you understand this? If no, why not? A creature with humanoid form but not the humanoid type does not (by definition) have a general body shape significantly different from a creature with the humanoid type.

I really have no clue why you're coming up with these antagonist qualifiers like "absurd" and "silly".

It's - what did you call it? - a "good ole strategy of using a "self-evident" argument". Logicians call it reductio ad absurdum.

Yet again, see above. This is probably some other logical fallacy like an appeal to reason ("believe me even though I offer no proof, what I say makes sense and the opposing viewpoint is silly and absurd").

The fallacy of "appeal to reason"? If you think appealing to reason is a fallacy it would explain a lot... I'll certainly confess to trying to appeal to your reason. :\

Absolutely I think it's sensible.

Two creatures with 100% (outwardly) identical bodies. If you take a full body cast of both you'll be unable to tell them apart. Yet armor fits or not depending on a game mechanical technicality? If you think that's sensible we have nothing more to talk about.

The rules are quite clear on this.

"Each suit of full plate must be individually fitted to its owner by a master armorsmith, although a captured suit can be resized to fit a new owner at a cost of 200 to 800 (2d4×100) gold pieces."

If you believe what you say, then you must be houseruling full plate not to require the above.

How is this in any way relevant? Please tell me you're not gloating about how the (unique) resizing rules for full plates don't have a special clause for identical clones?

That rule does not support your claim. If you were right a "humanoid" full plate would have to be rebuilt for creatures without the humanoid type (like elan or planetouched), for at least the original cost of the armor.