If there are no set rules for that, then are there any rules that you would suggest that I look at before making such a character? Other than the ones about converting non-PC races into PCs, that is.

Also, are there any rules for Awakened swarms? If so, where?

Awakened would just make it into a PC race, make em roll stats and add modifers as per makes sense.

Its really easy, you basically do it yourself if it isnt in SS.

If it IS a squirrel, they do have paws that can be traced.

Also, if the squirrel researched and created the spell itself(or got the spell from another wizasquirrel), the somatic component would be doable without needing a feat, or a hand item.

Feat: Surrogate Spellcasting. Page 39-40 of Savage Species.

I have Savage Species, but I was thinking I had seen something more directly covering the use of Awakened animals as PCs. Thanks.

Palador ChibiDragon fucked around with this message on 01-16-2005 at 02:03 AM.

How is a squirrel going to mimic the movements of a regular wizards :-/

quote:

---

Elvish Crack Piper wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
Thats... really lame.

How is a squirrel going to mimic the movements of a regular wizards :-/

---

It's not. It's basically knowing how to translate the spell's movements into something that a non-standard body can do. Think of it as being similar to translating spell words from Draconian to Elven. Draconian might be a bit hard to use, but Elven works just as well if you can translate it. Same idea, but with the movements instead of the words.

A squirrel body cant translate the intrictite somatic components of a humanoid designed spell into a few flips and jumps. Not with a simple feat at least.

It should require more training.

Though, I do find myself somewhat aghast at argueing the case of spellcasting squirrels.

quote:

---

Elvish Crack Piper got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
Thats... really lame.

---

You're one to talk.

quote:

---

Elvish Crack Piper had this to say about dark elf butts:
Whats that supposed to mean?

---

Mr. "I'm a powergaming wizard who just does anything he can against the members in his party with reckless abandon, and then comes to ask EC how I can get out of the consequences that I brought upon myself."

It wasnt against my own party that I had any problems with, it was with the aristocrat NPC that I didnt remember to send her letters that I had the problem with.

I was the bitch of a lich for most of my wrongdoings. In game I'm actually rather pious, now. Found me a former priestess, turned wizard, to serve as apprentice and atone for my wrongdoings.

I came to EC because it was girl trouble, and I dont have any expierience in that department.

quote:

---

ACES! Another post by Elvish Crack Piper:
Hehe.

It wasnt against my own party that I had any problems with, it was with the aristocrat NPC that I didnt remember to send her letters that I had the problem with.

I was the bitch of a lich for most of my wrongdoings. In game I'm actually rather pious, now. Found me a former priestess, turned wizard, to serve as apprentice and atone for my wrongdoings.

I came to EC because it was girl trouble, and I dont have any expierience in that department.

---

I said a feat that allowed you to replace all the somatic components of a spell with others was lame. The idea of a sentient squirrel that casts spells is nifty, the idea of a feat that makes it pathetically easy isnt.

To amend, I had no problems making an informed decicion with whatever backstabings(actually blunt force trauma to the neck) or whatnot. I played the villian in the group for awhile, I was often estranged from everyone except my lackies in the group (yes, ECP had lackeys, very stupid lackeys who nearly got me killed, which then prompted me to sell one into slavery(the talking cat), which angered the other two(when they found out a couple ours later), who ended up dead)

I was the minion of an evil overlord whose only goal was increased personal power. :-p

quote:

---

Densetsu said this about your mom:
You've said that you've repeatedly backstabbed (figuratively) your party. The point is, you have no right to tell Palador that him wanting to be an awakened character, and trying to work a spellcaster into the mix, is lame.

---

Not to mention, it's the best way to go with a small creature. I don't think anyone would say there's no problem with a squirrel monk, and we don't need a squirrel rogue backstabing for an extra 1d6 damage from a 1 pt bite. With a spell caster, I can at least have it be effective without having it do the physically impossible.

I just want to play a cute, hyper rodent that bounces off the walls, screams at everything, fires off some spell of (pathetic) destruction, the falls asleep because the sugar rush wore off. All within the first three rounds of combat.

quote:

---

Elvish Crack Piper attempted to be funny by writing:
Heh. What would a squirrel monks damage table even be? 1d8 at level 20?

---

Yah, that's what it looks like.

Tiny only has a +4, miniscule and co are the beefy bonuses, the +8 or 16.

Allows casting of spells in animal forms, substituting the sounds and movements of the animal. Covers verbal and somatic componant use, providing the creature can hold the item ie: Squirrel holding a few berries in its paws to cast Goodberry, or an eagles screeching to sub for verbal componants.

quote:

---

Ninety-nine bottles of KaLourin on the wall, ninety-nine bottles of KaLourin...
Natural Spell feat from Masters of the Wild. Done deal.

Allows casting of spells in animal forms, substituting the sounds and movements of the animal. Covers verbal and somatic componant use, providing the creature can hold the item ie: Squirrel holding a few berries in its paws to cast Goodberry, or an eagles screeching to sub for verbal componants.

---

quote:

---

Vinven D`Slyfox needs to hitch a ride with a Vogon constructor fleet.
Wouldnt be able to cast spells that require specific hand motions unless you had specific hand-giving magic gear. Which would be too big for a squirrel. Savage Species book covers it well, I have a copy in acrobat format I beleive.

---

quote:

---

When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Elvish Crack Piper said:
make your spells 1 level higher.

---

It bears saying that you're wrong. It uses a spell slot one level higher (IE if you cast a still spell magic missile, it uses a second tier slot instead of a first tier slot). Almost all metamagic feats require the use of a higher-tier slot to function.

I would have kept quiet on my personal opinions on things, but you went to "Awakened Swarm". That's just messed up. It would be like giving a player control of a Cranium Rat horde. It gets out of control very fast and makes the GM have to work ten times harder to accomodate Mr Bizarro.

I've got a player playing a cat in HS4, but it's with the understanding that the cat is getting some serious penalties, and is going to be re-humaned. Likewise, it's a campaign where the GM (me) is planning on dealing with a bunch of bizarrely-cursed PC's.

Don't just spring something like an Awakened animal (or ESPECIALLY an Awakened Swarm) on your GM. There's gimmick characters who warp things, and then there's moving rule vortexes that give everyone a headache.

quote:

---

Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael's account was hax0red to write:
I would have kept quiet on my personal opinions on things, but you went to "Awakened Swarm". That's just messed up. It would be like giving a player control of a Cranium Rat horde. It gets out of control very fast and makes the GM have to work ten times harder to accomodate Mr Bizarro.

---

There is no way I would ever ask to play an awakened swarm. Even good GMs would have a hard time dealing with the problems that would make. That question was more of a unrelated side question.

Although, I did once play a trio of mind-linked rats in an odd little con game a friend ran. They were all one character, just in three bodies at once. It was a game where everyone was playing familiars of research students in a mage school, so there were a few odd ones to choose from. (Nobody wanted to play the undead rat familiar, which suprised me.)

As for the bigger creatures being able to eat a squirrel mage, I know. That's just part of the problem with being such a small creature. It's going to make getting a familiar interesting, though.

For a while, I was kind of debating which weapon style would be better for a combat-oriented character: Dual-weild, two-handed, or one-handed/shield. Each, naturally, have their advantages and drawbacks.

But when I read Sword and Fist 3.0, I got an idea.

Two weapon Fighting + Shield Expert + 2 spiked shields = The AC of two shields, plus two light 1d6-damage piercing weapons.

Would this at all work? Can you not use two shields with either Shield Expert or Two-Weapon Fighting? Will you only get the AC of the more protective shield?

quote:

---

A sleep deprived Ruvyen stammered:
Would this at all work? Can you not use two shields with either Shield Expert or Two-Weapon Fighting? Will you only get the AC of the more protective shield?

---

I do believe that will work, but that's an awful lot of effort for some crappy damage. Also, I believe some weapons can bypass shield AC.

If you want to play a serious tank, I would suggest getting a spiked tower shield, and a good 1hand weapon. (Zaile says: "And some spiked armor. And check out Races of Stone for some Dwarf stuff along these lines.")

quote:

---

Palador ChibiDragon had this to say about (_|_):
I do believe that will work, but that's an awful lot of effort for some crappy damage. Also, I believe some weapons can bypass shield AC.

If you want to play a serious tank, I would suggest getting a spiked tower shield, and a good 1hand weapon. (Zaile says: "And some spiked armor. And check out Races of Stone for some Dwarf stuff along these lines.")

---

Ditch the spiked tower shield. You can't shield bash with them due to their ungodly large weight/size.

quote:

---

Alaan's fortune cookie read:
Ditch the spiked tower shield. You can't shield bash with them due to their ungodly large weight/size.

---

Oh yah, forgot about that.

quote:

---

Ninety-nine bottles of Palador ChibiDragon on the wall, ninety-nine bottles of Palador ChibiDragon...
As for the bigger creatures being able to eat a squirrel mage, I know. That's just part of the problem with being such a small creature. It's going to make getting a familiar interesting, though.

---

Most people opt for the "Implied Spell Pouch" house rule anyway.

quote:

---

`Doc wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
Ruvyen: The problem with spiked shields is that you lose the AC bonus (on a round-by-round basis) when using them as weapons. The damage is about the same as a short sword, so if you actually use all your attacks in a round, there's no defensive advantage.

---

Shield Expert prevents that. If you attack with a shield, you retain its AC bonus. Also, I could increase my tankliness by going DEX-build and Finessing in Shield Spike, because despite the weight of large shields, the spikes are light weapons. I might not deal loads of damage per hit, but I'd be getting loads of AC, maximum attack bonus, and tons of HP, which is the entire point of the build in the first place. Plus, if we're talking 3.5e D&D, I can get three attacks with my off-hand, as I'll certainly manage to snag enough DEX, and if we go into Epic levels, I can do four off-hand attacks. I'd be doing plenty of damage, 1d6 or no.

And I never saw the point of tower shields. The don't grant AC (some think they give +3AC compared to a large shield's +2), they grant cover. You could get +3AC from one by getting enough cover, but your enemies would also get the same because of your shield. Not only that, but a tower shield can give you no AC against an opponent behind you or to the side, unless you specifically try to block attacks from that direction; if you do that, you get no shield AC against attacks from the front. Large shields 4TW.

quote:

---

Ninety-nine bottles of Ruvyen on the wall, ninety-nine bottles of Ruvyen...
And I never saw the point of tower shields. The don't grant AC (some think they give +3AC compared to a large shield's +2), they grant cover. You could get +3AC from one by getting enough cover, but your enemies would also get the same because of your shield. Not only that, but a tower shield can give you no AC against an opponent behind you or to the side, unless you specifically try to block attacks from that direction; if you do that, you get no shield AC against attacks from the front. Large shields 4TW.

---

quote:

---

`Doc got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
In 3.5 you get a choice of +4AC or cover (and sometimes you really want cover). It doesn't give your enemies cover because you can move your own shield out of your way. However, the tower shield is very inhibitive to physical skill use (-10 penalty), and is the only shield with a maximum dexterity bonus (+2). Keep in mind also that your GM may decide that only small spiked shields count as light weapons, while large spiked shields count as one-hand weapons (for the same damage).

---

If you take the +4AC on a tower shield, does it not also give you an attack penalty of some kind, even if you are proficient?

[EDIT- Actually, it does. Quote from 3.5e SRD: "When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a –2 penalty on attack rolls because of the shield’s encumbrance."

So it's similar to two-weapon fighting, only instead of extra attacks, you get +4AC.]

Ruvyen fucked around with this message on 01-17-2005 at 11:36 AM.

quote:

---

Ruvyen enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
If you take the +4AC on a tower shield, does it not also give you an attack penalty of some kind, even if you are proficient?

[EDIT- Actually, it does. Quote from 3.5e SRD: "When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a –2 penalty on attack rolls because of the shield’s encumbrance."

So it's similar to two-weapon fighting, only instead of extra attacks, you get +4AC.]

---

I used one on a pretty tankly Dwarven Fighter and it worked out ok. I was still hitting pretty consistantly with my Dwarven Waraxe and dishing out some damage. I was a beast in melee because of ~31 AC at level 7.

As for the shield thing...

Spiked (or bladed shields; there are dwarven shields with sharp, axe-like edges) shields end up being more expensive. If it's a spiked or bladed shield, enchanting it counts separately. IE if you want a Spiked shield with, say, Flaming, and a +3 Attack/damage and +3 enchantment, you have to pay for it as a +3 flaming bladed shield, AND as a +3 defense magic shield. You rack up cost pretty fast.

The other thing is that a shield is not the first choice of a lot of classes for a reason. Priest classes need the AC, frankly, but Rangers do better taking feats to maximize two-weapon fighting (there's even a feat that lets you use your off-hand sword as a defensive device on a per-round basis). Barbarians I've known usually maximize the brute force of one two-hander than a pair of smaller weapons (there are exceptions, but they're rare), or they may use a double-headed weapon (double bladed sword, orcish double-axe, etc). Paladins often use shields because they can channel divine power to back up the shield. Likewise, there's the whole issue of jousting that paladins seem to get into more because of their paladinic mount than other classes would. Fighters are the wild cards, but even they don't tend to zero in on shield and weapon.

SO! Why take a shield?

People with Warrior NPC classes or the like frankly need the AC. Soldiers with one feat to spend are better off taking something that lets them lock their shields together a la the Greeks for formation combat. Adventurers are the rarity; they usually fight as individuals working together rather than take feats that maximize group effectiveness. Therefore, shields aren't as straight-up useful. In militaries, a shield is a great choice. Most military movements rely on well-commanded and maneuvered GROUPS of people working together, combined with a hefty dose of "it never hurts to outnumber the other guy". Want to keep the enemy outnumbered you have to keep your guys alive, which means AC.

Okay that covers largely untrained people, but what about PC's?

Shield is still the ultimate accessory, but weirdly enough is the one you never really think about. Me, if I take a fighter, I always have a shield, even if I carry it slung on my back all the time. Why? Because I can. I have the feats to use all shields, including tower shields. Yes I specialize in X type of combat, but I have the ABILITY to whip out a shield if necessary. I'd rather have the cover of a tower shield over a round shield against generic archers, for instance. Why? Because they're not as likely to be trained to aim over or around cover, so not only do they have to see if they get around cover, they still have to make an attack check. Against a trained archer, I'll just take the AC, thanks, and haul ass until I'm in melee range (or until someone else picks the ranged attacker off).

Likewise, a shield covers the same reason why a lot of monks probably wear gloves. Why is that, you might ask? Because I don't like sticking my hand in shit. I can pile stuff on a tower shield and drag it like a sleigh. I can pull a Madmartigan and sled down a frosty mountain. I can have, in other words, a metal plate between me and the ugly I'm hitting. Some mobs, frankly, you just plain don't want to touch (small otyugh, xorn, bullete...), especially when bull rushing or trying to force them back. I'd rather bonk them with a shield and use that to keep them from grabbing onto me as I push them than be grappled personally.

That's the thing that always gets me about fighters. The question Fighters should ask isn't "Why?", but rather "Why not?" Sure you can take any number of feats that maximize a shield, but if you don't, it doesn't mean they're useless. Dual wield to your heart's content. Carry a spear if you like. But why NOT keep a shield handy unless you have a weight limit issue?

Hey GM's out there...what's your stance on dragon's breath and shields? Unless shield in my game are specifically fire resistant, dragons over a certain size class blasting someone with a shield make an automatic sunder attack. Sort of a "massive damage" attack on an item without having to make a called check or the like.

It would fork though a little, so maybe double hardness reduction?

quote:

---

Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael had this to say about Optimus Prime:
I apologize for jumping to conclusions, Palador.

---

Oh, I never said that I didn't want to do it, just that I would never ask to.

Actually, I've been playing with the idea of making a pack-based creature for use in a game. Each member of the pack is mind linked to the others, with one pack member per HD. If one of the pack members gets killed, the group mind takes a negative level untill that member can be replaced. (If the group mind is dual-classed, you need to keep track of what members are tied to which class.)

I'm not quite sure how to handle number of attacks, and splitting the pack apart. I'll keep thinking on it.