According to Masters of the Wild: "At 10th level, the oozemaster is as slimy as the creatures he favors. His type changes to ooze for determining what effects and items can affect him. He gains the Blindsight feat (hearing-based version, see Chapter 2) and becomes immune to flanking, poison, sleep, paralysis, stunning, and all mind-influencing effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects). In addition, he is immune to polymorph other, but he retains any shapechanging ability he previously possessed."
What's stumping me is the "type changes to ooze for determining what effects and items can affect him" part. I know he/she would get the immunities stated in the One with the Ooze class ability, but it doesn't say whether or not it gets one of the other major abilities of the Ooze type: immunity to criticals and flanking. At 6th level, oozemasters get a free light fortification ability (25% chance to ignore criticals and sneak attacks), so I don't know whether they would get the critical immunity from being an Ooze or not.
Has there been an official ruling on this, or is it something that's left up to the DM's discretion?
According to Masters of the Wild:"At 10th level, the oozemaster is as slimy as the creatures he favors. His type changes to ooze for determining what effects and items can affect him. He gains the Blindsight feat (hearing-based version, see Chapter 2
All the effective type change does is adjust which effects can target the oozemaster in the first place. For example, a 10th-level human oozemaster couldn't be targeted by effects that target humanoids, such as hold person, but would now be subject to effects that could normally only affect oozes.
His actual immunities can then apply to block any effect that is able to work on an ooze (though there aren't many abilities specifically aimed at oozes that will use effects to which normal oozes are immune).
All the effective type change does is adjust which effects can target the oozemaster in the first place. For example, a 10th-level human oozemaster couldn't be targeted by effects that target humanoids, such as hold person, but would now be subject
As Slagger mentions it appears that you don't get all the traits normally associated with becoming an Oooze type creature but things that look for/at your type will see "ooze" instead of your actual type. An Ooze Bane weapon will have benefits hitting you while a Human Bane weapon (assuming you were human) would have no added effect. As mentioned things like Enlarge Person would fail as it doesn't see you are humanoid anymore.
You asked about immunity to flanking and critical from the Ooze type. Well, it looks like you already get immunity from Flanking with another ability so you don't need that twice which just leaves the Critical issue. You mention getting light fortification (25% chance to avoid SA/critical) at 6th-level so you already have some protection from those. I don't own the source book but while there is nothing in your post that indicates the critical protection increases I could certainly see your light fortification ability improving with your final level in the class to at medium fortification; it may not be the full immunity that oozes get but it is a step up and you already have things that normal oozes don't get.
As Slagger mentions it appears that you don't get all the traits normally associated with becoming an Oooze type creature but things that look for/at your type will see "ooze" instead of your actual type. An Ooze Bane weapon will have benefits hitti
Huh... so I've just been blind to the flanking immunity. Thanks for point that out.
Unfortunately, 10th level does not come with a bump up to medium fortification, so I'd have to take a set of non-metal (druid base) armor that has one of the fortification spells. Speaking of which, would two light fortification effects stack, such as from Oozemaster 6 and armor with the enchantment? Or is it like other bonuses, where only the highest is used?
Huh... so I've just been blind to the flanking immunity. Thanks for point that out. Unfortunately, 10th level does not come with a bump up to medium fortification, so I'd have to take a set of non-metal (druid base) armor that has one of the fortific
Don't you just hate it when you miss the obvious which you already stated? I've done that a time or two myself.
I don't believe that having mulitple instances of Fortification will stack. If they do it will be a test one then test the other system so you'd have two 25% chances of stopping it instead of one 50% chance.
Don't you just hate it when you miss the obvious which you already stated? I've done that a time or two myself.I don't believe that having mulitple instances of Fortification will stack. If they do it will be a test one then test the other system s
I don't know, my math is terrible. 2 + dog = I CAST FLARE!
Not quite.
Since you're checking two separate systems at the same time (there's no order of operations: your oozemaster (25% fortification from a class feature) with Light Fortification armor would check both the armor and the class feature at the same time) and you check both of them regardless of the result on the other one, the chances are independent and therefore multiplied. Since either one would block the crit/precision effect, the attack has a 75% chance of passing either one on their own. Thus, the attack has a 0.75*0.75= 56.25% chance of dealing the crit/precision damage. Since fortification is binary (i.e. everything is either negated or not negated, with nothing in between), this is equivalent to a negation chance of 1-0.5625, or 43.75% fortification.
(If it isn't clear why I worked with hit chances rather than negation chances, it's because either one of the fortifications can negate the attack. You have four possible outcomes: [both fortifications negate the attack], [the first negates and the second doesn't], [the first doesn't but the second negates], and [neither negates]. The first three are identical as far as the damage is concerned (any negation = it's negated). Since there are only those four outcomes and they're mutually exclusive, their individual probabilities must sum to 1, so it's easiest to work out the lone "neither negates" probability and subtract that from 1 to figure out the effective fortification.)
What you did was take 25%, and then add 25% of the other 25% (or 6.25%) to it to get "about 31%". Logically, this works out to one of two different things: It's either what you'd do if there's an order of operations (i.e. some rule that says, with your oozemaster, you would check class feature fortification before equipment fortification - no such rule exists, by the way), or it's what you'd get if you're looking at the probability that exactly one fortification effect triggers, but not both. (Well, to be rigorous, the method outlined in this paragraph is a shortcut for this special case; the more rigorous way of getting "about 31%" is to add together .75*.25 and .25*.75 - the probabilities that one fortifies but the other doesn't - and then subtract .25*.25 (the probability of a double negation).)
To put the first example (the order of operations) in probability terms, but with identical numbers, consider two separate decks of cards (standard 52, no jokers, well-shuffled). What's the probability that the top card on either deck is a spade? Note that this is a slightly different question from "If the top card of one deck is a spade, what is the probability that the second deck's top card is also a spade?". The first question is based on independent probabilities, while the second is based on conditional probabilities. They're handled differently.
To explain the second example (the only one, not both thing), consider a Venn diagram. What you worked out was basically this, when what you want is this. Note that in that second image, you can figure out the red area in a number of ways - what I did above was to work out the white area and subtract it from 1, which helps avoid accidentally counting the overlap area twice. Another way of doing it - closer to what you did mathematically - is to take 25% and add 75% of 25% to it (.25+.75*.25=43.75%); this adds one circle to the non-overlapping part of the other circle, but isn't quite as clear what's going on from the numbers. At least, not to the way I think - use whichever works for you.
(EDIT: Draco, did you accidentally add the denominators as well? There are only four outcomes, not eight. Minor point of interest: I'm Canadian, but when I was learning basic mathematics ages ago, the curriculum emphasized working in decimals, with fractions just being a way of expressing a decimal. I note that Americans seem to prefer fractions as a first (and occasionally only) resort even when common mistakes like that show up. I suspect this is due to SI units being entirely decimal products of each other (i.e. 1cm=10mm=0.01m) while trying to do a decimal expression of Imperial units will make the baby Feynman cry. I'm curious now how our UK members were taught in comparison to this.)
Now with all that out of the way, good gaming! :p
Not quite.Since you're checking two separate systems at the same time (there's no order of operations: your oozemaster (25% fortification from a class feature) with Light Fortification armor would check both the armor and the class feature at the sam
No, I did it based on rolling sequentially. First roll: 25% (1on four chance of negation) If any of the other three rolls (on average) occur, then you move on to the second roll. And I did the conversion wrong; it was supposed to be 5/8 (37.5%), not 7/8.
No, I did it based on rolling sequentially. First roll: 25% (1on four chance of negation)If any of the other three rolls (on average) occur, then you move on to the second roll.And I did the conversion wrong; it was supposed to be 5/8 (37.5%), not 7/
No, I did it based on rolling sequentially. First roll: 25% (1on four chance of negation) If any of the other three rolls (on average) occur, then you move on to the second roll. And I did the conversion wrong; it was supposed to be 5/8 (37.5%), not 7/8.
I'm not seeing 5/8 doing it this way. Sticking to fractions, you have a 1/4 probability of negating, and a 3/4 probability of not negating and therefore moving to the second fortification. There, you have a 1/4 probability of negating and a 3/4 probabilty of not negating. The second result is conditional upon the first (that is, you only go to the second fortification three times out of four), so the total probability of fortification is (1/4)+(3/4 * 1/4) = 1/4+1/5 = 4/9. And, interestingly, 4/9 is 43.75%, the same result I came up with earlier.
I'm not seeing 5/8 doing it this way. Sticking to fractions, you have a 1/4 probability of negating, and a 3/4 probability of not negating and therefore moving to the second fortification. There, you have a 1/4 probability of negating and a 3/4 proba
In that case... I don't know how the hell I came up with that number. I blame it on not dealing with math since '94.
I also didn't point out that 37.5% is 3/8, not 5/8 (that's 62.5%); I was too busy considering your method to notice.
37.5% is off by 25% of 25% - in other words, it's the probability that EITHER ONE negates BUT NOT BOTH. (This Venn, which is the correct answer minus the intersection.) 62.5% is off by 75% of 25% - in other words, you double-counted one of the fortifications somewhere. (This Venn (the correct answer) plus this Venn due to double-counting.)
Whatever happened is somewhere there.
(...and if it makes you feel any better, I'm in a Ph.D. program based around cognitive modelling, specifically of estimating conditional probabilities (i.e. "If I do X, then how likely is it that Y will happen?" and how learning and experience changes that estimate). This is a lot fresher to me.)
I also didn't point out that 37.5% is 3/8, not 5/8 (that's 62.5%); I was too busy considering your method to notice.37.5% is off by 25% of 25% - in other words, it's the probability that EITHER ONE negates BUT NOT BOTH. (This Venn, which is the corre
But 2 LF effects stacking like that sounds pretty good. Nearly a 50% chance to avoid taking critical damage just from combining a class ability and a fairly cheap (I think?) enchantment.
Like I said, I'm bad at math But 2 LF effects stacking like that sounds pretty good. Nearly a 50% chance to avoid taking critical damage just from combining a class ability and a fairly cheap (I think?) enchantment.
This is just probability arithmetic, not really a comprehensive view of "math". Nor is it really a good view of probability (but now I'm letting my inner Bayesian show).
(Nothing personal, but it really bugs me when people conflate doing sums, algebra (including linear algebra, though that's quite different from the fundamental stuff you cover in grade school), calculus, discrete mathematics (including group theory, graph theory, and number theory) and geometry all under the same label. They're quite different, and people can excel in different areas while being weak in others. (It's usually just a matter of expressing the concepts in terms people "get". I find physics is a good place for this, particularly if you stick within a Newtonian framework: showing people how those annoying formulas they had to memorize in science class for position, velocity, and acceleration are all "really" connected is a surprisingly good example for getting "AHA!" moments.)
But 2 LF effects stacking like that sounds pretty good. Nearly a 50% chance to avoid taking critical damage just from combining a class ability and a fairly cheap (I think?) enchantment.
The Light Fortification enhancement is a +1 bonus for 25% immunity. Any armor needs to be at least +1 to start, so the minimum cost for this is 4000gp and the marginal cost (that is, the cost over and above the initial +1) is 3000gp. Hypothetically you could double up on this on a normal character by wearing a suit of Light Fortification armor and a Light Fortification shield or bracers of armor, giving you 44% for 6000gp (and inflating the cost of both pieces for further enhancement, which is the main reason you'd not want to do this in the long run).
The Moderate Fortification enhancement is +3 for 75% immunity. The minimum cost of a Medium Fortification suit of armor is 16,000gp, with a marginal cost of 15,000gp. The Heavy Fortification enhancement is +5 for 100% immunity; this costs 36,000gp (or 35000 marginal). Given the situational nature of this ability, though, I'm not sure it's worth it unless you either have money to spare or have an artificer on the team (who can temporarily infuse your armor with this ability whenever you need it).
It looks like a good deal, particularly at the low levels, provided you're facing enough precision-damage-based opponents. HOWEVER, this doesn't scale well, since you get diminishing returns - a Moderate + a Light protects 81.25% for a marginal cost of 19,000 (or +4000gp for +6.25% fortification), and two Moderates costs more and protects less than one Heavy. Similarly, if you managed to stack five Light Fortification armors/shields/bracers/etc. on yourself somehow (chain shirt + chahar-aina + dastana + shield + bracers, let's say), and did nothing else to them, you'd have a 76.25% fortification level - but it'd cost around 20,000gp, which is more expensive than the 75% Medium fortification effect.
Given a reasonable level of precision damage, I'd only expect to see multiple fortification effects if I was playing something naturally fortified (say, a warforged) and we had fortification gear readily available through loot (say, fighting several humanoid NPCs). I wouldn't go out of my way to do this unless you were A) at a relatively low level, before the costs start climbing that high, AND B) you're fighting a lot of precision-damage foes, being aware that only critical hit specialists are likely to show up on the DM's side with any frequency (and critical hit specialists only get crits some of the time, while Fortification won't save you from their base damage).
EDIT:
If it matters, this is also the same stunt you can use with miss-chance effects to become virtually unhittable from any attack roll made without True Seeing or a related piercing effect. Separate miss chances, provided they stem from different sources (i.e. concealment from darkness and displacement stack, but two different concealments don't), provide a cumulative miss chance in exactly the same way as I've illustrated here. The reason that's usually a better deal is that it doesn't cost you gold to get those buffs up (a 20% miss chance from shadows, a 50% miss chance from Displacement, and a Mirror Image spell (read: 8/9ths miss chance) works out to a 0.4% chance of being hit, while an infinite Armor Class is still hit on a natural 20 (read: 5% of the time)).
This is just probability arithmetic, not really a comprehensive view of "math". Nor is it really a good view of probability (but now I'm letting my inner Bayesian show).(Nothing personal, but it really bugs me when people conflate doing sums, algebra
If it matters, this is also the same stunt you can use with miss-chance effects to become virtually unhittable from any attack roll made without True Seeing or a related piercing effect. Separate miss chances, provided they stem from different sources (i.e. concealment from darkness and displacement stack, but two different concealments don't), provide a cumulative miss chance in exactly the same way as I've illustrated here. The reason that's usually a better deal is that it doesn't cost you gold to get those buffs up (a 20% miss chance from shadows, a 50% miss chance from Displacement, and a Mirror Image spell (read: 8/9ths miss chance) works out to a 0.4% chance of being hit, while an infinite Armor Class is still hit on a natural 20 (read: 5% of the time)).
It certainly makes seeking a desirable enchantment for would-be mage slayers.
It certainly makes seeking a desirable enchantment for would-be mage slayers. :)
