|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
No. I have not seen any support for the worship of Cthulhu. I don't even know where you are getting that from.
But honestly, everything after "I feel that people are so hung up on the notion that I could possibly care what your character is about..." came off as "everyone else's problem with me and the things I have said must be a problem with them, not me."
You are wrong.
Veneration is quick and fleeting, without any long term focus. Worship is a lifestyle.
This is limiting veneration to something that neither I nor my character believe. YOU want my character's veneration to be quick and fleeting. That is not how it is legally defined.
I believe your statements include implication, intention and are definitely written.
Actually, I have this visual in my head right now of a DM doing the following:
DM: "AH! You cannot legally roleplay your character as doing that. Your character just moved from 'venerating' to 'worshipping'! I won't have that kind of behavior at my table! Go find another and be happy I am not reporting you to Campaign Leadership for this outrage!"
I am just having trouble coming up with what a player would have to have their character do in order to cross that line...
Nefreet. This is not just me that thinks this. Regardless of what you claim to have meant to convey with your words this is what people are getting out of them. It isn't just me! Other people are posting the same thing, man. The common denominator here is you.
It isn't me not being constructive here. I am not being constructive with you because I feel that you are attacking me as a player with no basis. You have never played with myself or crashcanuck, but you seem to have it out for our "bad faith", "disruptive", motives, maturity, reading comprehension, honesty and sincerity. This is direct quotes, man!
Regarding the meat and potatoes of your suggestion on how to further limit veneration; no, I can't say I agree with that either. I agree with BNW's assessment that "You do not like how some other people play their characters and want that stopped." It really does feel like "You're telling someone "your character sucks so much you can't play it" and you're doing it over some pretty arbitrary grounds."
If you aren't disagreeing with what the rule is, and you aren't advocating for change, then why the attitude towards people who choose this perfectly legal option for the character? I do not agree with your limited interpretation of how you would like veneration to be defined (but is not how it is defined at all). I do not agree with your prejudgement of players motives that you have not played with. I do not agree with the line of thinking that people who wish to persue these legal options must have bad motives and are only doing it in "bad faith". I do not agree that the rule needs to be changed.
The only thing that I think I can agree with you here on is that further clarification of the existing rule couldn't hurt. But, I can see how you treated that already in this thread so I'm not convinced that would have the positive effect that you think it will. But if further reinforcing the existing rules is what you want... who am I to argue?
You mean, aside from what I posted addressing what I quoted you as having said in your last post?
If it has zero impact on roleplay and you are not advocating for change in something that isn't within the current rules then lets go with your first statement in the topic:
Or, you know, the rest of my post which you chose to ignore. Mostly everything under my second spoiler. My personal favorite being "You have insisted with the writer of the rule, against what was intended by Campaign Leadership that they not choose to define Venerate the way they do but in favor of the way that YOU do."
The term "legal source" has already been debated and found lacking. Suffice it to say that the target of your worship need only be Golarion-specific. Agreed?
But, accepting your definition for the time, neither is Aroden listed in any of those sources. His name doesn't appear in tha AR at all, in fact. The only thing close is the Arodenite Historian trait which is specifically banned.
So don't put it near Inner Sea Gods? Put it in some more universally visible place. Maybe at the end and just put an asterisk next to every part about worship.
Still don't see a reason to oppose a small section on veneration being in AR. There seems to be no down fall that I can see. I mean, if that is the only thing the naysayers want to satisfy them to allow characters who may already be using the current rules then why not do it?
edit: But yeah, totally opposed to a straight up change in rules and then putting said change in the AR.
pH unbalanced: I can agree that AR might not be the best place to put it but I also do not see the downfall of it. If it satisfies the crowd wanting the clarification provided in this thread to be made clear then why not do it? Just because it is listed in the right place (the Guide) doesn't mean that it is mutually exclusive to list it also in the wrong place (AR).
I mean, I dig what you are saying. You think it is already clear. Many of us do. But being pro-clarity, I don't see the downfall to listing it elsewhere as well.
KingOfAnything: Kinda funny that your post came just after mine by 4 seconds, so that timing considered I can say that I'm not sure if I can take a step back. Nefreet's issue has just as much to do with his baseless assertions about his fellow gamers as with what is actually legal or not. Coming from someone who is currently the target of his ire (as I now have a totally legal Cthulhu venerator) I think that part of the opinion worth consideration.
For the record I am just as opposed to PFS Clerics worshipping Cthulhu as I am Rovagug so I think we are in agreement there.
I also want to address something else that happened up thread.
In case anyone forgot:
BNW referring to things Nefreet had said wrote:
You've called people wanting to worship an in cannon god griefers , immersion breaking attention seekers deliberately trying to push the boundary of the game just to annoy you. Whether you recognize that or not that is some serious hate on for other peoples characters.
You have a very interesting filter.
Knock that off. You said those things. They are not out of context, the problem isn't my filter its the dross you're throwing at your fellow players.
Nefreet, because I understand something of the environment that you work in I know you understand the concept of "perception is reality". If someone in your work place felt attacked by the personal opinions that you shared about your work but were within the rules with the actions that they took (that you were not present for and have no personal context of) do you think they would have a case to bring to HR? How do you think that would go?
To liken that to the current situation; you have never played with me or the original poster of this topic (crashcanuck), do not know the motives that exist in our head for playing the characters we choose to play and have chosen to be insulting despite this. Despite our choices being perfectly legal as pointed out by the writer of the rule. You have said such things as:
"There would be no mechanical effect other than to get on other players' nerves.
So, no. Do it in a homegame. Not PFS."
"I question your motives as a player."
You have insisted with the writer of the rule, against what was intended by Campaign Leadership that they not choose to define Venerate the way they do but in favor of the way that YOU do.
"And then the player gets irate about it when they don't get the attention they want."
"My biggest issue: either 100% ban these deities, or don't. We're not grown up enough to handle grey areas."
"But I do indeed question the motives of players who try to push the envelope with
"You can't in good faith tell me that the only character you want to play in the whole of the Pathfinder universe is
And you have done worse, and you know it. ...but I wont bring that up here.
So while you can say, "Godsdammitno! I have -zero- problem with people's characters. It's disruptive players that I have a problem with. Give them an inch and they'll go a mile. It is such a silly notion to "not like" someone's character. I would care zero licks if every deity was made legal." you don't make a very convincing argument for that point after saying what you had before. We don't have to "assume you don't like it". We know that you don't. It seems pretty clear that you equate a player playing a character who worships Cthulhu (the topics of two threads you posted in) as abuse. Or as Tallow said it, "I fail to see how a completely roleplay fluff option would create abuse."
You have said repeatedly that you are giving other players the benefit of the doubt, but I don't see it. You have asked others to consider that the forums should be a positive place but it seems hypocritical from your lips considering the above statements. People came to ask a question and rather than answering you attacked their motives for even wanting play such a concept. You don't get to dismiss BNW bringing that up when he points out that the problem you have isn't JUST with the the stated definition of RAW and RAI of veneration (as clarified by the writer and backed up by Campaign Leadership), but with the players who choose to use those mechanics.
That is what you said. And unlike myself or crashcanuck you haven't even given us the benefit of the doubt and played with us to judge how responsibly we could play such a concept (as if your personal opinion on that would matter to any player). You are basing your judgements on preconceptions of players. Do not be surprised and play the victim when they react defensively. In the above work/HR example, it is recorded for consistency's sake that you were the one leveling these preconception judgements and accusations. And in the "perception is reality" side I can tell you that I definitely felt attacked. I think you would feel the same way if someone was attacking your motives, maturity, reading comprehension, honesty or sincerity.
You know what, to a certain extent I can see where you are coming from. There are plenty of players who cannot play this game responsibly. I dealt with a potential player recently who's first question about the game was "Is there any way to cheat?" I think we can all agree that these players are not the right choice for people to sit at the table with. But guess what... those players with that mindset are not going to change. And that has nothing to do with whether or not Cthulhu is a legal target for veneration or not (the topic of this thread, remember?).
Or, how about we do not advocate for change at all?
Myself and what appears to be the majority of players and GMs prefer the current rules. After this thread and the last one I have seen that it needs some clarification. We got that clarification from the writer of the rule in the form of his intent with the backing of Campaign Leadership. There is no question how they wanted it to work, only question in how their words portrayed their ruling.
I have had some characters get majorly screwed over by straight up changes in mechanics. That is tough and forces you to reconsider whether your build is even viable sometimes. I have one character who used Brawler armor enhancement, Maneuver Master Monk and a Jingasa. He was hit pretty hard. He not only couldn't use the Brawler enhancement any more but couldn't even use the enhancement he wanted it for.
These mechanical changes were a pretty big hit to the character. But what Nefreet is advocating is a change to the concepts that people have built characters on. In many ways that is a big enough hit to force you out of wanting to even play the character anymore. I am sure there are several people who already have characters that they have built and been playing for years. If a change is made in not only who they are allowed to worship but who they are allowed to venerate; a purely roleplay aspect of their character but one more important than any feat or ability is concerned; well ... how would you feel?
I would be upset that Paizo just crushed my concept that I put so much time into building and playing. I chose an option that was perfectly legal by the rules given to me, I bought all the resources that were required to bring my build to life, I not only had fun playing with friends but helped build a fun playing environment and those are all now just memories because someone who has never even played with me thinks that my choice in who my fictional character chooses to venerate was in "bad faith" and that I only chose to do it to "get on other players' nerves".
No, I don't think any change is needed. I honestly haven't seen anything indicating that it is even being considered so I don't see the point in advocating it. I am on board for clarification but it seems like a pretty simple thing to me. As I said before:
Lune earlier... wrote:
Does that not cover all ambiguity left in the rules?
Cuup: While it hasn't yet been expressly stated that you cannot worship such confined concepts I think it is possible that it soon will be. It also rubs strongly against the whole "Golarion-specific" bit unless it is a blade of grass in your character's lawn. Otherwise I agree with you. Thankfully I'm not trying to do that with this concept anyway. My character will be venerating a Golarion-specific deity published throughout Paizo products without gaining any mechanical benefit and there isn't a damned god thing anyone can do about it. ;)
Regarding your RP suggestion: that is actually pretty close to what I had planned but hadn't thought too far into the character's past yet. But yeah, basically what you said with a dash of Golemness sprinkled on top seems the most likely. She may even at some point pur "precious" while stroking her ectotentacle.
Mark Carlson 255: I dig on that. I wouldn't run the concept with children at the table for example unless I knew the parents well and had their consent after describing how I chose to play it. I recognize that I am a fairly liberal parent but respect that others are not.
However, for adults I suggest getting over it. I don't make my character concepts based on what others might find acceptable. I'm not saying it isn't a consideration, but it is not what I base it on. And what other people choose to take issues with that is allowed with in the rules of the game is not my problem. It is theirs. I no more expect someone to not play their Gunslinger just because I dislike black powder technology in fantasy settings than agreeing not to play my Cthulhu venerating character just because it doesn't fit their narrow preconceptions about what is acceptable for society play. I accept that Paizo determines that, not me and expect others to accept that as well. However, I recognize that certain roleplay may not be acceptable at some tables but is at others. That has no bearings on what character options are legally allowed.
I think most people here have already seen it but I did want to point out that the writer of the rule has declared that it is the intention that you be allowed to venerate any Golarion-specific deity, pantheon or philosphy. Not just those that are also legal for worship. While I hope that we can put that argument behind us all I would still request that if you wish to continue that you at least confine it to the thread discussing that topic.
Roy, "Elan, you cannot be the cleric of a hand puppet clown."Elan, "Sure I can! Technically, you can be a cleric of a 'cause'."
Roy, "I don't see how a puppet qualifies."
Elan, "Banjo is a state of mind, Roy."
Banjo is a state of mind, Chris. Just replace "cause" with "venerate". Could one not venerate the teachings of Banjo the Clown? It seems no different than someone venerating the teachings of their Eidolon. Ooo, or what if they have a figment familiar? That is actually an extension of their own mind. Could someone venerate that?
FYI - the mention of Banjo was meant to be tongue and cheek. Both previously and in this post. Everything else I have said was mean in complete seriousness. While there have been things we have disagreed on in the past I think we are 100% eye to eye on this. I am not actually advocating the veneration of Banjo and can only see the possibility of issues with venerating an Eidolon. I have seen bigger issues with the worship of allowed deities for mechanical benefit.
I understand that, Chris, and thank you for posting here. However, my biggest issue with it is that it is likely that I will slip and use the English definition rather than the Guide definition and say that my character worships Cthulhu in casual conversation. Recognize that I am not doing it to troll the community but because I see little distinction in my mind about the acts that the character takes and the character's perspective.
Also, the character will not be using the term "venerate". I don't think there is any issue with that within the rules of PFS. Unless I'm mistaken?
Wow. This thread has 139 posts in it after I stopped reading it to go to my PFS game last night. It certainly blew up. Lesse what transpired here. Oh... whats this?
Frankly, I'm not ignoring anything. I wrote the rule. I know what it means and what it's intent is. If Tonya, John or Linda want to redefine it, that's thier choice. But parsing g an added phrase on a sentence to have meaning outside exactly what it says is ludicrous. You can venerate ANY Golarion specific without alignment concern. Doesn't need to say anything about legality, because the word any just did that.
BOOM!Thank you so much for posting, Chris. That honestly was the only clarification I needed. Well, not so much that I needed personally, but to reference in case anyone casts doubt in person I guess. Most people tend to back down on a controversial opinion after intent is shown clearly by the writer.
...most people. Because after that for some reason there was still disagreement? Clearly there was still some concern over whether the intention of the writer matched with the opinion from campaign leadership?
The campaign leadership understood the intent of what I wrote, because I had a meeting over skype with them before I wrote it, so that they'd understand the intent and that I understood what they wanted the intent to be. And it did not get changed during development.
Double (less emphatic) BOOM! Mostly because I didn't think it required Chris to back his words up further unless someone actually thought he was lieing?
I will thank Hmm for posting her breakdown. I did hit FAQ, but don't honestly think it is needed. What has been provided in this thread by the writer and campaign leadership already is perfect for my standards (and not just because it matched my interpretation on their meaning).
However, if further clarity is needed I think the only point of disagreement here is that what the intention is doesn't match what is on the Additional Resources page, correct? Wouldn't it just be simple to add a line somewhere on that page stating, "Veneration (as per the definition listed in the Guide) does not require the Golarion-specific deity, pantheon or philosophy to be legal for worship."
Would that not clear up any remaining confusion? Well, I guess to satisfy Nefreet's curiosity you could also add "...or that they even still be alive or exist currently in canon."
Regarding the supposed resistance that everyone keeps warning me about... yeah, I'm not seeing it.
Last night I canvassed the group that I plan on playing the concept with. As I said before this character will be for Emerald Spire from start to finish. So, while PFS has support for post level 13 play now that is a long way off. Every single person I told about the concept, both players in the planned game, the GM and players outside of the game not only thought that the concept was really cool and thematic but they were excited to get to play with it as well.
Most of them wanted to know how I got the concept to work as well so it was fun to talk about that as well as what concepts they will be bringing to the table. Right now all we know for certain is that I will be playing this concept, my son will be playing a Tengu Cleric of Gozreh with the newly released Lightning Subdomain and Animal Domain with a full Deinonychus animal companion but mostly focusing on a mix of blasting and support/healing, and an URogue/Monk focusing on Dex based unarmed strikes. Seems like the start of a pretty solid group and I love playing with the people that will be at our table.
People have levied some pretty toxic accusations at me about doubting how responsibly I could play such a concept and thinking the intentions of playing it as only being malicious and petty. I'm not fragile and have fairly broad shoulders so I can take the punishment in stride. I don't think it is appropriate for these boards especially when you have no experience playing with the person you are accusing of this. I also have a hard time with personal pride and bragging. But, what I can tell you based on the reactions from the people I have played with before (which in my time is a fairly wide and varied bunch) is that it has been rare to find a player who disliked the part of the gaming experience that I brought to the table.
I do not plan on having this character played as abrasive, borderline evil, trying to steal the spotlight or even Harly Quinn levels of crazy. Creepy is about as close as we are going to get here. I am thinking of a personality akin to Lydia from Beetlejuice with maybe some Witchblade thrown in. I am playing it that the personality of her Blackblade is that of a wayward splinter of the Great Old Tentacled One's own sleeping mind. However, it is intelligent enough to realize that the wielder has no plans on destroying all mortals to deprive the Abyssal hordes of their nourishing sins. It's long game is starve the demons so that the Qlippoth can retake the Abyss. After being bound to this particular mortal for a time it only took an amount of convincing that it is in everyone's best interest to deprive the daemons of sin and starve them out as the Qlippoth have no plans on overtaking the mortal realms. The demons are the real enemies here, destroying mortals is just a means to an end.
And since there seems no currently better way for the sanctioned murder of mortals than to join the Pathfinder Society this relationship is mutually beneficial. Symbiotic, you could even say. (the Symbiotes of Marvel fame also inspire this concept) Murder-hoboing is a way of life and it doesn't matter to the Blackblade which sinners it gets to snuff out first. Trying to gently push it's host in the direction that serves it's needs by whispering convenient coinciding goals into her brain likely will rarely interfere with what the Pathfinder Society would also like her to do.
Any suggestions for roleplay along these lines is welcome.
Ragoz: You conveniently left off the rest of the quote. Let me fix that for you: "A PC may worship a dead deity, but such gods grant no spells or other benefits".
It is talking about what gods are allowed for worship. That is not being discussed here. I think it is a bit disingenuous for you to have left it out, honestly.
BNW: This is not just an honest disagreement. He is saying that Campaign Leadership specifically stated what is illegal to venerate and they haven't. That is a lie. I asked him to show where they said what is illegal and he has yet to show it. I am asking for the same evidence you are.
But they have made absolutely no statements that illegal Deities are now legal for Veneration.
That is also not true. In fact you can venerate things that are not even deities.
Again, the relevant rule states:
Player characters are able to venerate any Golarion- specific deity, pantheon, or philosophy they wish without alignment concern.
So you could worship a pantheon or philosophy if you wish. That is why BNW brough up Mengkare, Curchunas, Acavna, Razmir and others. Cthulhu doesn't have to worry about that as he is a "Golarion- specific deity".
To re-parse what this says:
Really? You are sure that I don't care about character concept? Did you do any kind of research before you decided on this baseless claim or are you just trying to accuse someone of being a bad person?
Maybe you should do a little research. I do have a character concept and honestly could care less how valid you think it is. But once again, not discussing concept here, please. Discussing only whether it is a legal choice or not. Thanks.
Where is it written that you can venerate illegal deities?
What do you mean by "illegal deities"?! Do you mean "illegal to worship deities"? No one is referring to worshiping them. That is what the Inner Sea Gods quote that you keep referencing is talking about. It even says "worship".
Christopher Rowe: I didn't think it was really in question until I heard Rysky's opinion and others saying things like, "So, no. Do it in a homegame. Not PFS." (which is hard to tell if is sharing personal opinion or their perception of what is legal)
I hear you on the whole "be considerate" thing. But that is where people start making pre-judgements about someone being able to roleplay a concept without offending someone. And that is a pretty slippery slope to start banning people from tables for. "Oh, you are playing a Court Bard with Perform: Oratory that you plan on using for your Satire ability? So you are going to make fun of my NPCs? I don't think you can do that without offending me or the others at this table so I would ask you to find another table."
For this reason I would prefer to keep the, "It is legal but I dislike it due to X and it shouldn't be allowed." banter to some other thread. While I understand where you are coming from, that is not what is being asked here. I simply want to know if it is legal.
There is a rule explicitly stating that the Great Old Ones are Illegal, with no other rule stating "but it's okay to venerate them".
But there is. In fact, it says that you can venerate '...any Golarion- specific deity, pantheon, or philosophy they wish without alignment concern.'"
And again, I would point out that there is a rule preventing one from worshipping Cthulhu. There is no such rule regarding veneration.
Ah, okay then. I was unaware of that.
That is literally what I had just finished saying when I said:
Lune earlier... wrote:
Your reference to Inner Sea Gods is basically saying that without using the term venerate which wasn't coined until AFTER that book came out.
I think BNW is covering the rest fairly well. I think what you need to show is what makes Cthulhu (Curchunas, Acavna or Mengekare) illegal to venerate. You can't just say they are illegal because they are illegal.
If you think that "Player characters are able to venerate any Golarion- specific deity, pantheon, or philosophy they wish without alignment concern." only means that you can venerate without alignment concerns then what is the difference in the list of things you are allowed to worship vs. things you are allowed to venerate? In your opinion do you believe this statement to mean that the two lists are the same?
Rysky: What BNW is asking when he says "legal to what?" is for you to show where Cthulhu is not a legal deity to venerate. There is no question that he is a not a legal deity to worship but that is not what is being discussed here.
Also, Aroden is not legal for worship. You can venerate him. Venerate is the legal term used to describe thinking a god is great but gaining no mechanical benefits. Your reference to Inner Sea Gods is basically saying that without using the term venerate which wasn't coined until AFTER that book came out. The term is discussed in the Guide as has been quoted in this thread multiple times.
"such gods grant no spells or other benefits;" = "a specific deity, pantheon, or philosophy of some sort where the PC follows the cause but gains no specific mechanical reward as a result of doing so."
Thank you, MageHunter.
For reference this is the current build I have settled on:
Leveling in this order:
Feats in this order:
Mark Carlson 255: I play with one primary group but travel a bit around the state so would prefer to avoid surprises before hand. I typically post on the boards about anything I find questionable to iron it out before making the character. So far with this one I have met with a stranger amount of resistance than I thought I would but most of it is "I don't like it as it clashes with my sensibilities" or "Most people are not responsible enough to play that kind of character" not "your concept is illegal for society play". Although, as you can see, there have been some who are mistaken about it being illegal and are trying to insist that I desist. ;)
avr: Ugh. If I go with Str then that makes the character more MAD. I would need Str for hit/damage, Dex for AC and my typically normally low Ref saves, Con due to being a melee with mediocre HD, Wis due to being a Wis caster, at least a passable Int to get Magus spells at all. That is too many stats to have high. I would prefer to go Dex build on this one to at least knock one stat out of the equation.
I hear what you are saying with Snake Style, but that is one hit per turn. Deflect Arrows helps there too but the standing AC would be pretty low. Also it is still throwing more feats at the same issue.
Also I have another character that uses Snake Style and Deflect Arrows.
I said "venerate" and I meant "venerate" in the game sense. Although, I can see what I'm Hiding In Your Closet means when he is talking about the character would likely still say that they worship the deity. But then characters do not understand game terms much less know that they are part of a game.
I am having trouble understanding what else this could mean if not that you can venerate any Golarion Deity:
Player characters are able to venerate any Golarion- specific deity, pantheon, or philosophy they wish without alignment concern.
A poster in another thread is continually suggesting that I would be doing something illegal. I believe his rationale is that this text simply means that the alignment concern doesn't matter but it doesn't put "illegal deities" on the table.
supervillan: I feel like you need to re-read some things. I am not playing a divine class. I gain no mechanical benefit from worshipping (actually "venerating") Cthulhu. It is also perfectly legal for my character to be under the delusion that she derives her powers from Cthulhu even though mechanically she does not.
Can we please get back to mechanics now?
That is not true.
Page 40 of the Guild Guide wrote:
You (the proverbial you, not you specifically) don't get to say what my character believes. That is fully under my own control and no one else.
If I want my character to believe that she receives her powers from the deity that she venerates then there is nothing illegal about that. There is also nothing anyone can do to control my fictional character's inner thoughts much less even know what they are unless I tell you. Same goes for what word my character uses to describe how she actively regards with respect or reveres her deity.
The only control PFS lays down is that they want ME (not my character, me as a player) to use the word "venerate" rather than "worship". And for like the 5th time in this thread alone, can we move on with the assumption that I am fine with that, please?
supervillan: You may have noticed I am deeply involved in the thread you mention. What you say is not true. As I have already stated, you can "venerate" (aka worship) whatever deity you wish.
I will point out again that characters do not know the rules of the game much less that they are part of a game at all. The character does not aknowledge a difference between "venerate" and "worship".
Well, I threw some stuff together last night trying to prepare the character for the potential of starting play in a PFS Emerald Spire for tomorrow. I thought I had it all figured out and then while trying to sleep last night my busy mind kept me up with hanging up on some details that make it not work.
Here was my basic build idea:
Ectoplasmatist 1, Bladebound/Kensai 3, then the rest Ectoplasmatist
Weapon Finesse (human)
I have ways of getting the to hit to a respectable level and could have made the trips land fairly reliably. Here is the problem that my half asleep mind discovered last night. I had planned on going with Tentacle/Buckler but the Canny Defense ability from Kensai doesn't work with a Buckler. I had planned on going with a chain shirt until the Ectoplasmic Armor came online and then go armorless. The loss of +3 bonus from Int to AC makes this an awful lot less appealing.
So then I was trying to think of how to fix it. Well, I could lose the Buckler in favor of Canny Defense. Then I have a hand free that I'm not using for anything. I don't like that. I would rather go TWF with 2 tentacles or go with a Style feat to use that hand for something. Well that gets me thinking about a feat chain like Crane Style. But if I go that route I would either have to sink a feat into Improved Unarmed Strike or take a level of Monk. Monk actually doesn't sound like a terrible idea. It gives me free IUS and if I go with Master of Many Styles it would give me my Style feat for free. I would also get my Wis, Dex and 3 points of Int to AC. That is actually pretty damned good.
...the downfall is that there is no way I would fit Monk in until 5th level because I want to get my black blade tentacle online ASAP. Still 5th isn't too bad, but it does just put off the rest of my Ectoplasmatist for longer than I'd like. It is also another 3/4 BAB class so I take a greater hit to my to hit bonus and puts off my iterative even longer. I guess it helps with saves by I was already doing pretty good in that department. Going with this concept I would also have to forgo the tripping concept. Also if I went Crane Style I would take yet another drop in my to-hit bonus for having to fight defensively.
I could use another Style line of feats, I guess. I'm not sure what. Panther maybe? I could try to combine it with Circling Mongoose? Nah... that doesn't work with Spell/Spiritual Combat. Piss. I dunno. I feel like I'm back to the drawing board again here. Maybe I should just stick with the build above and not worry about the loss of 3 AC.
I dunno if the GM really plays Pharasma. I mean I think Paizo kinda does more than anyone. Everyone else's opinions are just opinions. I don't think a GM's is any more likely than a player's. Even back in 2nd ed where there was a rule that actually said that the GM was always right I never subscribed to that idea. The GM can be sent packing to find another table to GM at just as easily as a player can.
I also disagree that his character pings evil. Why would he? Or more accurately HOW could he as a PFS character?
Fromper: Good example of how that could be acceptable. It was something very akin to that which I was going for.
Out of curiosity for #5 with your Aroden Paladin friend how would you feel if he wanted to continue playing the character at your table the way he had all the way along? I understand what the rules state. I am asking how you would run it? Bear in mind, specifically choosing not to ask his character's inner thoughts IS an option. ;)
Because I am curious where people fall on this topic I will ask it outright. Please post if you have a a problem with any of the following as either a DM or player in PFS:
1. A player bringing a character to the table that is a worshipper of an evil god that is on the specifically allowed list and receives mechanical benefit from doing so?
2. A player bringing a character to the table who has it listed on their character sheet as "none" under deity but "venerates" a deity who is not on the specifically allowed list?
3. A player bringing a character to the table who has a deity listed from the specifically allowed list, receives mechanical benefit from that deity but venerates a different deity that is not on the specifically allowed list and in character attributes her mechanical benefits to the deity that they venerate?
4. A player bringing a character to the table who has "none" listed as their deity but venerates a deity that is not on the specifically allowed list?
5. Same as 4, except that the character attributes their class abilities as being derived from a deity that is not on the specifically allowed list?
6. Worshipping (technically "venerating") the equivalent of Banjo the Clown.
I think I put those in the order of extremeness ... extremity? Extremeyness? Whatever.
Here is an example the issue as I see it:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
IF that feat requires worship of a non-legal diety, the answer is you can't have it.
I wasn't talking about a pretend feat. I gave a link to the feat in question. The point in asking this question was whether or not the Fighter could gain a mechanical benefit from (big W)orshipping an evil (but on the specifically allowed list) deity or not. This is basically establishing the thought about whether a non-divine class is able to gain a mechanical benefit from Worshipping, or if they can gain it from worshipping (small w, or venerating).
Or perhaps a more simple way of asking this question would be:
Personally, I do not believe that to be the case due to the trait that BNW pointed out for Aroden who is a banned deity.
15+2/15/14/10/13/8 is actually what I came up with but 15+2/15/16/7/12/8 is actually pretty interesting as well. Hm. I hate putting FCB into skills but you make a good point with your reasoning. ;) At least I would have the option of no longer doing FCB to skills later if/when I think I have enough.
Ah, yeah. So no greater beast totem. I think that may have been some kind of copy/paste error as I can't imagine what I was thinking with that one rage power with no supporting powers.
He does not fight unarmed. He uses a Bill.
Increased damage reduction most certainly does work with invulnerable rager. Why would you think it doesn't? Tankster uses it and that is what this build is based on.