|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I agree that a creature with an intelligence higher than 2, whether a familiar, paladin's mount, or monstrous mount, could have an alignment other than TN. The question is whether it's likely, and I think that it is.
The restriction on improved familiars, on clerics and such having to be within one step of their patron deity, and on characters with the Leadership feat recruiting cohorts of different alignments, suggest that it's hard to have a close loyal relationship with someone who has an essentially different moral/ethical philosophy than you. Since familiars are closer to their masters than cohorts (with the empathic link, shared skill points, etc) it makes sense for them to be at least as likely to have a shared alignment. I would assume by default that a non-improved familiar has an alignment matching their master, unless there's a compelling reason otherwise.
Valafar The Black wrote:
Technically it can be because the lich can imbue the river with his phylactery and polymorph it into sand or water
No, the description on the lich says that the phylactery must be a small object, so you can't "imbue the river with his phylactery." Polymorph doesn't work either because even Polymorph Any Object can only turn one object or creature into another object or creature, not turn an object into a liquid like water or a collection of small objects like grains of sand. You could certainly make your phylactery a nondescript pebble and drop it into a river or ocean, but as interesting as it would be to have a place act as a phylactery, it's not allowed. This in particular would be outrageously overpowered:
Valafar The Black wrote:
If he used a river the fish would become demonic, the water would be the same as above. However, the water would flow into the ocean and eventually turn all of the ocean into a phylactery and since earth absorbs water the whole world would be his phylactery and every one would be under his control.
If the player wants a garden as a phylactery I would recommend choosing a small, disguised object within a garden, and then set the garden up as a well-defended sanctuary with a portal to Asmodeus as desired.
I would also recommend that the actual ritual be much more personalized and reflect the character's devotion to Asmodeus. Making sentient sacrifices to devils, corrupting innocents, or contracts written in blood would be good inclusions.
4. Domains stack for powers, not spells.
If the inquisitor has cleric levels, one of her two domain selections must be the same domain selected as an inquisitor. Levels of cleric and inquisitor stack for the purpose of determining domain powers and abilities, but not for bonus spells.
5. Yes, juju zombies keep the abilities of the original. It's not OP, because the number of undead you can control are limited by HD, so if you make stronger zombies you have fewer of them.
Juju Zombie wrote:
A juju zombie is an animated corpse of a creature, created to serve as an undead minion, that retains the skills and abilities it possessed in life.
Yeah, the biggest advantage of gestalt for small parties is that it lets you make sure all the important roles are filled. Your group really dropped the ball there. Are you sure you can't convince them to adjust the characters at all? It wouldn't take a significant change to their concepts.
The Magus//Rogue could switch to Magus//Alchemist (Vivisectionist) or Magus//Investigator. The former gives sneak attack, while the latter gives skills and a fantastic melee buff from studied combat. Either adds some healing and buffs through extracts, and the character still has all good saves. Thematically still a sneaky magical person.
The Dragon Disciple could try Draconic Bloodrager//Oracle. The Draconic Bloodrager is basically the non-gestalt version of his concept, and the oracle adds healing and buffs, plus fatigue immunity through the lame curse. The mystery can add simple combat power (Battle) or elemental ablities to complement the dragon type selected (Flame, Wind, Winter, Volcano). Thematically the oracular powers could derive from a spiritual connection to some draconic patron or force.
The Rogue//Fighter could try Inquisitor(Sanctified Slayer)//Fighter. Still gets Sneak Attack (albeit at a slower progression), a few rogue talents, and lots of skills. Adds healing, self-buffs, and utility spells, and makes good use of the racial +2 Wis. Studied Target also provides a more reliable at-range damage boost than sneak attack. Thematically a sneaky hunter with a little magic that could be derived from a philosophy (eg self reliance) rather than a deity.
Dex is the most important stat for firearms. You won't need much strength unless you're planning on spending a significant time in melee as well (and don't want Weapon Finesse). I'd only recommend that if you've got a generous point buy / rolled array. Your order may or may not require a strong Cha; for example Order of the Lion has two charisma-dependent features but Order of the Dragon doesn't require Cha. Con is always good, and Wis is useful for will saves. Int is optional depending on how much you like skills.
Mounted Combat Rules wrote:
You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed) at a –8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.
So if your mount only moves its speed or less you can make your attacks, even a full attack, while mounted and at no penalty.
Keep in mind that since musketeer replaces the cavalier's mount you'll need to find a mount somewhere else.
The Norv wrote:
The obvious class for this seemed like Brawler, with the Strangler archetype...but then I saw that that archetype lost improved unarmed strike as a bonus feat, which would really slow down the feat progression of the character--important since I was hoping to synergize his grappling/choking with Combat Reflexes and Bodyguard.
If you want to synergize grappling with Combat Reflexes/Bodyguard you need a way to make AoO while grappling, which is not normally allowed. Tetori (monk) grants that ability at level 4, while the Strangler doesn't get it until level 9. This might be a good reason to go for Tetori for at least 4-6 levels, after which you could potentially switch to a more versatile full BAB class).
I'm not sure if there is another way to gain that ability, aside from using grab to avoid gaining the grappled condition, which comes with the hefty -20 penalty on your grapple check.
How many interesting feats came out with a the book a class was released in though? Maybe 1 or 2 for class, if that? The class is still new, it needs time for the interesting (and borderline broken) stuff to get released in the soft-cover book line.
Most classes can access a lot of interesting stuff that wasn't designed for that class, which gave them a good number of options out of the box.
For example, the gunslinger can use general ranged feats such as Rapid Reload or Clustered Shots in addition to the gunslinger-specific feats it was introduced with (of which there were 7). The cavalier was introduced to a game that already had basic mounted combat feats, and it also as a class is encouraged to use Teamwork feats which are also interesting and strategic. The magus could make use of a ton of caster feats, including metamagic, item crafting, and Spell Perfection.
The kineticist however can't tap into most of those options because its fighting mechanics are so unusual. Most of the ranged feats aren't useful, especially if you use energy blasts. For a switch hitter, Quickdraw is pointless. And while some general melee options work (eg Lunge), others work only with the elemental annihilator (eg Two-Weapon Fighting, Vital Strike). Unlike the other Occult classes it's not even an actual spellcaster, which means it can't use generic or psychic-specific caster feats.
Compare the Occultist, which gets Extend Resonant Power, Efficient Focus Shift, Rapid Focus Shift, and Implement Focus in addition to Extra Focus Power and Extra Mental Focus, use of metamagic, AND more effective use of traditional ranged and melee combat feats.
While I am looking forwards to increased options for the kineticist in Occult Origins and other supplements, its lack of feats is not simply due to being a new class.
I forgot to add it to the list, but was planning on including brawler in the same way the thieves' guild concept includes the slayer and investigator. I'm also considering allowing sufficiently monk-like archetypes like the unarmed fighter (or sacred fist, or Irorian paladin...) but since the monk offers a lot of variety in archetypes and gestalting further increases diversity, I think I'm going to strongly encourage working with the shorter class list unless a player has a strong desire for a specific different build.
I'm planning on running a series of themed gestalt games once my current campaign is over. Gestalting being advancing in two classes at once, players have to take the same (or a similar) class on one end, and use the other class to diversify.
The concept list:
- Thieves' Guild (shared class is rogue, slayer, or investigator)
The Thieves' Guild is next on the list and we've got a Magus//Slayer enforcer and an Investigator//Occultist saboteur lined up. I think one of my players was looking at some sort of Dragon Disciple for the wizard school.
An all thief or all arcane party appeals to me because of the fact that it's definitely NOT a balanced party. It leans heavily in one strength, and the party has to use that strength to cover for its weaknesses. For example, an all wizard party would need to be smart with its utility and firepower spells to counteract its squishiness. A similar challenge exists for an all thief or all halfling party.
It's not just about similar strengths and weaknesses, it's about the mechanics supporting stylistic differences. Our party's bloodrager and paladin are mechanically distinct despite sharing a lot of basic strengths (melee damage, toughness, social skills) and weaknesses (range, other smarts, magic). I doubt that you could build four rogues to all feel significantly distinct, mechanically, and still be effective. Some classes, including wizards, have a bit more range in effective builds and so could provide more ability to mechanically distinguish members even if they're not actually a balanced party.
I dunno, I've not had a problem with selecting feats so far.
I haven't had a problem selecting feats, either. I have had a problem finding interesting feats. I'm looking at Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus, Dodge, Toughness, Improved Initiative, Improved Critical, probably an Extra Wild Talent Feat or two in mid-levels. They're all fine, mechanically, but none of them is really interesting in the way that Ki Throw is interesting for my monk (who can then adjust enemy positioning) or Divine Interference is interesting for my druid (who can then prevent crits or killing blows).
A sorcerer's bloodline, sneak attack, oracular powers, etc. could add a somewhat more interesting option than just extra plusses. It would be good to know which combinations are also mechanically sound.
A casting build would definitely be easier. That said:
Goliath druid is the way to go if you want to keep equipment (including silver weapons). You can get big, but still use silver manufactured weapons, and still have some utility from animal wild shape. You're limited to dinosaurs, but that's about the best sub-group of animals anyway, mechanically. If you don't like the thematics your GM might let you select a different animal sub-type.
I'm not sure about Mooncaller. While it feels thematic, only the disease immunity is really that useful for fighting lycanthropes. Werewolves will ignore your DR/silver using their natural weapons, and while you also get the ability to bypass theirs, it doesn't kick in until level 13, well after you'll actually need to deal with DR.
It's not explicit but it's the most logical conclusion from the existing rules.
First, pay attention to the costs of held items. Horn of Fog is an at-will Obscuring Mist, and costs 2000gp, appropriate for a slotted item producing an at-will 1st level spell, not 4,000gp as you would expect from a slotless item. Pipes of Haunting cost 6K, which is appropriate for an effect granting a 2/day 2nd level spell at CL 4 (2*4*20000*2/5=6400) before the slotless adjustment. The Lantern of Revealing costs 30K, equal to a slotted item with a continuous 3rd level spell effect (3*5*2000=30000).
Second, note that slotted items represent a limit to the number of items you can use at one time. Holding an item places a limit on the number of items you can use - you can't hold a weapon and heavy shield at the same time as you hold a Horn of Fog to blow it, and if you're in combat you have to spend actions to stow and retrieve items. Because held items invoke tradeoffs, like slotted items, their value should be similar to items that occupy slots.
Charges per day:
...which doesn't actually fit the 50 charges standard, but if we assume that the value of 10-100 charges is proportional:
7*13*1800*(1/2)*(10/50) = 16380
Fire resistance 30 costs 44000 (per the ring). The other two effects don't have set costs, but so far we can check:
44000+(88840x1.5) = 177,260
...which is already way over the actual item cost and we have two abilities unaccounted for.
Which is a GREAT illustration of the most important rule: the formulae don't apply exactly, and items with unusual effects require a particularly large amount of eyeballing & discretion.
Combining effects of slotted items is allowed, but it gets expensive since the second enhancement costs 50% more than usual. So an Amulet of Mighty Fists +1 and Natural Armour +1 costs 4k+(2kx1.5)=7k, compared to 6k for both items separately. For two +2 bonuses the cost to combine is 4k higher than the separate items, and it keeps increasing.
Note that this is basically how the belts and headbands improving multiple stats are priced.
Dragonchess Player wrote:
Note that the "Use activated or continuous" line for spell effects in the Estimating Magic Items Gold Piece Values table is the easiest way to break the game.
It certainly can break things, but in this particular case my quick and dirty estimate for the item's value is actually much higher than yours, which comes to 18,600gp once you account for adding the ability onto an existing armour.
And no matter which way you slice it, you do have to do some extrapolating with the value of the item since there isn't a formula for "a bonus to all skills" or a firm way to estimate the value of a morale bonus to attacks or skills relative to an enhancement or competence bonus.
I think in this case using the spell effect is actually a pretty decent, maybe even high estimate (67,500gp). Most of the problems with continuous spell effects pop up with low-level spells such as Mage Armour, Shield, or True Strike, especially those with additional limits on them that are not reflected in the item (for example Shield being personal only or True Strike applying only on a single attack). Heroism is somewhat higher level, thus cost scales up more sharply, and is a long-duration buff that you can often expect to have cast on you by the time you're able to drop almost 70K on a single magical effect. Consider that a once-per day automatic Breath of Life, a literal lifesaver, costs only 30K when added to armour.
It is a +2 morale bonus on all saves, not just 1. That costs 8000gp each.
No, the table assumes a bonus to all saves. Note that the cloak of resistance uses the resistance bonus formula of bonus squared x 1000gp, and grants a bonus to all saves.
This is not also how the formulae are intended to work. The 1.5x cost for multiple powers on the same item applies to a slotted item, so it's inappropriate to apply both that modifier and also the 2x modifier for a slotless item.
Multiple Different Abilities: Abilities such as an attack roll bonus or saving throw bonus and a spell-like function are not similar, and their values are simply added together to determine the cost. For items that take up a space on a character's body, each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price.
Also, the 1.5 multiplier for a continuous spell effect that usually has a 10 minute/level duration is meant to balance spell effects with different durations, since shorter duration spells give bigger benefits than long-duration spells of the same level. If you're calculating item cost based on the specific bonuses provided, there's no need for this adjustment. It's like saying that a slotted item granting barkskin for a +2 natural armour bonus should cost 4x2000x1.5= 12K while one granting shield of faith for a +2 deflection bonus should cost 4x2000x2 = 16K, because shield of faith normally has a shorter minute/level duration. Really, both items should cost 8K.
(Using spell effects, you'd get barkskin at 2x3x2000x1.5=18K and shield of faith at 1x1x2000x2 = 4K, which is also quite a bit off, but note that the higher-level effect actually ends up being significantly more expensive than it should be, rather than undervalued, which again supports the idea that 67K is probably an overestimate for the cost of Heroic Armour.)
Yes, I'm not saying that all abilities should be unlimited, but that many abilities do become effectively unlimited given the actual rate of encounters in a typical adventure. And that's important to know when balancing abilities.
High level spells may run out, but spells 2-3 levels below your highest slot tend not to, so if a caster can do more with their low level spells than other classes can do with their unlimited abilities, it's not balanced.
Long-duration effects like wild shape or mage armour tend to become effectively always on around mid levels. Short-duration effects like shield or the inquisitor's judgment similarly become effectively unlimited once you get more uses than encounters, though unlike long-duration effects you either need to see the encounter coming or else spend an action. Rounds-per-day abilities, as previously pointed out, scale more generously than rounds of combat per day and so they tend to also become effectively unlimited unless there's a way to chew up multiple rounds at a time (like if you're a barbarian sharing rage with your mount).
So when you're balancing a high-level barbarian against other high-level martials, you should assume that the barbarian is raging - and if you're comparing a high-level druid to a high-level barbarian, you should assume that the druid is using wild shape and probably one or two long-duration low-level spells, like Barkskin.
Now, not all games are going to hit "effectively unlimited" at the same point. For example, Judgment is less useful in a game with 4-5 small encounters per day than a game with 1-2 big ones. But we also make assumptions about, for example, roughly how many of a paladin's foes will be evil or fiends/dragons/undead when assessing the usefulness of their Smite, even if that means that the class is extra useful in outlier campaigns like Wrath of the Righteous.
While we're talking about VMCs, I'd like to ask Jolly to reconsider this:
N. Jolly wrote:
I'd rather avoid doing VMCs included in this for the same reason that I avoid using multiclassing on my other guides (or else all the gunslinger builds would be GS(or BA)5/Another Class X.
The difference between traditional and variant multiclassing is that the former requires you to give up progression in your primary class, while the latter does not. While thematically it involves branching out into a second class, VMC really is not unlike taking a long feat chain. And right now, the kineticist really could use more things to do with feats.
The question here is not about tension, it's about whether resource attrition actually makes unlimited use abilities more valuable compared to having those same abilities with limited use. And if adventures offer enough rest points that running out of resources is rarely a real threat, then unlimited use abilities don't have a significant advantage.
For example, my group prefers a lot of investigation, exploration, and social encounters, and relatively few combat encounters. That means that limited-use combat abilities run out really infrequently, and making things like an Inquisitor's judgment unlimited would not significantly increase their utility after about level 4 when you get a second daily use. This is independent of the tension that can be created by spending an hour or two of table time wandering through the haunted forest as the sun slowly sets before we actually confront the night hag coven.
There's a bit of discussion on various types of companion in ultimate campaign (found online here). While it does say that familiars are typically controlled by the player, it does give familiars some autonomy and indicates that the player shouldn't treat them as the master's puppet.
Ultimate Campaign wrote:
Sentient Companions: a sentient companion (a creature that can understand language and has an Intelligence score of at least 3) is considered your ally and obeys your suggestions and orders to the best of its ability. It won't necessarily blindly follow a suicidal order, but it has your interests at heart and does what it can to keep you alive. Paladin bonded mounts, familiars, and cohorts fall into this category, and are usually player-controlled companions.
That applies to material component costs. For the spell itself, the formula is:
Continuous item: spell level x caster level x 2000 gp x duration factor*
= 3 x 5 x 2000 x 1.5 = 45,000gp
Charges per day: spell level x caster level x 2000 gp x (charges/5)
= 3 x 5 x 2000 x (1/5) = 6,000gp per charge
Note that adding to to armour invokes the 50% price increase for adding an ability to a slotted item, so you're looking at 67,500gp to add a continuous heroism effect to armour, or 9,000 gp for each daily charge up to 5. The enhancement should probably be CL 5 (craft DC 10) and require the heroism spell.
*"If a continuous item has an effect based on a spell with a duration measured in rounds, multiply the cost by 4. If the duration of the spell is 1 minute/level, multiply the cost by 2, and if the duration is 10 minutes/level, multiply the cost by 1.5. If the spell has a 24-hour duration or greater, divide the cost in half."
Yes, I agree that there is confusion on this topic and hit FAQ.
I personally favour a more minimal interpretation of "level dependent variables" which includes caster level, special ability DCs, and Smite damage, but not ability to cast higher-level spells, sneak attack die, monk unarmed damage, etc. Still probably going to affect people unevenly but a little less painfully skewed than as described above.
Yeah, I disagree with CampinCarl9127.
First, I don't think there's good evidence that any ability that scales with level counts as a level-dependent variable except the ability to cast higher level spells. The text says you are "treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting)," not "such as caster level," which makes broader penalties to spellcasting plausible, even if your spell slots are specifically not touched.
Second, it's horribly unfair.
Many spells are either completely unaffected by caster level (eg Time Stop, Bestow Curse) or minimally affected (minute/level buffs like Shield often are effectively "one combat" buffs). DCs don't care about caster level, just spell level and casting stat. Depending on spell choice, a wizard or sorcerer could be at full or nearly full magical power even after taking multiple negative levels.
A magus, however, is going to have a heck of a time when every negative level strips damage from their bread-and-butter attack spells and reduces both the number of points in their arcane pool and the effect of each point for things like enhancing weapons. And they're much more affected by taking a -1 attack penalty per level when they're not even full BAB.
Similarly, the attack reduction and loss of sneak attack devastates the rogue; paladins suffer from greatly reduced smite damage and lay on hands uses/potency; and the monk is super duper hosed since you lose unarmed strike damage, AC bonus, and fast movement, not to mention the damage to features like Stunning Fist.
So basically, with this interpretation negative levels are terrible for everyone except for buffer/debuffer full casters (eg the God Wizard), the group that least needs its power level protected.
Even if it's only for a week, you still lose the feature - and there's a gold cost to get it back. I see a familiar deserting a caster as similar to a paladin falling. You can get an atonement, but it still can cause a lot of grief if thrown around casually.
I do not think it's fair for a GM to, for example, decide that because he spent a month crafting the wizard is too boring for their dweomer cat cub familiar, and require the wizard to spend a week without a familiar and then select a different familiar than the one they originally wanted.
Which isn't to say that it can't make a good story, but it should be taken seriously and the player should understand why it is a reasonable consequence. In this instance, the wizard has clearly and grossly violated the moral standards of his familiar (and the mechanical prerequisites of the feat) so losing the azata is a reasonable consequence.
If you're a spellcaster (not everyone with Spellcraft is) it lets you make the non-magical item that you're going to enchant. Can't make a magic longsword without a masterwork longsword, you know. That saves you 2/3 the cost of the mwk longsword.
Assuming you have the time for mundane crafting, or can use Fabricate.
Agreed, you lose Improved Familiar if your alignment changes too much. Notably, you lose the feat/familiar even if the familiar isn't aware of the alignment change for some reason, which suggests that rather than this being the familiar breaking the bond, alignment differences represent a metaphysical strain on the bond which can eventually cause it to sever.
It could be interesting to have other rules for ending the bond from a storytelling POV but it's not generally supported by the rules and the GM should be cautious about taking away a class feature as a result of roleplay.
The balance reason not to is that if blasts don't require concentration then you can use them not just with the rage spell, but with barbarian rage. That +4 Con could do a lot. Variant Multiclass (barbarian) would basically be a must-have for a kineticist if available.
ErisAcolyte-Chaos jester wrote:
Also no mention of the suli, the half-genie race with some good con and an affinity for elemental styles.
Suli don't have good Con, they have +2 Str +2 Cha -2 Int. That's a bonus on the typical kineticist's two least favourite stats. They also don't have anything that particularly helps with elemental magic; elemental assault works with normal weapon attacks, and elemental resistances overlap with resistances gained from many elementally themed domains and archetypes, including the kineticist's heat/cold adaptation.
I'd love to see a good Suli racial archetype for the kineticist because it's thematic but mechanically really lacklustre.
I second Feral Combat Training (Bite) and Unchained Monk. The latter gives you full BAB/HD, a better flurry, and style strikes, all of which improve your melee ability. Gestalting with druid restores the good will save.
Keep in mind that after the recent errata FCT does not allow you to use your monk unarmed strike damage with the selected natural weapon, so the guide ElMustacho posted is a little out of date.
- Use remaining feats on improving your bomb-throwing abilities. So he's a wuss in battle, because he stays behind the line chucking bombs and potions, and using a crossbow if he runs out of bottles, but still effective in battle.
This is the exact reason I would recommend an Alchemist (Mindchemist) over an Investigator. The Investigator is somewhat better at skills, but its main combat abilities (studied combat and studied strike) improve melee ability. That makes it difficult to be effective in combat and still come off as a "weeny." Bombs are a more thematic tactic, and you can still have a pretty good set of skills.
Heck, you could even be an alchemist with a dip in investigator for Inspiration, extra class skills, and a will save boost. Consider Sleuth since the deeds will probably be more useful than one level of alchemy. Even if you dump Cha you can sit on your 1 luck point for +2 initiative.
Or, possibly better, go Bard all the way except a 1 level dip in Investigator. They can use Inspiration on Knowledge checks for free, so that extra 1d6 is a STEAL for one level.
That's also a pretty good idea and works especially nicely with Sleuth since you'll have lots of luck. Consider the Archivist bard archetype, which is a little more knowledge-focused than the standard bard.
Are you sure you want bard? The Mindchemist alchemist can get a crazy high knowledge bonus thanks to being Int-based, getting a +4 Int boost with a decent duration, and adding Intelligence twice to knowledge checks. You can build them pretty fragile if you want. If variant multiclassing is an option you can even pick up bardic knowledge at level 3.
Wasnt there a barrage option for ur kenetic blasts? Lowers the dmg to base but let's u do a number of attacks? It's a good option with SA, and when u can't get it one big hit pays off more.
Flurry of Blasts does let you make several attacks with decreased damage, but it does not let you get sneak attack on each attack. Since it is a SLA providing simultaneous attacks (you have to declare the targets all at once) this FAQ should apply:
You are correct.
I understand it's not RAW, but I'm pretty sure it's RAI. Which makes more sense:
1) Making a +5 Amulet of Mighty Fists takes one feat, but making a Flaming Amulet takes two.
2) Creating magic items takes a feat appropriate to the type of item, and additional requirements specific to the item. Magic weapon properties are listed as requiring Craft Magic Arms & Armour because they are by default applied to magic weapons. Making a +5 AoMF requires the Craft Wondrous Item feat as well as the same additional, specific CL requirement as making a +5 sword, but does not require the feat for crafting magic weapons because it's not a weapon. Similarly, making a Flaming AoMF requires the feat for making Wondrous Items, plus the same specific requirements as making a Flaming sword, but not the feat required to make weapons because it's still not a weapon.
Yeah, the Eldritch Guardian Fighter does seem like the easiest way to get the familiar. It's just that the character was an unarmored thief, so he'd be more appropriate as a rogue, monk, swashbuckler, or something like that. And I'd like him to have some skill ranks.
That's where multiclassing would come in. A level or two in monk and a few in rogue or slayer after your first fighter level would give you Wis to AC, a chunk of skill points, and a few other agile/sneaky features.
I'd forgotten about Familiar Bond, though. As you say the feat cost is pretty steep, but you're looking at low will-save classes that would benefit from the Iron Will pre-req, and if you're not going to be using the familiar in combat then you don't need the Eldritch Guardian's ability to share combat feats. You'll be a little weak for the first few levels, especially level 1, but I think you'll be OK. And yes, Brawler can flurry with a quarterstaff.
It's mainly because there is no tie between laws of physics and morality in our world, but in most 3.5/PF settings there is and this changes perspective entirely and may not be easy to immerse oneself in that frame of reference
Yes, preceisely, and that was tacticslion's main point.
the secret fire wrote:
The simple, meta reason is that the people playing the game prefer that “good” corresponds to their ideas about what is right and “evil” corresponds to their ideas about what is bad. It makes it easier to tell stories that feel suitably heroic to us as the players.
However physical Good and Evil don't have to correspond with right and wrong. You could tell a very interesting story in which the forces of Good actually do a lot of things that you are I may consider morally wrong. For example, you could say that it's Good to destroy an Evil soul, or to kill Baby Hitler, or to burn someone at the stake for heresy - find a contentious moral question or historical practice and side against your own intuitions. Then set down a bunch of PCs in a situation where they can either go along with what's "Good" under the assumption that it's also morally correct, or they can start arguing that the metaphysical energy attached to an act doesn't necessarily determine its moral value.
Heck, even with a "high god" exercising divine command morality you could have people arguing over whether that god actually deserves to be worshiped. I've seen that sort of thing in the real world and while I'd expect it to be less common in a world with visibly active gods it wouldn't necessarily disappear - especially with more active "Satan" figures stirring up dissent.
You could potentially multiclass since the familiar's BAB, HD, HP, saves, and skills are all based on your character's total values rather than your effective wizard level, and Boon Companion will increase your effective wizard level by 4.
Yes, I also appreciate that the kineticist finally gives us a really good way to make benders - as well as other characters with elemental powers - while still feeling like its own coherent thing.
And with that in mind, capstones that don't resemble "avatar mode" would be appreciated in future development for characters that aim to be more specialized. :)
My group had a dhampir cleric with versatile channel - until he became an actual vampire (we play high-power games). He covers his own healing without compromising his ability to heal the group, and is pretty effective against undead.
I don't think it's any more of a liability than playing a martial character with a poor will save. Considerably less when you consider that TPKs happen when the melee meat grinder gets dominated and turns on the party.
I do see why having an anti-undead channeling specialist in the same party as a dhampir would be inconvenient but that's a problem with the specific context, not a problem with the race in general. It would be problematic to have a paladin and an assassin in the same party, or to bring a pitborn tiefling into the Mendevian crusades. Doesn't mean that those character options are bad.
Mine is trained in negotiation and prefers to incapacitate rather than kill opponents - we actually ended up recruiting a drow guard who we'd interrogated because my bloodrager didn't want to kill him.
I don't think the reference to the shapechange spell is actually relevant, given that shapechange doesn't allow you to take naga form and nagashape itself describes the appropriate effects. Otherwise the ability works as wild shape, so that takes care of duration and uses/day. Spell level would be relevant for ability DCs but those are otherwise defined by Augmented Form.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Clarifying here - your natural armour bonus is determined by the size of animal you turn into. You get access to larger forms with better natural armour as you advance, so an 8th level druid can become a huge animal and get +6 natural armour, but if that same druid becomes small they still only get the same +1 natural armour that a 4th level druid would. You do get access to more special abilities with wild shapes of all sizes as you level, however.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
It's a common confusion thanks to the terminology. Lawful people like orderly systems or rules. Often they adopt the rules of a community they identify with, such as the laws of a country. Often they even respect other peoples' rules, because rules are better than no rules. But they're not obligated to follow all the rules, just the ones they identify with. They're certainly not required to follow rules that contradict their own rules.
Whether the law of the land matters to a LG magus depends on whether he identifies with or respects that authority, due to patriotism and/or military service. Even then, acting out of alignment is allowed.
Personal codes are a bit fuzzy - some believe any personal code is lawful, while others such as myself believe that a character with a personal code may lawful or chaotic depending on the content of that code. If it's two pages long and talks about duty and reliability you're lawful, if it's "an it harm none, do what thou wilt" you're chaotic.
Yes, "as normal" means based on the spellcasting ability of the class that offers the domain slots - which likely will be advanced by the exalted PRC. So a cleric 5 / exalted 5 can cast domain spells from any of their 3 domains as if they were a 10th level cleric, in addition to having the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spells from one domain as SLA 1/day (as a 5th level caster). The cleric's domain powers however would function as a 5th level cleric.
I'm going to disagree about needing Craft Arms & Armour to add weapon properties. That's a general requirement for making weapons that also applies to add enhancement bonuses, not a specific requirement for adding properties. I believe that that requirement refers to things like needing blindness/deafness for a Thundering weapon, or one of flame blade, flame strike, or fireball for a Flaming weapon.
EDIT: this is directed at the secret fire, regarding objective alignment.
You are assuming that it's widely recognized that good is right and evil is wrong. If alignment works like physics, there's no reason for it to correlate any better with morality than hot and cold do.
Or, alternatively, it may indeed represent morality but no one agrees which alignment is right and which one is wrong.
We often pick instead of rolling. Never seen anyone try to get a mechanical advantage from height or weight, though it wouldn't bug me if a character with a mount chose something on the light end of the scale for encumbrance reasons. Going outside the usual ranges would require a little more justification, but the handling aasimar would certainly be OK.
Interesting theory, except if this were about inherent traits of violence and sexuality then you would expect to see very similar reactions across cultures. As this thread demonstrates, that's not the case.
What do you mean by the cost would not work? with all due respect, that is not a rule response, that is a "its not fair response." I am looking for a rule based answer.
The rule based answer is that a slotless amulet of mighty fists would be a custom item, the pricing of any custom item is subject to GM approval, and a GM should deny this request because its purpose is exclusively to circumvent the normal price scaling of the item.
Magic Item Gold Piece Values wrote:
The correct way to price an item is by comparing its abilities to similar items (see Magic Item Gold Piece Values), and only if there are no similar items should you use the pricing formulas to determine an approximate price for the item. If you discover a loophole that allows an item to have an ability for a much lower price than is given for a comparable item, the GM should require using the price of the item, as that is the standard cost for such an effect.