|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Not allowable by RAW. Bloodrager is not the same class as Barbarian and can't take the same archetypes even if they replace features that both classes have.
It does look like a balanced houserule to me as there's nothing about the archetype that's more useful to a bloodrager than to a barbarian. In fact, losing greater and mighty bloodrage hurts the bloodrager more because they come with an additional ability to cast a spell on yourself that the barbarian doesn't get.
The archetype may not play well with some bloodline powers. For example, the Demonic Bulk ability (Abyssal Bloodline 4) doesn't stack with polymorph effects like Shifting Rage, and the Abyssal Bloodrage power (Abyssal Bloodline 12) modifies the Str bonus and AC penalty from bloodrage, which strictly speaking wouldn't apply if you don't get either. Similarly, the draconic bloodline's Dragon Form is a polymorph effect that wouldn't work with Shifting Rage.
Primalist could be used to get rid of such powers.
I'm not sure how the RAW should be read, but it does seem to make the item significantly better than it was intended to be.
There is precedent which allows earlier access to class features using similar language.
The robe specifically states that it grants access to powers at earlier levels: "The wearer treats her sorcerer level as 4 higher than normal for the purpose of determining what bloodline powers she can use and their effects." Since that could easily be a case of specific overriding general rules, I don't think it's a good precedent.
Your effective level for that class feature is treated as 4 levels higher, but your BAB (which is what most of the AAT options go off IIRC) would not be altered.
Nope. Only 1 AAT option uses BAB (master armourer). 6 scale off level, and 3 don't scale.
It's a 4k item. At level 3? That's a pretty huge investment.
Level 3 is just an example. You could also be a 7th level fighter wondering if being treated as an 11th level fighter for Armour Training means that you get access to your 11th level AAT pick.
If a 7th level fighter with Armour Specialization wears a Sash of the War Champion, he gets +1 AC for treating his fighter level as 11.
If he also gets to pick a new AAT as an 11th level fighter would, he can also take Armoured Juggernaut and get 1-3 points of DR/- depending on type of armour worn.
Bravery also increases from +2 to +3, which could mean an extra +1 to all will saves if the character has AWT (armed bravery).
+1 AC, DR 3/- in full plate, and +1 will saves is a really good deal for 4k at level 7.
Yes, that's what it means. It's not quite as powerful as it looks for the same reason a bard 12 / sorcerer 9 isn't as powerful as a sorcerer 21: low caster level, and not getting access to the high level spells you'd expect at that encounter level.
Joana is correct that you'll get better advice from the Skull & Shackles forum. It should be possible for the PCs to talk or sneak their way out but it would be important to know the NPC's motivations and the physical obstacles keeping the party imprisoned. EDIT: Wow, that was a speedy move.
My group tends to advance to mid levels fairly rapidly and then slow down, spending most of our playtime between levels 5 and 15, so YMMV on which levels are relevant.
I'm also not sure your advice here is relevant to practical play if you think that scimitar is the only "reasonable" weapon choice. People play magi with longswords, aldori dueling swords, rapiers, whips, katana. They are not the best choices but they are functional and some people prefer them for aesthetic reasons. It is often useful to be able to optimize given a sub-optimal weapon or combat style.
Heck, I've got a staff magus lined up for my next gestalt game. In fact his second class is slayer - though that's because I required everyone to pick rogue or a rogue hybrid for thematic reasons. (Another character is going for occultist//investigator, which looks like a fun sabateur/gadgeteer.)
More specific comments for side discussion:
Adaptable Training evens things up if you want to max one of the options, but most aren't things that usually get maxed and it only evens things up. Between those and making up the reflex save you've lost three of your lifetime feat advantage of four. That last bonus feat is at level 20.
I'm not spending feats for those, I'm taking them out of your weapon training options. Is that why you thought I was "double counting feats"? If you want to spend feats you can (they are good things to get early rather than late) but then you end up with another 2 advanced weapon training slots in the long run to get more combat bonuses, like Defensive Weapon Training, Focused Weapon (+5.5 damage on a scimitar by level 20, or +3.5 by 15), Trained Initiative, or a Weapon Mastery feat (such as Smash from the Air).
You'll also note that despite the fighter's AC bonus being better than the brawler's at level 20, and the fighter getting DR to boot, I actually didn't include "better AC" as one of the items in the final comparison ("So are martial flexibility, maneuver training, knockout, and improved awesome blow worth 4 feats, +7 attack and damage, the third advanced weapon training, and weapon mastery?"), because I thought the limitations you mentioned evened it out.
Armored Juggernaut is DR 1 until level 11 because anything that counts as medium armor for spellcasting counts as medium armor for all purposes except proficiency or is actual medium armor.
DR based on armour type is not a limitation requiring the character to wear lighter armour, therefore it is not affected by mithral.
A 7th level Fighter//Magus is proficient in mithral full plate, can cast spells in it (since spellcasting is a limitation) and gets DR 2/- in it.
Well, I'd love to try an all Vigilante//Something Else gestalt party. In that spirit, some ideas:
Mindchemist Alchemist // Warlock Vigilante. d8 HD, all good saves, 4+Int skill points (with good Int). Bombs for fire-based blasting and control effects, mystic bolts to round out your energy type options. TWF works with both (assuming you get fast bombs). Two versatile partial casting lists for buffing, utility, and some additional control spells. Excellent sage thanks to Perfect Recall - the social identity is probably a scholar.
Cleric // Avenger. d8 HD, Full BAB, all good saves, 6+Int skills. A reach build with buffing and summoning. Reach clerics are normally feat-starved, so avenger can help add combat feats (in addition to a few more interesting talents if desired). Keeping foes at a distance means the d8 vs d10 HD doesn't matter as much as it would for some characters, and since most attacks will be AoO (therefore top BAB) it doesn't matter that you have fewer accuracy boosts than, say, Cleric//Ranger. Druid//Avenger would also work nicely though you'd want a secondary healer.
Barbarian // Mounted Fury. d12 HD, full BAB, all good saves, 6+Int skills, tons of combat abilities including a mount that you can use Ferocious Mount on and bonuses to charging with pounce. Yeesh. Note that Mounted Fury can take Avenger talents.
Paladin // Magical Child. d10 HD, full BAB, all good saves (plus Divine Grace), 4+Int skills. Not much better in combat than a standard paladin, but 6-levels of unchained summoner casting adds versatility and some buffing (eg Enlarge Person) with charisma synergy. A celestial animal guide would be thematic and could help with scouting. Makes an excellent party face.
Slayer // Cabalist. d10 HD, full BAB, all saves, 6+Int skills. Effective Str or Dex based TWF between studied target, combat styles, lethal grace (if desired), sneak attack, and bleed damage on every piercing or slashing attack. Gets lots of mundane & magical sneaky tricks with partial casting off the witch list. Notably, vigilante talent See the Unseen lets you keep precision damage on foes with concealment.
Investigator hits the "learning alchemy" theme but is a better pair for the fighter in gestalt. Studied Combat is a great combat buff, you can get mutagen with a talent, and you get your good will save - plus lots of skill points which can be used for Perception, Sense Motive, Intimidate, Knowledge, and other useful things for anticipating threats.
I know the scimitar is very popular for the magus but I wouldn't make that a baseline assumption. Fighter//Magus would work very well with a whip, for example, since the fighter easily qualifies for Whip Mastery and Improved Whip Mastery and both Trained Grace and Focus Weapon would be useful. Also, Strength Magi are a thing, and they'll get great use out of Armour Specialization and Armoured Juggernaut - usable with mithral full plate at level 7.
Magus//Slayer doesn't have a real swift action problem. You just don't use arcane pool to enhance your weapon because with full BAB and studied target you don't need to and you have better uses for your pool. And the buffing round is where they'd collide. You can use Spell Recall after combat to get back anything you couldn't replace immediately because you had to change targets. You might consider menacing style and if you ever make attacks without spell combat (which includes any round after the first if you use multi-touch spells) two handed isn't a bad choice either.
The magus also wants swift/immediate actions for many arcana such as Arcane Accuracy, Arcane Edge, Spell Shield, or Hasted Assault, as well as Quickened spells at high levels. You can certainly find combat styles you can use as a magus but the open-ended bonus combat feats would be more useful.
Brawler doesn't have any penalties to using a non-close weapon. You don't get your damage die increase, but you wouldn't get anything anyways until level 8 and it doesn't become large enough to be nominally worth a martial weapon until level 12 (except the Katar, which is exotic and would have to be compared to a Magus with an Estoc which it won't surpass by more than 0.5 damage until level 16). You're missing a feature, but it's a feature that exists to prop up a weapon group that is terrible otherwise. Martial Flexibility can use up swift actions, but having shcroedinger's feat plan is a big deal.
Martial Flexibility is a pretty big deal, but once you ignore flurry and brawler weapons you don't have that many features left. Let's compare, by level 20:
Brawler: +2 skills, good ref save, martial flexibility, AC bonus +4, Maneuver training, Knockout, Improved Awesome Blow
Fighter: 4 extra feats, Bravery +5, 3 Advanced Armour Training & Mastery (move at full speed with +4 AC and DR 7/- in medium armour, or with +5 AC and DR 8/- in heavy; +1 advanced training option), Weapon Training +5 attack and damage (+7 with gloves of dueling) + 3 Advanced Weapon Training, Weapon Mastery.
Advanced Armour Training & Mastery beat the brawler's AC bonus, and 2/3 Advanced Weapon Training options will as you pointed out patch the skills and ref save. So are martial flexibility, maneuver training, knockout, and improved awesome blow worth 4 feats, +7 attack and damage, the third advanced weapon training, and weapon mastery? At the very least I don't think it's clearly in favour of the brawler.
Avenger you didn't find a flaw with.
Because you already mentioned them: only d8 HD on a melee character and no accuracy booster beyond full BAB.
Fighter//Magus isn't perfect, but neither are the other combinations you're suggesting.
I think you underestimate Advanced Weapon and Advanced Armour Training - and you can take them as early as levels 5 and 3 if you're in a rush and want to spend feats on it. Fighter has gotten a lot better in the last year, and it's much more flexible in its combat style than other classes.
In addition to the fact that the Brawler doesn't support weapons that are good for the magus, Flurry and Spell Combat do not work together. Slayer/Ranger Combat Styles don't have a lot of good options for einhanders. Both Brawler and Slayer also rely more on swift actions than the Fighter, which is inconvenient as the Magus is already very heavy on swift actions.
No, gauntlets and unarmed strikes can't be used to grapple. Here's an explanation for why. (See the blog post above for more detail on maneuvers using weapons.)
I would apply Inspire Courage to grapple CMB. The bonus applies to "attack and weapon damage rolls," so it's only the damage bonus that is restricted to weapons. The attack bonus applies to all attack rolls, therefore CMB.
And even then, there are at least some instances in which things that aren't physical weapons benefit from "weapon" bonuses. See this FAQ on weapon-like spells. Note that you can take Weapon Focus (grapple).
Thek Blacktalon wrote:
Certainly seems like a fair way to handle it in a home game in lieu of official response.
As pointed out earlier, the Extra Evolution feat has similar language to Slayer Combat Styles regarding when you can take it, but clearly is intended to mean "this level or later" since a summoner can't take a feat at exactly 10th level.
Extra Evolution wrote:
Special: This evolution can be taken once at 1st level, and again at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th.
Well, the slayer only gets three feats from the combat style by spending three slayer talents, as opposed to the 5 that the ranger gets, at zero cost.
It's not zero cost, it's opportunity cost, since if the ranger didn't have combat styles they would have some other class feature of roughly equivalent value.
It is actually an advantage for the slayer to be able to choose something other than combat styles if it would be more useful to their particular build, rather than being locked in.
Also, it locks the slayer out from taking a few archetypes if they want all three feats, because those talents (at 2nd, 6th, and 10th) are replaced.
This would not be true if I'm correct about being able to take combat styles at any level after 2, 6, and 10.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
2. Yes, and by RAW, you can only spend it at 2nd, 6th, and 10th level. Per the rules, you cannot spend a 4th level Slayer talent to acquire the first set of feats, as it specifies that you choose this talent at 2nd, 6th, and 10th.
I thought this was inclusive. As in, the slayer can take this talent once at 2nd (or later) and again at 6th (or later).
Just like Extra Evolution doesn't require you to take it precisely at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
You don't need to impose a feat mechanic to have a roleplaying relationship with an NPC. Becoming a cohort is essentially someone becoming your subserviant flunky. Maybe that's not in the cards for her. That doesn't meant that your character and the NPC can't have a relationship, the GM however may determine that it's one of equals instead of master/servant which is what a leader/cohort is.
Cohorts don't have to be subservient flunkies - they can absolutely be loyal partners or significant others.
You just need to work things out so that the cohort generally does what the player (not necessarily the PC) wants them to do. That could mean making sure that the cohort has similar goals and methods to the PC so there isn't much disagreement, or having the player run both so that they are in control of any significant disagreements.
You can even justify giving the cohort less of the spotlight pretty easily if you want, since they'll be slightly less powerful than the PC and often have lower charisma.
It may or may not work out for this NPC, but it's certainly a possibility if OP roleplays it well enough.
There's different standards at different groups with regards to unusual rule-breaking challenges. My group does play pretty loose with the rules but GMs usually try to make it obvious when the players encounter something that violates rule expectations (unusual monster, bizarre demiplane, etc) and avoid negating player abilities.
I try to start from a position of trusting the GM, but negating a PC ability without warning would weaken my trust, especially if I don't eventually get a satisfactory reason why the ability didn't work. If it happened repeatedly, I'd have a hard time continuing in that GM's campaign.
Telling the GM "it bothered me the way you handled this particular thing" is not being a jerk player, it's providing feedback on your reactions and expectations. I find that really useful when I'm GMing. Saying there's room for improvement is not the same thing as saying that the GM is incompetent. People aren't perfect. GMing is hard. Not realizing that your players have different preferences or expectations for things like "how strictly should the rules be applied?" only makes it harder.
The OP's post didn't indicate any further interaction with the GM than asking about the reason for the spell failure "later" (ie some time after the spell failure; there may or may not have been an opportunity to investigate in-game) and accepting that ruling while being quietly disappointed. The OP could be a jerk about this, but there isn't any indication this is the case.
EDIT: you may not need a ton of thief skills for Conan, but I'd still go Slayer to get a wide range of skills. Stealth, Perception, Diplomacy, Climb, Acrobatics, Linguistics, Survival, and a smattering of Knowledge skills.
That said, Wild Stalker ranger is worth considering, since you get the wilderness/stealth abilities along with rage and rage powers (superstition does sound characteristic). Add skirmisher to get rid of spells.
I do think as you stated Weirdo that Conan fits better into the Slayer class as it compound of rouge and ranger which covers a lot of the ability Conan shows in the books, but it still miss a lot of points. there just may not be enough of feats in that single class to cover everything.
Martial flexibility from multiclassing in Brawler gives you access to a lot of odd combat tricks that you'll use occasionally - though I do agree with your overall point that having feats for everything makes it hard to represent the versatility of characters in literature or film.
Dave Justus wrote:
Vigilante is possible for Silk as well, but unless their are social talents I am unaware of, it actually isn't really any better at having multiple important, well known identities (Prince Kheldar, Ambar, Radek, and probably others) that just the disguise skill and preparation.
Sounds like a neat idea for a vigilante archetype.
I don't buy the idea that Conan is over level 20. Most characters in classic literary fantasy can be quite well modeled in the level 5-10 range. See the Alexandrian's commentary.
Well above standard heroic stats... probably. If it's just a for-fun exercise or you're the GM making NPCs you can just give them the stats you think are reasonable. If it's a PC concept just do the best you can with what you have, it'll be a close enough approximation to have fun with.
As for class, I would suggest Conan is mostly Slayer, possibly with the Vanguard archetype. That gives him good combat, thieving, and scouting skills off the bat. Vanguard rounds out the "officer" role a bit more. Add 1-2 levels in Brawler for unarmed fighting. Diplomacy, Knowledge(History), and Knowledge (Arcana) aren't class skills but you can still put ranks in them - or even get at least two as class skills with traits.
I'm not familiar with Silk, but he sounds like a Knife Master rogue with Diplomacy, Bluff, Disguise, Knowledge(Local), and maybe Disable Device, Acrobatics, and Sleight of Hand.
I'd go gestalt building for versatility, because it simplifies RP. If one of them has a pet and you include the cohort then they end up with 4 bodies in action which is basically a full party.
Fighter//Bard and Wizard//Druid would be a good pair, for example, especially if you throw in a cleric cohort to help with healing (esp. condition removal). Wizard//Druid gets a wide variety of spells and good Int-based skills, Fighter//Bard is the primary combatant with extra buffs and more skills including the Face role, and the Wizard//Druid's animal companion helps in melee.
For the Wizard//Druid, being MAD caps raw power pretty well, and because bards (barring a few archetypes) mostly provide party buffs rather than potent personal buffs like the cleric or inquisitor, the Fighter//Bard isn't doing much more damage than a fighter who has been buffed by a bard party member. He does get Arcane Strike - but has to spend his own actions buffing.
I'd actually go for the Destined Bloodline for the sorcerer. It sounds at first like it's the opposite of luck but two of the three bloodline powers you get by 6th level grant luck bonuses, and as the GM you could even tweak the first level "touch of destiny" to "touch of luck" and change the insight bonus to a luck bonus (should still be about balanced).
Here are some spell suggestions. The big thing to note is that the 2nd level spells Arcane Disruption and Distracting Cacophony both make it even harder to cast defensively near the NPC, synergising with Disruptive/Spellbreaker. However, Arcane Disruption only suppresses arcane casting and can be negated by a will save, while Cacophony also interferes with the spells of the bard and their allies.
0 - Detect Magic, Read Magic, Prestidigitation, Mage Hand, Dancing Lights, Ghost Sound
For NPC 5, I'd suggest Arcane Duelist with a whip. You'll get the Disruptive and Spellbreaker feats (normally fighter-only, make it difficult to cast in your threatened area). You also have enough feats to get a decent style together (though it would be painful to work your way through this from level 1).
1 - Weapon Finesse, Arcane Strike (Bonus)
This gives you a 10ft threatened area and increases the DC to cast defensively within that radius by 4. If a caster fails their concentration check, you get an AoO. And even without Spellbreaker you can take normal AoO.
With a Type II Ring of Spell Knowledge you could also learn Long Arm and increase the reach to 15ft.
Not always, but OP already said they were "adventuring through an ancient temple of a long forgotten civilization" and "assumed it was the language of these lost people" so having the GM say that the spell failed because the civilization was so old and powerful isn't really new or useful information.
If they found magically unreadable runes scrawled in a dusty room in a still-occupied fort that would be much more interesting.
And yes, if it's a coded message and the player expressed confusion about the spell failing then the GM should have reminded the player that codes are the most common reason / the only RAW reason for Comprehend Languages to fail. (I certainly wouldn't expect the GM to warn the player about a coded message before they used the spell.)
That's a good level for Transmutation. You get Flight.
Divination, Abjuration, and Transmutation is a pretty good lineup so I think you should take whatever sounds fun for your fourth school. Necromancy's fine, and it plays of the idea that his sister is a lich (whether he learned Necromancy from her, learned it to fight her, thinks she is a perversion of the field, is himself tempted by its power...)
Slashing Grace doesn't work with the Curve Blade at all, since it still requires the weapon to be light or one-handed (just not piercing).
If it's more about having a big sword than the specific weapon, you could grab EWP with the Bastard Sword or Katana and use Slashing Grace with either. It would work better with a half-elf than an elf since you can trade Skill Focus for a free EWP.
Think about skill checks or plot devices you can look at next time, instead of huffing and puffing your 1st level spell didnt solve ALL your problems.
What about expecting your 1st level spell to solve the one problem it is supposed to solve - not being able to understand a written or spoken language?
Mysterious runes that can't be translated magically are great and all, but players should also be able to expect that their characters' abilities function as described. And while a GM can block abilities they should avoid the appearance of arbitrarily taking something away from a player.
The GM could have/should have handled this a bit better, but GMs aren't perfect and I'd definitely suggest moving on. If it's really bugging you, or if it turns into a pattern, have a polite conversation with the GM explaining your disappointment and asking if in the future she'd be able to give you a little more than "surprise gibberish." (There's some good advice to be had in this thread and elsewhere in planning for divination, which might be useful if she's a relatively new GM.)
GM (Oh no...I have no godly idea what that writing might say...) "Uhh, the spell fizzles, and the writing continues to look like gibberish."
It's not impossible for the monster to attack anyone else in the party, but melee characters generally take more melee hits. It's unusual in my group for a ranged or caster PC to get a poison or disease from monster attacks but even the tanky melee characters are regularly affected due to making maybe five times as many saves (heck, the party paladin almost died of Con poison last session). And melee characters aren't always tanks - caster priests and archers often have very solid AC and Fort saves compared to for example the rogue that OP mentioned. The fighter was unlucky. The rogue was just plain hosed.
You could fight defensively or use a ranged weapon. But then the decrease in damage you're dealing means the monster doesn't die quite as fast, gets a few more attacks in. Maybe some of these extra attacks hit you and you end up failing a save anyway. If you're keeping your distance, maybe it gets at one of the squishier characters who you'd normally be shielding. Or maybe you just spend several rounds saying "I use the total defense action" and not having a whole lot of fun.
Any way you slice it, more painful for melee players.
Like the time my very first Paladin was Dominated by a mind flayer and rolled two natural 1's in a row when it told me to cut my own throat and bleed to death. Stuff happens.
Stuff does happen, but Dominate-Suicide doesn't:
Dominate Person wrote:
Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out.
With Mighty Bloodrage a 20th level bloodrager matches or exceeds the DD bonuses to Str/Con and will saves. It's also ahead by 3 BAB, DR, and spellcasting levels plus tireless rage and self-buffing as a free action when entering rage, and has more skills. The DD gets +3 Nat AC, blindsense, the bite, an extra breath weapon use, +10ft fly speed, and the ability to use Form of the Dragon when not raging. HP is equal if the Bloodrager spends its 10 extra FCB there.
Bloodrager/DD is a fine character concept but it's not actually more powerful than a simple Draconic Bloodrager. Really the Dragon Disciple's main advantages are being more reliable outside of rage, and the extra-powerful bite - which you can get with a 2 level dip.
A lot of people, including me now that I think about it, assumes that playing a melee fighter means being willing to die for the team. That's just your role, keep the casters alive.
The melee fighter's job isn't to die for the team, it's to take a giant club to the face because they won't die as a result, but the wizard would. It might look like altruism, and it can be rewarding to play an altruistic meat shield, but really it doesn't have to be anything more than good tactics.
I don't think disease and poison are intended to target melee types. After all, the wizard could get forced into melee and in that event is much more likely to fail the save. Compare a defensive ability that hurts characters that hit the monster with a melee attack. It's just that in practice the melee types take so many more attacks that they do tend to be hurt by these things more often. And the nastier the rider, the less fair that is. When the threat in question is a save or die, without access to Raise Dead... if this wasn't a one shot I'd be pretty upset.
It certainly would be interesting to have more caster-specific threats, but it might also help if it were easier for melee types to be effective at range so they'd have more tactical options in encounters where melee is extra dangerous - and of course give them some chance to prevent the threat from closing. And it might balance out the "meat shield" perception if casters had a way to intercept magical threats in the same way that melee types can intercept physical threats (serving as a "mind shield" for a low will save fighter).
And 'feint' can get pretty faint on definition. Three right jabs ... are those a feint if my fourth strike is a kick to the knee?
As Cavall said, "Feint" is a very specific action in pathfinder that involves using the Bluff skill to deny your opponent their Dexterity bonus to AC.
And wait, you think it's okay for Paladins to Feint but not Monks who take this Vow? Dafuq?
The paladin code is relatively vague on the subject of honesty, requiting only that you be honourable (eg not lying). This could be interpreted by the GM to include any possible use of trickery (like Sundakan's GM prohibiting ambushes) or merely to prohibit knowingly speaking an untrue statement while still allowing misleading truths.
However, the monk's vow explicitly prohibits misleading truths and even exaggeration. Therefore a GM who interprets the paladin's code leniently may indeed hold a monk with this vow to a higher standard of truth.
There is no reason to assume that paladins will always hold stricter standards of behavior than any other character in all possible areas. The paladin's code is challenging, but it's challenging partly because it's so broad, prohibiting any kind of evil and several flavours of dishonourable acts, and also requiring that the paladin actively promote good. There are a lot more ways to morally challenge a paladin than a monk with a vow of truth, even if we take a much stricter view of the monk's requirement for honesty. And monks are (mostly) lawful solely because they are associated with this kind of 'strict discipline' - it makes all kinds of sense for some of them to follow traditions that are super restrictive in very specific ways.
Why is it so difficult to determine what has Lawful and / or Chaotic alignments, but so easy to determine Good and Evil alignments?
I'd agree that law vs chaos is just too awkward to define. If there's a No Littering law, is Barbie the Barbarian risking her class abilities when she picks up after herself? Maybe she just doesn't like littering and chose to do it. We want to AVOID Chaotic Stupid, after all, and while Barbie's CN herself and less interested in restoring the legitimate ruler in favour of the rewards, she still might have to (or even WANT to) do things that might count as 'lawful'. And if a paladin decides that it does no good to arrest Barbie when she accidentally drops a corndog stick ... well, do we really need another way to hose paladins?
Have you read Law is Not Legal?
As I said, I personally think that's the best way to run it. However as a rules issue I think there's a strong argument that being able to receive a message would still be benefiting from the feat.
If it's a home game you can always check with your GM, but for PFS I wouldn't take it. Too likely that a GM will enforce the strict interpretation.
I wasn't asking for a list of domesticated animals, I was asking if the ambiguity meant that it wasn't intended to be restricted to any particular set of animals (unlike for example the Huntmaster feat which does specify a horse, dog, hawk, or small cat as acceptable hunting beasts).
Normally I'd check with the GM but this is a PFS character. (The important part is actually getting Handle Animal on a Sacred Huntmaster Inquisitor so I'm tempted to just take the trait, pick whatever pet I want, and be prepared to lose 3 HP on the animal if a particular GM objects.)
However some animals that aren't domesticated here may be domesticated in Golarion. The goblin dog comes to mind. In a non-Golarion setting I had a domesticated Triceratops as a companion - apparently Lizardfolk in Golarion also domesticate some dinosaurs.
Conversely, some animals that are largely domesticated, such as camels, are not likely to be from the Riverlands as referenced in the trait.
So using that list is likely to lead to error, whether it's including animals that shouldn't be or failing to include animals that should be.
Not sure what printing I've got. I think they do try to make sure the page numbers line up so it should be the same page regardless.
In any case look in the combat chapter under Movement, Position and Distance; Measuring Distance; Diagonals.
EDIT: By the way, this is a very silly thing to risk a friendship for.
I expect that any ruling over whether you can have two bonded items would refer to the mechanical benefit of having two bonded objects and not the physical items. That is, if you can't have a bonded ring as a wizard and a bonded amulet as a cleric you can't have an amulet that works as a bonded object for both classes.
I'd allow it as a GM, but if this is a rules-strict environment I'd take a familiar as a wizard instead.
Yeah, it says "Her allies do not receive any bonuses from these feats unless they actually possess the feats themselves." Either being able to send or receive messages would be a benefit, so the communication won't work.
I'd probably allow the Inquisitor to send, but not receive, messages because that would be more interesting than just not letting it work and I think it's balanced. But I don't think the rule normally allows it.
Why is it so difficult to determine what has Lawful and / or Chaotic alignments, but so easy to determine Good and Evil alignments?
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
My original point is that Lawful/Chaotic subjects should be just as easily determined as Good/Evil subjects, and as such, should be just as easily prepared against. The fact that they aren't changes the paradigm of power significantly between the four alignments (i.e. for optimizing and powergaming purposes, Good/Evil alignments suck unless you absolutely need them for something, such as being a Paladin). If you're simply a Lawful/Chaotic character, the likelihood for enemies to be using Axiomatic/Anarchic weapons, or Anti-Lawful/Anti-Chaotic spells against you, unless they too, are Chaotic/Lawful, respectively, are extremely reduced (and if you're True Neutral, you're basically immune to anything that requires specific Alignments, or you suffer the least effects, both benefits and penalties, of every Alignment-based effect).
I think this is by design. If the conflict between Law and Chaos were as important in the game as the conflict between Good and Evil, then it would be just as difficult to have parties with both Lawful and Chaotic party members as it would be to have Good and Evil party members, eliminating a source of interesting but usually not disruptive party disagreement.
And if you're going to have one axis being superior it makes sense for it to be G/E for the reasons other posters suggested - G/E is a bigger part of the larger culture than L/C, and L/C isn't all that well defined in any case (maybe a chicken and egg issue, but result is the same).
I actually redesigned my current setting to focus more on the Law/Chaos side. Archons and Devils now have DR/Chaotic, Demons and Azata have DR/Lawful, and there are some relatively easy physical markers. For example, in this setting, outsiders with both animal and humanoid parts are chaotic - azata and demons have feathered, batlike, or insectoid wings while wings of archons and devils are constructed of metal, light, shadow, flame etc. It's been interesting but more as a diversion. In fact I think it's trending in the general direction of LG vs CE as the party has been going out of their way to mediate disputes wherever possible in a way that gets the grudging respect of a lot of CG opponents.
I remember seeing a post by James Jacobs explaining that the L/C conflict was pretty significant on the outer planes but usually wasn't as relevant to mortals. Can't find it, though.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Don't confuse psychopathy with fanatacism. Remember that they are divine champions of a deity, and they follow the teachings and code set by their deity. The code of their deity says "Show no mercy, and take no prisoners unless tactically beneficial." That's not Good (which Torag isn't)
In your description, Gwyn appears to show a great deal of compassion and pity, even when required to kill his enemies. Therefore he is not at all ruthless.
The question at hand is not whether you can be good and still kill but whether you can be good without feeling compassion and pity.
I'd say no, compassion is basically the definition of goodness. If all you do is destroy evil without compassion for others, you're actually neutral.
I do agree that some good characters might appear ruthless if their actions are observed without an understanding of context. Triage can look pretty pitiless to those deemed too costly to save. However I personally prefer to play those that are also outwardly compassionate.
74. Nymph's Wort. Tea made from the leaves of this unremarkable herb causes mild, pleasant hallucinations lasting approximately one hour. However, excessive consumption of this tea can cause blindness.
75. Peacock Ivy. The leaves of this vine are iridescent and patterned in a way that resembles peacock feathers. The ivy is popular as a component in bouquets - where it symbolizes beauty if arranged among the other plants and jealousy if wrapped around them - and wreaths, where it symbolizes watchfulness. As a product of magical breeding, Peacock Ivy is very fragile. It is almost never found in the wild and requires a DC 20 Profession (Gardener) check to cultivate.
I'm GMing for a vampire right now. I gave him a stripped down version of the template to start (mostly just blood drain and immunity to ability damage, poison, disease, sleep) and then have been adding on the other special abilities slowly - as a Nosferatu he has spider climb and telepathy now at level 8. He has a custom cloak to negate the sunlight weakness, and it's not too hard to cart around a coffin once you have extradimensional storage.
Other party members are also getting special abilities to bring them up to a similar power level, though they're coming in at a slightly different rate for story reasons. A bit of homebrew, but I stole heavily from the Mythic rules.
Staggering out the abilities works better for us since we started from level 1 and the template was acquired around level 5-6. The in-game reasoning is that the character is still a very young vampire coming into his power over time. If you're starting at a higher level it might be simpler just to tack on the whole template but unless it's an all-vampire party (which would be a lot of fun...) the GM needs to be willing to adjust for power as they play. CR is after all intended to measure a monster's threat level as an opponent to a standard party, and some abilities that are balanced for an opponent can be unbalancing in a PC (at will Dominate for example).