Is it possible to use a spell-like ability during a rage? The reason I ask is because Sp's require no verbal, somatic, material, or focus components, and are not lost by arcane spell-failure, but it doesn't explicitly state that they do not require concentration, which is the reason spells can't be cast during a rage. I know in 3.5 there was the rune-scarred berserker, a prestige class that got Sp's and could use them while raging, but there doesn't seem to be anything comparable in Pathfinder. It seems like something that can be done during a rage to me, but I'm looking for any official rulings or in put from DM's who have had it come up before in games that they've run.
For my games:
Why not go Eldritch Knight? If you want more BAB in your build, simply take more fighter levels than the suggested one minimum.
I actually prefer the Eldritch knight because it can give a character a BAB of +15 and 9th level spells. I made this variant to make an arcane casting class more comparable to the paladin (heavy melee fighter with a few supplementary spells).I specifically chose to make it a cavalier archetype because I feel that relying on your mount for a third of your class options is a hassle and have heard players of cavaliers complain when they can't take their horse into a dungeon because it's to big to fit through the door.
Burnt Offerings, the first chapter of Rise of the Rune lords, immediately comes to mind because the dungeon that encompasses that chapter's climax seems to be made with the express intent of making a medium sized character's life miserable. A cavalier couldn't even get their mount into the goblin stronghold unless they were a gnome, halfling, etc.
So, when looking at what I could give the cavalier to replace his mount and class features that go along with the mount, I decided to make a spell casting variant. This is the second cavalier archetype I've posted that doesn't use a mount, the first being the pirate of the inner sea archetype (which you can read here if your interested http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qrnl?Pirate-of-the-HighInner-Sea-archetype-a#1 ), and I plan on working on an archetype that replaces the mount with some other martial capabilities rather than spell casting (fighter weapon or armor training, maybe defensive stance, we'll see).
I hope this helps clear up my intent with this archetype.
Thanks for the advice.
christos gurd wrote:
Wouldn't spontaneous charisma based be nicer do to challenge? Not that i dont Like this.
I see no problem with that idea, and I'm honestly a bit surprised that a sorcerous variant of the magus doesn't exist. I just went with prepared because of the trend with the magus. Thanks for the feed back.
I made this variant for two reasons.
In addition, he receives bonus spells per day if he has a high Intelligence score.
An arc-knight can learn spells from a wizard’s spellbook, just as a wizard can from a magus’s and arc-knight’s spellbook. The spells learned must be on the magus spell list, as normal. An alchemist can learn formulae from a arc-knight’s spellbook, if the spells are also on the alchemist spell list. An arc-knight cannot learn spells from an alchemist.
Colten McMickens wrote:
Honestly, for the examples listed, I was just trying to fill in some gaps for some of them. Murder and rape should be major acts of evil, but I was thinking in terms of Vampire the Masquerade when I was thinking about this, and in that game, they split murder up into varying degrees of evil (including accidental/incidental, premeditated, and just because) based on a "do unto others" 1-10 scale called a humanity rating. So I'm sorry if I offended anybody with the listed examples. That was not my intent.
I made a thread similar to this, citing the Alignment related material from Ucamp, and expanding on it. Mine didn't really take off either.
It's something that I think everyone has their own ideas about, which is something that I didn't take into account before I posted this thread. This method clearly doesn't please most people, but it did what we needed it to for our specific situation.
The Purity of Violence wrote:
Thank you for pointing out the numerical exploit of the system, and, to be fair, that is how some people interpret true neutral. I did say that these examples were only suggestions and should be tailored to fit the table. I don't think there's enough support for this method of tracking alignment so I'm probably not going to try to make some edits to try and negate some of the moral economics that comes with it. If you have some ideas for editing it, I'd love to get that feedback as well.
Like I said, we came up with the idea to add tangibility and a way to track a character's actions to the alignment system, because we had a player that just didn't get it. That being said, there's no since in others using it if its used in practice like the way you demonstrated. Thanks you for your feed back.
As a general rule of thumb, we say a paladin has to put good before lawful, but I feel like allowing the paladin to play any good would be fine. Coincidentally we had an encounter with a succubus. The end result was that the CG barbarian convinced the succubus to attempt an alignment change after the paladin charged in with his "zealot cap" on and hit an innocent bystander with an AoE. It's a really long story and I'll just say that the player is not good at role playing remorse and leave it at that.
The Shining Fool wrote:
Cross your fingers. We're giving him options to fix his alignment, switch to a non-lawful paladin variant like one form Unearthed Arcanna from 3.5, or just play a cavalier. He's expressed interest in the cavalier before, so we'll see how it goes. Thanks.
The Shining Fool wrote:
I wanted to make a system that was more quantifiable to help peg our character's alignment down. In the case of our paladin, it turned out to be something that affected his class levels, but it was not made for us to say "aha! got you" it was to prove to the player that he was not playing the way a paladin should. And while it's true that I have rigid boundaries in place between alignments, I think it offers a little more flexibility by giving varying degrees of each alignment. There's black and white and 198 shades of grey in between to cover the degrees of good and evil in between. It is over complicated, but I'll be honest, we hadn't noticed it because we were *really* board when we did this. It's not something I would do for every game, but I wanted to share nonetheless. Thanks for your in put!
I personally find alignment as a silly concept, myself. This house rule came up because the characters we were playing (mine included) weren't actually the alignment that was listed on the sheet. Not a big deal for the barbarian listed as chaotic neutral to turn out be chaotic good, but we had to show the paladin quantifiable proof that his "lawful stupid" take on LG was actually chaotic neutral in execution. So I came up with the idea and the DM and another player fleshed it out. Our situation was probably too specific to share on the forums, but it's helped us see where we all stand. Thank you for your input, btw.
The alignment system is unrealistic for three main reasons. First, it assumes that a person's morality and ethics can be boiled down to 2 words, and second, that any character can be put into one of 9 alignments. Lastly, it's an abstract depiction of a person that can be hard to keep track of.
Unfortunately, we can't do anything about the This home brew rules set attempts to "fix" the alignment system by implementing a numerical system to track a person's morality and ethics.
Rather than viewing alignment as 9 boxes that do not allow for overlap, this system uses an X-Y plot to track a person's alignment.
X represents morality where -100 to -34 represent evil, -33 to 33 represent neutrality, and 34-100 represent good.
Y represents ethics where -100 to -34 represent chaotic, -33 to 33 represent neutrality, and 34-100 represent lawful.
At level 1, a character chooses which alignment to start as. This gives him 10 points in the direction of his alignment choice. A paladin then would start with an alignment of 44, 44 (44 good/evil, 44 lawful/chaos).
Neutral character instead start at 0. Chaotic Neutral would be 0,-44 (0 good/evil, and -44 lawful/chaos)
Characters gain or lose points toward their alignment based on their acts.
1. simple acts- Simple acts contribute 2 points to the axis to which they are aligned. Simple acts are everyday little things that one can do. Good simple acts might include donating to charity or helping a neighbor with yard work without expecting reward. Simple evil acts may include battery or theft. A simple lawful action could include reporting a crime you saw that didn't happen to you, while a simple chaotic act may include leaving work early or ignoring the speed limit.
2. minor acts- Minor acts contribute 5 points to the axis to which they are aligned. Minor acts mean that the character goes out of their way to do them. Good minor acts might include doing volunteer work (like at a soup kitchen) or non-compulsory community service. Minor evil acts may include premeditated murder and rape. A minor lawful act might be working as a civil servant on the weekends or paying your taxes, while a minor chaotic act might be open protesting.
3. major acts- Major acts contribute 10 points to the axis to which they are aligned. Major acts are paragon acts of their alignment. A major act for a good character usually means risking your life for someone else with no promise of reward, while an evil major act would include remorseless or sadistic killing. A major lawful action includes putting your life on the line for the community, while a major chaotic action might be swearing a life on the road.
These examples of acts are just suggestions and should be tailored to suit your table.
Also classes that are alignment dependent, such as paladins, anti-paladin, monks, etc. have 10 points of cushion in the appropriate alignment. So a monk can have a Y rating of 23 before they become neutral. This is to take pressure off the player and give him time to correct his play style before having to atone.
As far as bestiary 5 goes, I'm curious to see more from Arcadia or touch on southern Garund or central Casmaron. I appreciate smaller supplements, such as distant worlds, but I think they've only gone into detail with about 30% of Golarion itself. I feel like the home planet should be detailed before we get into too much extra-planetary or extra-planar exploration.
I think that mythic encounters should be consolidated to mythic bestiaries, and that creatures that are CR 30, such as demon lords, emphyrial lords, archdevils, the 4 horsemen, etc. should be covered in their own supplement similar to Deities and Demigods from 3.5.
Ideally for me (just my opinion), I'd like to see the Dragon Empires guide (similar to Inner Sea World Guide) and a Primer to Arcadia within the next year to a year-and-a-half. There's not much discussed about Casmaron, Souther Garund, or the Crown of the World, so these are places of great interest to me. I'd like to see them get their own books as well, but that is perhaps a bit much to ask; perhaps having them covered in a Beyond the Inner Sea guide?
I digress, my point is I'd like to see more creatures from these other areas. More kami, more oni, more div, more rakshasa, more aberations, more garuda, more peri (I assume there's more than just the base creature since aasimar have those racial variants). Basically, more denizens of the material plane to peak are interest about what Golarion has to offer.
In games where leadership is banned, I think this archetype would lose a lot of its purpose as well as some umph. I originally had the 3.5 swashbuckler in mind when I imagined the cavalier as a pirate, but then I thought of the cavalier's leadership abilities and aimed the pirate in the direction of being kind of a captain-turned-privateer-admiral as he levels up. If leadership is not aloud, then I would give the PoHS (pirate of the high seas) rogue talents at the 3rd level and every 3 levels beyond the third, or give him the canny defense ability and have it stack with any levels in duelist for determining how many points of intelligence he may add to his AC.
I see what you mean about sneak attack. Having the pirate advance his sneak attack at the 2nd level and every even numbered level thereafter would make it more consistent.
Generally speaking the first order ability is usually a +2 that applies to specific circumstances, and it doesn't usually scale. I felt that pirates savvy kept with this trend well while giving the player more options. If the pirate doesn't get it until level 8, then I would say that his allies should benefit from it as well, if they would benefit from the pirate's banner, or "Jolly Roger", ability.
MC Templar wrote:
You're probably right about its superiority. I wanted to give it a good amount of flexibility because, in playing as this archetype, you have no other choices in your order, so I wanted players to feel like they had options. If you decide to use this in one of your games, I suggest either making it a move action, and then decreasing it to a swift action around 10th level, or make it so that the player has to make the decision that day and stick with it. Thanks for the feedback, btw.