Nawiex's page

Yes that is the topic. Im totally ok with it but i want to clarify that this is a houseule, not RAW or RAI.
I would like (as my gm) maybe a clarification, errata or hidden rule that explain this more clearly. :D

@ Nawiex:

Ultimately it ends up meaning that there isn't yet another exploit based on being neutral. And I think that's fine. With 5 out of 9 alignments to choose from, you still have more options than a LG or CE cleric.

Nop, i actually have less options than being LG or CE, because im limited to animals and elementals, and those clerics have access to them too. Almost every other option has 2 alignments involved, except for a few exceptions (that again are open for a wide variety of clerics, because of having only one alignment restriction). According to my GM i have my advantage covered by being able to prepare the four kind of protections (protection from evil, good, chaos and law).

I agree that those spells are OP when used against the right alignment, but a summon is more versatile since you don't have to specifically prepare "summon archon" like you do with protection from evil. To be able to do it right you need more skills/spells involved, and usually an specific spell prepared like protection from chaos is an easy target to transform to "cure" spell, because is not that useful unless you KNOW you are going to face a chaotic challenge.

Well i marked this as FAQ but i think im with no luck since everybody seems to understand how this works lol, ill be summoning animals with my cleric xD

Perfect way to explain, thank you Kazaan

There is a logical fallacy in your statement.

Because Person A dislikes Person B and Person C, it doesn't necessarily mean that Person B and Person C dislike Person A.

Opposed: diametrically different

If we take that A opposes B and C, but don't necessarily B opposes C and A, then we are screwed because we end with more dilemmas. Its not about "who likes who" its about what is opposite to what.

Well being honest he is a good gm, he sometimes enjoy making the players feel desperate and frustrated, but well.. thats his thing. He normally search for the rules and tries to find something right RAW and RAI. Thats why im not sure about this, i guess everyone makes a mistake from time to time. Anyway im really glad you all of your responses. At least the topic is clarified, the community has spoken and i know im not the only one who thinks this way!

Checking everything you say here is actually useful, specially the guy who mentioned the ultimate campaign, it helps to clarify things. The main problem here was the summoning system. They dont want the neutral cleric to be able to summon all the possible monsters with "Summon Monster".

The GM statements are:

- A cleric gets his spells from their god (developer said this)
- Neutral is against every "extreme", on alignment description (core rulebook)
- A cleric cant cast spells with alignment opposed to them or their deities.

So TN cant cast summon mosnter to get an archon, because it becomes a LG spell and his god hates extremes, since LG is extreme, he cant do it.

That is what GM says and makes perfect logic for him, he even asked it on another forum and got some ppl supporting it, os now he proceeds to say that as a "rule", not a house rule.

The statements from the players are:

- Ok, so alignment is a thing that can get messy, but there are some mechanics that the game itself says are defined on the stat blocks (like devils being LE), one of these things are spell descriptors.

- On the cleric entry Core Rulebook it says: Clerics cant cast spells with alignment opposed to their alignment or their deity alignment. Spells get their alignment as descriptors, it mentiosn 4 descriptors. Also in the magic chapters we can find the types of descriptros and it says that spells can have more than one descriptor.

- There is no "neutral descriptor", nor "Lawful good" descriptor. There is just [LawfuL,Good] as two descriptors.

And here is the point where we have the problem. Player says that if neutral is opposed to "extremes", then extreme should be opposed to neutral, so every "extreme" character from "extreme" deity shouldnt be able to cast any "neutral" spell. Gm says: that is why there is no [neutral] descriptor.

The thing ended in "agree to disagree" but since the gm is the gm, we do what he says. I am 100% sure that this is not the actual ruling, nor RAW or RAI, but i needed actual reference from the rule set.
Gm said: When you GM, i will be totally ok if you say that neutral is not opposite to extremes, but if i am GM, i dont think so.

I hope some developers throw a hint on this or actually state what opposite means for characters like clerics and inquisitors, because apparently, what we play are interpretations, not clear facts.

Yes its just for clarifying the rules. Its important to use to play by the rules :) Thank for your responses, i hope the developers make some extra clarification.

He is looking for some rule that says that neutral has no opposites... all arguments presented to him where like this. But he says that the item is defining it. He is looking for something that says something like this:

"The neutral alignment has no opposite alignments"

He says no, because there is no "neutral" descriptor, so it only works one way apparently. I tried to state that saying that a lawful good cleric wouldnt be able to cast any spell that doesnt have lawful and good as a descriptor. He also said that "lawful good" is a descriptor different from good, or lawful and that is the reason why there isnt a "neutral" descriptor, for lawful good clerics to be able to cast other spells.

The real problem is that he says that the example is clear, in the Helm of Opposite alignment and because of that "neutral" is opposite of LG, CG, LE, CE.

Hello!
We have a concern in our campaign about the opposite alignment of neutral characters. When using the "Summon Monster" Spell, this spell becomes spell of this creatures alignment.
What i found is that the spell can have one or more descriptors of the different types (in this case lawful and good for archons for example)
So a neutral cleric from a neutral deity cant cast it to summon archon because LG es opposed to neutral, according to the gm.

I have a few questions:
Is the opposite alignment defined anywhere in the core rulebook?
where does it say that chaos is opposite to law and good to evil.

The Gm says that true neutral is opposite to "extreme" alignments, so is opposite to LG, LE, CG, CE.
He uses the Helm of Opposite alignment as example.

What i found in the rulebook about this case:

Cleric cant cast spells with alignments descriptors opposed to their deities alignment, summon monster adquires the descriptors of the monster summoned.

He also uses the rule about the "steps" from the alignment section to define opposite alignment. Found in the page 166 of the Core Rulebook. What i understand is that this is for effets and rules that use steps of alignment like for example a cleric cant be of an alignment more than one step from his deity alignment.

I would appreciate answers based on actual rules and not just opinions because he says that anything that is not written is invalidated.

Thanks!

Well it seems to me that its not possible to do any of the things i wanted to do, as RAW its not completely clear as RAI we got different opinions, some people say yes, some people say no. The thing is that its not well defined if the pounce full attack is considered a charge attack, i will have to ask my DM about how are we going to take this.
On the other part i guess its not possible to stack 2 effects of natural attacks considered as larger. I will revise again the feats and the rules and make some adjustments to my character, thanks for all your help and quick responses, i will leave this thread open because i think there is still things to consider and rules that need to be clarified.

The problem here is that you can actually pounce and get rhino hide with just the core rulebook, lets say, my build but only with bestiary I and core rulebook, i wildshape into a dire tiger while wearing Rhino Hide, then i pounce and got a lot of attacks that work that way.

Then comes to me another questions:
That post mention the combo doesnt work because you had to "back and stab" again to get a second attack with the lance and that "loses" the power of the charge that is supposed to add the extra damage.

Ok, but right now im talking about 2 MAGICAL items that create a magical effect.
Besides the thing is that i am doing an attack with a different "weapon" every time so i dont have to back and stab, the main reason for me to say this is that my primary natural attacks share the same attack bonus no matter if i do a full attack and that makes me think that they are performed at the same time, correct me if i am wrong.

If that is true then i should be able to add the Rhino hide and belt of thunderous charge bonuses, to all my natural attacks.

Now im considering changing my build from 6 druid 1 ranger to 7 druid to get acces to Strong Jaw spell, another question comes to my mind xD
And also,i have totemic transformation from saurian druid, that gives me a bite attack, does that mean that i am capable of getting the feat improved natural weapon (bite)?

If that is the case, if i wild shape into my dinosaur i get the benefit of it and get an improved bite attack as wildshaped, then cast Strong Jaw on myself with natural spell and make my bite attack advance 1 more step?

If that is the case can i stack this with the effect of the belt of thunderous charge, making it advance 2 more steps?

The numbers should look like this:

normal totemic transformation (medium size character) - bite (1d6)
with improved natural attack (bite) - 1d8
wildshaped into allosaurus (huge size) - 3d6
Strong Jaw - 4d6 (or 3d8 im not sure about this)
charging with my belt - 8d6 (or 6d8)

Hmm im new to this forum so i cant find that answer, in case that is correct, do both items only affect the first attack?

Does anybody got a link for it?

Hi, im new posting to this forums but i've played pathfinder RPG for a while.

Right now im focusing at building a saurian druid and now i need to solve an important question regarding the rules of the combo pounce+rhino hide.

I've seen a lot of posts regarding this question but couldnt find an answer.

My druid is a saurian druid 6/ranger 1, i got the wildshape into dinosaurs of huge size. I want to transform into an Allosaurus (bestiary II) that has pounce+rake combo, and i want to wear the rhino hide armor.

The question is: Can i get +2d6 of damage on every succesfull atack of my pounce (including rake attacks)?

The rules involved are:

Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a
single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and
take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.

Pounce (Ex) When a creature with this special attack
makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake
attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).

Rhino Hide: This +2 hide armor is made from rhinoceros hide. In addition
to granting a +2 enhancement bonus to AC, it has a –1 armor
check penalty and deals an additional 2d6 points of damage
on any successful charge attack made by the wearer, including
a mounted charge.

So taking in account this definitions i would say this:

When you make a charge you MAY MAKE single melee attack, but because of pounce you CAN MAKE a full attack (including rake), rhino hide gives you an additional 2d6 of damage on ANY successful charge attack made by the wearer.

So the big question is: Does every attack of the full-attack of the pounce ability are considered charge attacks?

From my point of view i can say that in the charge because it says that you my decide to make a single melee attack after moving in the charge, and so you may decide to make a full attack in the charge because of the pounce ability, both definitions state that those are considered charge attacks for the purpose of Rhino Hide.

Another example is this one, im planning to use this item too on the same druid:

Belt of Thunderous charging:

An engraving of a charging rhinoceros
decorates this thick leather belt. The
belt grants its wearer a +2 enhancement
bonus to Strength. Treat this as a
temporary ability bonus for the first 24 hours the belt is worn.
The belt magnifies the wearer’s momentum whenever she
charges, granting her a +2 bonus on bull rush and overrun
maneuvers.
Furthermore, when the wearer makes a charge
attack, her melee weaponS and natural weaponS deal
damage as if they were one size category larger than they
actually are.

So if i make my pounce charge attack all my natural attacks should get the bonus.

The numbers should look like this:

Bite:
normal 2d6, with belt 3d6
Claw:
normal 1d8, with belt 2d6
Talon: (rake)
normal 1d8, with belt 2d6