Razh's page

Interesting opinions! Seems like I will have some trouble if I decide to make a campaign that way. What you think of this scenario I was planning:

The main villain will be a angel. He was corrupted by powerful forces, becoming cruel and evil - the opposite of everything he once was. He fell on the abyss, quickly growing stronger as he defeated other demons, as he possessed the power to absorb the strength of those who he defeats.

Eventually, the angel managed to defeat his first demon lord, absorbing its powers. With it, he went to kill other stronger lords, acquiring even more power as each of them fell to him.

At some point he will have defeated the strongest demon lords and
combined the strenght of all of them in his body - a power that could outmatch even a god, becoming the "ultimate evil". With it he united the entire abyss, as no demon could challenge him anymore, and went to conquer the other planes.

The gods started to fear his growing influence, and a few tried to stop his advance. Still, it was too late, and the first god died by his hand, becoming a part of the angel's powers. Those who tried to fight were defeated just like the first, and one by one the planes were being conquered.

Eventually he gazed over the mortal plane, and his endless armies invaded to conquer everything, his lieutenants commanding them as he personally invaded other parts of the multiverse. The PCs will fight against his forces of demons/devils/corrupted beings, and unite the entire world for this war, receiving the help of the remaining gods to resist the invading forces.

In the end they will have defeated the enemy commanders, attracting the angel attention. Then, he will send his most powerful lieutenant to destroy the resistance - Iomedae, the only god who he spared on defeat, corrupting her essence so she would represent the opposite of everything she once was, serving him.

The PCs will, with the help of the remaining gods, have their final battle against her. They wont be able to win this fight, but with their sacrifice will defeat her, preventing one of the continents from being corrupted by the evil forces.

Then, the next campaign will be in that said continent, were the PCs will try to restore the other regions who were corrupted in these events, while finding a way to prevent the angel from causing further damage!

This is mostly some ideas Ive been toying with for the next campaign, a lot of things will happen in between these events too. It got a bad ending, but maybe the pcs can find another way to finish it, who knows.

By the way, I personally wouldnt tell that to the players, as I dont find it interesting when you know how something will end, even because the chances of failure dont tend to be 100% (but very close for this example).

I was wondering, would it be bad to create a campaign were the PCs are supposed to fail at the end, instead of saving the world like it always happens? Not exactly 100% chance of failure, but an almost certain chance of it happening.

For example, an evil god has ascended and want to destroy golarion. The PCs could battle against his evil forces during the campaign, and in the end that said god will be just one step to destroy the entire world, but the pcs cant defeat him. Instead, they sacrifice themselves in a battle against his lieutenant, managing to protect a small part of the population while all the other living beings are anihilated.

To me, it seems like it would be an interesting way to end the campaign, while also giving the opportunity for the next campaign to be in a post-apocalyptic golarion, were the remaining races united themselves to fight the hordes of evil creatures to survive in a destroyed world!

There are varying degrees of failure - the god could just have won and destroyed everything, but I find it more interesting when there's space for another campaign to continue in that setting.

What you guys think? I particularly dont like the idea of good always defeating evil, so im attracted to the idea of an interesting campaign with a bad end (not bad in terms of not enjoyable, but in terms of the good guys being defeated), although im not sure about what players in general think of this, so it would be cool to see your opinions!

Love history lessons, specially about katanas and how animes give us a wrong image about them. Keep'em coming folks!

I really want to do a team-up, now, against something they would both oppose. Imagine Asmodeus or Zon-Kuthon making a real push into the world.

Now I wonder, would Seelah walk around with some anti-paladin if they had a foe in common? This could lead to some hilarious situations...

I say anti-pally. But then again, I prefer the evil guys over the do-gooders.

What? At least -someone- here has to be of evil alignment, we have too many heroes already.

Im working on the premise here that you folk dont consider mudane lies = rape. But if thats how you think, I can understand your reasoning.

But to me, diplomacy/bluff doesnt equal rape.

Could you and the others stop hijacking my thread? This was supposed to be a healthy discussion...

I dont want my thread to get locked, but if this continues, this is probably what is going to happen. Please tone down folks!

My thread imploded T.T

Lets calm down folks, this discussion is getting a bit too heated. That was one example, the objective here is to discuss what can and cannot be considered evil with the use of enchantment spells, like charm/dominate person.

Naruto (awesome nick by the way!) nailed it down pretty well: two questions here, what is evil and how much it is evil. What is the limit to cross before you get an alignment change? This is a very tricky part of the alignment system, as everything is hard to define with precision.

I see it being used mostly by fighters at the first few levels and then getting retrained for something else later on.

Razh wrote:

The spell also says that you can order them to do something with an opposed charisma check. I dont think that part relates with diplomacy, specially when you're not adding skill ranks to the check or anything else, just charisma modifier. Im reading this as if that order can be anything as long as you dont ask him to kill or hurt himself, but I can see it being argued both ways, thought.

I prefer my method because if you simply go with the opposed charisma check, the spell is essentially as good as if not better than Dominate Person.

I dont think its as good as dominate person. First, the duration of dominate is way longer, so you can actually maintain a follower through multiple encounters for days. Also, the opposed charisma check only takes into consideration your charisma modifier against the target's charisma. Unless you put everything into this score, you will be finding a lot of enemies with equal if not higher modifiers, and even if you specialize that is still a dice roll against enemies that could have a modifier close to yours.

Dominate person works of dc, which is improved not only by your charisma, but also spell level, feats, etc. The save of the opponents also gets higher, but with it you dont have chances of rolling low while the opposed check rolling higher on charm person, so your chances of getting it off are higher.

Edit:

I also think that by your way, it makes the "obviously harmful..." text redundant since it comes after "suicidal". Why put that there unless it was meant to be further constricting?

Also note that these text comes after mentioning orders and such. So I believe its meant to be applied to that as well.

Good point on here, though. I may rethink about my ruling on this spell.

Razh wrote:

So, its pretty clear that charm person makes your target perceive you as a friend. But it also let you order him to do something he normally wouldnt, if you make an opposed charisma check.

Now, how far can this go? Can you order someone to kill a person he loves, or to sleep with you? If so, would it be an evil act to force them into something they dont want to do?

I have a player in my group using it do some questionable things, and with his high charisma he tends to have good chances at the opposed check. Even if spells like charm/dominate person arent inherently evil, I would say that forcing someone into doing something they normally would never agree to is a harder evil act.

What are your thoughts?

Personally I run it like you magically make them think you're their friend. If the first thing you say is something along the lines of "KILL YOUR FAMILY!" the spell is immediately broken. "The target never obeys harmful orders." This can easily be read as anything violent you suggest to them isn't carried out. If you want them to do something crazy like killing their loved ones, you need to make several checks to convince someone that. And some people just flat out wont do it. As for the barmaid question, if shes not sleeping with all her friends or promiscuous already, shes not going to sleep with you anyways.

The spell also says that you can order them to do something with an opposed charisma check. I dont think that part relates with diplomacy, specially when you're not adding skill ranks to the check or anything else, just charisma modifier. Im reading this as if that order can be anything as long as you dont ask him to kill or hurt himself, but I can see it being argued both ways, though.

Razh wrote:

I agree that using it on someone evil to do charity (something he probably would never agree to) isnt a bad thing, I would even say that its a good thing as you're making him pay for his actions withouth a more extreme punishment like death.

If I rob someone and give the money to charity, does that change the fact that my initial act was theft one iota? Having your ends justify your means is a slippery slope. Disregarding the will and desires of others is a classic path of how good and intelligent beings slip into evil.

It's no different if you make someone give to charity by overriding his free will and/or judgement. It's an act of coercion and theft.

Some laws enforce community work on a person to pay for his crimes, like theft, even if its against his will to do so. Its not so different when you're forcing him to do charity, he's paying the community for something that he did, it just so happens that instead of being locked up on a jail for refusing to do so, the magic just doesnt let him to refuse it in the first place.

Another example: the BBEG is going to kill a innocent person, but also knows that if he doesnt do this, his boss will kill him. He have nothing against that guy, but he has to do it to survive. Would it be evil to use magic to prevent him from killing that person, even if that means that you will strip him of his free will of chosing his life instead of that of someone else?

The alignment is way too ambiguous, with inumerous corner cases, a lot of things are open to different interpretations. We cant just say that something is or isnt evil withouth analyzing it from both directions.

Still, if you asked what were our most interesting characters (as I understanded the phrase "What is the fluffiest char you had") I think its a interesting thing to discuss, althought im not quite sure what my favorite characters would be. Too many that I like!

Zhayne wrote:

It depends entirely on what it is you're making them do. If you're making a skinflint give to charity, something he'd normally never agree to, can't see that as being a bad thing.

You brainwashed someone into giving their money away? Sounds pretty evil to me...

Yeah, best not to think too hard about it sometimes.

Putting it that way, it does sounds a bit wrong. But then again, I would think that this is a better punishment than just killing him because evil. Doing charity, even if against his will, is one way of paying back the community for what evil actions he has commited in the past.

By the way, how much experience does he get for ressurecting this? I mean, finding it and using a 9th level spell to bring it back to life must have been a heck of a challenge, dont ya agree?

I agree that using it on someone evil to do charity (something he probably would never agree to) isnt a bad thing, I would even say that its a good thing as you're making him pay for his actions withouth a more extreme punishment like death.

Im asking more on the lines of morally dubious things like charming an innocent barmaid to sleep with you, when normally she would never agree to it. In fact, there are a lot of alignment implications on those spells, depending on how you decide to use them.

So, its pretty clear that charm person makes your target perceive you as a friend. But it also let you order him to do something he normally wouldnt, if you make an opposed charisma check.

Now, how far can this go? Can you order someone to kill a person he loves, or to sleep with you? If so, would it be an evil act to force them into something they dont want to do?

I have a player in my group using it do some questionable things, and with his high charisma he tends to have good chances at the opposed check. Even if spells like charm/dominate person arent inherently evil, I would say that forcing someone into doing something they normally would never agree to is a harder evil act.

What are your thoughts?

Holy Cow, four years necro? Now thats what I call true ressurection!

I think the summoner should be added to this scenario (I mean for research purposes, obviously!). You know, their eidolon can get really big, so they would have the advantage in a grapple contest, right? Yeah, I dont think the succubus could win in a situation like this. After all, size DOES matters. At least in a grapple, that is.

Man, the OP should really clarify what he wanted to say... I mean, I saw unclear posts before, but this is just over the top.

Vincent's interpretation seems good to me, but I guess the phrase "What is the fluffiest char you had" could also imply "fluffiest" as most interesting and "char you had" as character youve made, so he could also be asking what's the most interesting character that we made.

...What?

I believe that there are valid arguments for either one of those interpretations, though.

What about adding a rogue to flank? Those sneaky attacks on the back gotta hurt y'know... Bonus points if she was also unaware of you! Surprise round?

Also take a look at bladebound magus. If the blade gets in disagreement with him, it can try to take over control with a will save. Easy to rp as some kind of entity trying to posses you, although you and the blade have to be the same alignment.

Pupsocket wrote:

Sir Dante wrote:

Flavor wise I'm trying to build something like the following characters:
Here's what I'm thinking for a level 7 character:

Fighter 6-7, then duelist.
Weapon of choice: Rapier or Scimitar.
Feats: Spring attack, Crane style feats and Step up and strike? not sure of that one yet but sounds really solid to me.
Traits: Silent hunter,

Any particular reason you're not using the Swashbuckler class?

The swashbuckler class? You mean the rogue archetype?

He meant the Swashbuckler class on the playtest, the one that will come out in the advanced class guide.

For your duelist, crane style is a must, two parrys/riposte per round is just too good to pass. Take a look at this thread for some cool ideas for your build.

Kitsunes also make better enchanters than humans. Their bonuses to compulsion spells is just too good to pass.

Apparently in the ACG next year we will be getting a core feat that allows you to get DEX to damage with any weapon, be it only one of your choice.

Where did you got that information? Gotta say, this sounds quite interesting.

Indeed, weapon finesse is just a feat tax for dervish dance. I suggest a house rule where dervish dance can be used with any weapon that you also have weapon finesse with.

If the players are okay with PvP and there's a good reason for it in-game, I allow it. If there's bitter feelings afterwards and out-of-game conflicts, I totally forbid it.

It really comes down to what sort of group you're playing with, their level of maturity and their own expectations about the game.

Aasimar (Angelkin) Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple/Champion - 15 point buy

Str 13
Dex 12
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 8
Cha 15

+2 Str from Angelkin
+4 From Dragon Disciple
+5 Inherent from Manual
+5 Level Up
+6 Enhancement
+10 Form of the Dragon III
+10 Mythic Rank 10

55 Str

And that was just from a cursory look. I could probably ditch the 10 Mythic Tiers if I search hard enough for a way to get another 6 points of Strength. The worst part of it is that a strength based sorcerer/dragon disciple is not a bad way to go. It could actually be an effective character.

A higher initial strenght and eldritch heritage abyssal in place of manuals for +1 could work here.

Random 2 year necro bump?

Careful there, Cao! To animate such an ancient being, this guy must be using some crazy powerful dark magic! Wouldnt want to get on his bad side, who knows if hes a lich disguised as a forum poster of sorts?

All domain powers require a standard action to activate unless otherwise noted.

I agree with Cheburn. With the mother out of picture, it seems like she wouldnt be the type to follow rules around, it seems that she would have a more neutral, or even chaotic alignment.

She seems to only act on a lawful way because her mother wants her to, so I would say she's probably neutral evil.

Common guys, the OP just want to have a low score on initiative to make funny remarks with the group, it doesnt mean that he will suck at other roles and be dead weight to the team.

He wants to play outside the box, doing something other people dont, for fun and roleplay. Calling it badwrongfun is simply uncool.

Play a halfling barbarian. When you get angry, bite their knees! Oh and dont forget the Childlike feat for more funny moments!

Look, its a halfling kid with an axe! Is it a toy, child? *kid goes berserk and cuts him in half (after biting him in the knee!)* ...Wha?!

Razh wrote:

Sorry for casting "animate thread", but I would like to know if this question has been clarified already. Does your jump ends on the same round you tried it or can you finish its movement on the following round?

I had the same opinion as Ssalarn, but the idea that a halfling with +100 on acrobatics could never jump through a gap of 30 feet kinda made me go towards the latter.

As a side question, your max movement for the round would depend upon which action youre using to jump? ie 30 feet for a normal movement, x4 for a jump while running?

Your theoretical Halfling can jump 40 feet: he can move twice in one round, so 2x20 = 40.

I guess this answers my other question, that your max movement for the round depends on which action youre using to jump (double movement on that case).

On the thread subject, what is the general consensus? Continue the jump on the next round, or that jump finishes on the same round it started?

I agree with Vincent. The point of this thread is exactly that, to prove that the player can make his eidolon looks like anything he wants (short of a specific creature, like Jin The Halfling). Its just for roleplay purposes, hes not getting any mechanical advantage for the cosmetic appearance of his eidolon.

You can make your eidolon look like an angel, my quotes on Ultimate Magic already showed that angels are an example of a choice for "fantastical creature", as well as the many other examples. Your eidolon wont have its type changed, nor it will be able to fly withouth the evo points. Its purely a cosmetic choice, a roleplay choice. And im all in to give my players the option to choose their eidolons appearance for roleplay, instead of just choosing some weird pounce beast monster that only has a purpose on the story when its combat time.

Sorry for casting "animate thread", but I would like to know if this question has been clarified already. Does your jump ends on the same round you tried it or can you finish its movement on the following round?

I had the same opinion as Ssalarn, but the idea that a halfling with +100 on acrobatics could never jump through a gap of 30 feet kinda made me go towards the latter.

As a side question, your max movement for the round would depend upon which action youre using to jump? ie 30 feet for a normal movement, x4 for a jump while running?

A "divine magus" of sorts, eh? It does sounds interesting...

Its not really a question, but im presenting my own arguments for this particular matter. I wanted to base the discussion with rules as written instead of just assumptions, and I thought this would be more suitable to be posted in the rules forum.

In other words, my objective was to prove that you can make your eidolon look like nearly anything you want, withouth having to resort to house rules to do so.

Disclaimer:This is a very long and argumentative thread, and I hope you read everything carefully to really understand all of the points I'll make.

The eidolons appearance had been the source of a lot of arguments about how much freedom the summoner have at designing how it looks like. My objective with this thread is to prove that the eidolon can look like any creature the summoner wants, although he cannot impersonate a specific individual, like Ron The Mad Dwarf. The Ultimate Magic book will be a key point in my arguments.

First, lets take a look a what is said about the eidolon in the class description:

The eidolon's physical appearance is up to the summoner, but it always appears as some sort of fantastical creature. This control is not fine enough to make the eidolon appear like a specific creature. The eidolon also bears a glowing rune that is identical to a rune that appears on the summoner's forehead as long as the eidolon is summoned. While this rune can be hidden through mundane means, it cannot be concealed through magic that changes appearance, such as alter self or polymorph (although invisibility does conceal it as long as the spell lasts).

As you can see, there's three key points in here: fantastical creature, specific creature and glowing rune. So, lets go by parts:

*Specific Creature: Specific creature means exactly that, a specific creature. Specific refers to something "unique", "individual", or "only one option". Creature nearly always means a single being, not a group of beings, like sharks or such. In other words, you could make your eidolon look like an elf, but not the specific elf called Kalenz The Archer, or any other specific individual elf for that matter. You can look like someone from that race, but not a specific person. Now you could say that there are others limitations, like fantastical creature and glowing runes, but we will get to those now.

*Glowing runes: That is built within the rules, so yes, your eidolon always have one of those in its forehead, and anyone who sees it will know that something is not right. But, it also specifies that it can be hidden by mundane means, like a hat covering the forehead or something like that.

*Fantastical Creature: Now, this is the main point of the argumentation, and is where the Ultimate Magic comes in. "Fantastical Creature" is a very vague definition, specially in a fantasy game like pathfinder. Before ultimate Magic, it was very hard to define exactly what could be done with it, but the book brought to us a new view over the eidolon's appearance. Lets see a quote from the summoners section:

The summoner is a complex and unusual class. Its most prominent class feature is the eidolon, a customizable monster that “always appears as some sort of fantastical creature.” What kind of fantastical creature this is remains up to the player. Fortunately, mythology and the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game have many examples of fantastical creatures that an eidolon might resemble, from fish-people to angels, and from spider-centaurs to undead monsters.

As you can see, UM gives multiple examples of what "fantastical creatures" could be, like angels and undeads. This book also brough "Eidolon Models", which are packages with advices for the player to build his eidolon with the appearance of a creature he wants it to be. Lets take a look at some of those packages:

The eidolon looks like a celestial being such as an angel, archon, or azata. Angel eidolons usually appear as beautiful humanoids with large, feathered wings.

It specifically states that the eidolon may look like an angel, archon, or azata, reinforcing my last statement that "Specific Creature" refers to a specific individual, not a type or such. Those are considered, as per the Ultimate Magic, fantastical creatures, and as such your eidolon may look like them (although you need the evolutions for the wings and such). Now, lets take a look at the Fey Model:

The eidolon looks like a fey creature such as a dryad, nymph, pixie, or satyr. Fey eidolons usually appear as attractive humanoids and may have insect or butterfly wings. An aquatic fey such as a nixie can be created by adding the gills and swim evolutions, resulting in a 24-point model.

Again, it specifies that your eidolon may look like a creature such as a nymph or dryad, but again you would need to spend some points to get wings and such, although Ultimate Magic also states:

Using a model does not change the eidolon's type or give it special abilities unavailable to other eidolons—it is basically a shortcut to allow a player or GM to quickly create an eidolon with a specific look in mind. Each model states the total number of evolution points required to build a complete eidolon with that model; in many cases this build requires most of the summoner's evolution points, so only a more powerful summoner's eidolon is a close approximation of the intended creature. For a low-level summoner, some of the eidolon's features (such as extra hydra heads) may be cosmetic until he gains evolution points to spend.

With this in mind, you can look like a nymph, but you dont get the Fey type or something like that, its merely a matter of appearance for roleplay purposes. Secondly, the second bolded phrase also states that until you can afford evolution points for things like wings, those will be merely cosmetic, so although you may have the appearance you want right from the start, you cannot gain advantages for this, such as using those cosmetic wings to fly. This should be obvious, im just reinforcing those points.

Now, we got a lot of examples as to what a "fantastical creature" may be, but there are even more specific cases on this matter, which makes us think what exactly is the range that "fantastical creature" may encompass. To explain those questions, we must take a look at two specific models:

The eidolon looks like a sleek aquatic predator such as a shark or orca.

Now, many would say that an animal that we may encounter in the real world shouldnt be considered a fantastical creature, right? Well, this model specifically shows a shark or orca as being possible examples for a fantastical creature that the eidolon may look like. This again revolves to one of my first arguments: you may look like even a shark, but cannot have the exact same appearance as the Hungry MacSharking, the specific creature that is the druid's animal companion.

With this in mind, we could safely assume, by having this prior precedence, that eidolons can look like an animal, even an aquatic one like a shark, as long as he doesnt have the same appearance as a specific one, like the monkey he just met in the tree. This also doesnt limit itself for those though, as vermin are also an option for models:

The eidolon looks like a large insect or other vermin. Taking the limbs (legs) evolution an additional time creates a giant spider.

This one also states that you may look like a vermin, such as a giant spider, which means even vermins are also an option.

Now, what about the more common races? Following the previous statements, It seems logical to consider such races like gnomes and elves as an option for the eidolons, each with its own ties to the fey or nature themselves, being essentially fantastical. We have precendence for other races being allowed as an appearance option for the eidolons:

The eidolon has the upper body of a humanoid and the lower body of a fish. This model can be used to create an aquatic humanoid such as a merfolk or sahuagin.

Essentially, your eidolon may even look like a merfolk or sahuagin by following this model. Again, you can only look like someone from their race, but cannot impersonate a specific individual from them.

Now, what aboult humans? Could they also be considered "fantastical creatures" for the purpose of looking like them? Lets take a look at another model:

The eidolon looks like a humanoid warrior. The natural armor of a bodyguard eidolon appears to be a suit of metal plate, though this armor is actually part of the eidolon's body. Bodyguard eidolons are normally trained in a variety of dangerous weapons.

This only states a "humanoid warrior". It doesnt specify races and, as such, could also be a human. He cannot take off his armor as its part of his body, but his appearance is essentially that of a human (or any other humanoid) with armor. He may not bypass as a specific individual, but he may look like someone who belongs to that race.

Now, as I hope my points got well explained, I want to reiterate the arguments of this whole thread: your eidolon may look like any creature you want, even from some race like merfolk, as the models have proven my statements about those being considered "fantastical creatures". What you cant do is look exactly like a specific person of that race or type, and as such you gain no mechanical advantages besides the roleplay aspect of it (you could still specialize in disguise if you wanted, but that comes with the price of spending evo points). Also, dont forget that whatever form you take, you always have the "glowing rune" on the forehead, and as such someone would immediately know that something is wrong with your eidolon, unless you hide it in some mundane form, like a hat or such.

With all that said, I hope that I have enlightened the community as to the near endless choices that are available to them for customising the eidolon's appearance, and thus improving the roleplay aspect of such a great class as this.

Razh wrote:

When I saw this class I immediately thought about hunters from ragnarok (the MMO), who had animal companions to fight with them, as well as being able to use traps against their enemies. It would be cool if we could add something like a "trap mechanic" to this hunter, maybe something along these lines:

"Normal trap: You place a normal trap in any adjacent square. If someone passes through it, the trap is triggered, doing lethal damage plus preventing the target from moving for 1 round. He gets a reflex save to avoid these effects."

"Ice trap: You place an ice trap in any adjacent square. If someone passes through it, the trap is triggered, doing cold damage plus affecting him with slow (as per the spell, CL equals hunter level). He gets a reflex save to avoid these effects."

"Explosive trap: You place an explosive trap in any adjacent square. If someone passes through it, the trap is triggered, releasing an explosion (as per the fireball spell, centered on target, CL equals hunter level). He gets a reflex save to avoid half damage."

Just throwing some ideas, as traps seems to combine well with the concept of a hunter, in my opinion.

This! This is actually exactly what I had in mind when I heard about the class. The trap building would fit the flavor brilliantly, especially with the class name being hunter. I assumed that they would have an animal companion, similar to a hunting dog. To add traps to this class would be very interesting. I've never come across a trap-builder, and I feel that this would be incredibly fun to play.

Indeed, the trap-builder mechanic would add a lot of flavor to the hunter, as traps combine very well with the concept of one. Its also easy to balance this, in the above example he could have the normal/explosive trap on low levels, while on high levels he could get more powerful effects added to them, like stun.

When I saw this class I immediately thought about hunters from ragnarok (the MMO), who had animal companions to fight with them, as well as being able to use traps against their enemies. It would be cool if we could add something like a "trap mechanic" to this hunter, maybe something along these lines:

"Normal trap: You place a normal trap in any adjacent square. If someone passes through it, the trap is triggered, doing lethal damage plus preventing the target from moving for 1 round. He gets a reflex save to avoid these effects."

"Ice trap: You place an ice trap in any adjacent square. If someone passes through it, the trap is triggered, doing cold damage plus affecting him with slow (as per the spell, CL equals hunter level). He gets a reflex save to avoid these effects."

"Explosive trap: You place an explosive trap in any adjacent square. If someone passes through it, the trap is triggered, releasing an explosion (as per the fireball spell, centered on target, CL equals hunter level). He gets a reflex save to avoid half damage."

Just throwing some ideas, as traps seems to combine well with the concept of a hunter, in my opinion.

Totally legit. Really, I wouldnt penalize some teamwork like this, specially when this is definitely not optimal. If the paladin attacked, they would be doing way more damage (although this is probably against his code).

Lets keep faqing guys! This thread is perfect to answer all of those stacking questions.

I see, so the correct ruling is half level or higher, right? The wording "must have a number of Hit Dice equal to half the magus’s character level" seemed a bit confusing to me, as it didnt specified something like higher or lower level too.

Life Drinker:

So, im right at assuming that only creatures of exact half the magus level can activate his ability? If yes, this seems to be pretty bad for a capstone. I mean, how many times do you kill a cr 10 creature at level 19~20? Unless he is the BBEG and always brings a bunch of cr 10 underlings to use this, I dont think it will come into play.

Im asking because I want to make sure im understanding the ruling, and to know if this could be possibly a typo and they meant half or lower/half or higher. Thoughts?

If cthulhu can be defeated even withouth mythic ranks (and by a single character!), what could be a possible real challenge for a optimised party of level 20 with 10 mythic ranks? A god? We would need stats for those.

By the way, for those who dont know, the recent discussions about this matter can be found here and here. The thread for faq relating to ability scores being untyped is here, which is also where the most recent debates are.