I've experienced this sort of thing before, and its a matter of when it affects you. The one I am thinking about was in League of Legends, they made a mechanic for a long range caster that made him do more damage the farther he was, cementing his artillery like abilities. In playtesting though (IIRC it never made it to the live game), it didn't feel like a buff for staying away, but a debuff for getting close.
So I expect that the feeling of punishment is that if you multiclass or prestige you you are losing out because it was previously one bonus, and now you are losing that. Now why wouldn't this be enough of a deterrent to stop someone from multiclassing? Because you get different class features for doing so, but flatout lose (barring half elves) this one ability even though the new class has the same mechanic.
Thank you Steve for bringing such great examples to the table. The problem that the OP brought up is a fairly common thing in art, but it usually has this same problem that people don't understand what the complaint is. Its okay for women to be sexy, to wear revealing clothing, etc. That isn't the problem. The problem is when you cross the line between sexy and sexualized.
Paizo has been pretty good about this, to the best of my knowledge. Most of the artwork that comes to my mind when I think of the characters isn't problematic. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and Steve posted a very good example. The OP is not asking for every female character to be covered from head to toe, but the request of avoiding objectifying imagery in the game is hardly outlandish.
I'm with you on Refluffing spells, I usually do it for all my characters. Like my Imperious Bloodline Sorcerer's Mage Armor (such an easy example to use) appeared as golden armor with a crown hovering above his head. My Scarab themed Beastmorph Alchemist would use Shield and it would give his skin a Chitinous look, or if in his Mutagen form, made the Chitin iridescent.
Bit of a tangent here, but, hey.
This is one of the problems with such characters, be they ancient myths or modern comics. There are so many variations that can make statements like this either spot on or absolutely wrong. In this case, if we're talking MCU Tony, yeah, without his gear or time to make something to help him, he really is just a guy. But off hand I can think of an instance of comic book Tony fighting off 5 skrulls in a Skrull prison while naked. His combat prowess in that case is attributed to his training with Cap.
To be clear, I'm not expecting everyone to know all these different variations, nor to feel the need to clarify which one they are referring to every time, it just makes these characters hard to pin down as examples for such discussions.
We've played that you can specify how your spells look, and customize them to some degree (mechanically it does nothing, like if you cast magic missile and yours look skulls, and his look like bees, its the same dc to recognize the spell and stuff like that) so when we had this same thing come up, one thing was how impressive you could make a spell. Much more focus on aesthetics than mechanical skill, though on the fly creations would need a roll to determine if you could get it to work the first time. Something like 1d20 plus your casting stat vs a DC set by the GM based on how intricate the idea was.
For example, one contestant was a druid with a wolf from the north, so he used the Ice Armor spell to create armor with a stylized wolf motif.
In response, my character (A crossblooded Fire/earth Sorcerer, no I didn't pick it, probably isn't even an option) used Mount to create a a horse that rose from the ground made of Volcanic stone. I won that round.
I just remembered another one that I came up with when a player was searching a mural way too hard to find something when nothing was there.
I told him that on part of it he detected magic, strong magic, from a magical weapon of some kind. He narrowed his search and found that the sword one of the characters in the mural was wielding, was actually the blade itself embedded into the wall.
Unfortunately for him, the character in question was in the background.
And thus the +5 Plaque bane toothpick was born.
I see the "arguable familiar" thing for Fi and Ezlo, but Midna is definitely a wizard/sorcerer cohort, not an animal companion or familiar.
Yeah, I really felt like Midna doesn't come across as a familiar, but I see how someone might try to emulate her using some form of Improved Familiar. Thats the only reason I left her on Arguable.
You have a point with Midna, and Navi but Fi is more like the personality of an intelligent item made manifest than a familiar, I would probably use something like the Black Blade to represent Fi. The Minish Cap is really a person, so I would be hesitant to call it a familiar, and definitely lean towards intelligent item.
I Can't comment on the Sheika Slate, because I haven't played BotW yet, but then I got to this part
Are you kidding me? Who in their right mind would use a familiar to represent The King of Red Lions? And once again we have a character who is really a person, but magically changed into an item.
Also, after going through more of it, I don't think I would call Midna a familiar either. The relationship between a Master and a Familiar is very different than Midna and Link's.
Edit: I wanted to see how many familiar like characters Link has had compared to animal companions, and came up with the following list.
Not counting the Oracle games as separate appearances or Eponas non rideable appearances: 8
Counting the arguable ones, its 6, so Link appears to be more likely to have an Animal Companion than a familiar.
Edit 2: Someone just informed me that it is possible to get Wolf Link in Breath of the Wild, but didn't have details, so I'll hold off on adding it to the list.
I've only seen one player use it, and he is a savant. He didn't abuse it, and mostly used it for buffing the party and because he likes doing math.
Some people at the table thought he was just making it up because nobody ever checked his math, until one day he failed, and it looked like it physically pained him.
Irnk, Dead-Eye's Prodigal wrote:
The Verdant Bloodline in APG is for Sorcerers. The one in Ultimate Wilderness is for Bloodragers. They don't/can't use the exact same bloodlines.
Yes, I know that they can't use the same bloodlines, but I skimmed and missed it was a Bloodrager.
The part I bolded caught my eye because one of my characters for Kingmaker was a Verdant Bloodline Sorcerer, thanks for pointing out the BR part though.
I played a Bloodrager/Paladin in Kingmaker that went on to be a swell ruler. He had the Destined Bloodline, though the Verdant Bloodline introduced in Ultimate Wilderness looks really good/flavorful, especially for a Kingmaker game, to the point that I probably would have taken it over Destined. The Holy Guide Paladin Archetype from the Advanced Class Guide also looks like a really cool fit for Kingmaker.
Wasn't the Verdant Bloodline in the Advanced Players Guide? Or is there a different new one?
I am confused then, because many of the suggested options allow you to do exactly what you are looking for.
For instance if you have long arm, you threaten at 5 and 10 feet. When they try to get close to you they move out of a threatened square, and you can make an attack, exactly the same as you could with a reach weapon.
Am I missing something here?
Tower shields are ridiculous items that mostly work well for Stalwart Defenders, as noted above. It's a way to add some levity. We had a character stomping around with a tower shield. It WAS an actual door strapped to her arm. With door handle.
I can't find it right now, but I recall artwork of an adventuring party where the Half orc is wielding a Sarcophagus lid as a tower shield (or maybe a heavy shield). Anybody know what I am talking about?
Note that while the monster guidelines talk about a maximum Int for an animal, this only applies to the creation process. Giving an animal a higher Intelligence score does not somehow transform it into a magical beast, unless the effect says otherwise, such as in the case of awaken. Animals can grow to have an Int higher than 2 through a variety of means, but they should not, as a general rule, be created that way.
From the blog post found Here
Seems obvious to me that this has been true for a while.
The Hymn of Hmm. For the cost of 20 rounds of bardic performance you can use Bardic masterpieces and Bardic Performance at the same time.
I don't see what is unclear. You need 7 levels in Beast Rider.
"In addition, a 7th-level or higher Medium beast rider can select any creature whose natural size is Large or Huge, provided that creature is normally available as a Medium-sized animal companion at 7th level (like a bear)."
Even if it didn't call out beast rider, the standing rule is that any class ability that talks about level means levels in that class unless it specifies character level.
Wait I'm confused, admittedly I didn't read everything, but are people claiming you get no extra attacks if you flurry with a two handed weapon?
If that was the case, why would you ever flurry wth a two handed weapon? I'm honestly curious. What would be the benefit? Why would you explicitly be allowed to?
I'm playing an Ilsurian Archer in a campaign, and though I haven't gotten there yet, I'm looking at a potential problem with Vicious aim.
Vicious Aim (Ex): At 4th level, an Ilsurian archer adds half his highest favored enemy bonus to all attack rolls and damage rolls for attacks made with ranged weapons. This does not stack with his normal favored enemy bonus when targeting a creature that qualifies as a favored enemy. This ability replaces all spellcasting, and the Ilsurian ranger is not considered to have a caster level.
So if I were to lets say start with Favored Enemy human and keep stacking it, at level 5 I would have +4 against humans, and +2 against anything else and the second favored enemy, lets say orcs
But at level 10, if I pump Favored Enemy Human again, would I have +6 vs humans, +2 vs orcs and +3 vs anything else? Or would it be +6 vs humans, +3 vs anything else?
The wording has me slightly confused, because I could see it going either way. Thoughts?
I can't seem to find it at the moment, because I can't remember it's name, but it was a 3.5 joke homebrew class that could ride anything. A prerequisite was a low int score, because you needed to not know that you couldn't ride the thing you wanted to ride.
It could ride literally anything, and I think at later levels it even got 1 hour before the thing in question even got a save. You could just hop on a Tarrasque and control it for an hour before it even had a chance at control.
One guy played it once in a campaign, and we discovered that the source of evil we had been fighting was blot the guy in control of the castle, but the castle itself, so we had to figure out how to destroy it.
I suggested "Hey, couldn't you just ride the castle into a volcano or something? "
To which he replied "Man, you're thinking too small. I'm gonna ride the volcano into the castle! "
We decided not to do that as we knew the Dm already had a quest ready and didn't wasn't you derail the campaign, but he still rode a volcano later.
I jokingly made an Aristocrat for Hells Rebels and was surprised by how useful he was without any class features.
Well I actually made a Vigilante who pretended to be a hired Bodyguard for the aristocrat who was his twin brother so they switched places from time to time, but sometimes I actually was playing the aristocrat.
They have decent proficiencies at least.
When you're holding the charge on chill touch, casting any other spell will dismiss chill touch harmlessly. i.e. casting shocking grasp will lose any remaining charges of chill touch.
Someone recently pointed out this post from James Jacobs saying that's not the case
Not a hard rules source, but may be why the question came up.
RAW you can't take Racial Heritage for the planetouched races, even though those traits exist because you don't get racial traits like that.
The Oread one came up recently, and it also wouldn't work. It just gives you two of the racial traits they have, you don't actually count as a dwarf. The feat is dwarf blooded btw.
Rules have been covered, but I'm definitely in the "depends on the situation" house rule camp. Especially because many forms of martial arts can be practiced without a partner. (The only one I can think of where you really can't is Judo, and you still could for holds, just not throws which is the majority of it)
Like I would allow monkey style for climbing, as well as the ability to hop up as a swift action (it's just a kip up really). But I wouldn't have you negate the prone penalties if you were caught unawares. The reason being, the first two you were using what you've practiced, your body knows how to do it, but the last one you weren't actually ready for combat.
I might even let you activate it before combat starts if you're aware (conversation clearly going that way, you're being threatened, etc)
For elves, I don't remember where it came from, but one of the ways we have handled it was that they age physically fairly similarly to humans, but they're expected to stay in their communities, doing a few things in the 90 or so years before maturity. Primarily, this includes learning about whatever they want and partying so hard over the course of 90 years that they take a penalty to con. By the time they reach 110, they're done partying, they have learned a bit of this and that, and are ready to be productive members of society.
The feat Breadth of Experience could also be used as an indicator of relative experience, because you can take it at level 1 as an elf, implying that they have been going out and doing/ learning things for a very long time.
Interesting, because that's not how I've seen such things broken down before, suggesting to me that you are using different metrics with the same vocabulary.
For instance, the split between caster and frontliner isn't there in terms I've seen before, such as clerics who can be both at once (not too mention magus). Plus casters can easily fall under ranged as well.
So while under your definition, the character is a frontliner, under his it isn't.
On the topic of Rogues, I think something that's being misconstrued is that people saying its the weakest aren't saying you can't do well with a rogue, or even that a rogue can't be better at something than other character. It is just that given the same level of optimization, there are other classes can do what the rogue does (sometimes better than the rogue) along with other things, which makes them a weaker class.
I love rogues, I've loved playing as rogues, and I've even been asked to tone down my effectiveness to be more in line with the rest of the party. I still say they are the weakest class. I find it true if we are just using core, or adding in hardcover books, and other splat books.
Unchained Rogues certainly are better than cor, but they still haven't gotten the sheer amount of support that monks have (who I also consider an especially weak class when using core only,that I still love) to make them better.
Like when Ultimate Combat came out, I remember people referring to it as Ultimate Monk, because of how many new things they put in it for them. Archetypes really gave monks a significant boost, but rogues just didn't get the same level of boosts over the years.
This reminded me, I've also had lots of fun with alchemists because each one can be so different. I once played in a game where it took 4 sessions before two of the players noticed we were the same class. (They just transferred from 3.5, I was a Mr Hyde sort of alchemist, the other player was a bomber)
My characters were often barbarians or sorcerers for a long time, so when Bloodrager came out, I was thrilled.
They also helped with our world building, after Kingmaker sorcerers and Bloodragers were my main go to classes because of an originally off hand comment that snow balled into a multi game theme. I chose the Imperious Sorcerer because it seemed right for Kingmaker, something came up about legality and I said, don't worry I've got a cousin who is an Infernal Lawyer, referencing my previous character, a Tiefling sorcerer who was a lawyer and made deals.
Now every sorcerer and Bloodrager I play are related and sometimes come up in other games. Later in Kingmaker we had a huge festival to celebrate becoming our own Kingdom and one of the main performers was my Maestro bloodline sorcerer from Rise of the Runelords.
So sorcerer, Bloodrager and barbarian are the ones I've had lots of fun with.
Arm bands of the brawler are fairly cheap and give a bonus to grappling.
Giant Ancestry human racial trait gives +1 to cmb.(trades out skilled)
Bred for War human race trait (not racial trait) gives +1 to CMD as well.
I am playing a grappler currently, and thank you for reminding me that the brawling enhancement exists.
I can't even imagine a GM finding out you were intentionally cheating going "you got me" like it's a prank oor something, I would expect it to be more like, "Why would you do that? "
It is abusing your friend's trust. I just don't understand where you're coming from on this, Former Fiend, am I missing something?
You could go for a big crit weapon build and take throat slicer, so when they pin the enemy you can move up and standard action coup de grace, but it needs to be a light, one handed, or natural weapon. Besides that I don't know how you could really synergize with grappling outside of just hitting the opponent.
As for the point about "making" the bombs one handed, I always thought it was more like you have a number of vials already prepared and the alchemist simply grabs one and puts a little magic in then throws it,but I couldn't think why I would think that. So I checked out the bomb class feature and the prd says.
Most alchemists create a number of catalyst vials at the start of the day equal to the total number of bombs they can create in that day—once created, a catalyst vial remains usable by the alchemist for years.
So that might help if anyone has any flavor problems with it.