Hi there!
two fast tule questions:
-I've just noticed that the paragraph about barbarians's change of alignment is missing. What does officially happen now to a barbarian that becomes LAWFUL? Is it up to the DM?
-Is there a table that contains every single animal on the bestiary suitable for becoming a druid's (or ranger's or paladin's etc) companion? It would be useful!
Thanks a lot!
1 he stops being a barbarian and can no longer gain levels in it, he does not however lose any ablitys he had
2. The bestiary Appendix 7 page 316, has that list
The bestiary Appendix 7 page 316, has that list
Holy crap, I never noticed that. Awesome.
1 he stops being a barbarian and can no longer gain levels in it, he does not however lose any ablitys he had
2. The bestiary Appendix 7 page 316, has that list
Thanks for your reply! :)
1. Sorry, but... is that the official Paizo ruling or it's your speculation?
2. Awesome! I've completely missed it! Thanks!
It's in the book, so it's not speculation.
It's in the book, so it's not speculation.
What page number? It is not presently in the class description that I can see.
On page 31 it list Alignment as any nonlawful.While your answer is an entirely reasonable interpretation The rules as written do not seem to spell out what happens when you stop being lawful in the class description.
|
It's in the book, so it's not speculation.What page number? It is not presently in the class description that I can see.
On page 31 it list Alignment as any nonlawful.
While your answer is an entirely reasonable interpretation The rules as written do not seem to spell out what happens when you stop being lawful in the class description.
Yeeeaaahhhh, its not in the SRD either.
I don't have a 3.5 book handy but it said specifically right?
That seems like a big thing to miss.
It's in the book, so it's not speculation.
Actually no. I think they miss this rule bit from 3.5 handbook.
It's only said that barbarian must be nonlawful, and that's all.
Exactly guys. Unlike the Paladin that has an entrance about ex-paladins and such there is no such thing in the barbarian, not about losing abilities, so he doesn't.
Nowhere in Pathfinder Core does it list a penalty to the Barbarian for changing to a "lawful" alignment. That said, I would rule that a Barbarian that becomes Lawful, can no longer advance as a barbarian.
Don't have to house rule it, a requirement for the class is non-lawful. You don't lose any abilities from the class you already have, but, to take another level you have to qualify for the level, including meeting any prerequisites (just like a prestige class). So, if you have a neutral good barbarian who's level 9 and he becomes lawful, when he hit's 10, he has to take a different class (probably fighter). He can still keep his 9 levels of barbarian, and benefits thereof, but he fails to meet the class prerequisite of non-lawful at 10th, and can't take a level therefore.
Exactly guys. Unlike the Paladin that has an entrance about ex-paladins and such there is no such thing in the barbarian, not about losing abilities, so he doesn't.
From your previous post.
It's in the book, so it's not speculation.
So more correctly you are saying It's not in the book so there is no penalty. And I am convinced and agree with you.
Since it was in the 3.5 rules this is a significant change.
Welcome to barbarian monk multi class CMB dominance.
|
you have to qualify for the level, including meeting any prerequisites (just like a prestige class)
In fact (and funny enough), in the rules as written, it's a bit ambiguous, as one could understand you only need to meet the prerequisites for the first level of a prestige class... :-m
Unlike the core classes, characters must meet specific requirements before they can take their first level of a prestige class. If a character does not meet the requirements for a prestige class before gaining any benefits of that level, that character cannot take that prestige class.
You must be able to qualify for this level before any of the following adjustments are made.
RAI would be, of course, to meet the requirements before being able to gain a level in any class (prestige or not), I think.
Ok, the barbarian-monk argument has got me! :D
Thanks guys! :)
Barbarian Monk are AWESOME. I'm trying to play one, but my DM is resistant.
The only penalty before was losing Rage. Probably an intentional move here. If not I suppose there will be an errata eventually.
Why would there be? it's completelly ilogical.
I'm not resistant... I'm just reasonable... Until we get an OFFICIAL FAQ or Errata I won't do it!
Nowhere in Pathfinder Core does it list a penalty to the Barbarian for changing to a "lawful" alignment. That said, I would rule that a Barbarian that becomes Lawful, can no longer advance as a barbarian.
That's kind of the obvious result. Why does everyone feel the need to state he can no longer advance as a barbarian? Duh. It's like saying "I rule that a character that isn't an Elf can't advance as an Elven Archer." You don't meet reqs, you don't get to add levels in a class.
Barbarian Monk are AWESOME. I'm trying to play one, but my DM is resistant.
Who needs to be a monk? Just focus on punching people. I mocked up a brawler Barbarian for a 3.5 game. Just get some gauntlets and start ruining people's stuff. Of course it was easier in 3.5 what with all the class replacement abilities (though I think half of them came from Dragon Magazine ironically).
I never liked the "non lawful" bit about Barbarians. What, a Barbarian can't live by a code of honor and loyalty?
I never liked the "non lawful" bit about Barbarians. What, a Barbarian can't live by a code of honor and loyalty?
These 'Barbarians' are not thier historical conterparts, whom generally had very well defined cultures. These guys are the primal warriors; the guys that flick the 'kill switch' in the back of thier heads and let loose.
A rigid and well fortified mind simply cant do it. Its like telling someone with a compulsion to clean to completly wreck a room, they just cant make the mental leap.
...well they can but that generally would result in them being unable to keep thing clean...
Also 'chaotic' characters can have an honor of sorts; theirs is simply looser than others. Loyalty to clan and family are one thing, but ask them to hold their tongue in front of the Emperor and they won’t get it.
The reason rangers get a smaller core list is because they're already good at fighting. They, in theory, don't NEED a bad-ass animal companion to fight for them; a ranger's companion is more akin to a mount or a messenger or a scout than a combat buddy. As a result, the additional animal companions in the Bestiary are not part of the ranger core list.
The list in the bestiary is for DRUIDS ONLY!! Rangers are restricted to the list in the Core book under the Ranger entry. You can house rule any other animal for ranger, but officially they are restricted.
There is nothing preventing a fully chaotic person from having his own code of conduct that he follows.
However- Making him follow -your- code of conduct.. well.. good luck with that one.
-S
That might be an interesting topic of it's own, because I know for a fact that everyone has their own opinions about what a given alignment means. I've run into more alignment arguments irl then any other topic in D&D.
True enough.
Its one of those things they never really nail down properly, but also can't really afford to remove completely without really shuffling the deck.
Its one of the more fun things about being a Paladin.. trying to be true to an alignment that has no strict definition. woohoo!
-S
I'm not resistant... I'm just reasonable... Until we get an OFFICIAL FAQ or Errata I won't do it!
Funny thing though mate. You want an errata on something that is clear. It's not a matter of argument or debate. So there won't be an errata and you will have it your way it seems, simply because you do not agree with what the book says (or in that case, does not say).
I'm not resistant... I'm just reasonable... Until we get an OFFICIAL FAQ or Errata I won't do it!Funny thing though mate. You want an errata on something that is clear. It's not a matter of argument or debate. So there won't be an errata and you will have it your way it seems, simply because you do not agree with what the book says (or in that case, does not say).
I have to agree it is clear. You can not advance as a barbarian with a lawful AL, but it lists no penalty for not being lawful. Therefore you loose nothing but can no longer advance in that class
Pretty cut and dry
Yup, there is no FAQ or anything necessary.
Being non-lawful is nothing but a requirement to take levels in barbarian. So when you can't fulfill the requirement anymore, you can't take more levels. It's that simple.
Bro... This thread is over 8 years old. It's from the very beginning of Pathfinder's existence. That bit of thread necromancy was entirely unnecessary.