| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Hunter archetype Verminous Hunter gains animal focus at lvl 1 like a normal hunter but with different options. One of the options grants fast healing 1 and 25% fortification.
If my companion is dead at can I continually have fast healing 1 and 25% fortification up at all times?
Does Verminous Hunter stack with Feral Hunter?
Because Feral Hunter is the one thing I like about Hunters.
EDIT: It doesn't... Too bad. Oh, well... I guess dipping a single level of Hunter then killing the Animal Companion for continuous Fast Healing and permanent Lesser Fortification is still a good idea...
|
Does Verminous Hunter stack with Feral Hunter?
Because Feral Hunter is the one thing I like about Hunters.
EDIT: It doesn't... Too bad. Oh, well... I guess dipping a single level of Hunter then killing the Animal Companion for continuous Fast Healing and permanent Lesser Fortification is still a good idea...
You can also just go Verminous Hunter + Divine Hunter and murder your Companion then never get another. Having a Domain plus two of the Vermin Focuses constantly on you probably isn't quite as good as some other options, but as an Archer with Worm and later Ant focuses...it's not actually bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does Verminous Hunter stack with Feral Hunter?
Because Feral Hunter is the one thing I like about Hunters.
EDIT: It doesn't... Too bad. Oh, well... I guess dipping a single level of Hunter then killing the Animal Companion for continuous Fast Healing and permanent Lesser Fortification is still a good idea...
Yeah, a level of Verminous Hunter is looking tempting along with some bug spray...
EDIT: This is also an awesome way to heal your Wyrwood!
You can also just go Verminous Hunter + Divine Hunter and murder your Companion then never get another. Having a Domain plus two of the Vermin Focuses constantly on you probably isn't quite as good as some other options, but as an Archer with Worm and later Ant focuses...it's not actually bad.Does Verminous Hunter stack with Feral Hunter?
Because Feral Hunter is the one thing I like about Hunters.
EDIT: It doesn't... Too bad. Oh, well... I guess dipping a single level of Hunter then killing the Animal Companion for continuous Fast Healing and permanent Lesser Fortification is still a good idea...
Hunter 1/ Barbarian X sounds fun. Get a domain, kill a cat, get fast healing.
|
|
Hunter 1/ Barbarian X sounds fun. Get a domain, kill a cat, get fast healing.You can also just go Verminous Hunter + Divine Hunter and murder your Companion then never get another. Having a Domain plus two of the Vermin Focuses constantly on you probably isn't quite as good as some other options, but as an Archer with Worm and later Ant focuses...it's not actually bad.Does Verminous Hunter stack with Feral Hunter?
Because Feral Hunter is the one thing I like about Hunters.
EDIT: It doesn't... Too bad. Oh, well... I guess dipping a single level of Hunter then killing the Animal Companion for continuous Fast Healing and permanent Lesser Fortification is still a good idea...
It's actually a giant spider, not a cat. And sadly, that doesn't work since you don't get the Domain until 3rd. Still, Hunter 1 for Fast Healing and Lead Blades, plus the ability to use Wands of CLW on one's friends is no bad deal...
Yeah, verminous Hunter is certainly diptastic.
If you gotta stick around to 3rd level, might as well get to 4th level, then, so the BAB doesn't suffer if you multiclass into another medium BAB class (although most of them wouldn't make a very good combination with Hunter).
4th also gets you second level spells, which is nice. When not in combat, you can either use wasp (+4 perception) or moth (darkvision). In combat, you can either run beetle (+2 natural armor) or ant (+2 str), and if injured, switch into worm.
If you are willing to go to 8th, you get fast healing 2 and medium fort.
Something I've been working on:
Half elf verminous hunter 1:
Str 18, dex 14, con 12, int 10, wis 14, cha 8
feats: Skill focus: Perception, Dodge.
Armor: Scale mail, heavy shield
Weapon: longsword
1st level spells: Summon natural ally 1, lead blades, resist energy
AC is 20 normally, 22 when running beetle. Perception is +15 when running wasp (4 skill + 2 wis, +2 racial, +3 skill focus, +4 competence). Weapon damage is 1d8+4, with lead blades goes to 2d6+4. With ant you get another +1 to hit or damage. When injured, run worm.
If you need an ally, you can summon a giant centipede that will stay around for an entire minute/level. You also can get 10 points of energy resistance at 1st level if needed.
Technically I guess this works, but as a GM I wouldn't allow it. Especially not on a dip.
I think the idea is that should you companion die you have some compensation for its loss until it returns. It's not supposed to be a permanent power up for you.
The Hunter archetype Verminous Hunter gains animal focus at lvl 1 like a normal hunter but with different options. One of the options grants fast healing 1 and 25% fortification.
If my companion is dead at can I continually have fast healing 1 and 25% fortification up at all times?
Yes...and try this to make it even more overpowered...
Verminous Hunter 1 <any feat>
VH 2
Unbreakable Fighter 1 Endurance, Diehard, Fast Healer
VH 3+Now your con modifier gets added into the mix, and it's not hard to get a +4 con so you have fast healing 3.
Of course, you could also go:
VH 1 <any feat>
Unbreakable Fighter 1 Endurance, Diehard
Invulnerable Rager X Fast Healer at 3Now you've got massive DR, Guarded Life to double your fast healing (nonlethal and lethal are healed as separate pools), and can rage to buff your con for even faster fast healing or...
Half-Orc
VH 1 <any feat>
Unbreakable Fighter X Endurance, Diehard, then Fast Healer at 3Put all your FCBs into +2 to con score for determining when you die (orc bonus) and effectively get toughness X2.
RAW this does not work.
FAST HEALER
Benefit: When you regain hit points by resting or through magical healing, you recover additional hit points equal to half your Constitution modifier (minimum +1).
The fast healing ability is neither recovery by resting nor magical healing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW this does not work.
FAST HEALER
Benefit: When you regain hit points by resting or through magical healing, you recover additional hit points equal to half your Constitution modifier (minimum +1).The fast healing ability is neither recovery by resting nor magical healing.
Actually...Vermin Focus is Supernatural and thus magical, so this is not as clear cut as all that, though I'm not sure if I'd allow it personally.
Thanks for all the posts guys! Glad I could bring this silly combo up and it works. My monster character may get even more monstrous now :D
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have two comments about the plan in this thread. Obviously do as you like in your home games and have fun, but in my games:
The Fast Healer feat would not interact with any sort of fast healing at all. The feat was clearly written to add to self contained "packets" of healing, like overnight rest or a spell. I presume the idea is that it's thought to turn fast healing 1 into a larger amount of fast healing - yeah, that just a no for power level for a feat. You might persuade me to houserule that you get an extra boost once a minute or so.
Also, if your plan is to murder your own companion in order to gain personal power, I hope that your starting alignment involves the word "evil." Killing a friend to beef yourself up is pretty much cut and dry evil, not even a shades of gray area.
Even deliberately engineering situation where your companion could die, or refusing to help it, or sending it into overly deadly situations - basically trying to get it killed - is an evil act. The creature is your friend.
I guess if you played normally and the companion happened to die, it's not evil to not seek out a new one. That's the only situation where I would find this plan morally acceptable.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, if your plan is to murder your own companion in order to gain personal power, I hope that your starting alignment involves the word "evil." Killing a friend to beef yourself up is pretty much cut and dry evil, not even a shades of gray area.
Even deliberately engineering situation where your companion could die, or refusing to help it, or sending it into overly deadly situations - basically trying to get it killed - is an evil act. The creature is your friend.
I guess if you played normally and the companion happened to die, it's not evil to not seek out a new one. That's the only situation where I would find this plan morally acceptable.
Uh...you are aware that this plan only works with a Vermin Companion, right? Y'know, the mindless ones who are no more intelligent than the normal sized versions? So...this is precisely morally on par with killing your pet ant in real life. Is that enough to make someone Evil? I'm gonna go with a 'hell no'.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh...you are aware that this plan only works with a Vermin Companion, right? Y'know, the mindless ones who are no more intelligent than the normal sized versions? So...this is precisely morally on par with killing your pet ant in real life. Is that enough to make someone Evil? I'm gonna go with a 'hell no'.
I am aware of it. That does not change the fact that the companion is your, well, companion, and callously ending its life to benefit yourself is still evil. Neat to think that you're morally okay with killing any innocent creature that trusts you for your own power, or even just whim.
If you raise an ant farm for the sole purpose of killing them for your enjoyment that's evil too.
As far as having it as a "background event" I'd be leery there too - the ability isn't really worded like Hunter's Bond, where you can take one ability (Animal) or another (party buff). It's pretty clearly worded as a consolation prize when you lose your animal - the intent is that you will replace your companion. I think you have to take the companion to start with. I'd have to double check the wording as I don't have the book handy right now.
As I said before, if you and your GM are cool with it then have fun. I just don't think I would be.
I can see a RAW argument about the feat Fast Healer working with (Su) fast healing. What I don't see is a good argument for why it should just add to your fast healing value. Upon further reflection it seems like it's meant to apply once per "instance" of healing - so when you take damage you get the bonus hp on round 1 of fast healing, then your healing reverts to normal until you hit full hp. Next time you are damaged you get the bonus hp in round 1 again. That seems like a balanced way to read RAW for that feat interaction.
Right, killing a creature, that if left to its own devices would eat people, is evil. Shame on you for being mean to human sized spiders, they weren't hurting anyone at the moment you killed them.
Right, killing a creature, that if left to its own devices would eat people, is evil. Shame on you for being mean to human sized spiders, they weren't hurting anyone at the moment you killed them.
These spiders you speak of dont happen to go into cities to hunt humans. No they just attack anything invading its territory.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Taking the time and effort to befriend a carnivorous creature, only to then kill it in order to gain personal power, is evil. It's not about being mean/nice to spiders, it's about a deliberate betrayal.
Everybody keeps leaving out the part where you're killing your friend for kewl powerz. The fact that you friend is a disgusting murderous bug doesn't actually matter much.
Anyway, I've said my bit here. I don't want to derail this into an alignment thread, and I don't think we're going to convince each other on this point. Happy gaming!
|
They really should have just said "while the Hunter's animal companion is dead or dismissed the Hunter may apply the companion's...." and solved those problems. I know Mark Seifter even referred to leaving the companion dead as a route for player's who don't like having companions.
What they really need is a shapeshifting Hunter who doesn't suck big ones like the Feral Hunter, and which is compatible with Verminous Hunter.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment is bullshit anyway. I'd have no problem with allowing a Paladin to let his AC die, if the player is not interested in having an AC. I'd probably not even require him to have the AC in the first place, actually.
Screw alignment. I don't need any pointless restrictions in my game.
But even ignoring that, it's easy to justify killing the companion. Maybe it became evil or insane. Maybe it died in battle and you couldn't help it. Maybe you two were never friends to begin with, but a mystical connection was somehow forced on you...
It's just a piece of backstory for the player to create.
Alignment is b&@*#&$! anyway. I'd have no problem with allowing a Paladin to let his AC die, if the player is not interested in having an AC. I'd probably not even require him to have the AC in the first place, actually.
Screw alignment. I don't need any pointless restrictions in my game.
But even ignoring that, it's easy to justify killing the companion. Maybe it became evil or insane. Maybe it died in battle and you couldn't help it. Maybe you two were never friends to begin with, but a mystical connection was somehow forced on you...
It's just a piece of backstory for the player to create.
I do have a problem with a Paladin just allowing his animal companion to die, or a Ranger. Fortunately both of those have alternative options instead of the animal companions. The reason why it is a problem is because you should be attached to an animal companion, it should be your friend. If they should die you should want to bring them back.
People want to kill off the Hunter Animal companion because it can provide their character an advantage (unlike a Ranger, Paladin, or Druid). Honestly, I think its deplorable that anyone would seek the death of their animal companion (imagine if someone offered to pay you $20 every day if you killed your pet) just because they can benefit from it.
I believe this ability was to provide something to make up for the loss of an animal companion, not pay you to kill your friend.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do have a problem with a Paladin just allowing his animal companion to die, or a Ranger. Fortunately both of those have alternative options instead of the animal companions. The reason why it is a problem is because you should be attached to an animal companion, it should be your friend. If they should die you should want to bring them back.
People want to kill off the Hunter Animal companion because it can provide their character an advantage (unlike a Ranger, Paladin, or Druid). Honestly, I think its deplorable that anyone would seek the death of their animal companion (imagine if someone offered to pay you $20 every day if you killed your pet) just because they can benefit from it.
I believe this ability was to provide something to make up for the loss of an animal companion, not pay you to kill your friend.
I'd never hurt any of my pets IRL. A fictional animal in a fictional universe, though... I don't care.
And as I said, there are a million ways to justify the death of your animal companion. I'm care more about in letting players have their fun than about keeping fictional spiders alive. If the player just wants the cool animal focus but doesn't like an AC... He can have it without ever having an AC.
Keeping you AC dead to benefit from constant Animal Focus seems like a very deliberate design choice, considering a dev even went ahead and explicitly said it was possible.
Besides, nothing says you have to like your AC. I suppose that's the typical fluff, but I don't mind changing flavor of anything in the game.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd never hurt any of my pets IRL. A fictional animal in a fictional universe, though... I don't care.
And as I said, there are a million ways to justify the death of your animal companion. I'm care more about in letting players have their fun than about keeping fictional spiders alive. If the player just wants the cool animal focus but doesn't like an AC... He can have it without ever having an AC.
Keeping you AC dead to benefit from constant Animal Focus seems like a very deliberate design choice, considering a dev even went ahead and explicitly said it was possible.
Besides, nothing says you have to like your AC. I suppose that's the typical fluff, but I don't mind changing flavor of anything in the game.
Given that the rules say the Hunter may start with an animal companion, I would have no problem with the player just stating that their companion was killed prior to their player being introduced and the animal focus is just the spirit of their pet continuing to look out for them. Why replace a friend who never really left?
While I might wonder why someone who didn't want a pet was drawn to a class so focused on the pet (it's like playing a Summoner without the eidolon), it's their character.
It's a shame that feral hunter cannot be stacked with verminous, this would fix the whole dependency on having a dead companion. However, as background, the companion could have been killed, or died of old age (some insects age really fast). As for roleplaying it, it takes just a slight bit of negligence to end up with a disgusting mindless creature killed by accident in any barely civilized place.
I wonder if you could have another animal companion from another source, Eldrich heritage, for instance and apply stuff from the class, like Tactics...
While I might wonder why someone who didn't want a pet was drawn to a class so focused on the pet (it's like playing a Summoner without the eidolon), it's their character.
Because of constant Animal Focus, obviously... Isn't that what we've been discussing? It's not their character, is just one of their class features. Their character is created by actions and roleplay.
I mean, I played an Inquisitor a few times... Never roleplayed any of them as an actual inquisitor, though.
Personally, I'd only consider playing a Hunter if it were a Feral Hunter or if I were just dipping to get constant Animal Focus. Other than that... I think I'd much rather go with Druid, Ranger or Inquisitor with Fur/Feather domain.
There is a Hunter archetype that lacks an animal companion. Would a Hunter who does not want an animal companion in the first place be better or worse off with that archetype? That archetype would be poorly designed if a standard Hunter or one of the other archetypes would be better off killing his companion than starting off with that archetype in the first place.
There is a Hunter archetype that lacks an animal companion. Would a Hunter who does not want an animal companion in the first place be better or worse off with that archetype? That archetype would be poorly designed if a standard Hunter or one of the other archetypes would be better off killing his companion than starting off with that archetype in the first place.
Although it could work, cannot be done officially. Both archetypes alter or replace same class features. By RAW it's not possible.
That being said, a flexible GM might allow, as a Verminous Hunter keeps versions of all class features that are later modified or replaced by Feral Hunter. There would be a a bit of theme conflict, as the hunter would turn into animals instead of vermin when Wild Shaping(there is no class feature changing that)...
|
|
There is a Hunter archetype that lacks an animal companion. Would a Hunter who does not want an animal companion in the first place be better or worse off with that archetype? That archetype would be poorly designed if a standard Hunter or one of the other archetypes would be better off killing his companion than starting off with that archetype in the first place.
The Feral Hunter is a really subpar archetype. A core Hunter with a dead companion comes very close to being strictly better, even without a way to trigger his teamwork feats. The core Hunter can summon companions faster that stay longer with SNA spells, and doesn't suffer from weird verbage in his class abilities that may or may not interfere with his other class features.
|
|
Why is the feral consideres worse? It trades all tye animals stuff for not too bad.
The only problem is they can't nget vermins nifty stuff. Though I would have loved to wildshapen into vermin. Like a big ass scorpian id love that..But I think feral should have acess to all aspects and shouldnt have full wildahape just partial, to support more of the flavor of it, thatwould have made the archetype utterly epic...
Flavorful and and unique
The Hunter gets a full progression, upgraded Animal Companion and teamwork feats, which are extremely potent. If his Animal Companion dies, he can summon any appropriate creature for the situation with his Summon Nature's Ally spells as a standard action and have them last for minutes per level instead of rounds per level.
The Feral Hunter gets a weakened wildshape that may or may not actually be useable in conjunction with his Feral Focus ability because of weird wording in the abilities. His Summon Pack ability locks him in to summoning whatever creature he's currently emulating with his focus, but still takes a full round action to cast and only lasts for rounds per level. Need that Bear focus to keep your Con up? Bad news, you can't summon creatures appropriate for dealing with flying enemies at the same time. Feral Hunter gives up the Hunter's strongest unique abilities, and trades them for much weaker and more conditional abilities.
One of the Eldritch heritage feat line can get you a +6 inherent bonus to con...
Pit-Touched not a bloodline. It is what the Infernal bloodline becomes when a sorcerer takes the Wildblooded Archetype. It is not a separate bloodline, and so not available for EH.
Given that the rules say the Hunter may start with an animal companion, I would have no problem with the player just stating that their companion was killed prior to their player being introduced and the animal focus is just the spirit of their pet continuing to look out for them. Why replace a friend who never really left?
If you're doing this right from level 1, why flavor it as being a "companion" at all? It could be some monster you fought before gaining your first class level, killing it and absorbing its power.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given that the rules say the Hunter may start with an animal companion, I would have no problem with the player just stating that their companion was killed prior to their player being introduced and the animal focus is just the spirit of their pet continuing to look out for them. Why replace a friend who never really left?If you're doing this right from level 1, why flavor it as being a "companion" at all? It could be some monster you fought before gaining your first class level, killing it and absorbing its power.
Agreed. My point was just that I didn't see any reason for the big debate about the morality of intentionally killing a companion when there's any number of ways to explain why you don't have the companion and what the focus represents.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
My point was just that I didn't see any reason for the big debate about the morality of intentionally killing a companion when there's any number of ways to explain why you don't have the companion and what the focus represents.
Because there's a right way and a wrong way to play Pathfinder, of course!
The reason why it is a problem is because you should be attached to an animal companion, it should be your friend. If they should die you should want to bring them back.
(Bolding mine.)
Play the way you should!| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Play the way you should!
It's fine if you disagree Jiggy. I am not your GM.
I said in my first post it technically works. But as a GM, I'm not having it.
One thing to consider is that the player's choices and the character's choices are different things. The character did not chose his race, where he was born or whatever happened to his animal companion before the game begins. Those are player's choices and should not be regarded as roleplaying.
If your player would like to play a good hunter that grieves his lost pet for any reason (age, violence, disease, negligence, etc...) why wouldn't you allow? If he wants to play an evil animal exploiter that gorges on the essence of vanquished prey, why not?
I can't find a good reason to disallow this based on roleplay. If the problem is about power, we all know that there are several options at first level that vastly exceed Fast healing 1 in power.