Fleshraker question

[chrisstpeter]

I'll try to keep the exposition brief: Playing a druid in a game where we have been reduced to 2 PCs, so the DM and I discussed it, and she's going to let me do some stuff with my companion that could be up for debate, but we've agreed that it's in keeping with the spirit, if not the letter, of the rules.

When I hit level 4, I'm getting a celestial fleshraker. The fleshraker is already pretty OP, but with natural bond and exalted companion, I'll have a fleshraker with a BAB of +6, 6d10 HD, spell resistance, damage reduction, combat reflexes as his lvl 6 feat (with a +5 to DEX, that's 6 AoOs if my trip succeeds, but grapple fails and the creature stands up). And on top of that, there's the ability poison (why do they insist on calling it poison when it's venom?). Now, BoED explicitly says that poison and disease are not allowed because "Using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent". BUT, it then goes on to list ravages and afflictions that are okay even though they deal ability damage. Granted, they only work on evil creatures, but still... So we decided that since there's a "good" version, that kind of derails the reasoning behind not allowing poison. And also, it's technically venom. The base creature is neutral, and nature doesn't have a concept of good or evil, it's just natural selection and survival of the fittest (I'm good-aligned, but worship nature rather than a nature deity). So, considering that she has spent months designing this campaign for a 4 member party, 2 PCs are no longer playing, and she doesn't want to waste all that effort... yeah, I'm getting a celestial fleshraker :D

So my question to you all is what do you think? Would you allow something like this in your campaign? If so, would you allow it in general, or only in special circumstances like ours? If not, why?

EDIT: This should probably be moved to the D&D 3.5 section... my bad

[Solaris]

The question is moot. Your DM has already stated she'd be willing to let you bend rules to get the companion creature.

If you wanted to get really nuts with a companion, look up the Ubermount build.

[ClockShock]

I'm sure the other player will have great fun watching you and your pet dominate every encounter.

[Douglas]

with a +5 to DEX, that's 6 AoOs if my trip succeeds, but grapple fails and the creature stands up
Sorry, but that's not how it works. Combat Reflexes increases the limit on AoOs per round, but you still only get 1 per opportunity. Normally, if someone stands from prone, moves through your threatened area, and then attacks you with a ranged weapon (while still in reach), that's 3 opportunities but all in the same round so you can only take 1. With Combat Reflexes you can take all 3. But if he just stands up and does nothing else that provokes, that's only 1 opportunity so you only get 1 AoO regardless of Combat Reflexes.

[DrMotives]

Also, the BoVD / BoED "good doesn't poison" is really thrown off by the MM, where a LG Outsider has a poisonous (you're going to say venomous) bite.

[Susano-wo]

The poison/venom (they call it poisons because of a lack of understanding the difference and/or simplifying it for game terms) is bad (even though it can allow you to subdue someone without killing them :smallsigh:), but ravages are ok, is incongruous, especially with some of the other sections of the BoED that go against the BS "its ok as long as they are eeeevil" mentality.

So in my game I would cut the poison is always evil bit, so the venom is not an issue. However fleshraker being, by all accounts an OP choice for an OP class would make me possibly disallow it in the first place. As far as your situation, I might allow you to stack up Druid shenanigans to basically be two party members, but I would also be making sure that the other party member was similarly pumped up.

Oh and yeah, combat reflexes does not work as you described it :smallwink:

One final note: its doesn't matter what nature has a concept of, if you are playing someone who is a paragon of sapient morals, you need to behave accordingly, including not allowing your companion to do things that violate you-r moral code. (though, as previously stated, I think the poison=EVIL thing is BS and would throw it out)

[Naez]

The way me and my group have construed the "poison is evil" rule is it doesn't apply to anything that naturally creates poison. It's not a conscious decision, nor can they choose not to use it unless they like being dead, so it shouldn't affect their morality.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

On the question of whether good/exalted characters can use poisons, a good aligned divine caster of a good aligned deity can cast the spell Poison (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/poison.htm) with zero risk of falling out of favor with their deity. This sets a solid precedent within the core rules, and the core rulebooks are the primary source when it comes to anything found within the core rulebooks, such as alignments.


As a celestial creature, your fleshraker is good aligned, so give it two flaws (Bestial Instinct and No Time For Book Learning (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?258440-The-quot-Best-quot-Flaws#30)) to get Sacred Vow and Vow of Poverty.

[Harmelyo]

If you really want to go through withe argument, you could always use Venomfire (http://dndtools.pw/spells/serpent-kingdoms--24/venomfire--3259/) and tweaks it to replace the poison effect by the acid damage instead of the poison effect + acid. This would throw the "poison is bad" away as you are no longer doing poison but just good ol' acid damage.

Two things to remember:
- Venomfire triggers only on poisonous attacks (not the bite)
- Venomfire triggers only if you do at least 1 point of damage after applying DR.

With that, your fleshraker WILL butcher absolutely everything not immune to acid.

Stupid Note: If there is not enough cheese after that, just add Planar sheperd on top of that and steamroll through the campaign !

[eggynack]

I think the poisonous celestial fleshraker is fine, especially with how stupid the evil poison rule is, but I'm pretty sure getting it at fourth is an illegal maneuver. Getting a celestial fleshraker is basically just equivalent to getting a normal companion that happens to have a -4 penalty, and natural bond does not allow you to do that. By the rules, you'd have to wait a level to pull this off. Anyway, this plan isn't even all that powerful, as exalted companion doesn't do much unless you abuse it to give your companion vow of poverty. The natural bonded fleshraker aspect is great, because both the feat and the creature are great, but the celestial template on its own isn't going to represent a major bonus, and you'd probably be better off using the feat elsewhere without that VoP impetus.

[chrisstpeter]

Sorry, but that's not how it works. Combat Reflexes increases the limit on AoOs per round, but you still only get 1 per opportunity. Normally, if someone stands from prone, moves through your threatened area, and then attacks you with a ranged weapon (while still in reach), that's 3 opportunities but all in the same round so you can only take 1. With Combat Reflexes you can take all 3. But if he just stands up and does nothing else that provokes, that's only 1 opportunity so you only get 1 AoO regardless of Combat Reflexes.

Yup, I should have read that more carefully, lol. Thanks

[chrisstpeter]

I think the poisonous celestial fleshraker is fine, especially with how stupid the evil poison rule is, but I'm pretty sure getting it at fourth is an illegal maneuver.

We discussed that as well, and really comes down to what order you're doing the math in. Natural bond cannot make your effective druid level exceed your character. So if we apply natural bond first, then the fleshraker adjustment, it can't work. But if you subtract 3 from my druid level and THEN add the 3 from natural bond, it's legal.

[eggynack]

We discussed that as well, and really comes down to what order you're doing the math in. Natural bond cannot make your effective druid level exceed your character. So if we apply natural bond first, then the fleshraker adjustment, it can't work. But if you subtract 3 from my druid level and THEN add the 3 from natural bond, it's legal.
The problem isn't that you're getting a natural bond bonus despite being a full druid. The problem is that you're applying that bonus to get a higher level companion, which is not legal. This is first because the bonus from natural bond does not have picking higher level companions as one of its listed applications, and second because natural bond works on companions you have, rather than companions you gain, and so you never have the companion in the first place such that you can apply the bonus to it. You can have an advanced fleshraker from natural bond by the rules, but the celestial fleshraker at this level isn't allowed.

[Chronos]

I'll add yet another voice to the "poison isn't evil, and that rule is stupid" chorus. At most, I might say that using poison is dishonorable, and thus presents a problem for paladins and knights, but even there, I wouldn't have any real objection to a paladin whose code allowed it (I think that all paladins ought to discuss and customize the details of their code with the DM before the game).

Meanwhile, I would argue that using ravages in the way that some of them appear designed to be used is evil. Dump something in a town's well that will kill a bunch of townsfolk indiscriminately, and that's an evil act. It's the same evil act if it's a normal poison that'll affect everyone, or a ravage that'll only affect evil townsfolk. Evil is not synonymous with "needs killin'".

[Urpriest]

Your Fleshraker doesn't have +6 BAB. As it states in the Celestial template:


Do not recalculate the creature’s Hit Dice, base attack bonus, saves, or skill points if its type changes.

While the template appears to forget to state this, it's pretty clear it's supposed to give you the Augmented subtype when it changes your type.

[chrisstpeter]

Your Fleshraker doesn't have +6 BAB. As it states in the Celestial template:



While the template appears to forget to state this, it's pretty clear it's supposed to give you the Augmented subtype when it changes your type.

Hmmm, completely missed that. I just saw the part about celestial animals being magical beasts and immediately went to the magical beast template, lol.