Nymph's Kiss and "Maintaining a relationship"

[schreier]

I am considering this feat, and am trying to clarify the language in the non-rules section of the feat. It says "By maintaining an intimate relationship with a good-aligned fey (such as a nymph or dryad), you gain some of the characteristics of fey."

This is not in the benefit, nor is it a prerequisite. I would not ignore the text, as it smacks of cheese and munchkinism (is that a word?). However, I do not think that the timeliness of the sentence is clear.

To me - it is clear that you must have maintained a relationship with a good-aligned fey before gaining the characteristics. However, I do not think it is clear that you must continue to maintain the relationship.

My thought is that, if you maintain a relationship with the good-aligned fey for some period of time (determined by the DM), you gain the listed characteristics of the fey. If that relationship ends, you do not necessarily lose those characteristics (i.e. it's a hurdle that, once cleared, is no longer relevant).

I feel that this walks a line between cheese and strictness that is appropriate and reasonable. Am I being too permissive?

I saw similar discussion here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?218578-Nymph-s-Kiss-Balance, and the default interpretation was that you had to continue the relationship in perpetuity. This seems too restrictive - what happens if the fey dies? Exalted feats are already difficult to maintain as you have to keep a very high standard of conduct.

[Telonius]

I am considering this feat, and am trying to clarify the language in the non-rules section of the feat. It says "By maintaining an intimate relationship with a good-aligned fey (such as a nymph or dryad), you gain some of the characteristics of fey."

This is not in the benefit, nor is it a prerequisite. I would not ignore the text, as it smacks of cheese and munchkinism (is that a word?). However, I do not think that the timeliness of the sentence is clear.

To me - it is clear that you must have maintained a relationship with a good-aligned fey before gaining the characteristics. However, I do not think it is clear that you must continue to maintain the relationship.

My thought is that, if you maintain a relationship with the good-aligned fey for some period of time (determined by the DM), you gain the listed characteristics of the fey. If that relationship ends, you do not necessarily lose those characteristics (i.e. it's a hurdle that, once cleared, is no longer relevant).

I feel that this walks a line between cheese and strictness that is appropriate and reasonable. Am I being too permissive?

I saw similar discussion here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?218578-Nymph-s-Kiss-Balance, and the default interpretation was that you had to continue the relationship in perpetuity. This seems too restrictive - what happens if the fey dies? Exalted feats are already difficult to maintain as you have to keep a very high standard of conduct.

My take: It's an Exalted feat. If you're trying to go rules-lawyer about it you're not really acting in an Exalted way. I'd say that it's an ongoing thing. If the relationship ends by you breaking it off, I'd say you'd lose the bonuses on saves and skills and so on, but no the skill points (since that would be cruel to try to reverse-engineer). If it ends by the fey dying. ... it depends. If you're still devoted to their memory (or start up with another fey), I'd say you'd be fine. If you move on to a non-fey, you no longer qualify.

[Biggus]

My feeling would be that as long as you end the relationship on good terms (because of their death, because you just grew apart, or whatever) that you should retain the benefits of the feat.

It is a powerful feat, especially considering that it has no non-fluff prerequisites, so I'd be quite inclined to be strict about the requirements to maintain exalted behaviour and good relationships with fey, but I don't think the relationship ending should *necessarily* cause you to lose the benefits.

[Kaleph]

That's a feat you have to roleplay; my recommendation is that you discuss with your DM how it fits into your BG, and how you want to develop your character.

You have to consider 3 things:
1. You must be in general good, since it's an exalted feat,
2. You must have some special trait/aspect of your personality to ever approach a nymph (they are quite selective and won't just talk with everyone),
3. You must maintain a relationship with a nymph.

Of the three requirements, the last one is where I would personally feel more free to be creative, and not bound to follow literally the feat's description. Did you break up with the nymph, but she still loves you? Did you attract the hatred of a jealous fey, and she still sends you her blessing to protect you? Did her kiss deeply change your nature, so that you assumed some fey trait (that has to be roleplayed)?

The feat has no crunch requirement, so it wants to be roleplayed; so as long as you create a reasonable explanation, and as long as it has RP implications, I'd say it's fine.
Otherwise, it means that a fluff text limits your freedom in designing and developing your character, which isn't the purpose of this kind of feats.

PS: to bring this reasoning to its extreme, I'd say you can leave the crunch as it is, and create whatever fluff you like. "Blessing of the eladrins", "favored of the deities", "celestial-attended birth", whatever. It doesn't even need to be exalted, tbh.

[OgresAreCute]

The feat has no prerequisite and no special section, so I'm inclined to just let a player pick it and leave it at that unless they're interested in exploring their fey romance. It's already an exalted feat, which is a genuine inconvenience in many groups and/or builds.

To be fair, it is called "Nymph's Kiss" and not "Nymph's Long Distance Relationship".

[Covenant12]

To me - it is clear that you must have maintained a relationship with a good-aligned fey before gaining the characteristics. However, I do not think it is clear that you must continue to maintain the relationship.

My thought is that, if you maintain a relationship with the good-aligned fey for some period of time (determined by the DM), you gain the listed characteristics of the fey. If that relationship ends, you do not necessarily lose those characteristics (i.e. it's a hurdle that, once cleared, is no longer relevant).My reading of it implies no past or present tense. Maintaining a relationship with a good-aligned fey in your formative years/background qualifies you for the feat. You may currently be in a long-distance relationship, the fey in question may have tragically died, nothing implies you lose it.

I don't see how this is munchkiny. Exalted is a difficult and strict road to follow. Even if the exalted tag weren't there I'd see it as very good but not overpowered. With the tag I'd argue it is balanced, I'd improve some of the weaker exalted feats.

[King of Nowhere]

My feeling would be that as long as you end the relationship on good terms (because of their death, because you just grew apart, or whatever) that you should retain the benefits of the feat.

+1 on that.
it feels right for the fluff.

[Troacctid]

Personally, I say if you're allowed to have a human family back home, you should be allowed to have a mixed-race family back home, too. (Hopefully one or the other and not both at the same time, but hey, it's your character, I guess.) In fact, I think it actually makes more sense with a fey than with another human, because you have things like dryads, who physically can't leave their tree; or fey demiplanes where time passes at a different rate, so you can adventure for a year on the Material Plane while only a week passes for your lover; or fey curses that only allow you to see your lover once every seven years when the moon is full. Y'know, crap like that.

Imagine you're an elf and you're in a loving relationship with a dryad. The two of you have a half-fey daughter who is an adventurer. However, on one of her journeys, she goes missing. So you share a tearful farewell with your wife, who would follow if she could, and strike out to find and rescue your beloved child, becoming...a dad-venturer.

Or, hey, maybe you're a sailor with a fairy gentleman back home who watches the ships sail into the harbor, waiting for your return. Or maybe you're a killoren and it's literally just an ordinary same-species romance. Or maybe it's not even a romantic relationship—it could be a family member, or a childhood friend, or a mentor, or a warlock patron. Those are all pretty intimate.

Anyway, my point is, maintaining the relationship in an ongoing manner isn't actually that restrictive, even if you subscribe to that reading.


2. You must have some special trait/aspect of your personality to ever approach a nymph (they are quite selective and won't just talk with everyone),
It doesn't have to be a nymph, it can be any good-aligned fey.

[Deadline]

I don't think there's an issue with a long-distance relationship with regards to this feat. I built an entry for one of the Junkyard Wars rounds a while back that did just this: Horatio Figbottom (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18116729&postcount=66)

Fey live a long time, and as a result they likely view time a bit differently.

Also, this is screaming out for being good background fodder. Introduce some great NPCs that the DM can roll into the story. The old "rescue the damsel" plotline is much more fun when it's your damsel you needs rescuing.

[weckar]

It's funny actually, I never read this feat's text as being a romantic relationship at all, rather a motherly or close friendship one.

[Thurbane]

I prefer the wording in Faerie Mysteries Initiate:


You and your partner engage in an exuberant sensual act.

...and don't get me started on Lichloved :smalltongue:

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Telonius
My take: It's an Exalted feat. If you're trying to go rules-lawyer about it you're not really acting in an Exalted way. I'd say that it's an ongoing thing.

This exactly. If you’re taking an Exalted feat, it goes against the spirit to try to pretzel out of the requirements.

And I don’t see any ambiguity in the wording. “Maintaining” is present tense, so it’s clear the relationship needs to be active when the feat is taken; this can’t be conveniently brushed into backstory.

Also, I’m not sure how keeping the relationship active is any kind of burden. There’s no a priori reason to assume that the fey partner is going to suddenly drop dead, and given that fey are typically around much longer than mortal adventurers, this should be a non-issue in most games.

[King of Nowhere]

Also, I’m not sure how keeping the relationship active is any kind of burden. There’s no a priori reason to assume that the fey partner is going to suddenly drop dead, and given that fey are typically around much longer than mortal adventurers, this should be a non-issue in most games.
well, depends.

there are some DM who will systematically kill all of the pc's loved ones.

in turn that spurred a certain kind of player who will completely avoid forming any kind of attachment to anything in-world because he assumes anything he gets attached to (an npc, a city, a temple, whatever) will be targeted by the aforementioned DM.

however, such DM tend to also be fond of making paladins fall by their fiat (it seems the underlying philosophy is "I can't kill the pcs, so I should kill anything else" or something like that), so I'd avoid playing an exalted character in one such game.

[schreier]

I agree that maintaining the relationship is how you gain the traits ... But there is no discussion of maintaining, just gaining which is a one time thing. There is no discussion of losing the traits explicitly, so either way so see interpreting.

In your example, even if there is no burden - what happens if they die? If you leave? What is maintaining ... Do you need to be actively intimate?

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by King of Nowhere
there are some DM who will systematically kill all of the pc's loved ones.

…I’d avoid playing an exalted character in one such game.

Indeed, and that’s a problem with the DM, not the feat.

I think it’s inherent in the wording of the feat that the fey is intended to remain alive, especially since there’s no provision given for the consequences if the fey dies.


Originally Posted by schreier
But there is no discussion of maintaining, just gaining which is a one time thing.

The gaining is dependent on the maintaining. The wording indicates that the benefits are derived from a continuing relationship.

It does not say that you have a brief dalliance and you’re left with lasting benefits from the encounter. It says you need to sustain the relationship, which is not a “one time thing,” but a continuing effort.

[Telonius]

I'd give a pretty broad definition to "intimate." The text (and feat name) implies physical intimacy, but there are other ways to be intimate. I'd allow an intense platonic relationship, a spiritual kinship, a master/initiate relationship, or something like a Gimli-to-Galadriel thing to qualify. As long as it's deeply meaningful, I'd say it's a go.

[Covenant12]

Indeed, and that’s a problem with the DM, not the feat.

I think it’s inherent in the wording of the feat that the fey is intended to remain alive, especially since there’s no provision given for the consequences if the fey dies.



The gaining is dependent on the maintaining. The wording indicates that the benefits are derived from a continuing relationship.

It does not say that you have a brief dalliance and you’re left with lasting benefits from the encounter. It says you need to sustain the relationship, which is not a “one time thing,” but a continuing effort.I'm really not reading it that way. The "maintaining" does imply a length of time, I would definitely consider a player arguing 12 seconds is sufficient a fair bit munchkin. For several years during his youth sounds quite sufficient to me. I don't see gaining some characteristics of fey as something that requires lifelong focus. There are valid arguments either way, but I don't see constant maintenance or lose it as implied.

Also, this is flavor text. I'd strongly encourage roleplaying this factor if not explained in background (and frankly roleplaying it even then), but it is not in a bolded prerequisite section. Which exists for most exalted feats, this lacks one.

And seconded Telonius's statement on "intimate". It is suggestive of sexuality, but exalted beings in particular are very capable of strongly intimate relationships that don't involve sex. I could have sworn I remember reading something supporting this view, but I failed to find it just now.

[Biggus]

The gaining is dependent on the maintaining. The wording indicates that the benefits are derived from a continuing relationship.

It does not say that you have a brief dalliance and you’re left with lasting benefits from the encounter. It says you need to sustain the relationship, which is not a “one time thing,” but a continuing effort.

You need to be maintaining the relationship to take the feat, it says nothing about what happens after you've taken it. I don't agree with Covenant that you could take it if you've simply had a relationship in the past, but equally I don't see any strong reason that you lose the benefits if the relationship ends through no fault of your own after you've taken it.

[schreier]

You need to be maintaining the relationship to take the feat, it says nothing about what happens after you've taken it. I don't agree with Covenant that you could take it if you've simply had a relationship in the past, but equally I don't see any strong reason that you lose the benefits if the relationship ends through no fault of your own after you've taken it.

Definitely agree ... You have to be currently maintaining the relationship to take the feat and gain the traits .. I did think that you could have it bsckstoried if you take the feat at level one but otherwise no

This raises another question though ... If you take it at level 1, do you get 1 or 4 skill points?

[Troacctid]

This raises another question though ... If you take it at level 1, do you get 1 or 4 skill points?
Just 1. Same reason taking Open Minded at level 1 doesn't give you 20 skill points.

[lord_khaine]

I feel that this walks a line between cheese and strictness that is appropriate and reasonable. Am I being too permissive?

I think its not a directly powerful feat. And the player are already doing enough work having to stay exalted good.
More importanty, its something that can quickly end punishing the rest of the party if a player has to regularly spend game time maintaining the relationship.

[weckar]

Just 1. Same reason taking Open Minded at level 1 doesn't give you 20 skill points.
Hardly the same reason, one being a recurring benefit per level and all. But still true.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Telonius
I'd give a pretty broad definition to "intimate." The text (and feat name) implies physical intimacy, but there are other ways to be intimate. I'd allow an intense platonic relationship, a spiritual kinship, a master/initiate relationship, or something like a Gimli-to-Galadriel thing to qualify.

I think the balance is weighted towards physical intimacy, but an intense platonic relationship would fit as well. I actually think that might be the most practical approach for anyone who, for whatever reason, is uncomfortable with having a physical relationship with fey.

I’m not sure about a master/initiate relationship, since that has a strong disparity in power by its very nature. And more than likely the master is teaching many initiates, which is a very different dynamic than a one-to-one emotional bond.

As for Gimli and Galadriel, I wouldn’t call that a “relationship” by any stretch, and certainly not intimate. No question there was genuine devotion and even adoration on Gimli’s part, but Galadriel never returned the adoration, only accepted it gently.


Originally Posted by Covenant12
Also, this is flavor text. I'd strongly encourage roleplaying this factor if not explained in background (and frankly roleplaying it even then), but it is not in a bolded prerequisite section.

It’s descriptive text which provides essential context for the benefits of the feat. I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss it as “flavor,” since it sets out a clear requirement for a relationship with a fey. That’s an obvious prerequisite, even if it doesn’t have a bolded subhead.

As for the roleplaying, I think that’s the entire point—this is intended as a profoundly meaningful aspect of a character’s life. Exalted feats aren’t like regular feats, which are value-neutral and completely removed from a character’s actions; Exalted feats are explicitly restricted to characters “of good alignment and the highest moral standards,” and there are consequences for departing from those standards.


Originally Posted by Biggus
You need to be maintaining the relationship to take the feat, it says nothing about what happens after you've taken it.

This is pure munchkinry, and as Telonius noted above, completely inconsistent with the spirit of Exalted feats.

[schreier]

It’s descriptive text which provides essential context for the benefits of the feat. I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss it as “flavor,” since it sets out a clear requirement for a relationship with a fey. That’s an obvious prerequisite, even if it doesn’t have a bolded subhead.

As for the roleplaying, I think that’s the entire point—this is intended as a profoundly meaningful aspect of a character’s life. Exalted feats aren’t like regular feats, which are value-neutral and completely removed from a character’s actions; Exalted feats are explicitly restricted to characters “of good alignment and the highest moral standards,” and there are consequences for departing from those standards.


You need to be maintaining the relationship to take the feat, it says nothing about what happens after you've taken it. I don't agree with Covenant that you could take it if you've simply had a relationship in the past, but equally I don't see any strong reason that you lose the benefits if the relationship ends through no fault of your own after you've taken it.


This is pure munchkinry, and as Telonius noted above, completely inconsistent with the spirit of Exalted feats.

I actually don't think that Biggus's statement is either munckinry or inconsistent. He is only referring the requirement to maintain the relationship. Exalted feats have very strict behavioral requirements that must still be met or you lose the benefit. Like I said, I read that feat as: You need to maintain an intimate relationship with a good fey for some period of time that must be significant enough to change you in the ways shown by the traits gained (skill points, charisma check bonus, etc). Once the change has occurred, you need to maintain your exalted status. Completely disregarding the relationship with the fey would most likely not be consistent with your exalted standards, but if the fey dies or moves on, or you relocate - those seem not inconsistent. I do not see a requirement to continue to maintain the relationship in perpetuity to keep the traits gained stated anywhere, nor does it honestly really make sense unless you are saying the presence of the fey somehow lets you keep the traits (which is not stated in the feat anywhere). There are multiple costs to this feat - it is exalted, and it costs a feat slot (which is a significant feat). If merely the presence was enough to grant the ability, it should be free or gold cost (similar to legendary places like Otyugh hole).

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by schreier
I read that feat as: You need to maintain an intimate relationship with a good fey for some period of time that must be significant enough to change you in the ways shown by the traits gained (skill points, charisma check bonus, etc). Once the change has occurred, you need to maintain your exalted status….

There is absolutely nothing in the text that supports this reading, because there is no minimum period of time specified to gain the feat’s benefits. You maintain a relationship, meaning it’s an active and ongoing thing. Summer-fling-and-breakup is the exact opposite of maintaining a relationship.


Originally Posted by schreier
If merely the presence was enough to grant the ability….

It’s not the “presence,” it’s the active effort to maintain the relationship. In essence, sustaining a relationship with a good-aligned fey is a good act, and the continuance of that act yields the feat’s benefits.

Seriously, I’m not sure why people feel that an active relationship is such a burden. If a DM is targeting everyone around your character, that’s a problem with the DM—and if the DM is targeting your fey lover specifically to disqualify you for a feat, that’s a DM you’re better off avoiding.


Originally Posted by schreier
I do not see a requirement to continue to maintain the relationship in perpetuity to keep the traits gained stated anywhere….

“By maintaining an intimate relationship with a good-aligned fey….”

Come on. It’s right there.


Originally Posted by schreier
...but if the fey dies or moves on….

Also, since there’s nothing specified in the feat about these contingencies, it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that the fey attachment is intended to be permanent for the life of the character.

.

[Troacctid]

If a feat's descriptive text said "By training in a remote mountaintop monastery..." would you lose its benefits if you left the monastery?

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Troacctid
If a feat's descriptive text said "By training in a remote mountaintop monastery..." would you lose its benefits if you left the monastery?

Depends on the rest of the sentence in your hypothetical feat.

[schreier]

The flavor text says this:
By maintaining an intimate relationship with a good-aligned fey (such as a nymph or dryad), you gain some of the characteristics of fey.


That is all it says, nothing more, nothing less. Anything more is inferred. It is possible to infer that, once the relationship is not being actively maintained, that the traits are lost. That is a reasonable interpretation of the words.

Let's talk about a character ... for one year, Bob the paladin has a relationship with a nymph. He spends every day with her cavorting in the wilds, playing, dancing, being intimate (whatever that may mean). Because he is maintaining that relationship, he gains the traits in the feat (Fey creatures regard you as though you were fey. You gain a +2 circumstance bonus on all Charisma-related checks, and a +1 bonus on all saving throws against spells and spell-like abilities. Starting with the level when you take this feat, you gain 1 extra skill point per level).

After a year, he is called by his Lord to travel the realms. Not wanting to force his nymph to travel with him, nor to have her pine after him, they amicably end their relationship.

By your interpretation, he loses the benefits of the feat, correct?

However, he did "gain the characteristics of fey" "by maintaining an intimate relationship with a good-aligned fey," did he not?

Even the language in the crunch section - "starting with the level when you take this feat, you gain 1 extra skill point per level." If your interpretation were correct, shouldn't it say "starting with the level when you take this feat, and as long as you continue to maintain the relationship with the good fey, you gain 1 extra skill point per level."?

I am not saying your interpretation is necessarily wrong - I am saying that it is not explicitly stated, nor is it the only valid interpretation. I believe other language in the rules section ("starting with the level when you take this feat" without any discussion of loss of the feats abilities) more strongly supports my interpretation - but I would contend both are possible.

You talk about no minimum amount of time - I agree - it's in the roleplaying of the situation, which is why it is in the fluff section as opposed to the crunch. What does maintaining mean - how long, etc .. is up to the DM. But I do not understand your completely dogmatic and inflexible reading of the feat.

Gain is a one-time event - you do not continue to gain the characteristics every day.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted in the OP
My thought is that, if you maintain a relationship with the good-aligned fey for some period of time….

I saw [a] similar discussion…and the default interpretation was that you had to continue the relationship in perpetuity. This seems too restrictive….

Rereading your OP, it seems you’ve started out with this idea of “some period of time,” and you want to add that to the feat to support your approach to how it works. If you’re the DM, you have every right to. If you’re a player, you can certainly ask your DM to follow this approach.

But you also reference another thread which reached a consensus that the relationship needs to be ongoing. You dislike that conclusion, so it seems you’re starting this thread in hopes of finding a different consensus. If you’re dead set on reaching a conclusion that supports your preference, I’m not sure why you’re asking for other opinions.


Originally Posted by schreier
…your completely dogmatic and inflexible reading of the feat.

I’m simply reading the text as it’s printed. You don’t seem to like that, and you want to include a clause specifying a minimum duration of the relationship. I’m pointing out that no such clause exists.

I’ve actually had a player use this feat in a game, and we came to an easy agreement about it in very little time, with no wrangling and no dispute. If you’re the DM in your game, rule as you see fit. If you’re a player, talk with your DM.


Originally Posted by schreier
Gain is a one-time event - you do not continue to gain the characteristics every day.

Yes, you do. “Gain” is modified through “by maintaining” to be an ongoing state. As long as you maintain, you gain.

And you certainly gain the benefits every level, e.g. new skill points, so gain is self-evidently not a one-time event.

[Blue Jay]

I'm adding a vote for "the relationship must be ongoing."

I don't necessarily believe that you have to be married to a nymph (or other fey), and I think the expectations for what "maintaining" means are pretty open. I don't think you even have to be 100% faithful to her, or her to you. After all, nymphs (and many other fey) are usually Chaotic-aligned, so a relationship with benefits contingent on lots of specific rules seems like it would be out of character.

But, the word "maintaining" does imply that some kind of upkeep is involved. I don't think it should require constant intimacy, and you certainly don't have to have your fey intimate by your side all the time; but your fey intimate should have some kind of important presence in your roleplay. Maybe you only see her once every few years, but she fills your dreams during your quiet moments, like any classical fairy romance. Maybe you have a keepsake of hers that keeps you connected with her, even though you haven't seen her in a long time. Maybe she's not even your lover, but she serves as your liaison with the spirits/deities you worship, as a sort of saint or moral exemplar for your faith. Even if she was a former lover who was killed by the villain, her memory or her spirit living on with you would be justification enough, in my opinion.

But I don't think you can count something like "I had a nymph girlfriend a few years ago: those were good times!"; and certainly not, "I banged a dryad once and ding! Free skill points!" If the relationship isn't really having an important, ongoing impact on your character, then I don't think it qualifies you for Nymph's Kiss, and I would rule that the benefits fade away over time if the fey intimate's importance to your character fades.

Personally, I've used Nymph's Kiss in a couple ways. My favorite character to date is a half-nymph who idolizes her nymph mother and wants to be just like her in every way, almost to the point of delusion and denial. I also created a nymph-led "guild" in my custom setting, and when one of my players wanted to play a follower, we used his membership in the guild to explain his Nymph's Kiss feat. I also arranged to give him a Legacy Weapon that was empowered and possessed by the spirit of a nymph who was tortured to death on his watch, but who still wanted to be able to help his quest after her death.

[Darrin]

There may be a more effective method to determine if you're in a relationship. Ask the nymph, "Hey babe, you seem a little distant. Is something bothering you?" If she says, "Nothing is wrong," then you're no longer in a relationship with that nymph.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Blue Jay
Maybe you have a keepsake of hers that keeps you connected with her, even though you haven't seen her in a long time.

This is exactly what my player came up with for his character—a token of the nymph’s love which he always kept with him.


Originally Posted by Blue Jay
My favorite character to date is a half-nymph who idolizes her nymph mother and wants to be just like her in every way, almost to the point of delusion and denial.

Sounds like a great character concept. I wouldn’t mind hearing more about the build and how the RP developed. Were you using the half-nymph template from Dragon #313?


Originally Posted by Darrin
Ask the nymph, "Hey babe….”

Nymphist.

:smalltongue:

[Zanos]

I'll go against the crowd a little and say it's probably fine if the relationship ends. There's nothing about losing the benefits of the feat in the feat text. Flavorwise I saw the feat as the trope of some characteristics of <insert otherworldy supernatural race> rubbing off on a mortal that spends a lot of time among them.

[Sereg]

It's well established that if you no longer qualify for a feat you lose the benefits. That means you must keep maintaining the relationship. That said, you can still maintain a relationship after they die. Especially when death isn't permanent.

[schreier]

It's well established that if you no longer qualify for a feat you lose the benefits. That means you must keep maintaining the relationship. That said, you can still maintain a relationship after they die. Especially when death isn't permanent.

The first part is definitely true - the second though - the maintaining of a relationship is not listed as a prerequisite, so the standard rule doesn't apply here. You are giving more weight to the language than is indicated in the rules.

You can make it such - and that's fine - that's a choice. To me - it is DM rule here (as always) - there are reasonable arguments both ways (you maintain the relationship long enough to gain the feat, then have it as long as you continue to be exalted OR you only keep it as long as you maintain it). The second becomes more complicated to me - what about the skill points already gained?

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by schreier
…the maintaining of a relationship is not listed as a prerequisite, so the standard rule doesn't apply here.

You’re making a false distinction between “prerequisite” and explanatory text. Maintaining a relationship isn’t a purely mechanical option, so it’s not listed as a prerequisite like BAB +1 or Dex 15.

But maintaining the relationship is fundamental to the feat, and since it can be fulfilled by some very easy RP there’s no need to shoehorn it into a prerequisite block.

Also, it’s a little ridiculous to expect other fey to treat you as honorary fey for not having an active relationship with a fey. Rolling in the ferns once twenty years ago shouldn't improve your standing in the eyes of other fey, because flings like that probably happen all the time. Committing to a relationship and sticking with it? That's what impresses other fey enough to give you the fey-related bonuses.


Originally Posted by schreier
You are giving more weight to the language than is indicated in the rules.

And I have no idea what this means. What “rules” are you talking about? And what "language" do you think should be de-emphasized?


Originally Posted by Sereg
That said, you can still maintain a relationship after they die.

This is a good point, and should certainly lay to rest any concerns about the (extremely unlikely) possibility of the fey expiring offscreen. If the fey dies, you can easily use the fey’s continuing love as the motivation which keeps her spirit bound to the mortal world. It’s an easy fix for a problem that hardly exists in the first place.

And again, if a DM kills a fey NPC just to get at your character, that’s a problem with the DM, not the feat.

[Blue Jay]

Sounds like a great character concept. I wouldn’t mind hearing more about the build and how the RP developed. Were you using the half-nymph template from Dragon #313?

Well, meet Callyndia (https://www.myth-weavers.com/showthread.php?t=392393).


The first part is definitely true - the second though - the maintaining of a relationship is not listed as a prerequisite, so the standard rule doesn't apply here. You are giving more weight to the language than is indicated in the rules.

Call me a cynic, but I doubt that anybody actually applies this kind of reasoning consistently. Sometimes players argue "it's just fluff" and in other cases, the same players argues "it's a requirement," depending on the feat and the context.

In the case of Nymph's Kiss, I feel like the flavor text should be enforced. It's a strong feat, strong enough that it's come up in almost every game I've run, and players are still willing to take it even when the relationship requirements are strict. That alone makes me unwilling to be flexible with requirements: if it's so good that players are regularly willing to pay for it, then it's probably worth the price. So, when someone else comes along and asks for the same feat at a lesser price, you can understand my cynicism towards that.

From a flavor perspective, I personally really like nymphs, and I've always viewed them as powerful and important women, the kind of woman that any man short of Donald Trump would think is too good for him. Other fey, less so; but still similar. So it doesn't sit well with me when a player wants to trivialize a relationship with that kind of woman, or wants to be able to slip it under the radar by just mentioning it as a footnote in their backstory and never talking about it again. So, if you're going for the full-on, romantic fluff of Nymph's Kiss in a game I DM, you'd better be willing to incorporate that nymph into your roleplay in a deep and meaningful way. And even if you're going for a non-romantic fluff, it still should be a pretty significant part of your character's backstory.


You can make it such - and that's fine - that's a choice. To me - it is DM rule here (as always) - there are reasonable arguments both ways (you maintain the relationship long enough to gain the feat, then have it as long as you continue to be exalted OR you only keep it as long as you maintain it). The second becomes more complicated to me - what about the skill points already gained?

I don't see how it's more complicated. The uncertainty regarding skill points applies regardless of the manner in which the feat may be lost.

[Dimers]

"Maintaining" is different from "having at some point maintained". I'm in the ongoing-requirements camp.


My take: It's an Exalted feat. If you're trying to go rules-lawyer about it you're not really acting in an Exalted way.


If you’re taking an Exalted feat, it goes against the spirit to try to pretzel out of the requirements.

Gotta disagree, there. The player trying to weasel out of requirements has no bearing on the character acting wholly holy.

[Zanos]

It's a RP 'requirement' anyway. You can handwave the entire thing by sending a letter to your fey girlfriend or every few weeks or something.