I Will Fight For You! I Will DIE For You! (3.5 Feat, PEACH)

NeoSeraphi · 01-02-2012, 08:15 PM

Bond of Love
Prerequisites: Special
Special: You must take this feat at the same time as another creature that you know personally. The two of you make a promise to each other to support one another for eternity. (Despite the name of this feat, the bond between you need not be romantic in nature) As part of this promise, you both swear to never deal lethal damage to the other. If either of you ever breaks this vow, you both lose the benefit of this feat, though you may receive an atonement if the one who broke the vow was under magical compulsion. (The atonement usually requires the offending party to prove his/her devotion to his/her partner in some ineffable, undeniable way). If one of you loses this feat (such as by retraining, or by taking level loss) the other loses the benefit of this feat as well until such time that you both have the feat again.
Benefit: When you are with your partner, you fight with a conviction that gives you strength you have never seen before. As long as you are within 60 feet of your partner and you can see and hear him/her, you receive a +1 morale bonus on all attack and weapon damage rolls, +1 per four levels you have, up to +6 at level 20. Additionally, if you flank a creature with your partner, the bonus from this feat is doubled on attacks you make against the creature you flank only. You receive a +10 sacred bonus on Will saves made to resist mental commands to attack your partner, this bonus drops to +4 if your dominator asks you to only deal nonlethal damage to him/her. Finally, the strength of your bond allows you to return vitality to your partner with just a gentle touch. Once per day, as a standard action, you may cast cure light wounds on your partner as a spell-like ability, with a caster level equal to your character level. This ability improves to cure moderate wounds at level 4, then again to cure serious wounds at level 6, then even further to cure critical wounds at level 8, and finally reaches its pinnacle as heal at level 12. (If your partner is healed by negative energy instead of positive energy, you may use the inflict versions of these spells, up to harm at level 12 instead).

sengmeng · 01-02-2012, 08:42 PM

This would have been awesome to have when me and a friend were playing dual sap-wielding identical twin rogues who loved to flank for each other. Although, we were far from exalted.

I like it, it makes sense and has roleplaying flavor. I would place the special prerequisite ahead of the other block of text so that it is clear who the "partner" is that is mentioned.

Igneel · 01-03-2012, 05:06 AM

I can already see people wanting to use this with Dvati [Dragon Magazine race of twins] characters. Myself included...

NeoSeraphi · 01-03-2012, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igneel

I can already see people wanting to use this with Dvati [Dragon Magazine race of twins] characters. Myself included...

It's a cool idea, certainly. Very flavorful and suitable, though that race is just too freaking complex for me to ever really play it.

ShriekingDrake · 01-04-2012, 10:21 AM

I really like this feat. It makes for great role-playing.

I'm curious why you use the word "person" in the description? Why not any creature capable of taking Sacred Vow and Bond of Love? I have a witch (Morticia) who would most certainly wish to "Bond" with her awakened carnivorous African Strangler (Cleopatra).

It might also be interesting to add a penalty if the bond is broken by one of the parties.

NeoSeraphi · 01-04-2012, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShriekingDrake

I'm curious why you use the word "person" in the description? Why not any creature capable of taking Sacred Vow and Bond of Love? I have a witch (Morticia) who would most certainly wish to "Bond" with her awakened carnivorous African Strangler (Cleopatra).

That is an excellent point. Only in D&D can the word "person" be described as discriminatory. I edited it to clarify your partner may be any creature. Thank you for your advice.

ShriekingDrake · 01-04-2012, 11:10 AM

Thanks. I really dig the whole concept here.

radmelon · 01-04-2012, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeoSeraphi

Only in D&D can the word "person" be described as discriminatory.

Do you mind if I put this in my signature? This is an awesome quote.
Great feat by the way. Very flavourful.

NeoSeraphi · 01-04-2012, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by radmelon

Do you mind if I put this in my signature? This is an awesome quote.
Great feat by the way. Very flavourful.

Sure, go right ahead.

And thanks for the compliment.

CoffeeIncluded · 01-04-2012, 10:25 PM

Just one thing: Should it be see AND hear, or see OR hear?

NeoSeraphi · 01-04-2012, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoffeeIncluded

Just one thing: Should it be see AND hear, or see OR hear?

It's definitely see AND hear. It's a mixture of a lot of little things, like coordination, secret smiles and hand signals, a slight nod of the head, or just flat-out yelling to boost confidence.

Best friends (or lovers) can encourage each other and work together in many different ways, but it requires careful attention.

OFWGKTA · 01-05-2012, 11:12 PM

Only thing I disagree with is the Exalted requirement, good content otherwise.

NeoSeraphi · 01-05-2012, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OFWGKTA

Only thing I disagree with is the Exalted requirement, good content otherwise.

Sacred Vow is an exalted feat, unfortunately. This feat follows those patterns, and I do think that it takes a certain level of inherent goodness to devote yourself to someone for life.

OFWGKTA · 01-06-2012, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeoSeraphi

Sacred Vow is an exalted feat, unfortunately. This feat follows those patterns, and I do think that it takes a certain level of inherent goodness to devote yourself to someone for life.

Thing is fiction is filled with evil villains who have devoted themselves in love and devotion to other evil beings.

absolmorph · 01-07-2012, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OFWGKTA

Thing is fiction is filled with evil villains who have devoted themselves in love and devotion to other evil beings.

There's also entirely platonic devotion. A sort-of example of that is the Butler family from the Artemis Fowl series.
They and Artemis aren't exactly evil, but I can see Butler having this feat.

NeoSeraphi · 01-07-2012, 12:15 AM

Alright, I removed the Exalted prerequisite, along with Sacred Vow.

Story Time · 01-10-2012, 07:34 PM

I really really really like this feat! I only...

Well, maybe what I have to say is for another feat and not this one, but I can't stop myself from saying, "If either of you ever breaks this vow, you both lose the benefit of this feat, though you may receive an atonement if either or both of the partners was under magical compulsion when the vow was broken."

Why do I suggest this? I suggest it for two reasons, first because the feat is mutual. Two people have it not one person. Second: because of that line about eternal love. Sometimes characters have heavy principles and part of that relationship is protecting them from doing something that the wouldn't want to do if otherwise not mystically compelled to do so.

When I read this feat, I think of a sniper shooting his best friend to wake them up from some horrific enchantment. Or a scoundrel with a knife trying to flee from a similar scenario. The eternal bit means that even if one character consciously breaks the vow, if they do it for the right reasons or to protect the other character then the duo should not be prevented from gaining the benefits later after the immediate plot is sorted out.

...my personal...pine tells me to suggest that the Cure Light Wounds effect be something which is not interruptable, such as with an AMF, but that's just me being crazy...

Um...I'm sorry if none of that made sense. But I really like the idea here!

NeoSeraphi · 01-10-2012, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Story Time

I really really really like this feat! I only...

Well, maybe what I have to say is for another feat and not this one, but I can't stop myself from saying, "If either of you ever breaks this vow, you both lose the benefit of this feat, though you may receive an atonement if either or both of the partners was under magical compulsion when the vow was broken."

Why do I suggest this? I suggest it for two reasons, first because the feat is mutual. Two people have it not one person. Second: because of that line about eternal love. Sometimes characters have heavy principles and part of that relationship is protecting them from doing something that the wouldn't want to do if otherwise not mystically compelled to do so.

When I read this feat, I think of a sniper shooting his best friend to wake them up from some horrific enchantment. Or a scoundrel with a knife trying to flee from a similar scenario. The eternal bit means that even if one character consciously breaks the vow, if they do it for the right reasons or to protect the other character then the duo should not be prevented from gaining the benefits later after the immediate plot is sorted out.

Um...I'm sorry if none of that made sense. But I really like the idea here!

It's a feat. It's black and white. It's a mechanical benefit. The powers that grant you the feat don't care why you broke the vow. Either you decided to break your promise to your partner or you didn't. The reason why doesn't mean anything.

Story Time · 01-10-2012, 07:49 PM

I'll apologize for offending and say that I'm sorry I was a bother.

NeoSeraphi · 01-10-2012, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Story Time

I'll apologize for offending and say that I'm sorry I was a bother.

You didn't offend me! I do appreciate your comments and I'm sorry that I was so blunt in my reply.

AzazelSephiroth · 01-25-2012, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeoSeraphi

It's a feat. It's black and white. It's a mechanical benefit. The powers that grant you the feat don't care why you broke the vow. Either you decided to break your promise to your partner or you didn't. The reason why doesn't mean anything.

I like the feat a lot! But I feel that this statement seems contradictory to the feat itself. If two people are dedicated enough to one another to make such a deep and powerful pact then if one breaks the vow, I feel the reason should be very important. Literature and Film media is full of characters who must sometimes act contrary to their lover`s personal safety or desire in order to protect them from greater harm or evil.

But then again, this is just my opinion on the matter. I certainly think the feat is pretty awesome and am ready to use it myself in a game soon!