u/xZeromusx

So, I have my build planned out to level 35 already. This campaign is very early still too. I also play our group tank. My character uses The Beast Who Spoke quirk. I have a custom weapon and cannot equip certain things like armor, shields, and weapons. So a certain Shield which gives counterattacks on odds is probably out of my reach.

For this character, I created a lot of back story and an entire civilization, etc. My idea for my companion starts when my character hits 31 after resolving part of his backstory conflict. During this he'd have to return to his hometown and I thought about him taking on an "apprentice" as a companion.

This apprentice would be in training to be a tank like him and be basically another "Beast Who Spoke". That's the RP aspects.

So my question is if these skills would be "too much".

Skill 1: Protection Practice: Basically the companion can perform Protect. This isn't a stretch given the Howler stat block literally has a skill exactly like this.

Skill 2: Guard Practice: When my character performs Guard, the companion attempts to "practice" the same tactic and performs Guard as well, but only gets the resistances. They cannot perform Guard on another creature to protect them from melee attacks.

Skill 3: Counter Practice: After an enemy hits or misses the Companion with a melee attack, if the accuracy check was odd, the companion can counterattack with one of their basic attacks, High Roll 0 for damage purposes. Basically the effect of a late game shield, but instead of my character being able to do the counter, the companion does it.

For some details, I am the only tank focused character in a party of 7. I am expecting that by level 30, there is going to be some struggle over how my character uses Protect and Bodyguard. I thought if I could get access to a second protect buffed by Guard with a companion, that would cover the gap a bit more. And since the counter on odds effect is only on my companion, it would be balanced by my companion performing it rather than my main character.

Something I like to do in my free time is develop character concepts. I have a lot, which I will probably never play.

I posted about a concept I play in a friend's game here where I play with the quirk The Beast Who Spoke and the Pilot Class to play as a sentient talking mount and tank for our healer (my husband's character).

This player concept is a proposal about how this quirk might interact with the Wayfarer class, and specifically with their Faithful Companion skill, to play as two beasts that interact to fulfill the tank role. Though you might try a different build to play two beasts fulfilling a different role. For those that don't know, Umbra and Pyrna were canine companions to Noctis and Lunafreya in the Final Fantasy 15 RPG. They didn't really see any combat, but they were featured a lot in the story.

So first, a recap of the quirk The Beast Who Spoke. You may not equip any items, with the exception of accessories and weapon and armor modules. However, as long as your armor slot is empty, you gain a +2 bonus to Defense and a +2 bonus to Magic Defense. You also gain two benefits of your choice from the following:

• You may also equip custom weapons.

• You learn one NPC spell; you cannot choose the Devastation spell. If the spell requires a Magic Check, use (MIG + WLP).

• Your attacks with unarmed strikes deal 6 extra damage. This amount increases to 10 extra damage if you are level 30 or higher.

Take spell and Lick Wounds for one of these options. Your choice on the other. I personally prefer Custom Weapon for a tanking character to grab their defense increases.

Your first two levels go to Faithful Companion. You might need a little bit of DM magnanimity here, depending on the role you want to fill. Roleplay wise, usually almost anything goes, so imagining that both your main character and your companion can speak (hence The Beast Who Spoke) doesn't seem that much of a stretch if the idea is that you are both from the same species/race. If it is too much, then saying one of you is mute could also work. That could even be a very interesting plot point if say one is mute and the other is deaf and they have some sort of telepathic connection and they relied on each other for sensory support.

For the companion build, this proposal chooses Beast, though perhaps with the quirk that makes you elemental you could make yours an elemental. For skills, I would first grab the skill that the Howler shows in the core rulebook, which basically gives the companion the Protect skill. Second, and this might be a stretch, give them counterattack, but instead of countering evens, counter odds. I think you can see why I mentioned DM magnanimity. It is still basically Counterattack, but it would mean a counterattack that you can deploy when the roll is odd. I'd reach for the stars though here, because even if they say no, evens only, then it's still counterattack for two even rolls per round. I'd then select Spellcaster and take Lick Wounds and maybe Improved Defenses or Hit Points.

Next two levels, Guardian, for Protect and Bodyguard. Protect is obvious for most any tank. Bodyguard though is where things get a little cheeky. The text specifies it can be done on an ally, not just another player character. Your companion is an ally. So if you Bodyguard your companion, you now have two Protects with resistances each round and two health pools for them.

Fifth level, obviously, Counterattack. If you can get odds for your companion, then you can cover the evens yourself.

If companion health gets low, use a turn for them to Lick Wounds. You can even switch off since you took the same spell in your quirk

You'll obviously want to max out Faithful Companion your first few levels to give your companion some survival and bonuses to hit.

Anyways, yeah, that's the character concept to start. I build these ideas out all the way to 50 in an online planner, but this is already getting a bit long. What are some ideas you might have for playing two characters as one player?

I'm going to assume that this will not work, but I'm going to run it by y'all anyways.

Healing Power Rules: When you cast a spell that targets one or more allies, if you have an arcane weapon equipped, you may have each of those allies recover an amount of Hit Points equal to (3 + (SL, multiplied by the number of Bonds you have)). This healing is separate from any healing caused by the effects of the spell.

Elemental Weapon Rules: Targets One Equipped Weapon. You imbue a weapon with elemental energy. Choose a damage type: air, bolt, earth, fire, or ice. Until this spell ends, all damage dealt by the weapon becomes of the chosen damage type. If you have that weapon equipped while you cast this spell, you may perform a free attack with it as part of the same action. This spell can only be cast on a weapon equipped by a willing creature.

Now, the question is not about the free attack. That seems pretty clear that YOU have to have it equipped when YOU cast it. The question is about if you casted it on an ally's weapon. Because the target of the spell is an equipped weapon, I would assume then that it does not trigger Healing Power, since Healing Power specifies "targets one or more allies". I'm our group's healer (not how we started out, but that's another story). I'm just getting a full feel for what all the buff spells that synergize with Healing Power, and questioning obscure one.

I'm in a game with my partner and my DM approved an idea I had and let me run with it. I created an entire civilization.

The Beast Who Spoke quirk was the seed of inspiration. It got me thinking about what I could imagine for the quirk and how I could build around it. Pilot's Steed frame came to mind. What if the Steed was the character? Steed comes with an extra seat that can transport a passenger in addition to the Pilot's seat. So what if the pilot and the steed frame were inseparable and they just never disembarked from the vehicle because they were the vehicle itself? There are no explicit rules about when you have to disembark your vehicle, just RP logic about how and where your vehicle can go. So what if the vehicle were just a larger than average beast? Like a talking dire wolf.

To carry the idea, I came up with some sacrifices I would willingly make in addition to those involved with The Beast Who Spoke quirk. First, I would take Compression Tech. Since I am never leaving my "vehicle" for RP purposes, I mechanically ignore the IP cost of summoning it. So, I wanted to not make it so I could just ignore this feat entirely and give myself an extra level. So even if I logically would not need this mechanism, I took it anyways to basically burn one of my starting levels for the purposes of trying to make my idea balanced.

Second, I took the Rapid Interface module. This module makes it so that when you use your action to enter your vehicle and this module is on, you can perform another action. This burns one of my module slots, as I am treating it as always being on and that I cannot turn it off even when I take Flexible Configuration later. My reasoning is that since I am always treated as "in my vehicle" mechanically and never having to "enter" it, I needed to balance the idea against the mechanics of a pilot having to enter their vehicle and get a free action from this module.

Finally, I decided that I could never take any weapon or armor modules, even though The Beast Who Spoke quirk explicitly states that you can. Since for character purposes my character IS the vehicle, and as a big wolf steed I cannot equip armor or use normal weapons, I would also sacrifice the armor and weapon modules. I can only take support modules and I flavor them as beast-like attributes.

My DM was on board when I explained the idea and the things I would give up. So, floored with the approval, I proceeded to create an entire civilization of similar sentient beasts of different species, complete with tribe clans, religion, a government system, and even ancient folklore.

Starting out, I also took two levels in Guardian to take Bodyguard and Protect so I can Bodyguard my partner who is built as our healer and usually occupies my extra "seat" and protect the rest of our group. For my final starting level I took Darkblade and Painful Lessons since Keen Senses (Sensory Module) gives a bonus to study. We didn't have anyone yet filling the role of the group tactician, and from another game I am in where I play a glass cannon with Elementalism, I have really appreciated our tank's use of Painful Lessons to save actions and help me exploit weaknesses. Once I finish Guardian in 8 levels I will pick up Weaponmaster for Counterattack and Bone Crusher.

But yeah, that's my current player concept. We already started our game. I play the group tank and with the guard and protect combo the damage was barely a scratch. I took a custom weapon option to make a custom weapon with an additional +2 magic def and +2 def so my defense is 12 across both right now and will go up to 14 when I increase my die sizes. I could probably get better with a less complex idea or if I dropped Pilot for something else. But 12 still feels pretty good starting out.

As Non-AI.

I don't strictly fall into either camp on the AI issue. I was very anti-AI before I actually had to take a class on it for my degree and had to reason out ethical AI usage in everything from art to academics. AI is not likely to just go away, so it seems better to learn how to live with its presence, both positive and negative.

One discussion that gets brought up a lot is the idea of requiring AI media to be labeled. I get the appeal. It shifts the burden of consumer responsibility onto the producer. However, why not go the other way? Why not begin voluntarily labeling your content as Non-AI?

At this point, within the larger art community, it might be a boon to your personal credentials as an artist to label your work as Non-AI. Maybe you don't need to put it on every image (or maybe do put it as a large water mark on every public facing image if you fear your stuff may be used for training AI), but you could put it on your personal page as a disclaimer that all your content is Not AI generated. Think of it as being similar to how some products are labeled as "Non-GMO". Maybe Non-GMO means very little in reality, but it is still a known selling tactic companies use to jack up their prices. Maybe "Non-AI" could have more integrity in the art community than "Non-GMO" labeling has in grocery stores. At least then you can give people something to look for when trying to decide if they want to commission you or purchase your art.

And, if someone using AI tries to lie and label themselves as Non-AI, and gets caught, there will be a more legitimate reason to complain about them. They aren't going to willingly label themselves as AI, so willingly labeling yourself as Non-AI seems like it would be the best alternative for everyone and essentially force the issue of disclosure.

Like, for commissions I get for my stuff, I have a policy about usage of AI. I don't use it for my personal stuff, and commissioners that request I use something they've generated from AI are told up front that their commission will then not be featured in my personal portfolio. It's not a strict NO AI policy, because it's their commission, their money, and I'm making something to their desired specifications. But the policy regarding AI is splashed right across the bold print of my website's commission policies and procedures. So people know that I will not put AI into their commission request nor will it be in the things that I've made for myself that I make publicly available for free.