Consolidated Binder Handbook

488 posts / 0 new
Last post
Andras+Chupoclops+Eligor + the right feats = the binder is a better paladin than the paladin

I should really play a paladin 1/ binder4/KotSS 5 (Andras)/ binder 10 with the heresy variant rule and awesome smite/leap attack/shock trooper. Sigh.

Yup. from the front page:
Heavy Cavalry
10, 15, 20 [Andras] + [Chupoclops] + [Eligor] + [Balam] + Shocktrooper + Imp. Buckler Defense: The ultimate in damage dealing potential. Pounce = full attack after charging; Lance = double damage after charging while mounted; Andras = free horsie, smite attack (which will be doubled on a charge w/ a lance), and Imp. Crit.; Eligor = +4 Str, natural armor, and a couple of great mounted feats, AND heavy armor prof; Balam = reroll 1 / 5 rounds, more AC, and 2d6 cold damage once per round; Shocktrooper = full 2 handed Power Attack damage to all the lance attacks, doubled, w/ no penalty to hit. Consider a BAB 16 character (KoSS 5 / Binder 15): 4 attacks per round, attack bonus of +20 w/o further Str or magic weapon mods, and 2d8 + 40 (smite) + 4 (str), + 64 (power attack, 2H, doubled due to lance) per smite hit (2d8 + 108 damage), -40 for the follow-up attacks, if the weapon has the valorous enchantment, thats 4d8 + 216 damage, (triple that on a crit), plus another 2d6 cold damage every round; AC could be a 45, w/o ring of deflection (+8 armor, +5 enhancement, +5 natural, +4 cover using the horse, +2 Dex, +1 shield, +5 enhancement, +5 insight), or 29 on a full-on Shocktrooper run. THAT'S what I think of when I think Fighter.

Your mount will have issues in combat, however. Use Eurynome to get more powerful mounts as you level up (the attitude will remain friendly even if you don't have Eurynome bound after the first day: you've already met, so initial reaction isn't an issue anymore ).
From the thread I got that the damage from Dahlver-Nar's Shield Self ability bypasses the enemy's DR when it's applied to them. However, if you have DR, is the damage split between you and the enemy calculated before or after the reduction from your own DR?

I.e: I have a DR of /5 and I have Shield Self on a enemy, and I get hit for 13 damage. Is that 13 split (say 7 to me [2 after DR] and 6 to the enemy), or is it 8 (4 to me and the enemy)?
The latter, IIRC.

Merry Christmas !
It looks really tasty.

OoP's characters
My current character in Real Adventures Play-by-Post games:

 

  • Maeve in The Lost History of Istar


 
at first glance it seems that Gaia is by far the best of the new set of vestiges ... darkvision at normal sight range AND 120 blindsight AND 60 foot tremorsense? yes please!

the egyptian one has a sick party heal (positive energy burst or whatever). might be nice for the party cleric, so they don't have to sack XP on greater restorations anymore. (they probably weren't anyway, but hey, it also saves spell slots).

quickened force cage/quickened wall of force is pretty sweet, on the bronze god one ... decent battlefield control, even at that level ...

and you can bind Cthulhu. nice.

oh, i'm sure this has been mentioned, but:

bind vestige (naberius) + wanderers diplomacy on a halfling beguiler is pretty hilarious. points for style, very effective.
Blindsight is good ; tremorsense and darkvision not so much. Regeneration is her real selling point : it comes with a built-in immunity to one of the danage types bypassing it and you can grant it to allies too.

Tkhaluuljin is underwhelming except for the sphere of annihilation. An artefact ! It can't even hurt you if you lose control.

OoP's characters
My current character in Real Adventures Play-by-Post games:

 

  • Maeve in The Lost History of Istar


 
Blindsight is good ; tremorsense and darkvision not so much. Regeneration is her real selling point : it comes with a built-in immunity to one of the danage types bypassing it and you can grant it to allies too.

Tkhaluuljin is underwhelming except for the sphere of annihilation. An artefact ! It can't even hurt you if you lose control.

Blindsight is acceptable, but I would expect/desire True Sight as well based on the warlock's epic feats.

The sphere of annihilation is either very useful or completely useless. The question is, where can you summon it and what are you fighting. If you can summon it on a target, it gets no chance of a save or spell resistance. It is automatically annihilated (unless it is a deity). There is no spell that directly negates this power, it is not a death effect. However, contingencies will easily allow a person to avoid it, and if it not summoned on a target, any person with a decent speed can probably avoid it by walking away. In addition, energy may be immune to its effects, allowing an force sphere or similar effect to protect the matter within. All in all, this is VERY nasty against monsters without spellcasting ability, and rather useless against anything with decent spell defenses or against numbers of creatures spread out a decent distance apart. Of course, if you can only summon it within 40' of you (its range of control) or worse yet summon it forth in your area, the sphere becomes virtually much less useful.

Did anyone see anything regarding the Binding DC? I cannot seem to find what needs to be rolled to make a good bind (and using the prerequisite knowledge skills is vastly too low a DC).
Tkhaluuljin is underwhelming except for the sphere of annihilation. An artefact ! It can't even hurt you if you lose control.

The only downside is, you are only immune to your own Sphere.
There is no Bind DC. You bind them, you get the influence. Period.

Also, if you can only summon the Sphere where you are, it would make a nasty touch-attack, especially with you being immune to it. Your non-epic Vestiges can combine here to allow for the mobility and whatnot that you might need to get on top of your target with little fuss.

Remember, these epic vestiges are in additiona to your non-epic vestiges...

Another question-- can Antimagic turn off a feat?
Truth does not require Fiction for balance.
And here I was worried I woulnd't be able to update my List before 4E.

Edit: Well that was mostly fast. Ironing out some errors still though, check out my sig. I'll be uploading a better version later.
I should've said I was mentioning it in part because of the cool factor. Unlike most other abilities, this can't be replicated by a spell at all.

edit: if the feat grants a (Su) ability, then yes it can be turned off by an AMF. Psionic feats are that way IIRC.

OoP's characters
My current character in Real Adventures Play-by-Post games:

 

  • Maeve in The Lost History of Istar


 
So AMF's spell death to even epic-scale binders? I would think that Epic vestiges would resist AMFs (and dispells) the same way that Epic magic does...
Truth does not require Fiction for balance.
So AMF's spell death to even epic-scale binders? I would think that Epic vestiges would resist AMFs (and dispells) the same way that Epic magic does...

AMF's are emanations, so you just need something to block LoE to you. All the creatures you can summon are not magical, oddly enough: your Su ability that you lose in an AMF is just the ability to summon more. Same thing with Halphax's Iron Wall, too: summon it on one side of the AMF and you should be golden. AMFs aren't that bad, really (but still a pain, admittedly). There's also the Tenebrous Apostate / Chupoclops / Malphus trick where your bird targets the enemy and you attack in an earth glide style.
This is kind of a Sub-Par Combination, but is available at 8th level. Agares + Dahlver-Nar allows you to Shield Self your earth elemental which can glide through the earth beneath your feet all day long. In general, it's a great defense against surprise and you always start combat defended with no action expense.
edit: double post
This is kind of a Sub-Par Combination, but is available at 8th level. Agares + Dahlver-Nar allows you to Shield Self your earth elemental which can glide through the earth beneath your feet all day long. In general, it's a great defense against surprise and you always start combat defended with no action expense.

I always start with it on the Cleric. They generally accept it, plus its a bit easier for them to heal themselves than to move then heal me.

Does anyone know the answer to the order of stacking for the ability, though?

I have DR 10/adamantine
Enemy target of Shield Self has DR 5/cold iron and Energy Resistance 10/Fire

I get hit with a adamantine falchion for 30 damage. How much do I take, how much does my enemy take? If it were cold iron, how much then?

I get hit with a quickened flame strike for 30 damage. Again, how much do I take, how much does my enemy take?
I would say:

Falchion: you take 10 damage, your companion takes 10 damage.

Flame strike: you take 15 damage, your companion takes 15 damage.

etc.

reasoning:

the share pain ability allows you to transfer some wounds YOU suffer to another person; keyword you. thus, you bear the brunt of the attack, and all of your resistances/DR/etc would apply; THEN you would split the resulting damage in half.

Your friend isn't taking damage from the attack itself, but rather from the spell effect (or Su ability in this case); thus, their own resists/DR/etc don't come into play.

Feel free to disagree, but that's how i'd rule it.

also: +1 on the regeneration ability, i forgot about that.
I'm currently in a huge conflict with my DM over Ricochet, granted by Leraje, and whether or not the ability applies to rays. My argument is that rays are weaponlike spells which can have many "ranged attack only" abilities applied to them, such as point blank shot (also granted by the vestige), so for all intents and purposes it should work.

My DM argues two things. The first is that it's not "what was intended" by the vestige's flavor, which is extremely weak because the same vestige does grant point blank shot, which applies to rays. The second is that Rays are functionally different from other weaponlike spells, in that they simply hit the target and are absorbed, so they can't ricochet.

Who would be in the right in this situation? Is there an exceptionally compelling argument against his POV, or am I stuck with his Rule 0?
Ray spells are (generally) cast as a standard action - they're unlikely to be compatible with the standard action from the Ricochet if it's not specified.
From a balance PoV it's a more limited Split Ray, which is pretty powerful - your DM is not out-of-line IMHO, though allowing it would be fine too.

OoP's characters
My current character in Real Adventures Play-by-Post games:

 

  • Maeve in The Lost History of Istar


 
I'm with the DM. Making a ranged attack is different than casting a spell with a ranged attack. Does Many Shot or Rapid Shot apply to ray spells?
There is no Bind DC. You bind them, you get the influence. Period.

Also, if you can only summon the Sphere where you are, it would make a nasty touch-attack, especially with you being immune to it. Your non-epic Vestiges can combine here to allow for the mobility and whatnot that you might need to get on top of your target with little fuss.

Is there any text that supports your claim? To me, this looks like an oversight, especially since a lack of DCs higher than 35 (from the non-epic vestiges) is going to make the new feat Epic Skilled Pact Making [Epic] less useful (useless by 30th probably by 25th). That is not to say that allowing no bind check is unreasonable, but taking penalties if you choose not to fight aberrations or being penalized for binding Acererak while binding the Desecrated Scion is a nasty drawback at epic.

As for the touch attack, I can only partially agree. On the one hand, this is definitely a particularly nasty attack form (no save, no SR, only defense is a well worded contingency or immediate action protective field). On the other hand, getting close to a big epic level nasty in the first place is often suicidal. Given the option, range attacks will often be preferable (same with Acererak's Paralyzing Touch, Halphax's Imprison, and Haagenti's Confusing Touch). Add to this limited duration on the ability, its very low mobility after being summoned (or a wait period of 5 rounds after you dismiss the first one), and its low flexibility in use, and you have a whole lot of mitigating factors to the power that makes it substantially weaker. For a 27th level epic power, I would have wanted it to either 1) be usable at will against objects, 2) have a massively augmented speed, 3) be capable of spitting things back out, 4) have the ability to destroy all forms of energy as well as matter, 5) be summonable/controllable as a swift action. As a binder special, however, since this duplicates an artifact, it can be argued that the sphere works in anti-magic (per the spell artifacts are immune).

As some other notes regarding the epics:

Since regeneration works as fast-healing if you gain immunity to all things that bypass the regeneration (per the sage I believe, I will let someone else pull up the reason), gaining immunity to both acid and fire weakened Gaia's regeneration. However, Ashardalon or Zuriel + all pact augmentations into Energy Resistance can grant a large resistance to the energy type the character is still vulnerable to.

Using Buer's healing ability or the Desecrated Scion's Burst of Life on someone that has regeneration and nonlethal damage can as much as double the healing. Consequently, sharing regeneration might be especially useful.

The Desecrated Scion's Scion of War ability is especially powerful in combination with a Marshall Aura (through a cohort, 1 level dip, or allied PC). They stack. At epic levels, grapple/trip/bull rush etc may suddenly be a viable PC trick even against the massively strong epic monsters with this ability. This might make Zagan more desirable for grapples, Aym for Sunder, or any Binder build that utilizes trips, disarms, and bull rushes.

Gais's Earth Fury may be desirable for characters that bind Andromalius or Malphas for precision damage. Note that this precision damage works with Otiax's Air Blast even if power attack may not.

Gaia's Earth Sense is one of a very few ways (most held by Binders) to see ANY distance in darkness. Most darkvision has a range limitation.

Earth's Voice is wicked. Anything with a spoken language, any plant, or any animal that can hear you must make a save or be friendly to you. This works in much the same way as Eurynome's animal friend ability, and can grant you the tricks in the OP to multiple creatures. Beware, however, nothing says you can turn this ability off, and per the binder power rules, anyone that is effected by the power will feel a "hostile force or tingle" that might make their attitude more hostile to you if they make the save and suspect you are the cause.

Tkhaluuljin's Flight of the Alien grants the wingover feat even though the feat has no effect on someone with perfect maneuverability. It looks like an assumption is that alternative flight might be used. Flight of the Alien+Otiax's Air Blast makes it even harder for an opponent to respond to a flyby attack.

Tkhaluuljin's Mind Blast does not appear to be mind-affecting. This makes it substantially more powerful.

Zuriel's Bronze Body amounts to +4 to hit for most builds (assuming use of KoSS). If the character has magic items granting bonuses to the appropriate stats, this is a very weak ability.

Zuriel's Forceful Speed of Thought, on the other hand, may be interesting. While you can duplicate spells, this is a supernatural power. I am not sure, therefore, whether spell resistance applies. If it does not, it becomes more powerful.

Zuriel's Pact Fortification can enhance use of Otiax's Air Blast (boost damage), any Melee Attack (boost to hit), or Regeneration (Boost ER).

Ultimate Sacrifice may be able to be used with Dahlver-Nar's Shield Self ability. After all, Ultimate Sacrifice is an effect that just did damage to you.
You keep regeneration even when immune to acid & fire. It becomes Fast Healing if you lose your Con score (typically if you tried to become undead to not be subject to nonlethal damage).

OoP's characters
My current character in Real Adventures Play-by-Post games:

 

  • Maeve in The Lost History of Istar


 
Kobold Sorcerer - 1 / Binder - 2 / Anima Mage - 10 / X-1 / ACM - 1+ /
1 Precocious Apprentice
(2) Flaw to take Improved Binding feat and qualify for Anima Mage - 10
3 Extend Spell
6 Persistant Spell
9, 12, 15, 18 more or less free:
Arcane Disciple Luck Domain for general utility tool box No Experience High Arcana Miracles 2/ Day and duplicating things like Psychic Reformation to change out known spells.
Take the Kobold Ritual for earlier spell progression.
You can suppress your vestiges which can be a issue in many games. You get CL 19, spells known as a 19th level sorcerer, can bind up to L6 vestiges, and can persist up to 3 spells per day.

Human or +0 LA Planetouched Beguiler - 1 / Binder - 2 / Anima Mage - 10 / X - 6 / ACM - 1+

You get CL 18, spells known as a 18th level Beguiler, can bind up to L6 vestiges, and can persist up to 3 spells per day
Arcane Disciple Luck Domain for general utility tool box No Experience High Arcana Miracles 2/ Day a Blood line feat or another Arcane Disciple feat.

In a low level leveling up game using Flaws (2) and the Precocious Apprentice feat trick works with a non good Human PC.

The PC could enter the Anima Mage PRC at second level with a Variant Spellcaster -1.

It would take 4 feats: Precocious Apprentice feat with the Bind Vestige feat, the Bind Vestige, Improved feat and a meta magic feat of choice along with choosing Intimidate and Knowledge (Planes) for class skills.

It's a little gray the PC isn't actually a "Binder" since he hasn't taken levels in the Binder base class so does the AM PRC advance the Bind Vestige, Improved BL - 5 up to BL - 15 limited to a single power from it or does it it get the best BL - 15 with Binder - 10 or would it disqualifiy the PC from the PRC or convert the two feats to the Improved Binding feat to maintain qualification for the PRC just entered?

Probably best to go Variant Spellcaster -1 with the Precocious Apprentice feat trick at first level and Binder - 1 at second level with a flaw for Improved Binding to qualify for Anima Mage at third level.

Curious how it would work at at L11 with the Variant Spellcaster -1, Anima Mage -10.

The PC would be a Spellcaster -11 and Binder -10 capable of two vestige soul binding up to L5 vestiges (L6 vestiges with the Improved Binding feat) and three pact augmentations with all the Anima Mage PRC specials of Exploit Vestige, Vestige Metamagic 3/day, Vestige Awareness and Vestige Casting.

Lots of options in game after hitting level 5. Ur Priest -2 could be interesting at levels 6 and 7 with something like MT - 8 for level 9 divine spell casting starting at L14 or 15 (Taking Binder -1) from Ur Priest with arcane spellcasting equal to PC Level - 2 or 3 (Binder -1) from the Variant Spellcaster with some Binder options leveling. Erudite could be interesting depending on if Persistent Spell feat can be acquired if using the Spells to Power variant.
do you have a list or link to the binding dc's for the newer vestiges here?
Most of the web article Vestiges have a link on page one.
While scrounging around in the Gnome Powersuit thread, I stumbled upon a surprising and hilarious combination...

Tenebrous Vestige(ToM) + Water Devotion(CoC) = Unlimited Water Elementals, Character Level 1-5 = Small, 6-10 = Medium, 11-15 = Large, 16-20 = Huge.

Water Elemental is certainly the least useful of the elemental choices in most campaign settings, but any seafaring setting makes it quite a choice to consider. Water Devotion actually represents an hilarious improvement for Binders, who can effectively have 2 Water Elementals out constantly.

Theoretically speaking, if you allow the popular Paizo vestige Green Lady then you have one of the strongest 1st level Characters in the game.
On a similar tangent...

Aym + Tenebrous + Maul of the Titans + Strength Devotion + Combat Brute = A whole lot of broken things, without losing your actual attack against the foe.

Tenebrous + Healing Devotion
= Slower than Tenebrous + Sacred Healing, but less demanding requisites.

Tenebrous + Good Devotion/Evil Devotion = Damage Reduction for the whole party!

Tenebrous + Earth Devotion = Very weird, but great if you have the time and inclination to plan tactical battles.

Tenebrous + Destruction Domain
= At least 1 contribution per encounter. Sometimes two!
Is there any text that supports your claim? To me, this looks like an oversight, especially since a lack of DCs higher than 35 (from the non-epic vestiges) is going to make the new feat Epic Skilled Pact Making [Epic] less useful (useless by 30th probably by 25th).

There is on sentence that supports 'oversight':
"Epic vestige DCs are regulated by EBL in the same manner as nonepic vestiges."
@iry: I believe this came up before, but you're misunderstanding Domain feats. You have to put aside a certain number of Turn attempts when you take the feat, and you cannot change it afterwards. See CC p52. Tenebrous doesn't help with that.

OoP's characters
My current character in Real Adventures Play-by-Post games:

 

  • Maeve in The Lost History of Istar


 
There is on sentence that supports 'oversight':
"Epic vestige DCs are regulated by EBL in the same manner as nonepic vestiges."

What do you mean by "oversight?" I think that all that sentence implies is that the save DCs for Binder abilities in Epic levels continues to progress, scaling up at 10 + 1/2 EBL + CHA.

But as far as having text to support my claim, you are asking me to prove a negative, which can not be done. My perspective is that it makes sense, thematicaly, that the will of a mere mortal, even on an Epic scale, is no match for the intensity of personna in Epic-grade vestiges.

The lack of Binding DC's seems to be altogether too complete to be coincidental, especially with the central role that Binding DCs play with non-epic Vestiges. There seems to be no mention of a contest of wills when binding Epic vestiges whatsoever.

It is something akin to the Mitigating Factors used in Epic Spells, I would argue (and thus, by extension, receive the sort of resistance to AMFs and MDJs that epic spells get).
Truth does not require Fiction for balance.
Not that there necessarily is a correlation, but the Epic Binder thread on the Epic boards also didn't have any bind DCs. It explicitly stated that you automatically were "under the influence", so-to-speak. The biggest problem I see with that is that you can't expel it early (which is not such a big deal, really).
@Iry: I believe this came up before, but you're misunderstanding Domain feats. You have to put aside a certain number of Turn attempts when you take the feat, and you cannot change it afterwards. See CC p52. Tenebrous doesn't help with that.

I'm not misunderstanding the feats. They should work fine with Tenebrous.

Here is just some of my evidence:
  • Domain Spontaneity - CDpg 80 - Expend a spell slot, expend a turning attempt.
  • Retrieve Spell - CCpg 62 - Expend turn or rebuke attempts.
  • Spritual Counter - CCpg 62 - Expend one or more turn or rebuke attempts.

This is a list of three divine feats, one of which PREDATES the CC, and two of which are actually located inside the CC. They all use the term expend. There are more examples than the above, and I will supply them upon request.

  • There is no reference to the term Spend or Expend in the PHB 3.5 Glossary.
  • Www.dictionary.com and www.webster.com list Spend and Expend as interchangeable definitions for each other in certain circumstances.
  • Page 52 of the CC never mentions the term Expend.


Now, you might be thinking that it is unusual to have Domain Feat turn/rebuke references located in the 'Special' text, but let me present further evidence...
  • The SRD, under Feat Description, states 'Special - Additional facts about the feat that may be helpful when you decide whether to acquire the feat.'


Obviously the special text block has no mechanical precedent beyond offering additional information about the feat.

It's clear that Page 52 of CC is an anomaly. A unique occurrence that offers you the opportunity to permanently sacrifice turn attempts in exchange for Domain Feat abilities. This ability is in addition to the standard methods of expending Turn/Rebuke attempts to gain a daily use of the Domain Feat. You might ask how that could possibly be better than simply saving your Turn/Rebuke attempts and using them to power the feat at-will. I can offer only the following two ideas... A) The uses gained from sacrificing Turn/Rebuke attempts are permanent, and thusly immune to being reduced by charisma ability drain/damage. B) It wouldn't be the first time the designers simply made a sub-par ability.

On an amusing tangent, as written on Pg 52 of CC it is potentially open to Feat Retraining abuse. Retrain ALL your feats except the highest feat as your chosen Domain Feat and replace them with Extra Turning. Feed them into your Domain Feat then train them back into something useful. Though, practically no DM should be foolish enough to allow any of this tangent to fly in a real game.
What do you mean by "oversight?" I think that all that sentence implies is that the save DCs for Binder abilities in Epic levels continues to progress, scaling up at 10 + 1/2 EBL + CHA.

I fear that you are correct. My interpretation smells of wishfull thinking.

But as far as having text to support my claim, you are asking me to prove a negative, which can not be done.

It is not impossible (and often quiet simple) to prove a negative.
(Hint: reverse conclusion)

My perspective is that it makes sense, thematicaly, that the will of a mere mortal, even on an Epic scale, is no match for the intensity of personna in Epic-grade vestiges.

Maayyybe....
But story and gaming wise it is very constrictive:
e.g. I can't bind Amun-her Khepeshef ever if my group includes a mage with death spells.
And Gaia is more restrictive than every paladin code.

Binding should be easy power, not impossible to use power.

The lack of Binding DC's seems to be altogether too complete to be coincidental, especially with the central role that Binding DCs play with non-epic Vestiges. There seems to be no mention of a contest of wills when binding Epic vestiges whatsoever.

Except "The nature of epic vestiges is similar to that of nonepic vestiges, but they are grander, more tragic, and more terrifying."
But I must confess, that this is my final straw...

It is something akin to the Mitigating Factors used in Epic Spells, I would argue (and thus, by extension, receive the sort of resistance to AMFs and MDJs that epic spells get).

But I can choose my mitigation factors.

Perhaps Eytan Bernstein will take mercy and clarify this point once and for all.
lots of great info

The problem is on p52 of CChampion.
If you have the ability to turn or rebuke undead, you can gain additional daily uses of a domain feat's benefit by permanently sacrificing daily uses of that ability.

As worded, Tenebrous doesn't give you daily uses, stupidly enough...

edit: I see you know about it. What was the author's intent? Who knows...
It is not impossible (and often quiet simple) to prove a negative.
(Hint: reverse conclusion)

I assume that you are referring to something akin to Modus Tollens or a proof by contradiction or Absurdity?

You can make strong arguements that way by using negation of a statement to show it to be logically impossible. That is not, however, the same thing as proving a negative. That is proving a positive by negation.

But perhaps I misspoke - What I was trying to express, however inarticualtely, was that a Negative Proof ("X is true because there is no proof that X is false." - to quote Wikipedia) is a logical fallacy.

That is, stating that "There are supposed to be Binding DC's because there is nothing which says that there are not supposed to be" is not a valid argument.

... which, of course, is utterly irrelevant and entirely off-topic!
Truth does not require Fiction for balance.
Are there surnatural abilities against starvation, thirst, or suffocation, the need for the sleep, the oldness ?
Zyceryl (I might not ahve the spelling right) applies the Psudonatural template to you while she's bound, making you an Outsider... Though, I don't have the text in front of me, so it might specify that you get the Native subtype, which would not help.
Truth does not require Fiction for balance.
@Iry: what jwm said. How are divine feats relevant when we're talking about domain feats ? They follow a new mechanic, introduced in CC and outlined p52.

You do have some bad rules interactions with Charisma damage/drain, but it doesn't change the fact that Tenebrous does not enable you to do what you think.

OoP's characters
My current character in Real Adventures Play-by-Post games:

 

  • Maeve in The Lost History of Istar


 
But perhaps I misspoke - What I was trying to express, however inarticualtely, was that a Negative Proof ("X is true because there is no proof that X is false." - to quote Wikipedia) is a logical fallacy.

On this we couldn't agree more.
(And I misread, I was not aware that "proof of a negative" was a fixed phrase in english.)

... which, of course, is utterly irrelevant and entirely off-topic!

But very well spoken!

Are there surnatural abilities against starvation, thirst, or suffocation, the need for the sleep, the oldness ?

Ex? -> Children of the Night
@Iry: what jwm said. How are divine feats relevant when we're talking about domain feats ? They follow a new mechanic, introduced in CC and outlined p52.

You do have some bad rules interactions with Charisma damage/drain, but it doesn't change the fact that Tenebrous does not enable you to do what you think.

The presumption is that 'Special:' may be used to reference Divine Feats. After all, given the option of referencing an obscure sentence that doesn't deserve the distinction of it's own paragraph and lacks similar terminology beyond the word "daily'... and referencing a familiar and popular mechanic with nearly identical terminology used not only in previous books but the divine feats in the very same book... then you should reference the one with nearly identical. There is far more evidence supporting the latter than the former.

In fact, JWM brings up the most valid argument I've seen. The word 'Daily'. In the strictest sense RAW seems to support clerics activating Domain Feats at will without permanent loss of turning attempts (leaving pg52 a sickly vestige of text), while effectively denying Tenebrous the ability to utilize them.

Admitting that, I think an argument could be founded upon the concept that the special abilities are not strictly called "Daily Turn/Rebuke Undead" and are instead called just "Turn/Rebuke Undead" in both the case of the cleric and Tenebrous. Since a cleric effectively turns a number of times per day equal to '3+X, where X is equal to charisma modifier.' and Tenebrous effectively turns a number of times per day equal to 'X, where X is equal to <=2057'.
The presumption is that 'Special:' may be used to reference Divine Feats. After all, given the option of referencing an obscure sentence that doesn't deserve the distinction of it's own paragraph and lacks similar terminology beyond the word "daily'... and referencing a familiar and popular mechanic with nearly identical terminology used not only in previous books but the divine feats in the very same book... then you should reference the one with nearly identical. There is far more evidence supporting the latter than the former.

In fact, JWM brings up the most valid argument I've seen. The word 'Daily'. In the strictest sense RAW seems to support clerics activating Domain Feats at will without permanent loss of turning attempts (leaving pg52 a sickly vestige of text), while effectively denying Tenebrous the ability to utilize them.

Admitting that, I think an argument could be founded upon the concept that the special abilities are not strictly called "Daily Turn/Rebuke Undead" and are instead called just "Turn/Rebuke Undead" in both the case of the cleric and Tenebrous. Since a cleric effectively turns a number of times per day equal to '3+X, where X is equal to charisma modifier.' and Tenebrous effectively turns a number of times per day equal to 'X, where X is equal to <=2057'.

I wonder if we're reading the same book. "Domain feats are a new category of feats..." (p.52) Right: let's ignore the text defining this new mechanic, and use the text for another mechanic because it suits us.

"Permanently sacrificing daily uses" : how do you not lose turn attempts ?

So it's not RAW ("strictest sense RAW" is not about dropping half of the RAW), it's not RAI, but let's use it anyway ?

Put another way: if the generic rules governing a category of feats are not repeated in the text of each feat, do you ignore them ? The divine feat rules specify you can only use 1 divine feat per round: is that RAW or not ? It's not in the text of Divine Metamagic, and you can normally use feats as much as you want...

OoP's characters
My current character in Real Adventures Play-by-Post games:

 

  • Maeve in The Lost History of Istar