Daniel Moyer's page

"But still Fighters are better Tanks than Paladins." (Alienfreak)

No, just no.

A paladin lays on hands on himself every round with only a swift action.

He has he best saves in the game.

I don't know anything about Kingmaker, but saves were and are, in all the PF/3.0/3.5 games I've played, very important.

A fighter may be the better damage dealer overall (though I doubt it, if there are enough evil enemies), but the paladin will stay in the fight longer, because of lay on hands and his over-the-top saves.

That's the job of the tank, don't you agree?

Don't worry, god won't get mad because he doesn't exist.

Just play the game and have fun!

I think that's it though. Respect is what dies with the anonymity of the internet.

Respect dies long before it reaches the internet.

IMO and IMO only, a Therapist job is to help you, not to dictate your religious faith, IMO he stepped out of bounds as a therapist.

I would have a Heart to Heart talk with your Pastor he is the one you should talk to when you have questions about your personal faith.

All of this is just IMO of course.

we also had a thing we would do called "coconut" if one of us yelled coconut we would all attack the same time, we never planned it it was just the "situation is deteriorating" and combat is beginning kinda of thing.

the bbeg: give me your gold or i will make you my slaves
pc1: okay let me get my purs......coconut!!!
combat and mellee ensues

this also began to be used in inappropriate ways

shopkeep: i cant lower the price on this sword any more i am sorry
pc1: okay i understand let me get my purs........coconut!!!!!

and of course

city guard: surrender your shop keep murdering friend and get out of town by sunset

pc2,3,4: okay that sounds fair he is in this alley right here.....coconut!!!!

Incidentally if 5e is a fun game I have no qualms about putting money down and buying it, so this idea of "5e will be a deathblow to 4e and it's supporters, ahahaha!" is pretty funny to me.

It also amuses me that someone here is talking ab out how awful the WotC forums are...in a thread where things like "4E Mutual Appreciation Society" are thrown around.

Thread is in the wrong forum. This is the 4E forum, not the 5E forum.

I think anyone who was expecting such an announcement this soon was being a bit unfair to 4E and its developers. They need time to fully judge the impact that Essentials and any re-releases of older versions that might occur may have. I do think that 5E is probably at least in the preliminary planning stages, just because based on 3rd edition, 4E is on the backside of its development cycle, and unless they put a lot more effort into DDI than they are currently, there will be a 5th edition at some point sooner rather than later, but the chances of seeing anything concrete enough for them to even think about official announcements for it is still at least a year or two off, and anything beyond "we're exploring our options" is probably a year or two beyond that.

As I see it, teamwork feats are more GM fodder than player fodder. Maybe they would be used in a home game where you know who's going to be sitting next to you all the time, but in something like PFS they are utterly useless for players since you have no idea who will be at your table.

For designed encounters, many of them can make for vicious foes.

I think the reason people resent Point Blank Shot is that, unless you're playing a Human and/or a Fighter, you cannot effectively play an archer at level 1, and that's just dumb. Only Humans and Fighters can take both Point Blank and Precise Shot at level 1, which means everyone else is eating a -4 to -8 penalty on every single shot they make (where Humans and Fighters only take a -0 to -4, depending on angle).

Precise Shot is the "allows you to play an archer" feat, and PBS just feels like filler because it doesn't actually contribute to letting you play an archer except as a feat tax before you're allowed to take the "allows you to play an archer" feat.

It's dumb. I understand why it exists, but it's still dumb.

While I am not a fan of Record of lodoss wars, it still had the best looking Dark elf I had ever seen.

AHA! Shalelu has been killed, and replaced with a DROW! The artwork makes it clear that drow have bigger boobs than normal elves. Search her backpack for the disguise kit.

Actually, I think that many fantasy artists have trouble distinguishing between "possible romantic interest" and "porn star".

When dealing with fantasy realms, why let little downers like gravity and back problems interfere with outlandish boob physics and gratuitous cleavage? It certainly doesn't stop video game developers...

Do you ever sit back, shake your head, and think to yourself: "This is my job, contemplating boob sizes of elves."?

Edit: I'm not jealous or anything, really ;)

Often.The topic sometimes changes, but yeah. It can get surreal.

It's also us trying to diffierentiate between races. If the only difference between a human and an elf, physically, is that one has pointed ears and the other doesn't... that's lazy, in my opinion.

We've tried to give each of our races numerous physical characteristics so that you can use multiple different cues to recognize what race you're looking at. For elves, it's that they have long pointed ears, colorful eyes with no whites showing, and are more slender and taller than humans. You wouldn't really start getting a chesty elf, really, unless there's human DNA in their family line somewhere down the road.

Do you ever sit back, shake your head, and think to yourself: "This is my job, contemplating boob sizes of elves."?

Edit: I'm not jealous or anything, really ;)

Well I just thought her boob job meant she went up in levels. I mean if anime has taught us anything is that the bigger boobs a girl has the more powerful she is. :)

The Fall.

Utterly brilliant and beautiful movie, and never fails to spark a desire to play D&D.

I'm buying Skyrim- how else will I find the next chapter of 'The Lusty Arogonian Maid'?

Harpy harpy harpy harpy! I'm so happy for harpies!

Is that like being KooKoo for Coco puffs.

Any chance we'll be seeing the snake bodied Harryhausen style Medusa?

and there are still enough Monsters of Myth left to do a second book

In fact.

I think I'm going to 180 on this.

If you want to give the player the monkey, give him the monkey.

If you want to keep control of the monkey tell him you've changed your mind and let him pick another companion.

You can have the monkey spit on his shoes and turn in his Animal Companion hat if you want but having it in some sort of limbo state where it's his companion but not his to control is likely frustrating and not particularly fun.

Is it a personal attack to ask "Are you really that stupid?"

I mean... it's just a question right?

Every day I marvel at the things people post and think aren't personally insulting or abusive.

Well, is it?

You don't know? No offence, but I pity your ignorance!

Not only are the WotC FAQs a gray area in terms of whether the content of them is open or not, they're also made by another company, for another game. We don't publish 3.5; we publish the Pathfinder RPG. And while they may still be helpful for GMs and players to use in adjudicating rules and interpreting corner cases, they are no more official for the Pathfinder RPG than would be FAQs posted by Chaosium, Fantasy Flight, Goodman Games, Mongoose Publishing, or any other non-Paizo RPG manufacturer.

That's great and all.. but as PF was made to be backward compatible and nothing has changed here... why try to ADD confusion?

While there is a group of people that dislike armor spikes, purposely muddying the waters here can only create table variation where otherwise there wouldn't be.

If you dislike armor spikes.. you run the OP here.. ban them. Simple. Or errata them for PFS. But please don't cause more table variation than there needs to be.

I understand that the 3.5 FAQ is not beholding here.. but it certainly shows where things stood. If nothing has moved then it's also where they should still stand.

Now if you want to go through and re-answer all that the 3.5 FAQ answered about the parts of PF that are identical to 3.5 then more power to you. But please, please don't make a NEED for someone to do that!

There's no support for say a boot knife needing a free hand in order to hit someone with now is there? Why would armor spikes that honestly threaten with more areas on the body be any different? It seems reaching for a desired goal rather than making an adjudication.

Again if you dislike armor spikes.. then ban them or errata them for the campaign. But please don't cause people to need to bring a list of questions to a table to find out what the rules are 'this time'! It really undermines organized play.

I'm sorry if this comes out either too harsh or over-reacting.. but having random rulings at tables leads to bad experiences. Both in the instances in which they occur and in the encouraging people to avoid 'grey' areas.. where 'grey' keeps being redefined.

-James

PS: Btw you certainly can expressly threaten 5' and 10' simultaneously thanks to a Paizo written item.. called the barbazu beard as it needs no hands to use.. thus you can have that nice reach weapon wielded at the same time. So again I don't see that Paizo's PF has a problem with this combination occuring, unlike some posters in this thread that call this 'gaming the system'.

Perhaps we need to ask Jason what kind of action it is to switch from wielding a two-handed weapon with two hands to just holding it in one hand (and not threatening with it) - thus freeing up your other hand to cast a spell, draw & drink a potion, attack with a light weapon, etc.

I'd consider this a free action. And while the rules may not specifically say it, I think they certainly support this ruling.

Now if your light weapon were a dagger on your belt, you'd have to take a move action (or free/swift if you had quick draw) to draw it first.

Especially since Pathfinder seems to have purposely removed all multi-threat weapons like this. It seems fairly clear that they didn't want characters doing this.

Actually Paizo has introduced other weapons that can be used without needing a hand free, so I would think that it's demonstrably clear that they didn't have any problem with it. Instead they had problems with a single weapon (the spiked chain) simultaneously threatening adjacent as well as reach. They seem to have no problem with weapons that don't require hands to use, in fact they seem to have fully embraced it.

And as I seem to recall the 3.5 FAQ directly addressed this situation saying that a character with a longspear and armor spikes would threaten both 10' and 5' away respectively.

Seeing how nothing here has changed, and further how other weapons were introduced that do not require a hand free (boot knife, bar. beard) I can't see any justification for a judge ruling against its intended purpose.

Further extrapolating Mark's reasoning here you would have potential problems using armor spikes while grappling 'if you didn't have a hand free'!

If you dislike armor spikes that much, and are running the campaign simply ban them from the game. Otherwise accept them like some people have to accept gunslingers, ninjas, etc.

Purposefully making up rules like this as a judge in an organized campaign brings up the worst memories of organized play for me, so if my response is a bit overextended you have my apologies,

James Maissen

Perhaps we need to ask Jason what kind of action it is to switch from wielding a two-handed weapon with two hands to just holding it in one hand (and not threatening with it) - thus freeing up your other hand to cast a spell, draw & drink a potion, attack with a light weapon, etc.

Spells with the Evil descriptor are not Evil acts in themselves, if that was the case then taking the Necromancy School as a wizard would require you to be evil which it does not.

I assume your use of the word 'Necromancer' implies undead controller - not just any wizard specializing in the Necromancy School? Because there is nothing in the Necromancy wizard specialization section that refers to spells, let alone spells with the [Evil] descriptor.

Moreover, there are only 5 (Animate Dead, Contagion, Symbol of Pain, Create Undead, & Create Greater Undead) Sorcerer/Wizard necromancy spells in the Core Rulebook that have the [Evil] descriptor. A necromancy specialist wizard has plenty of necromancy spells to choose from which lack the [Evil] descriptor.

Of course, if you have to Animate Dead in order to be a necromancer then yes, you would have to be casting spells with the [Evil] descriptor. Good new is, you can't cast Animate Dead until Wizard 7. So you'll have plenty of time to play the character before a GM writes "Ex-Paladin" in your conditions gained section of the chronicle sheet.

Nine PRD base classes currently have the option to get animal companions. Barbarian (with Mounted Fury archetype), Cavalier, Cleric (with Animal domain), Druid, Inquisitor (with Animal domain), Oracle (with Nature mystery), Paladin, Ranger, and Sorcerer (Sylvan wildblooded Fey bloodline).

Five PRD base classes can get animal familiars. Bard (Sea Singer archetype), Druid (Blight Druid archetype, Eagle/Frog/Monkey/Serpent domains), Magus (arcana), Sorcerer (Arcane or Serpentine bloodlines), and Wizard.

And if an 'ultimate companion' book is to live up to its name, it should probably cover the Summoner and his Eidolon as well.

Plus there's the stuff that *everyone* can use (Monks, Rogues, etc.), like buying a dog or horse or trained monkey with a little vest and using Handle Animal on it, or taking the Leadership feat, or just hiring someone to cook your meals, carry your pack and wash your fancy robes.

Ideally, IMO, such a book should include cohorts/followers, animal companions, familiars, henchmen/hirelings, eidolons and garden-variety horses, hounds, hawks, etc. as well as rules to expand all of the above (new improved familiar options, a familiar-themed archetype, rules for vermin or magical beast companions, expanded rules for Handle Animal and fleshed-out descriptions for how an animal becomes 'combat-trained' and what it gets when it does, etc.).

Man, the 3.5 equivalent of this feat had so much less contention. Really, there only needs to be ONE change in the wording this feat to make it clear.

Benefit: The abilities of your animal companion or familiar are calculated as though your class were four levels higher, to a maximum effective druid level of equal to your character level. If you have more than one animal companion or familiar, choose one to receive this benefit.

There we go. See? No confusion if written like this.

Benefit: The abilities of your animal companion or familiar are calculated as though your class were four levels higher, to a maximum effective druid level of equal to your character level. If you have more than one animal companion or familiar, choose one to receive this benefit.

This would make it clearer. And yes, you can take the feat if you're a single-classed ranger. It's actually pretty sweet deal.

Currently we don't have a place to post FAQ/update material for books other than the Pathfinder RPG hardcovers, so I can't attach this to a permanent FAQ, but consider this an official ruling on this question.

Another vote for such a book.

Druids, Rangers and Paladins have a companion / mount feature. Ditto Clerics with the Animal Domain. Wizards (and some Sorcerers) add familiars to the mix. Then there's the APG classes, with mounts (Cavaliers), familiars (Witches) and eidolons (Summoners).

And *anyone* can take a few ranks in Handle Animal, and perhaps the Mounted Combat feat, and use it in conjunction with a warhorse or riding dog, or even a beefier sort of critter.

Ultimate Companion could also deal with rules for Leadership (cohorts and followers), hirelings and henchmen, animated undead, planar allies and bound critters, golems / homonculi and other constructs, etc. Any sort of secondary character that can accompany a primary character, from a Druid's Companion to a hireling valet that tags along with a character and cooks his meals and fluffs his pillow, could benefit from this sort of book, making it usable for pretty much anyone, even if their base class doesn't include a companion / mount / familiar / eidolon feature, or spells like animate dead or planar ally.

Specific guidelines for applying templates to summoned creatures would also be a good fit for this sort of book, as the summon monster and summon nature's ally spell lines also fit the theme of secondary characters, even if they are more temporary than those gained through class features (or the Leadership feat).

*

After that, I wouldn't mind seeing an Ultimate Gear book that includes not just some new items of equipment, but also some developments in equipment, such as exanded (or just flat-out rebuilt!) crafting rules to allow for some sort of superior masterwork equipment, or improved alchemy concoctions to make non-magical gear at least relevant at mid levels. Less 'ten new types of polearms' and more 'how to build a better longsword' or 'how to brew up alchemist's acid that isn't a waste of an action.'

The up-coming issue of Kobold Quarterly has an article on animal companions and animal cohorts that might be of interest (there just might even be a new magic item)

The Companion Companion!

Does anyone else feel the character classes with companions could stand a little extra love? The cavalier is truly limited in flavor and use by the current selection, not to mention ranger and paladin. I went to make a dwarf cavalier the other day and was pretty unhappy with the fact the bear topped out at medium without house ruling it to grizzly from the book stat. Who wants a dwarf on a horse? Horrible for flavor and general RP. It make no sense that you can have a large wolf, but get saddled with a medium bear.

So, to make a long story short we could benefit from an expanded mount/companion selection. The beast need not even be new if they provided the stats for progression so they would be legal for PFS play. What do you folks think?

Let him carry on being awesome at melee and design encounters that give the others time to shine while he butchers countless foes?

Throw a group of Greater Shadows at them. This will negate the critical hits due to being incorporeal, will cause even his normal hits to be lessened by 50% unless he has some way to get around that, and on top of all that the barbarian will be taking 1d8+4 strength damage every time it gets hit with the creatures touch attack. Since the damage is rolled this bonus applies here, as it does not state otherwise like some other abilities.

After the first hit, the barbarian will start to panic having took a minimum of 5 strength damage on the counterattack he has to contend with the 50% miss chance to attack the shadow.

I guarantee if you played the creature against him (Which at this point the party should have SEVERAL enemies capable of conjuring, binding, or contracting such beings) he would very likely die to any more than 1 of these things.