Flashohol's page

Blindness is great, even at level 15, especially against casters. With Persistent Spell you can also give it a decent chance of working or just force another save or suck with a quickened version.

It is great, with spell focus and the metamagics to enhance it but he has none of those metamagics. He has Dazing and Empower, neither of which apply to blindness and he has 3 other ways to blind someone.

Resist Energy for instance would be a nice choice.

You can drop fly you have enough ways to get around and your party should all have ways of their own by level 15.

You have glitter dust, blindness deafness and sleet storm so you don't need pyrotechnics as well. I would drop it over the other's simply because of the required fire source. You could drop blindness to if you don't have heighten the chances of something failing it's save are slim.

I'm not going to apply for this one, but I'm in one of Henry's other games and I can vouch that he's an excellent DM.

Best of luck to everyone.

2nd

We have PC alignment, a tool used by the Player and the GM which is used mostly for RP to guide a charaters actions and motivations. Then you have Mechanical alignment, Creature subtypes, Spell Descriptors, DR/Align, and more class abilities then I can count. I don't need the game to hold my hand and tell me why something is EVIL. Just like I don't need it to tell me why druids lose spells for 24hrs after putting on metal armor and not 5min or a year. It's apart of the game we chose to play.

They rules don't say using a Mechanically Alligned effect is a hit to that alignment. But if casting an EVIL spell isn't an EVIL act then a Pally could raise a ZOMBIE horde to fight off demons and not lose status. Make a ritualistic sacrifice for the "Greater Good" and still not lose alignment.

An Erinyes could try to assend again, a Vampire might be resisting his urge to feed and kill, a Drow might turn his back on everything he was ever taught, Someone might find themselves in a state of unlife and lack the drive to kill, but these are all against the norm and the CORE of the game.

Your free to change these as you wan't and I encourage people to do so but calling the game inconsistent solves nothing and gives us nothing.

Flashohol wrote:

You could even use INFLICT to heal an UNDEAD minion you got through the use of COMMAND UNDEAD. Still not evil.

So... Is it really a trick to being a good necromancer is to steal other people's undead? If creating them is evil, but commanding and owning them and even healing them isn't inherently aligned? There's a pokemon analogy here somewhere.

The game didn't put an evil stamp on it so unless your doing this things to be evil, its not evil. Might not be good but its not evil.

Casting Animate Object on a corpse. NOT inherently EVIL.

@Flashohol

Fire is energy/chemical reaction. A zombie is flesh.

Evil/Good on the other hand, only exists in the
eye of the beholder. In reality, there is no "negative energy" that seems into the universe whenever you do something "bad". Evil only exists when someone does something that is viewed by someone as evil.

Wait. Maybe you were just talking about the game mechanics of alignment, in which case, we are on full agreement.

Yup.

What about using Necromancy in the manipulation of life and death, Healing and doing damage through life drain or something like that. As opposed to using undead minions?

NOT EVIL. unless your using EVIL to do it, or for an EVIL purpose like for the sake of causing pain. You could even use INFLICT to heal an UNDEAD minion you got through the use of COMMAND UNDEAD. Still not evil.

A persons perception of something doesn't change what it is.
Fire for instance can be seen as
- The SUN. The gift of life,
- the PHOENIX death and rebirth,
- and HELL endless torment,

Undead
- Servants to rebuild a fallen empire
- Entertainment for the masses
- an Army to fight off the invading Orc's

Regardless of your PERCEPTION of fire it will always be fire and a zombie will always be a zombie.

The same stands true for the 4 Alignments. Regardless of HOW they are used or WHY they are used they will always be what they are. When the book calls them out to be. When they don't it's up to the DM. If you disagree with that then play your way.

In the Book of Exalted Deeds you could play an Exalted Undead. Make a spell that does that using GOOD energy and not EVIL energy and go roll some dice.

Except that in this case the "stuff of evil" (negative energy) is actually Neutral.

Which is the crux of the problem.

Either mindless undead should be neutral, or negative energy should be evil.

As it stands, there is no consistency.

Wrong.

and then positive energy would have to be GOOD and then the evil priest couldn't heal themselves.

Negative energy isn't evil it drains life and in turn powers unlife. but not all undead have to be evil. even the detect evil spell says "Aligned Undead"

this debate is going nowhere, neither of us seems to yield, so i will propose that we agree to disagree.

i propose that too all of us in this thread.

we are all from different backgrounds and lifestyles

and we all have our own opinion on the RAW

but eternally, i refuse to accept that Zombies and Skeletons are evil, and will houserule them to be neutral in my own games. hell, in my own games, i think i will pick apart and remove alignment entirely.

instead of Detect Evil, it's Detect Hostility

instead of Protection From Evil, it's Protection from Hostility

instead of Smite Evil; it's "Smite Infadel."

Fair Enough. I have lots of those myself.

We also use that houserule with the exception of Undead, Dragons and Outsiders.

A zombie unless directed is incapable of good only evil. A skeleton can wield weapons and armor they

While most skeletons are mindless automatons, they still possess an evil cunning imparted to them by their animating force—a cunning that allows them to wield weapons and wear armor

If they lacked the ability of choice how would they choose which weapons and armor to wield? If zombies can't choose then why do they travel in packs? Instinct maybe. Perhaps it the EVIL of the SPELL that created it? Either way they still commits and spreads evil.

Not just evil actions. But actual Evil. You can wield it to power spells much the same you could with fire, you can have creatures made of the stuff like demons.

With each evil mortal soul that finds its way into the Abyss, the ranks of the demonic hordes grows—a single soul can fuel the manifestation of dozens or even hundreds of demons, with the exact nature of the sins carried by the soul guiding the shapes and roles of the newly formed fiends

Water doesn't choose to be water but its still water.

Zombies are

unthinking automatons

and may not have chosen to be evil but it's still evil.

A tiger may be cruel but they could also come to befrend a character and fight for them without being forced. They are equially capable of both good and evil ACTIONS but lack the mind to know whats good and evil and with out that intent or the "Essence" of evil then it's not evil.

Evil isn't an idea in the DND world it's just as real as the air your character needs to breath. An Evil undead is more Evil than most living creatures.

Detect Evil

Flashohol wrote:

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

Flashohol wrote:

@Umbriere Moonwhisper

And when you die or someone takes control of your undead and they seek out and kill everything they can find? That's the risk you take and thats ONE reason why it's evil.

Let them fall and Solid Fog or Summon 1d4+1 Horses, Air/Earth/Water Elementals, Giant Ant's all get the job done.

There will always be equal or better option than Animate Dead. And if there isn't you had to sink resources to have Animate Dead available.

If you need to save the world with EVIL it is still EVIL first, then you saved the world, second. If your a Pally you still lose status.

Undead seek out and kill everything they find? how is that any different from Tigers? Tigers stalk and hunt, sentient beings to feed upon for their own survival. is an undead who happens to be a carnivore, any more evil than a tiger who happens to be a carnivore?

undead, are at least merciful enough to go straight to the meal

tigers play with their food sadistically before they finish it.

i'd rate tigers more evil than zombies.

You would?

PRD wrote:

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.

The system doesn't. That's OBJECTIVE MORALITY. Zombies may not be aware what there doing is evil but they are still driven to do so.

EDIT, The word devour is in the stat block so you got me there.
Zombie's don't feast on flesh. Those are Ghouls. Which were what zombies were before the word zombie was created. Undead arn't carnivores either they don't need to feed, the ones that do eat are driven to do so but don't NEED it.

if a Tiger, is neutral, then a Zombie should be as well.

Wrong.

They...

Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

and are...

Neutral evil represents pure evil without honor and without variation

Flashohol wrote:

@Umbriere Moonwhisper

And when you die or someone takes control of your undead and they seek out and kill everything they can find? That's the risk you take and thats ONE reason why it's evil.

Let them fall and Solid Fog or Summon 1d4+1 Horses, Air/Earth/Water Elementals, Giant Ant's all get the job done.

There will always be equal or better option than Animate Dead. And if there isn't you had to sink resources to have Animate Dead available.

If you need to save the world with EVIL it is still EVIL first, then you saved the world, second. If your a Pally you still lose status.

Undead seek out and kill everything they find? how is that any different from Tigers? Tigers stalk and hunt, sentient beings to feed upon for their own survival. is an undead who happens to be a carnivore, any more evil than a tiger who happens to be a carnivore?

undead, are at least merciful enough to go straight to the meal

tigers play with their food sadistically before they finish it.

i'd rate tigers more evil than zombies.

You would?

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.

The system doesn't. That's OBJECTIVE MORALITY. Zombies may not be aware what there doing is evil but they are still driven to do so.

EDIT, The word devour is in the stat block so you got me there.
Zombie's don't feast on flesh. Those are Ghouls. Which were what zombies were before the word zombie was created. Undead arn't carnivores either they don't need to feed, the ones that do eat are driven to do so but don't NEED it.

A carnivore meaning 'meat eater' (Latin, caro meaning 'meat' or 'flesh' and vorare meaning 'to devour') is an animal that derives its energy and nutrient requirements from a diet consisting mainly or exclusively of animal tissue, whether through predation or scavenging

@Umbriere Moonwhisper

And when you die or someone takes control of your undead and they seek out and kill everything they can find? That's the risk you take and thats ONE reason why it's evil.

Let them fall and Solid Fog or Summon 1d4+1 Horses, Air/Earth/Water Elementals, Giant Ant's all get the job done.

There will always be equal or better option than Animate Dead. And if there isn't you had to sink resources to have Animate Dead available.

If you need to save the world with EVIL it is still EVIL first, then you saved the world, second. If your a Pally you still lose status.

ciretose wrote:

Annabel wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

...And from a developer, pointing out the...

If you read the entirety of the thread (actually just go down three posts), Ashiel does a good job explaining why SKR argument doesn't hold. So, a developer declaring something to "make sense," doesn't by shear force of will make said thing sensible. Just like how declaring that Animate Dead is inherently obviously [evil] doesn't by shear force of will make said thing morally evil.

I can say the sky is blue and you can argue it is red and there is little I can do to change your mind if you refuse any evidence as valid.

If the person who wrote not only the Golarion book on the Gods, as well as much of the Forgotten Realms book on the Gods saying something is evil is not evidence to you that it is evil in the setting we are discussing, you are simply unwilling to listen to anything than does not completely confirm what you believe to be true.

Good luck with that.

if Creating Undead is always evil, no matter how you use it, even to create a zombie to help move the bus that is trapping a bunch of helpless children

then, casting Holy Word is always good, no matter how you use it, then using it to slaughter a bunch of evil and neutral children is a good act.

to accept one, you must accept the other, to deny one, is to deny the other. stop using the double standard that lets good spells be evil acts and evil spells always be evil acts.

Casting an Evil spell is Evil.

What you do after is up to you. Could be Evil could be Good. You might even save the world.

But CASTING the spell. Is evil. Someone turned into an undead can not be brought back to life w/o 7th circle magic and only then after you destroy the undead. It's that EVIL.

All non-mindless undead can be good by RAW, and nothing in the spell description of any spell (except Animate Dead, which only creates mindless undead) that says you can only create evil undead, so by RAW, Create Undead can make good undead.

Yes. You 'could' have an undead that is good. The bestiary doesn't. And I don't see where you can change the undeads alignment in the rules. That is up to the DM.

Show me a good undead. Not an undead that 'could' be good.

You're basically just saying it's evil because it's evil, and it makes evil creatures that are evil because they're evil.

Which is what started this thread: the rules assign create undead the [Evil] descriptor. They don't make any attempt to justify how creating a good undead is an Evil act, they just say it has the [Evil] descriptor for no reason. That is what this thread is about: trying to figure out why something was randomly assigned an alignment descriptor when there isn't any reason to give it such a descriptor rather than giving it to, say, boneshatter.

Yes. Exactly I am. Objectively.

Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2."

Good and Evil are sometimes Objective in Pathfinder. There are literally rules for it. If you don't want to follow them then feel free.

Uh, I just quoted the rule for you straight from the bestiary: intelligent creatures do not have fixed alignment unless they are outsiders. Undead are not outsiders, so they can be good.

I never disagreed with that either. What I'm saying is that there is not a spell that creates a non-evil undead that a PC can cast. In the rules.

I can see a ghost for instance not being evil. And if there was a spell that created a non-evil ghost and the spell wasn't an evil spell than it wouldn't be evil.

But Animate Dead, Created Undead, Summon Monster(Evil) and Summon Undead are all evil. And make Evil creatures. Objectively because the rules say the spell is. What you do after that could be evil or good. If you wan't it to be not evil make a new spell.

If I were a crippled old man and I used an Undead Minotaur to save a village I could be Good aligned.(Subjectively) If I used the Animate Spell to do it I would have committed an evil act to get there. (Objectively)

Plus using good for evil could be a form of corruption and in a way even more evil.

Its not a bold claim its in the book. I infact quoted it. If mindless unded were incapable of moral action they would be neutral. Why would a zombie actively seek to slaughter people if it were incapable of taking that action?

Show me a non-evil undead you CAN create. Then you could houserule that specific instance were not evil.

Your not using the essence of evil to do it. The action of the spell won't be evil the act of killing babys would regardless of what you used to do it.

Fire isn't 'mindless' it's not even a creature.
If I use fire to fight fire it does not become water.
If I use EVIL to fight EVIL it does not become GOOD.

Animate Dead creates evil and as such is in evil spell.
Summon Monster can summon evil and then becomes an evil spell.

If you create EVIL for any reason it's evil. You could have all the intentions of saving the world with that EVIL but it wouldn't matter.

Lets say you die and your undead minions are suddenly set loose upon the world. Will the innocent victims be any less dead because of your intentions? Not a chance.

Evil and Good are just words but in the Pathfinder and DnD settings is has essence and directly affects the world in many ways. And when a character brings more of that into the world they are committing to using evil because it's convenient for them. Which is at best a Neutral. Or because it's EVIL and so are they.

So Yes playing a good Necromancer that raises undead is impossible. But there are many non-EVIL Necro. spells that you could use instead. Like Command Undead. Not Evil.

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral.

Creature incapable of moral action are Neutral. Undead even mindless undead that are evil are capable of moral action and are evil because of it.

For what it's worth, Detect Evil is a pretty weak strawman argument as well. It doesn't just detect evil anywhere - it detects evil auras.

For example, if Hitler was a level 1 Fighter, he wouldn't "ping" on a Detect Evil spell.

This is true.

and you zinja'd my edit

Knight Magenta wrote:

As I understand it, undead are Evil because they hunger for the life of the living. A skeleton left alone will seek out the nearest sentient creature and destroy it. They are evil because they actively seek to extinguish all life. You know what else actively tries to extinguish all life? Daemons.

That description applies to Zombies, but Skeletons have no such rules attached to them.

And, for what it's worth, Zombies feed on the living. Mindlessly. They don't seek out and extinguish life just for the sake of doing so (which would be evil).

it's right under the CR table.

Neu-Evil

committing evil for its own sake

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior

1) The rules don't say it's not. Having rules and not having rules are two different things. Nowhere in the rules does it say I can't invent my own Gender. That doesn't make it a rule. Lets not argue about what the books doesn't say.

2) There are discussion's and then there are threads like these.

3) I never, not once, said all undead were evil. Please don't say I did. And what your saying about changing a monsters alignment has to be done by the DM, and is beyond player control.

and last)

In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment

In the end alignment comes down to a GM. So arguing over alignment rules it pointless. (doesn't matter because nothing good will come out of it...)

If you wan't to talk about interesting ways to make non-evil unded then we can discuss that instead. But people have been talking about the objective morality of Pathfinder or just morality, and everyone has a different opinion or set of beliefes on the matter and as such you have the option of leaving it up to the DM or making hard rules for it.

That. Really? No. Really?

Right, that was half a joke and half me being snide.
Specialize in what? Alignment? And Powerful. What? Now i'm just confused.

To be Clear...
The point was that the WHY didn't matter. The game has rules for alignment and when they come up you follow them. (The CRB is GOD. Get it.) And when it doesn't then you consult the GM. Why? because God. Sorry i mean the rules say so.

Flashohol wrote:

This isn't from Paizo material but it sure is useful.

Ye Old 'Book of Vile Darkness" wrote:

*snip*

Are we considering the Book of Vile Darkness as canon for Pathfinder? Does that mean Cancer Mage muscle wizards are legal?

The Very First Thing I said was that is wasn't so why bother asking?

BoVD aside.

Here is a paizo source

Alignment: Always neutral evil.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral

Humanoid, Farm Animal, undead taco? Always Neutral Evil. Evil Spell. Evil Creature. Always Evil. (Is it because your creating a slave, or because it might be an abomination? It doesn't matter it's still Evil.)

Good clerics can not cast evil spells for any reason. (Barring UMD which would spark a whole new thing so let's not)
-Because god said so and they know better than you.

That Celestial bloodline Sorcerer has no rule barring it from being evil or good. It doesn't matter. You can summon good and evil things congrats.

This isn't from Paizo material but it sure is useful.

Unliving corpses—corrupt mockeries of life and purity—

are inherently evil. Creating them is one of the most
heinous crimes against the world that a character can
commit. Even if they are commanded to do something
good, undead invariably bring negative energy into the
world, which makes it a darker and more evil place.

Evil spells may create undead, inflict undue suffering, harm

another’s soul, or produce any of a slew of similar effects.
Sometimes, a nonevil spellcaster can get away with casting
a few evil spells, as long as he or she does not do so for an
evil purpose.

Casting evil spells is evil the puprose and end result mean very little. There is a reason good clerics CAN'T cast these spell regardless of intent and end result.

The spell is evil therfore it is an evil act to cast it. (Period) You can't say it any simpler than that.

Cannibals are creatures that eat others of

their own kind. In the broader sense, cannibals may be
defined as creatures that eat other intelligent creatures for
whatever perverted pleasure they gain from it.

Here is a case where intent matters. Eating dead flesh for survival is not evil. Eating it for the 'luls' is. The game doesn't explicitly say it is good and or evil like it does with some spells so you look to intent.

---

Making dragonhide armor is like using human hair to make a wig. Desecrating the dead not evil unless the intent(to be evil) is there. Once again because the game does not explicitly state that it is evil.

No, you can't have either. You can only have ONE bond. Period. Harry Dresden is not a Pathfinder character, he's a Television character.

Arcane Duelist gets a bonded weapon and only a bonded weapon, if you took elderich heritage before 5th level and nabbed a familiar you would have both.

You could have 1 of each (Familiar and Item) though I don't think you could have 2 of one.

I was giving some advise a moment ago and while I was double checking the PRD I noticed something odd.

The Link.
Text found just under the getting lost table.

"A character with at least 5 ranks in Knowledge (geography) or Knowledge (local) pertaining to the area being traveled through gains a +2 bonus on this check."

Who says Pathfinder doesn't have skill synergy?

I've played in a 3.5 game that takes place in a swamp, around a small village. We were a cleric, fighter, and rouge. None of us had survival so we had to stock up on supplies and hire a NPC guide everytime we left the village to avoid getting lost. The NPC was with us for so many random encounters that she ended up leveling and taking a ranger level.

Things to keep in mind for wilderness travel.

1) Food and Water. (DC 10 to feed yourself for a day, not to hard but slows you down so if your on a timeline it could cause some problems, also you could require K. Nature or a second Survival check to avoid dangerous food and water sources)

2) Getting Lost (Survival again, the interesting thing to note here is Poor Visability. Way back in the movement section of the book states on a table that Poor Visibility doubles movement costs. So you end up spending a lot more time in the wild.)

3) Enviornment. (Lots of neat little rules that often get overlooked such as the Stealth and Detection Rule which is where you get the poor visibility distance.)

4) Disease. (Not exactly fun on it's own but creaturs can spread Diseases with Natural Attacks so if you have a beast with clear signs of a Disease it can make your PC's rethink how they handle the encounter)

5) Population. (You will want to create your random encounter charts, I suggest you stay small. A few Animals, Insects, Magical Beasts, Indigenous people [For my swamp game it was cannibal elves], etc. Have a chart for level 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, etc. Keeping the list small gives the PC a feel for what lives in the area, with new things appearing slowly as they level or as a non-random encounter.)

Ring of Counterspells, or a minion with dispel to counter. Spell Immunity, Spell Resistance.

I like to avoid the BBEG fights all together.

1. When combat begins, all combatants roll initiative.

This is the first part of the combat chapter. Which states that combat has already begun before init is rolled. Meaning that my previous note was wrong.

You can't use immediate actions while you are Flat-Footed and you are Flat-Footed until you have acted in the initiative order. That means most of your rerolls and spells like feather fall can't be used until your init.

Uncanny Dodge might fix the problem.

Eidt: However you could theoretically use the immediate action before init is rolled, because that would still be outside of the combat. You could then target the init dice.

3.5 had synergies to Diplomacy. +6, = 20.

Strength is never mighter then intellect. Never. Cant break that rope? Use something sharp. Cant lift that rock? Use ropes and pulleys. Intellect created the gun, now the very idea of warrior is so far dead most soldiers dont even understand it anymore. Intellect made the gun to defeat the sword. Intellect always beats strength

You don't need to be smart to use tools only invent them. Children can use guns. If someone has acess to tools and is unable to use them due to lack of intellect than that person probably wouldn't be able to dress himself. Cavemen used tools, and some tools like the pulley require strength to use.

Only really dedicated players that agree with that point of view would choose a flaverful penalized character over the standard or optimised one. That kind of thinking actively discourages players from making fun characters over powerful ones.

Any negative impact on the game because of a players RP choice should be a RP one. Your a seperatist then the people of your religion shun you and the people you once thought of as friends are ashamed of your choice, etc.

A DM should encourage and reward just the opposite. You've taken the time to create a fun character and your DM rewards you by bringing that fluff center stage and making it apart of the story. These are the games I love the most, because even if your not the best in any situation your still important in the grand sceme of things.

I don't really wanna use four feat selections to get aspect to work the way I'm looking for it to so I'm gonna see if my GM will give me two or let me take 1 for all of the effects. Do you think that's too overpowered?

He might let you swap class abilites for it. Get rid of some that don't fit the theme.

"A ranger who selects the natural weapon combat style ..."

I know but you are not a natural weapon ranger until level 2.
You can not select any combat style until then.

You don't have the combat style ability until level 2 ranger. So you need to be at least that level to take aspect of the beast.

Ranger 1 1st level feat and human feat.
Druid 1
Ranger 2 Bonus feat as Rending Claws, 3rd level feat as aspect of the beast.
Druid 2+

Something like that would work.

Well I guess to each their own. I personally never planned a build and never plan too, though I am one of the few that severly dislikes that nonsense. Balance is completely useless concept in RP, don't ask me why people care about it.

Because there is also a combat system and the more out of balance a party the greater the chance of character death.

It puts more work on the DM to fine tune each encounter to a party like that. You have the 'Strong' characters bored from lack of challenge or the 'weak' characters not holding their own in battle.

It's doable sure, but it's just another thing to get in the way of fun.

In the special addition of feats they tell you if you can take them more than once.

You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects ...,

Aspect of the Beast has no such text.

It's metal just like a buckler.
If it can be targeted by heat metal than its metal.

Sorry forgot you were going trapper... Don't do that. That's how.

There is a trapper feat that will give you 1 trap or you could just invest in the craft skill, or buy them like a bears trap which is like 10g or something.

Edit also that spell is a fourth level ranger spell.

More or less what TGMaxMax said. Stick it through with ranger, take the aspect of the wolf spell, Natural Combat style etc.

If you go druid you lose a lot of ranger stuff and a lot of the druid stuff will either be a copy of the ranger stuff or have little to do with the werewolf theme.

Troll styptic?

15-20 seconds for me. Much faster than this morning.
Edit. Loading the page right after this post took about 2 min. Hmm.

@ Secane. What? Not sure what you mean by your last post. Completly confused.

The gloves work against creatures with the shapchanger subtype. Like doppelgangers and lycanthrops. Or against any creature that can "Change Shape at-will." Polymorph is not at will. Shapchange spell... perhaps?

Not sure why I thought snap shot was for bows... oh well. Probably cuz of the no action thing.

So snap shot with thrown weapons assuming you could quick draw out of turn. Neat.

Search for arrow in the combat section of the prd. Its not a free action. It's a "not an action"

GM Elton wrote:

4e isn't perfect.

It isn't?!?!?

Maybe PF isn't either!?!?!

*burns all my current gaming stuff in a gigantic "imperfection bonfire," picks up a lantern and goes searching for the perfect game system, scorning all others*

Meta Quest

-Movie Announcer Voice

"In a world where no system is perfect, one man must seek the ultimate gaming experience. Heros will rise, and Empires will fall but will one critical failure sod the quest? Find out this summer."

- An adventure for 1st to 3rd level characters.