Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Nareem Daress

Horbagh's page

102 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

I'd actually like to post in defense of the monk two things that get overlooked a lot:

1) By my understanding of recent FAQs, Qinggong ki powers meet the "caster" prerequisite for item crafting. Getting Craft Wondrous Item keyed off of Profession: Scribe let's you inscribe amulets, bracers, cloaks, etc and for a big boost in WBL.

2) Monks get pounce. It's called Blood Crow Strike and they get it at level 14. Late, but better late than never.

Really all I'd like to see at this point is full BAB (or some other accuracy boost) and some help dealing with DR/good when it starts to show up around level 10.

I prefer to interpret it as written.

Castle Wall? No problem. Wall of Force? Sure. Wall of Fire? You bet. Tree? No way. The best thing for your monk to do is make a necklace out of a small wall purloined from, say, a doll house or a bird house. Wall within arms' reach at all times.

Titan mauler barbarian archetype maybe?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
mplindustries wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
mplindustries wrote:

It's like those vegetarians that eat mostly soy so they save animal's lives. Except feeding a family with soy kills more animals than feeding a family with cow, because threshing a field of soy kills hundreds of small rodents, birds, and insects, whereas eating cow kills one cow.

I would like a citation on that.
This is kind of an inflammatory piece you might not like, but it links to all the relevant research and responses by vegans.

Oh! But since oxen (let's be gender neutral in the spirit of Paizo publications) aren't really raised on pasture (except on TV commercials and pictures on milk cartons) we can kill both the ox AND the zillions of little whats-its that die to the corn thresher to make the heaps of silage or whatever we use to feed the things. It's win-win!

Nicos wrote:

So, a mild power creep seems to be the consensus afther a couple of answers.

Anoother question for anyone interested, besides Summoners what are the most clearl example of power creep afther the CRB?, you know those option that are just plain better than anything in core.

Here's a few examples:

1) barbarians getting access to pounce in the APG
2) witches picking up Ice Tomb in UM
3) the obscene favored class bonuses for spontaneous casters that grants spells known EVERY LEVEL (e. g. human sorcerer)
4) feats that make gimmicky weapons viable (e. g. the whip mastery chain)
5) the qinggong monk

Not all power creep is necessarily bad. #5 is a straight up buff to a class that needs straight up buffing. #4 is cool because maybe fighters will occasionally take EWP (not falcata) more often. But I don't think 1 or 2 were at all necessary and 3 is so bad it gives me a headache.

She was speaking metaphorically.

As written there's no reason why not although a lot of GMs seem to believe that RAI assume you're using a monk weapon. There's a whole thread of argument about this somewhere.

Barry Armstrong wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Horbagh, the only problem with your house rule is that it doesn't stop the exploit. It just means the witch has to stop cackling sometimes, but since the hex will still be ongoing, after one round the witch just picks it up again and keeps extending the hex.

The only way to stop the exploit is to limit the length of time that a cackle can extend an effect. So make that limit equal to the witch's level. Then the witch can cackle all day, but it won't do anything but annoy people.

Truth. Or simply remove the Fortune Hex (and Misfortune, to be fair) from Cackle. That would really be the easiest route to disallowing the combo without completely rewriting text lines.

Rewriting semantics often CAUSES broken combos like this, not CURES them.

Not fixing obviously broken rules is just lazy. You can tweak fortune now but a good fix would "future proof" cackle against abuse of any new hexes Paizo or some 3rd party dreams up in a new book.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Horbagh, the only problem with your house rule is that it doesn't stop the exploit. It just means the witch has to stop cackling sometimes, but since the hex will still be ongoing, after one round the witch just picks it up again and keeps extending the hex.

The only way to stop the exploit is to limit the length of time that a cackle can extend an effect. So make that limit equal to the witch's level. Then the witch can cackle all day, but it won't do anything but annoy people.

Yeah, I guess I'd add the clause "whenever a witch stops cackling, all of her hexes affected by cackle expire" or similar. The max extension thing would work too, of, course; it just seems like more book keeping if a cackling witch starts different hexes on different rounds. No worse than round/level spells though I guess. Shrug.

Cackle is just a (mechanically) poorly thought out ability. Don't get in fights about it. Just house rule it. Append the following text onto it and it works just fine:

"Cackle is considered a Sonic Effect. To cackle, a witch must laugh out loud at the same volume she would normally speak the verbal components of her spells. A witch can cackle only once per round and may continue to cackle for a maximum number of consecutive rounds equal to her class level plus her intelligence modifier. A witch who reaches this limit regains the use of cackle after she ceases cackling for at least one full round."

I'd love to see a Pathfinder 1.x/2.0. What do I want from it? Well I think PF is already pretty good as is. I'd love to see is that the new edition address, clarify, or rewrite the more problematic sections of the rules. These can usually be identified because they have skillions of forum threads devoted to them. Just a list of things that could be done better in a new edition (in no particular order):

1. class balance (think monk/rogue here)
2. CMB/CMD scaling with level
3. bizarre, unintended rule combos (pounce with a great sword, twf gun-slinging with weapon cords, etc.)
4. feats that shouldn't be feats (Strike Back et al.)
5. obnoxious feat taxes (Combat Expertise)
6. un-nerfed 3.5 carryover spells (e. g. Finger of Death got nerfed but Flesh to Stone is the same old SoD effect)
7. new and improved stealth/perception rules
8. odds and ends (can a witch cackle all day? What's the duration of the Ice Tomb hex? How can Fireball melt lead without setting clothes on fire?)

This is what I want see and I'd gladly rebuy all the hardcovers to get it.

Have you considered using a two handed reach/trip weapon like a halberd? The damage scales very competitively with the oversized flail, you avoid the -2 to hit (which also applies to your trip CMB), and best of all, when enlarged, you can move and attack someone without having them 5' and full attack you on their turn.

Yeah, something like a cleric devoted to the abstract idea of trickery, greed, nihilism, etc could do just fine. And of course, with divine spells at his disposal, the townies would be more inclined to believe in his false god.

northbrb wrote:
I am going to have the players head off to find ingredients for a cure. (I know there is not a real cure for the black death but its a game so its okay.) I want the players to be afraid that they might get infected but I don't want to make it impossible for them to pass the save.

Various antibiotics are effective. Have then go on a quest to the local pharmacy to retrieve some Cipro.

Contagion and in case that doesn't work, another contagion.

What about a dip into rogue (Thug)? You can actually make people run away instead of just applying a debuff if you get th e check high enough.

They don't; the monkey style stuff is for when angry orcs decide to fix bayonets and charge.

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

I can't find the source for it right now... Though the type you mention is the most prevalent.

I was mistaken about the double-barreled being the most common.

It seems the Double Hackbut was named do to it requiring double the amount of materials over the basic Hackbut...

Kinda funny with that. The Hooks from what I understand are normally used to attach the gun to a rolling carriage or a collapsible wooden Tripod.

Seems the French Military used a modernized (by their standards) version during the Napoleonic Wars. That is where I was getting most of my info is from a Napoleonic Era source.

The French used the Double Barreled version for siege warfare.

NOTE: This info is from a Military Weapon Encyclopedia/Codex I have.

Thanks! PF has kind of sparked a fascination with black powder weapons. I particularly like the idea of being a double hackbut wielding 'slinger with monkey style (no penalties to being prone) and 2 level rogue dip to get the Stand Up talent. Basically, if he didn't have time to set up the carriage, he'd roll around on the ground firing off his giant gun and kip-up when necessary to reposition. Fire again the next round and knock himself prone. Comedic gold!

But, yeah, to the OP's question the only non-magical way to get reload on as musket down to a free action is to get three levels of Musket Master.

PFF. Anybody can shoot ten arrows a round. Now let's see him try to fire off ten shots from a flintlock musket! That would be something special.

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Actually, It depends on the country of origin. Most were long double-barreled Muskets that fired both barrels with a single lock.

Basically, A long double-barreled Musket that can only fire both barrels not just one.

Most single-barreled Double Hackbuts were used as Light Artillery. It usually was used to target for the heavier weapons.

So 2d12 makes sense. Even the single-barreled models used heavier bullets with larger barrels.

EDIT: Most single-barreled models also had an alternate Lock to allow them be use stacked/staged bullets. One dose of powder with a bullet directly in front of another dose of powder and bullet.

Do you have a reference for any of this? The only time I've ever heard of anything in the real world called a "double hackbut" is the one museum piece that shows up when you Google them term (and happens to be single barreled). Otherwise "hackbut" seems to be used synonymously with "arquebus" or to specifically denote a long barreled gun with hook on the bottom of the barrel to help stabilize it or mitigate recoil when bracing it on solid surface.

It's not perfectly clear that the double hackbut is a double barrel weapon as its descriptive text (unlike that of all other double barrel weapons) mentions nothing of the sort. The capacity of 2 listed in the table is probably a misprint but I know of no official errata. The "double" in the name was probably meant to refer to the extra long barrel but it looks like a confused editor tried to fix the stat table to make it look double barreled. As for the 2d12 damage all I can say is "who knows".

master arminas wrote:

Well, since a monk always does normal Strength damage (not times 1.5) whether he uses a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon, wouldn't the only increase in damage from two-handing a temple sword come from Power Attack? At +3 for every -1 instead of +2?

In fact (and marked for FAQ), it might well be worthwhile for the designers to add that monks don't get the 3-1 PA bonus with a flurry of blows. I mean, they don't get an increased bonus from Strength for wielding a two-handed weapon, why then would they get the 3-1 bonus damage from PA for wielding a two-handed weapon?


That's a good point. I agree with ciretose that it would be a shame if the optimal core monk build ended up wielding a sword. I guess this would also take bit of fun out of a monkosaur's bite flurry but in that case it's more about damage die staking anyway.

Hmm... The definition of incorporeal in the SRD includes the text "magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons" in the list of things that can harm incorporeal creatures. I would say yes.

Kaelizar wrote:

Judging based off RAW alone, it says "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity" I think that if you us that AOO to trip again, since the target has already successfully been tripped that I would assume that this wouldn't work.

On a different note Greater Trip does mention Vicious Stomp that allows you to hit a foe once he hits the ground (so you would get the 1st from Greater and a second from Stomp.

Not to mention you are limited in the number of AOO that you get, (dex mod max if you take Combat Reflexes) so it wouldn't go on until you miss.

Well this is certainly how I'd rule it my own game (and it would be very silly to allow it to work) I'm not sure RAW prevent it.

And, yeah! My half-orc monk/wolf shaman is definitely going to have vicious stomp! After his flurry of Feral Combat Trained bite/trips renders someone prone, he'all kick them in the kneecap for good measure!

ciretose wrote:
Cheapy wrote:

Alright, they've changed flurry of blows so you can flurry with one weapon.

Thread over, time to start complaining about paladins again. :)

Actually...this kind of is meh to me. While it now creates one type of monk that is very competitive, it doesn't address the problems with unarmed monks not being able to hit.

I am not going to complain overly, as it was at least addressed and somewhat improved, but at the end of the day the AoMF still costs to much and takes a slot.

And now, it is completely outshined by the temple sword.

So meh...but no longer golf clap I guess.

Think of the big picture here... This ruling is all about monk/druids with Feral Combat training who wild shape into dinosaurs to use Strong Jaw + Flurry of Bites. So cool!

OK, difficulty level 2:

A druid with the Greater Trip feat wild shapes into a wolf gaining the Trip special ability. He attacks a human with his bite, hits, and succeeds on his free trip granted by wolf form. Greater Trip triggers giving him an attack of opportunity, which by RAW resolves before the target is prone. Our wolf druid uses his bite attack for the AOO, hits again, and because the target isn't prone yet, makes another free trip maneuver, and so on and so forth until he fails an attack, maneuver, or exhausts his AOOs. Does this work?

A flurry of answers!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm a human ranger. I take Favored Enemy: Animals. I cast Instant Enemy on the party's half orc barbarian. Then I buff him with Animal Growth. Legal?

I'm still a human ranger. I take Favored Enemy: Undead. I cast Instant Enemy on myself. Now I get healed by negative energy. Legal? Or would it only be my negative energy that heals myself because only "I" can treat "me" as my favored enemy type? Can I decide to treat myself as undead in lieu of making a saving throw against Dominate Person? That should be legal, right?

Cass_Ponderovian wrote:
I'm running a kingmaker campaign soon and I want to run a permanent DMPC. Currently the group is a Paladin, a Cleric, and a Master Summoner. I'm opposed to running a wizard because as the DM I don't want to be the main problem solver. I'm also not really excited about running a rogue or bard because i've played several of them in the past. Any Suggestion? All books and races are available.

Go for sorcerer. That way you can fill the arcane niche that wizard would have but you can make a point of selecting only the spells you want the party to have access to while avoiding those that might cause trouble with your storyline.

When multiclassing, BAB is calculated such that it doesn't penalize 3/4 and 1/2 BAB classes. A cleric/wizard's BAB would be calculated as cleric level x 3/4 + wizard level x 1/2, round down. Therefore, a cleric 1, wizard 1 has a BAB of +1 instead of 0. Saves get the same treatment with the added rule that you only get the +2 bonus from a good save class once. Therefore, a fighter 1, barbarian 2 has F/R/W of 3/1/1 instead of 5/0/0.

What the OP said. Think up a schtick and try to optimize around it. Of course, my first character in the 3.0 system was a sorcerer, and, not knowing any better I thought "Why don't I try specializing in summon spells?". As it turns out that didn't end up needing much optimization...

Build some monks with your changes, do the math, and see how they stack up to some control classes (barbarians, fighters, the original monk, etc.). Try to stack as many damage bonuses on as you can see if it breaks.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Buy an AP and pretend like you're running it. In reality you've got your material penciled in the margins. Just make sure your game vaguely fits the module title and cover art. They'll never know the difference!

I like ciretose' analysis here. I'll chime in and add one more role that I think is crucial. I'll call it Contingency/Escape. In every game I've ever played there have been situations in which the party gets in over its head and realizes it has no chance to survive the encounter. This could be because of GM vindictiveness but usually occurs because of overconfidence, bad dice luck, random wandering monsters showing up when everyone's tapped out, or players jumping the rails/exploring the deep end of the sandbox.
On days that happens I want someone with Teleport, someone with Invisibility Sphere, a giant retreat-covering illusion, that kind of thing. At higher levels this person has access to Wish or Miracle... something to rewrite reality or rewind time when the only other option is TPK. In other words, a server/wizard/cleric/oracle with some good tricks up their sleeve to let the good guys live to fight another day.

Paper cartridge:
Lead ball (1 sp)
Black powder (1 gp)
Paper envelope (4 gp 9 sp)
Total: 6 gp

Adamantine paper cartridge:
Adamantine ball (6 gp 1 sp)
Black powder (1 gp)
Paper envelope (28 gp 9 sp)
Total: 36 gp

Makes perfect sense.

This all kinda depends. If you're like level 7, it's more of a "rocks fall" scenario and yeah, I'd be pissed. On the other hand if your group is level 15 and you're in a showdown with the level 17 BBEG wizard... well, then all's fair, right?

Elamdri wrote:
Horbagh wrote:
Personally I would house rule it that paper cartridges are 1.2 gp to create. Paper cartridges were a widely used, real world thing. Their whole purpose was to save you from measuring out gunpowder. They're not magic, there's no 'alchemy' involved. Just a paper envelope that might be treated with lard or tallow that contains a metal ball and just enough powder for the barrel and the priming pan. And of course they're mandatory in PF if you want iterative attacks so why not let them be cheap?
Well I think part of the point is to try and balance the gunslinger with money.

Yeah, probably. It just rubs me he wrong way for some reason.

Personally I would house rule it that paper cartridges are 1.2 gp to create. Paper cartridges were a widely used, real world thing. Their whole purpose was to save you from measuring out gunpowder. They're not magic, there's no 'alchemy' involved. Just a paper envelope that might be treated with lard or tallow that contains a metal ball and just enough powder for the barrel and the priming pan. And of course they're mandatory in PF if you want iterative attacks so why not let them be cheap?

Why not go with chill touch delivered via unarmed strikes? Cast it once and get caster level attacks with it for an extra d6 and the possibility of strength damage.

Edit: ignore me, I'm thinking of a monk with a sorcerer levels where you're making a sorcer with monk levels.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As for ravens and parrots using wands held in the beak this should work. Birds vocalize with an anatomical structure called a syrinx that sits at the bifurcation of their bronchi. They don't really need to move their beaks or tongues too much to make sound. If you ever watch a pet parrot you can catch him talking with his mouth full of food, while using his beak to climb, etc. Parrots are also good at standing on one foot while holding an object with the other. I don't see why they couldn't use wands.


Yeah, I totally agree. I'm just saying maybe there's a have cake and eat it too solution out there that would work with my table/party comp and SoulGambit's as well. I'm too lazy to think about it now though. :) Also agree about the AC point. In future models we should probably look at maybe "boss level", "standard CR", and "mook level" AC spreads.


I've been in this sort of situation too back in the 3.X days. I had a cleric archer and an AC-focused psion that were downright obnoxious buff-stackers. Those parties were fairly atypical in my experience but they do happen when you get a bunch of power gamers rolling characters together. I like that people are thinking about this sort of situation though. Makes fixing the class a little trickier than I had originally anticipated.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In our current, hypothetical realm of gratuitous buffing, wouldn't the fighter by flying, and hence trip-proof anyway?

I think the interesting thing that SoulGambit demonstrates is that if you pile on a metric crap-ton of buffs there comes a point where all the monk's extra attacks actually land and damage starts to add up. Now, granted, I've never been at a table where I had all these buffs flying around but it could happen. Probably any fix should take this "scaling" behavior into account. For instance, have flurry add something like one extra attack at the highest bonus but make sure all the attacks land often enough and hit hard enough to trail but not exceed the fighter's DPR.

I can finally fight with sword-chucks in pathfinder!

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:

On the subject of the monk who gains ability score increases while leveling, I have a few things I'd like ask if it hasn't been covered yet (which may muddy the water a bit).

1) What happens when said monk is reincarnated? You normally drop all your physical ability scores, aging modifiers, and anything other than your base benefits and then gain new racial modifiers. But your mental statistics stay the same.

2) How does it interact with creating new characters are higher levels? This is especially a concern for NPCs who often have to be generated above 1st level, often fairly quickly. It seems that it would be incorrect to generate the NPC's final stats and then apply all the mods at once, rather than applying the mods over the course of levels. Also, how does it interact with templates and the like?

2.a) For example, let's say the BBEG chooses his Strength to buff because it's the lowest of his stats (I believe that was the qualifier the last time I looked), and then goes and drinks the last canister of mutegen and turns into Super BBEG and gets the giant template or something and a big buff to his Strength and debuff to his Dexterity. Does the modification re-fit retroactively?

2.b) If you made a skeleton or zombie out of the monk, since these appear to be modifications to their direct ability scores via an Ex ability (as in the Ex ability mods them, but once modded it's part of the ability score alone and not merely an effect of the Ex ability) it seems like this would make monks darn good skeleton and zombie stock since monks would be likely to have high stats across the board.

3) How does it interact with non-abilities? I presume they would just be ignored, but it's something of a question as a ghost-monk or shadow-monk or an undead-monk might have to worry about this (most incorporeal creatures have no Strength, undead have no Constitution, etc).

4) How does it interact with Ability Drain. Unlike damage drain actually lowers an ability score according to the rules, so if the...

I think right answer to all of these questions is "the same thing that happens to ability score increases everyone gets at every 4th level". I don't think there needs to be a whole complicated mechanic for it.

ciretose wrote:
Horbagh wrote:
ciretose wrote:
It is what it is, and these are the cards on the table. And comments on the build, or if you like post a counter build making the switch to full BaB for the monk at 10th level and compare the the builds.
The build I posted earlier in this thread was full BAB. It was pretty much identical to MA's as far as I can tell. The differences in DPR and AC were a function of different point buy allocation and itemization.

Sorry, I missed it. My bad.

What were the outcomes of DPR and on the guidelines?

It's all back on page 4. Everyone's in the guidelines as far as I can tell. The only reason I think monks didn't get straight up full BAB from the get go was that they're supposed to be a 3/4 class for purposes of feat access. If you look at when flurry adds extra attacks, for instance, they kick in at the exact levels a 3/4 class would have enough BAB to pick up the equivalent TWF feats. I think the easiest solution is just to give monks full BAB for US and monk weapons so they don't lose out on +hit when moving.

ciretose wrote:
It is what it is, and these are the cards on the table. And comments on the build, or if you like post a counter build making the switch to full BaB for the monk at 10th level and compare the the builds.

The build I posted earlier in this thread was full BAB. It was pretty much identical to MA's as far as I can tell. The differences in DPR and AC were a function of different point buy allocation and itemization.

Also, although I agree that it's cool to try spring disarms and such these tactics are less fun in party vs. monsters/enemy party situations that comprise the overwhelming majority of actual combats. If the unbuffed paladin is putting down a monster every three rounds while the monk is slowly trying to disable a monster with hit and run tactics over 6 or 7 rounds then one of the following occurs
1) the barbarian finishes his first target early and rage/lance/pounces your target, finishing it for you. Your monk then feels silly for trying spring disarms while the other classes are doing the real work.
2) The enemy you're hit-and-running sees where this game is headed and switches up to an easier-to-kill target and charges the archer or sorcerer or something. Now that PC is in trouble and the rest of the party is giving you the hairy eyeball for not pulling your weight.

Really, there's no reason why a monk shouldn't be putting out almost as much DPR as the non-smiting paladin if not just AS much. Remember, that paladin gets all sorts of amazing extras on top of his DPR too.

Lemmy wrote:

I know Paizo will never do it... But would it be too much if monks had full BAB?

I can't see it being much more powerful than a TWFing Ranger. Monks would have better defense, but overall, lower damage and AC. And it doesn't have animal companions or spells either.

They should have full BAB. Flurry is essentially the TWF chain on top of full BAB as is. Why they drop to 3/4 with a move or charge (think flying kick) is beyond me.

Mikaze wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
That being said, Agile is pretty darn amazing in general and makes a lot of builds come together (sometimes I wonder if it makes it too easy as honestly melee attack and damage is about all Strength has, but it's darn good at it, whereas Dexterity = Init, Reflex, AC, and lots of skills. Star Wars d20 had a problem of Dexterity being the God-stat in that, and a big influence to that was because Strength wasn't important for dealing damage in that system, so Weapon Finesse + Dexterity meant you had better to-hit, to-AC, and so forth with minimal to no real loss in damage).
That slippery slope is part of what fed into the local perception of Agile being overpowered. That combined with it not being in any of the actual books has made it something I can't really depend on as a definitely-available option for non-HULKMONK monks. :(

Things that make you SAD-er are always going to be a significant power boost to someone and probably open to exploitation somehow. The other particularly awful thing about Agile is that when your build relies on it you have to put up with many levels of suck before you get access. And depending on how your GM is with loot, downtime, and item access you may have a long wait. Personally I'd like to put Agile in a sack with Dervish Dance and some rocks and chuck the whole thing in the river.

Ilja wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Ilja wrote:

Has anyone looked at increasing ability scores as a way of empowering monks? I've always thought that with the whole "perfection of body and mind" thing they've got going on, that would be a better fit than just getting bonuses to hit etc. Would help them be generalists too, as high scores help with skills etc.

Instead of reducing their Multiple Ability Disorder, they'd be the masters of MAD.

Just a thought.

It has, but how do you stop the monk player just maxing out one stat and not boosting up a low one? There are other ways of reducing MAD, take the paladin for example:

3.5 paladin needed strength for attack and damage, wisdom for spell-casting, charisma for special abilities and constitution for hit points. You needed at least strength maxed out and the rest at reasonable (14+) scores.

The thing is that by reducing mad you encourage dump-statting or at least being mediocre at a lot of things. That fits well for a paladin (a wisdumping paladin kind of fits the holier-than-thou lawful-stupid trope) but for a monk I don't feel it should have any low stats.

But limiting it is very possible. There's the option of adding the same bonus to all stats, or at least not letting the player choose freely. Maybe something like an increased point buy, increasing by level? Something like this (not in legalese):

Disciple of Perfection (Ex):
** spoiler omitted **

This is just a quick draft as an example of how it could look. The...

This is... really, really smart.

1 to 50 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.