Purple Dragon Knight's page

I found this under the PRD: (you guys probably know already but I thought I'd share just in case; bold emphasis mine...)
=====================

Animal

An animal is a living, nonhuman creature, usually a vertebrate with no magical abilities and no innate capacity for language or culture. Animals usually have additional information on how they can serve as companions. An animal has the following features (unless otherwise noted).

• d8 Hit Die.

• Base attack bonus equal to 3/4 total Hit Dice (medium progression).

• Good Fortitude and Reflex saves.

• Skill points equal to 2 + Int modifier (minimum 1) per Hit Die. The following are class skills for animals: Acrobatics, Climb, Fly, Perception, Stealth, and Swim.

Traits: An animal possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry).

• Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).

• Low-light vision.

• Alignment: Always neutral.

• Treasure: None.

• Proficient with its natural weapons only. A noncombative herbivore treats its natural weapons as secondary attacks. Such attacks are made with a –5 penalty on the creature's attack rolls, and the animal receives only 1/2 its Strength modifier as a damage adjustment.

• Proficient with no armor unless trained for war.

• Animals breathe, eat, and sleep.
==========================
Under Handle Animal skill we have:

Combat Training; and
Fighting.

...but no "war"... I assumed they meant Combat Training nets an animal all armor proficiencies too...

DC Noob here: what's J.S.A.?

I just bought # 1 through 6. NOTE: I have been a "marvel guy" all my life, and this is the first DC series I've ever bought, in addition to the "Killing Joke" graphic novel. I must say I am very impressed. This is dark stuff though, and probably NOT suited for teens/children...

Anyone else watched the last show? I'm guessing the idea was to release this show around the same time as Zombieland right?

Found it interesting that Clark did nothing else than pass out in order to save Metropolis... is this a preview of things to come? the humans keep saving themselves while Clark broods mysterious/aloof with his blue sweatpants and long coat?

Sigh... LE sigh!

However, Smallville just kicks ass, which leads me to believe this may be it for the show after this season.

Anyone knows more info about both shows' longevity?

Like I said in a previous post, a less problematic cavalier challenge would be akin to atk/dmg bonus granted to rangers for fave enemy... effectively, you challenge someone, and he BECOMES your favored enemy...

So, just like ranger, except MORE flexibility (i.e. anything you fight effectively becomes favored enemy, so reduce the bonus by half compared to ranger)

For example:

RAW:

"Favored Enemy (Ex): At 1st level, a ranger selects a
creature type from the ranger favored enemies table. He
gains a +2 bonus on Bluff, Knowledge, Perception, Sense
Motive, and Survival checks against creatures of his
selected type. Likewise, he gets a +2 bonus on weapon
attack and damage rolls against them. A ranger may
make Knowledge skill checks untrained when attempting
to identify these creatures.
At 5th level and every five levels thereafter (10th, 15th,
and 20th level), the ranger may select an additional favored
enemy. In addition, at each such interval, the bonus against
any one favored enemy (including the one just selected, if
so desired) increases by +2."

--> So a ranger could have the following "max" bonus against his "first" fave enemy: (remember this is situational, and thus considered "super good")

Level // Bonus
1 // 2
5 // 4
10 // 6
15 // 8
20 // 10

--> My suggestion is to make the cavalier's challenge an atk/dmg bonus going by the following schedule, and remove the "flanked" drawback:

Level // Bonus
1 // 1
5 // 2
10 // 3
15 // 4
20 // 5

There you go: balanced, and without silly flank. With such an atk/dmg bonus, you effectively gain what you'd get with weap focus, weap spec, great weap focus, great weapon spec (it's actually better by one, and can apply to two different weapons if you are a dual wielder, so it's better than what a fighter will get with the weapon focus/specialization feats)

So you didn't even muster up enough courage to actually suggest improvements, as that's the point of the playtest, but enough to read part of the pdf to complain that they're so "messed up" that you closed the pdf?

:)

damnitall22 wrote:

Or you could be in boot camp. We did not have stalls just a row of toilets and urinals. It didn't really change anything except maybe more conversation whilst going.

If it was good enough for the romans, it's good enough for our armed services. :)

Loopy wrote:

Underpants of Relief

Edit: I couldn't help but make a cursed version.

I don't think they would adequately deal with tagnuts.

Nice idea though.

While we are at it, in the Core Rulebook in the opening art work for the Spells section there are these "tentacle-faced hounds", are there any riles for those somewhere, and if so, where?

Hmmm... can't fly in Medium and Heavy barding hey? well, the Mithral Breastplate barding just got a whole lot more interesting then! (although the mount will still require two feats to get it, as per the RAW; i.e. light and medium armor proficiency...)

Velderan wrote:

I feel like the class has a massive clusterf*ck of little abilities. In terms of bookkeeping and usefulness, I feel like most players are better off with less, more powerful abilities.

I definitely agree. Too much to keep track of.

Same for the oracle, but even moreso. In my case, I find the oracle's clusterfack so great that I don't even want to read and compare the various foci/variants...

voska66 wrote:

I don't think I agree that Cavaliers mount supernaturally good. They just need a good mount and that's it. What a cavalier should be able to do is be the best a riding even with a massive armor check penalty. Too bad they aren't.

Well a first lvl ability that states that a Caviliar suffers no armour check penalty when using the ride skill would solve that easily enough

IF THE MOUNT REMAINS CRAPPY, MAKE THE ACTUAL CAVALIER SHINE SO HE CAN MAKE A REGULAR HORSE INTO A DISGUSTING WAR MACHINE!!!!

Harass (Ex):[snip]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Harry (Ex): Once per combat, a cavalier can harry a foe in combat. As a swift action, the cavalier chooses one target within sight to harry. A cavalier’s melee attacks deal extra damage whenever the attacks are made against the harried target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every three cavalier levels thereafter. This extra damage is considered precision damage, is not multiplied on a critical hit, and does not apply to attacks that deal nonlethal damage.

Harry (Ex): The cavalier sprouts manly chest hair. Ladies swoon and his nancy-boy opponents sulk with jealousy. Effects last until his chest is waxed.

The iconic should look like Burt Reynolds.

Harry and Kumar?

Harry so can get there already?

(I would have too much fun with this... hence it could become a D&D.. err... PRPG classic! :P )

Epic Meepo wrote:

I can't come up with any encounter in which the paladin shines and the cavalier does not. Not one. During every encounter in which a paladin shines, a cavalier will shine, too.

Uh, no, notsomuch. Don't forget that Smite Evil does a helluvalot more than Challenge does, with a lot less drawbacks. The paladin will easily outshine the cavalier in any fight that he gets serious use of Smite Evil on. For example, a level 8 Cavalier and Paladin fighting a Rakshasa: the Cav is doing +10.5 damage per hit (average of 3d6) to the Rakshasa, while the Paladin is doing +23 damage per hit (+9 paladin level, +15 overcoming DR), hitting significantly more often (+Cha to hit), and being hit significantly less often (+Cha to AC).

I'd rather not see the Mount get amazing upgrades beyond what we see, because that would shift the class focus MORE towards to Mount, when from Jason's words on the subject, it right now IS designed as something that isn't going to always be useful. Certain options from Orders/Oaths that upgrade the Mount (granting it bonus Feats, for one) would ALLOW THE OPTION of a more powerful mount without forcing all Cavs to compromise for it. "Share Spell" and Spell Resistance just do not seem like appropriate options for a 100% non-Magical Class.

My recommendation, then, would be something along the lines of "The cavalier's mount does not have the share spell ability BUT the cavalier is treated as a druid that is FIVE levels higher for the purposes of determining the strength of their mount. See table X-XX for the expanded Animal Companion table for cavaliers of level 16 or higher (i.e. with equivalent druid levels of 21 to 25)."

There ya go. That's it. Voila. And you also give people a glimpse of the what an epic druid (21 - 25) would get in terms of animal companion! :)

My gut feeling is that the cavalier absolutely needs more ways to protect his animal. Maybe this would be negating additional hits via mounted combat, maybe it would be an "armor training" like ability that allows his mount to gain more benefits from barding.

I'm curious if others are seeing the same thing.

It seems the cavalier's mount was added as an afterthought. It is absolutely useless.

I think the fighter actually makes a better mounted knight than the Cavalier. The fighters armor training makes all the difference. For starters armor training encourages a fighter to have decent dex say 16 or higher as they can use it with armor training. Then add the lowering of the armor check penalty when it comes to ride. So the fighter should have a better ride skill chance than the Cavalier.

So a 12th level fighter with Dex of 18 due to stats and magic items can wearing normal full plate with a heavy shield and have a -5 ACP and +15 to their AC. Compare this to cavalier who probably will stick with 12 Dex and wear the same armor but gets -8 armor check penalty and only gets +12 AC. So this leaves the fighter with +6 better on their ride check than the Cavalier. Now a Cavalier could spend some cash on Dex and go with higher starting stat but that returns aren't there like they are for the fighter but assume the Cavalier did this they would still be 3 worse than the fighter.

Shouldn't the Cavalier get something to counter that armor check penalty when it comes to the ride skill?

Paladin mounts have spell resistance!

Druid mounts have the share spell ability!

Buff the cavalier's mount and mounted abilities and I "may" start to consider looking at it. I have already made specific suggestions in another thread in reference to mount squeezing, cavalier's reach while mounted, etc. (titled 11/13). I also have the firm belief that the Challenge ability is messed up, for various reasons. I have not playtested the class but I draw from 30 years of gaming experience. Make the challenged foe subject to an attack/damage bonus on the order of the ranger's "best" favored enemy, with no silly "flanked" drawback, and we may have something here...

What will happen in any remotely tactical game is that you'll challenge your foe, his buddies will attack you, and yours will attack him.

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Then there's also the problem that you just painted a big target sign on you for rogues (considered "flanked by all enemies except your challenged enemy?" wow, no thank you... I wouldn't challenge anyone until two - three rounds have passed and all hidden/invisibles/assassins have come out and already made their sneak/death attacks...)

How exactly are you 'painting yourself?' Spellcasting is a distinct action that nearly anybody of normal INT can recognize. "Challenging someone" isn't any different than scowling "You are mine." You might notice that nearly all the Orders have different effects that come into play against Challenge targets. (some of which currently work when the Cav is NOT in melee range of target, i.e. they're motivated to just run away while their allies enjoy +7 to hit).

It's also meant to be a mounted warrior, and they have downplayed that (the cavalier mount is weaker than a paladin or druid mount?? wtf? the cavalier should be the CLEAR choice for mounted combat; i.e. the class that offers the strongest mount).

they could have made it so the mount can squeeze at no penalty (making it dungeon worthy); they could have made it so it can decide to fit as one size bigger or smaller (to increase the cavalier's reach or allow for navigation in dungeons or alongside a fontline ally in a 10 foot wide corridor, respectively).

PS: just because the "bloodline" concept worked for the sorcerer, it doesn't mean that we need 233 more classes/prestige classes that use the same concept. Less is more. Choice is good. Too much choice is bad.

I find these two classes overly complicated and too specialised. Each of them has neat tricks to offer (one of the cavalier orders lets you do triple damage on a lance instead of double; so quadruple damage with Spirited Charge) but it takes a while to get there and it appears that these classes would be bland at high levels (i.e. I don't think they are for me, as I wouldn't get the same fun as playing one of the Core classes).

The cavalier's +Xd6s against a designated foe thing is a watered down pally smite lookalike and I can already see problems in the application (i.e. would be a pain to play especially if you designate the wrong foe i.e. a foe that starts flying around or dimension dooring himself around the map...) Then there's also the problem that you just painted a big target sign on you for rogues (considered "flanked by all enemies except your challenged enemy?" wow, no thank you... I wouldn't challenge anyone until two - three rounds have passed and all hidden/invisibles/assassins have come out and already made their sneak/death attacks...)

It's also meant to be a mounted warrior, and they have downplayed that (the cavalier mount is weaker than a paladin or druid mount?? wtf? the cavalier should be the CLEAR choice for mounted combat; i.e. the class that offers the strongest mount). They had the opportunity to make it appealing for people to take mounted feats, but they have botched that opportunity a little IMO... they could have made it so the mount can squeeze at no penalty (making it dungeon worthy); they could have made it so it can decide to fit as one size bigger or smaller (to increase the cavalier's reach or allow for navigation in dungeons or alongside a fontline ally in a 10 foot wide corridor, respectively). Lots of cool things should be done in regards to the mounted combat aspect of the cavalier, but the class falls short of this IMO.

Oracle is too messed up / meh / whatever for me to comment at this time.

The classes are definitely cool in some ways but I don't think they would replace one of the Great Fours (fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue)... so better use them in a party that already has the Great Fours covered... Part of my dislike is that too much customization options usually lead to craziness (I can already an "order" for each Hellknight Order, which is fine, but they won't be "core" options which means we will probably get overpowered ones and underpowered ones).

[Raises a shot glass in James' direction]So, have you been at that place yet?

yes... 1d6 + STR*1.5 + trip :)

sigh... missing my lovely mindnumb-mingly hot kin from Quebec... i'm a quebec ex-pat in Ontario... sigh

ontarians don't know how to mingle and free their minds... they're so straightlaced... live has no spice here... sigh

WotC boards also has an active message board and the number of errors in the 3.5 MM seemed much lower that what we see here: 3.5 MM errata. Sorry but it's just a shame, it seems that there are mistakes every other monster.

Basically, back in 3.5: for minions and random encounters, I would use the MM stats as is to save time, but for any major monster/NPC/boss, I would recalculate the stats from the ground up, as EVERY stat block was flawed...

You're obviously attached to your WotC stuff, so we'll agree to disagree here if you will... (I, myself, no longer suffer from that weird 3.5 conservatist mentality, especially since I put all my 3.5 stuff out for sale... Faenor: would you like to buy what's left of my 3.5 stuff for cheap? it's funny: even though there appears to be tons of 3.5/WotC lovers out there, I haven't been able to sell my 3.5 collection... even at the low price of $5 per book... I wonder why... these "crappy" Paizo products "should" be increasing the value and demand of my WotC stuff right???)

So many errors in the book! It's a a shame. With so much delay I was expecting more rigor, it looks like the errata is going to have as many pages as the book itself...

I must say that I am disappointed by the Bestiary, I was expecting a lot better than that in terms of quality: less errors, more flavor text (some monsters are just really a stat block, not inspiring at all) and especially better artwork.

I know this is personal opinion and everyone has different taste about artwork but I find some of the monsters art really crap, especially the goblin family. I wan't a big fan of the new goblin to start with but the other family members are just wrong: the bugbear, the hobgoblin who looks like Shrek, the bargheist, ...

The worse of all being the troll IMHO.

Sorry for the rant, not a specific problem about rules but more a general disappointment about the product.

Aside from a very few minor things, this book is useable as is.

damage fist, then trip attempt (otherwise you'll never inflict damage, because the wolf's CMB is quite low and tripping seldom works)

No.

First, someone with pounce/rake usually has grab as well, which means they get to initiate a grapple as a free action. If successful, they establish a hold.

Grab, PRD: The creature has the option to conduct the
grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it
used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to
do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check
to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain
the grappled condition itself.

Also, Grab, PRD: Creatures with the grab special attack receive a +4
bonus on combat maneuver checks made to start and
maintain a grapple.

In the above example, let's assume the creature does not take -20 and decides to gain the grappled condition, we have:

Grappled, PRD: A grappled creature is restrained by a creature,
trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4
penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty
on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except
those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition,
grappled creatures
can take no action that requires two
hands to perform. A grappled character who attempts to cast
a spell must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler’s
CMB + spell level, see page 206), or lose the spell. Grappled
creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.
A grappled creature cannot use Stealth to hide from
the creature grappling it, even if a special ability, such as
hide in plain sight, would normally allow it to do so. If
a grappled creature becomes invisible, through a spell or
other ability, it gains a +2 circumstance bonus on its CMD
to avoid being grappled, but receives no other benefit.

Finally, we have a pretty clear statement here: (bold emphasis mine)
Rake, PRD: In addition to the options
available to all grapplers, a monster with the rake ability
gains two additional claw attacks that it can use only
against a grappled foe.

So, the lion can do the following with a grappled foe:

--> If he does not release the grapple, he must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold (+5 to maintain, +4 because he has the Grab ability = +9 to maintain). Because he maintains, he gets to apply bite damage each time, AND can make two rake attacks at -2 to hit (yes, these appear to be made as a free action). Basically, while maintaining a grapple, a lion loses his two claw attacks. That is, of course, only if the lion is considered grappled and has not taken the -20 to establish the hold; if takes the -20 (-20 + 5 + 4 = -11 by the way...) and manages to still maintain his hold, he applies bite damage and then can move or otherwise make two claw and two rake attacks without the -2 penalty. The trick is in the wording of the grab ability: "The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself." I believe this statement should be errated to say "The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself and can also maintain the grapple as a free action, thus allowing the creature to act normally with any other available limbs. Thus, a creature with the grab ability who maintains a hold with the above-mentioned -20 penalty could also move and attack another creature if it can normally attack with more than one part of its body, or conduct the rest of its attacks against his grappled opponent(s)."

This errata would allow a creature to use his other limbs, as per the original intent of the ability...

James Jacobs wrote:

Also... the tyrannosaurus has no real ranged attack capability to speak of. By making him Gargantuan, we extend the amount of area that he takes up and can reach into, making it a bit more difficult to, say, climb a tree to escape him.

Though this is an extremely good point, by far the best element of the change is that now I can mount my Cloud Giant calvary on them!

You don't need Bestiary stats if you have the Animal Companion starting stats... (it was probably cut for space because it is unlikely to get ever get into combat; i.e. even if it is a special mount/animal companion, it probably will only get used as a vehicle for the rider rather than an accessory to combat).

I mean, if you ride a lion, you probably want to make it part of your attack routine, and give it feats that help the lion hit hard; if you ride a camel you probably want to give it: Run, Endurance, Sandwalker (LoF player's guide), Dodge, Mobility

PS: Erik Mona agreed with me in a previous post that giving Endurance AND Sandwalker to the camel is probably not a game-breaking factor... so if you have a 10th level druid or paladin, your selected feats could be:

1) Dodge, Mobility, Run, Diehard and Toughness (with Endurance and Sandwalker as bonus feats) for maximum survivability (Con boosts at 4 and 8 HD); or

2) Power Attack, Improved Overrun, Run, Improved Natural Armor, and Greater Overrun (with Endurance and Sandwalker as bonus feats) (Str boost at 4 HD and Int boost at 8 HD to gain Int 3 so as to be able take Greater Overrun at 9 HD)

Darkvision, Darkness and Daylight being what they are now, any race with darkvision is now at a GREAT advantage. Go read the Darkness spell, the Light spell and the Daylight spell; then go read the Vision/Illumination section of the "Adventuring" chapter of the PRPG; then go read the above-mentioned spells again. You won't believe your eyes.

The dwarf is probably the strongest race there is currently, due to this, and closely followed by the half-orc. The 20' speed of the dwarf is probably its greatest flaw, but the rest rocks. 8,500gp is all a dwarf needs to solve the problem though (boots of elvenkind with continuous expeditious retreat effect, and the dwarf's speed is now at 50' with a Acrobatic bonus of +5).

(of course I'm only talking about core races: if you use the Bestiary and allow tieflings, aasimar, drow, etc. which are not balanced against the core races, the dwarf then loses out a little bit...)

A Gargantuan T-Rex, for one thing, allows for a wider range of T-rex like dinosaur variety when you apply the young or giant simple templates, for one. When you include the deinonychus, that gives you a range of Small to Colossal for dinos of this shape, pretty easy.

Further, the spread of dino sizes made it more desirable to have two Gargantuan creatures in the book; there's already plenty of Huge ones.

And as for the dinosaur itself... going by the basic guidelines for creature size, the tyrannosaurus DOES fit into a gargantuan mode better than Huge. Large covers lengths of up to 16 feet, while Huge goes up to 32 feet. The tyrannosaurus, being 40 feet long, is by that reading, Gargantuan. (Might not be the most accurate way to look at things, but It doesn't matter to me if a fair amount of that is tail length.)

Also... the tyrannosaurus has no real ranged attack capability to speak of. By making him Gargantuan, we extend the amount of area that he takes up and can reach into, making it a bit more difficult to, say, climb a tree to escape him.

The tyrannosaurus is the most famous dinosaur. It's bigger than life in a lot of ways. And making it Gargantuan is a good way to capture this.

As for the D&D miniatures line... while it certainly is neat to be able to use these minis in Pathfinder games, they are the result of a different company. The Pathfinder tyrannosaurus is not the same as the D&D tyrannosaurus. Limiting the development and evolution of Pathfinder to the limitations set by another company is not something I'm interested in doing.

I mean, his head is bigger than the woolly mammoth, which is Huge to start with... :P

Question: why do most Huge (4-legged) dinos have a reach of 15 feet??? (I'm guessing long necks or tails, but in the case of the triceratops, this guy's got no neck! :P ...although a case could be made that his horns are freaggin' long)

PS: the more I read about dinos, the more I think they're the ultimate choice for druid wildshape and/or animal companion...

I like that a high weapon enhancement bonus cuts through DRs... it's a nice nod to us old timers who used to fight against critters who *couldn't be hurt* by anything lower than say, a +3 sword. (this is why 2nd edition vampires were NASTY)

Greater Magic Weapon specifically does not overcome the DRs.

3rd level cleric blasts everyone with a 2d6 channel and says: "Fools! there's more where this came from!"

--> from the various groups of people I've DM'd in my life, I would expect that at least half of the time, someone would take a free action to yell "Back away, spread out, and Pincushion the crap out of him!"

I totally dig that change. Thank you very much Paizo. In 3.5 I had 25th level PCs with +2 swords valued as +9 swords... it was ridiculous... and golf bags? yes: they all had one (FR's Najjar's Cloak of Weaponry that lets you stow 25 weapons... say "CHEEEEEEEEEESE!" :D )

Mairkurion {tm} wrote:

Hey, TD. I'm staying at Le Centre Sheraton. I'm totally unprepared for my first trip to Canada, and to a francophonic area. I hope to eat poutine. It looks like Le Valet is only a six minute drive away, but I'm uncertain what my time is going to be like. Thanks for the heads up. Should I leave a note at the Sheraton for you to pick up next week, or is it out of your way?

If you make it Le Valet, leave a note there. They probably have a bulletin board. ;-) If you leave one at the Sheraton, I'll make it in.

Yeah, don't worry about the French. Montreal is very bilingual, leaning towards anglo in some areas.

You should also try some smoked meat while you're there.

That will help with the whole 'heart attack' thing.

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

all you need is to see your target, and according to this thread solid fog does not limit vision right? (i.e. you still have line of sight if you're an artillery mage within the fog right?)

No line of sight in fog effects beyond 5 feet |:

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

That's because you haven't read the Polymorph subschool text, which specifies you gain waterbreathing capabilities when shifting into a creature that swims. People not reading these days... grumble, grumble, grumble... :P

Which means if you polymorph into a dolphin, crocodile, or polar bear(!!!) you can breathe water.

The 3.5 version of solid fog was absolutely too good. We probably DID go too far nerfing it, but as it stood, solid fog was just too powerful. Particularly when stacked on top of other effects, like blade barriers or lava or other deadly area effect stuff. PARTICULARLY when a creature that was bigger than Medium got caught inside.

The Eagle is a small animal but has 0 reach and a space of 2.5'. Is that right?

lostpike wrote:

The best damage I found for a 12th level druid is going to be Elemental with shilleliegh on a club(2 club attacks plus slam) or Dire Tiger if you want multiple attacks plus rake, pounce.

The dire tiger will end up being better as you can throw in Rhino Armor and Amulet of Might Fists on top making pounce very nice.

Another Idea for a melee druid is taking levels of monk especially with a monks robe. Has anyone explored this idea?

ON T-REX- you dont get swallow whole as you dont get Beast Shape 4

I'm gonna be houseruleing druids get beast shape 4 for animals only but get the abilities. No reason wizards should be better at being animals than druids in my book. I think it was oversight because it only gave magical beast forms.

Dennis da Ogre wrote:

That's not the way the druid works under pathfinder (or under 3.5 either). It would have to be a custom class. In fact Pathfinder made the druid much less capable in melee so you might want to really look at how effective he will be before diving in.

It's almost an understatement. These days, druid shapeshifting is useful only for mobility and stealth options, the class has fallen far in melee capability in shapeshift, and technically as far as mobility options go, Druids can now change into fish that drown, as it's not specified that water breathing is an option for Beast Shape.

"Your base speed changes to match that of the form you assume. If the form grants a swim or burrow speed, you maintain the ability to breathe if you are swimming or burrowing."

Hey, anyone notice this about the paladin:

"This mount functions as a druid’s animal companion, using
the paladin’s level as her effective druid level."

Wow, the pally now really rocks with an effective full druid Animal Companion...

Also,

"Bonded mounts have an Intelligence of at least 6."

Wow, now pallies take the cake! realize that this INT 6 allows the mount to take ANY feats, not just Animal Feats! O_O

Somehow part of me is happy the pallies are getting a good treatment, but part of me wish druids could be the masters of Animal Companions, not pallies... Currently pallies are the Animal Companion kings!

Lord Fyre wrote:

Russ Taylor wrote:

Just wanted to confirm the reading of Boon Companion. It was designed with rangers and muticlassed characters in mind.

Okay. Maybe the writing wasn't clear enough for me? :)

It also helps Druids or Clerics who picked the Animal domain and I assume oracles as well....

Welcome to the dark side of the Force, grasshopper! :)

The dragonne is in the Bonus Bestiary, but that printing was before we locked down all those rules.

It's not an animal, in any event. It's certainly a great nominee for a monster cohort though!

Although I wish that more mounts would have been given that treatment (I'm thinking the dragonne rules are exactly what is needed for a paladin to figure out how to handle/progress their special mount without the leadership feat...)

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

I see. Thanks Nethys!

Basically: shield bashing, with all 5 shield bash tree feats, is the ultimate two-weapon fighting build, if taken with the bashing shield enhancement.

The advantage is that you retain your AC and free bull rush people while doing it. The disadvantage is that you can't add weapon specialization damage to it (because arguably, you will put the weapon focus/spec feats on your main hand, which CANNOT BE A SHIELD).

Neat, and well-balanced. I am impressed. So much so that I wonder if this was intentional by Paizo or if it just happened via organic development process... or if they're just lucky to have accounted for all these potential loopholes! :)

It can be pointed out that bullrushing your opponent out of reach on a full attack is not ideal.

#3 is No. Jason clarified it in this thread. Shield Mastery, besides negating the two weapon fighting penalty for the Shield attack, only adds a bonus to attack and damage equal to the (base) Shield bonus. So +2 for a Heavy, or +1 for a Light, regardless of the Shield enhancement. The bonus it adds is treated as a weapon enhancement bonus as well, so if you enhanced it as a weapon while possessing this feat the two would not stack. A heavy shield enhanced as a +3 weapon would only be +1 to attack and damage better if you had Shield Master (which already provided a +2).

Also, in case you ask, Shield Focus or Greater Shield Focus do not increase the Shield's base shield bonus for the purpose of Shield Mastery, they only add to your AC.

Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys