|
|
|
Recent posts by
Russ Taylor:
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd give it a 6/10. Perfunctory - touched all the bases without doing anything unexpected. I think it was a pacing mistake to reveal so many of the plot elements of the original so soon.
Also, tying it into terrorism frankly just seems...trendy.
I expected more. I'll probably keep watching, but this is not groundbreaking, and the original was.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elliecat wrote:
Russ Taylor wrote:
Decorus wrote:
It also helps Druids or Clerics who picked the Animal domain and I assume oracles as well....
True. That wrinkle didn't exist at the time of writing :)
Does it actually do that though? Because as it is written, the abilities of your animal companion is treated as if your class were four levels higher to a maximum bonus equal to your character level.
So, as an example a level 6 ranger who has a class level of 6, would have an animal companion that is equal to "effective druid level 3." The feat as its written would boost the ranger level, not the "effective level" which will always be ranger level-3. As a result since the ranger in question is already at maximum class level she would not really benefit from the feat, unles of course she multi-class to another class later.
The same would be applied to druids with the animal domain I presume?
Maximum "bonus" is probably unfortunate wording (not sure if it was in the original draft), but basically, you calculate the abilities of an animal companion or familiar as though your level was four level higher, to a maximum of your actual character level. So a ranger could get the abilities of an animal companion of up to their character level, as opposed to their ranger level - 3. If they've multiclassed, it might still be less than their charater level.
Don't overthink the feat :)
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sara Marie wrote:
Russ Taylor wrote:
With my own product(Seekers of Secrets) and the Bestiary held up waiting for Pathfinder #27, I'm wondering if there is any way to bump my subscription so that everything pending ships to me this week. I'm aware that means another shipping charge.
Thanks!
Did you want any of your store credit applied to this order or would you like to save it for later?
thanks,
sara marie
I shouldn't have any store credit (I used it all at Gen Con), so please _do not_ use it and just charge my usual subscription card. I'll see if I can straighten the credit out via email :)
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BenS wrote:
Wow, am I the only one who doesn't like the ability to sneak attack (corporeal) undead, (some) constructs, and plant creatures? Guess I lean towards the Simulationist side of things.
This will be my 1st houserule; keeping sneak attack like it used to be.
Watched many zombie flicks? Just loaded with crits-on-zombies. Their hard-to-kill aspect is reflected by their hp, they still have weak spots.
Plants definitely should be crittable too.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|