Sean K Reynolds's page

One more thing: Although I love Paizo, I DO blame them for the mess of the CRB. That was a golden opportunity to rewrite and reorganize those rules as the foundation for years of undead 3.5 gaming. Especially because they chose to make the behemoth CRB; at 50 bucks I feel jipped every time I have to dig through the SAME disarray from 8 years ago!

Given more time, I would have loved to reorganize it more. But we had new APs coming out that, without the PFRPG, would be using a rules system whose core books were disappearing in stores, and couldn't wait another 6 or 12 months to get the reorganization done--we had to focus on (1) getting the rules changes made, and (2) getting it out on time so we wouldn't lose the 3E audience.

You only put CL in the Requirements if it's a special requirement for creating the item, like the cloak of resistance has.

If it's something that allows a pregnant woman to continue adventuring, that's putting a fetus in danger, which is a no-no in terms of PR.

If it does anything negative to the fetus, that's a no-no in terms of PR.

If it does anything positive to the fetus, that's potentially a no-no in terms of PR.

And if it does much of anything else, it's not really an item that's about adventurers, which means it's probably not appropriate for RPG Superstar.

Notso, I wouldn't be so quick to assume you're ineligible. The Rules say:
1. The contest is open to the general public, with the following exceptions: Employees of Paizo Publishing, their immediate family members, and persons with whom such employees are domiciled are ineligible. Anyone who has been employed full-time as a designer for a game company is ineligible. Anyone with a cover credit on a hardcover RPG book is ineligible. Designers who have cover credits on print editions of Paizo's Pathfinder or GameMastery products are ineligible. The top 8 finalists of all previous RPG Superstar contests are ineligible. Contestants must provide their real names on their paizo.com account. Legal identification must be produced on request.

So, unless designing for/running your game company is a full-time job, it doesn't mean you're ineligible.

Now, really, Mr Spicer, I must protest at this abuse of her Majesty's great language. If you colonial types will insist on flaunting your inability to spell properly, that is one thing, but insisting, nay, demanding that the loyal servants of Ablion must participate in this debasement of our beautiful mother tongue is simply not acceptable. If this keeps up, I shall write a stern letter to the Times about it. You just see if I don't.

"We won a war so we wouldn't have to spell 'color' with a 'u.'" --Erik Mona

WHAT?!?! Is the Kitsune just a werefox creature???!!!??? I really like the ninetales version of the creature a 1000 times more.

Folklore says more powerful kitsune tend to have more tails, which means that some of them (say, 1st-level characters) only have one tail.

Yep. Still don't see it. I'll just use word...and hope that if it's close it will be in my favor. ;)

Take a look at this screenshot of the preview page of a (joke) I made last year: link

You'll see the word count on the very second line:

first line is Paizo/Messageboards...
second line is Sean Reynolds's Sword... and the word count is at the end of this line.

Because the book only has 64 pages.

Sorry for the short notice, but Neil and I are discussing RPG Superstar tonight in the Beautiful Brains Books & Games chatroom tonight at 9pm Eastern Time. It's text chat, no speakers required. :)

Let me put it this way, Foghammer:

It's spelled "wondrous" in the Core Rulebook. If you spell it a different way, you're spelling it wrong.

It's spelled "wondrous" in the competition rules. If you spell it a different way, you're spelling it wrong.

If you (generic "you") can't bother to spell it right in a simple 300-word submission, why should I think you'll spell it right in a professional turnover? And if you can't get your spelling right in a professional turnover, why should I think you'll get a stat block format or a rule issue right in your turnover? After all, following a stat block format or getting a rule right is harder than getting a spelling right.

It's Craft Wondrous Item, not Craft Wonderous Item.
It's Craft Wondrous Item, not Craft Wondrous Items.
It's Level sorcerer/wizard 3, not Level sorceress/wizard 3.
It's the Deceitful feat, not the Deceptive feat.
It's Knowledge (arcana), not Knowledge (arcane).

And so on.

If you can't be bothered to get the name of a feat, skill, or other rule right, I can't be bothered to think you're serious about me paying you to write for me.

Or, to put it in the most cranky way: If I'm paying you hundreds of dollars to write something, it's your job to do your best to make sure the feat names are right. Every misspelled feat you turn over is something the developer or editor needs to fix, and that means a little less time the developer or editor has to fix something that actually affects the game. Why is your time more valuable than my time? I'm paying you to get it right, so get it right.

It's not hard to spell words the same way they are in the book. Just like it's not hard to follow the 300 word limit. And yet every year, people fail to do one or the other, and some people get cranky when the judges mention it.

I admit it, I have my share of spelling errors and quirks. I always want to stick an "e" on the end of "booth," for example. But when I spot them, I correct them. And if I'm called out on a spelling error, I accept the blame for it, because it's a dumb, easily-avoidable mistake that I let happen anyway. Which is why I spell-check and proofread my turnovers--better to be diligent and re-check it than to let it slide and look sloppy later.

Those are great!

It's okay to reply here if you have questions or comments. :)

And remember that Neil Spicer didn't make the Top 32 his first year. Just because you don't make it into the Top 32 doesn't mean you're not good.

...Designers who have cover credits on print editions of Paizo's Pathfinder or GameMastery products are ineligible...

The quoted rule refers specifically to products published by Paizo, not anything published by another company using the Pathfinder RPG rules.

Implanting them does not change their nonslottedness. :)

For last year's competition I posted a list of 27 "auto-reject" topics for RPG Superstar. I'm linking them here just so these ideas are fresh in everyone's mind.

These aren't really "auto-reject" topics, they're design traps to avoid when designing your item. We judges have to evaluate hundreds of items and narrow the field to just 32 competitors. If you put a target on your back and give us an easy excuse to reject your item, you've made a mistake.

Read what's been done in previous competitions. Avoid these traps, pitfalls, auto-reject categories, whatever you want to call them. There's an incredible amount of advice online for this competition--use that advice to make your item better. There's advice to help you win, and advice to keep you from crashing and burning.

And understand that there are wondrous items in the Core Rulebook that fall into these traps--and likewise understand that RPG Superstar isn't just "design an item that would be acceptable filler for a big book of magic items." To make it into the Top 32, your item has to be exceptional, not merely adequate.

(I've moved #27 to the top of the list because it's the rule that breaks all rules. To quote myself, "Every single one of these 27 advice posts is here to help steer you away from mistakes that could make the judges reject your item. Going against that advice can be risky. But sometimes taking a risk is the way to get noticed, to make progress.")

Below this list are some other handy links about the competition, submitting, writing, and design.)

• Wondrous Item advice #27: An awesome item may disregard the other advice
  
• Wondrous Item advice #1: Spell in a Can
  
• Wondrous Item advice #2: Swiss Army Knife
  
• Wondrous Item advice #3: Backstory/History/Description Item
  
• Wondrous Item advice #4: Item Ought to be Not-An-Item
  
• Wondrous Item advice #5: Item Fails to Follow Game Rules
  
• Wondrous Item advice #6: Item is a Variant of an Existing Item
  
• Wondrous Item advice #7: Obvious Pricing Errors
  
• Wondrous Item advice #8: The Random Item
  
• Wondrous Item advice #9: The Intellectual Property Violation
  
• Wondrous Item advice #10: Item isn't Spell-Checked or Proofread
  
• Wondrous Item advice #11: The In-Character Quote
  
• Wondrous Item advice #12: Item is a Joke
  
• Wondrous Item advice #13: Item makes you blind and not blind
  
• Wondrous Item advice #14: Item is something we can't advertise due to mature or offensive content
  
• Wondrous Item advice #15: Item is unclear on how often it is useable
  
• Wondrous Item advice #16: Item's name is a real-world item name
  
• Wondrous Item advice #17: Item is modern technology presented as magic
  
• Wondrous Item advice #18: Item makes bearer unable to be lost
  
• Wondrous Item advice #19: Item involves vomit
  
• Wondrous Item advice #20: Item makes GMing harder
  
• Wondrous Item advice #21: Item gives a class ability or a feat
  
• Wondrous Item advice #22: Item makes adventuring safe
  
• Wondrous Item advice #23: Item's drawback is actually a benefit
  
• Wondrous Item advice #24: Item repeats existing rules text in its description
  
• Wondrous Item advice #25: Item is a child's toy
  
• Wondrous Item advice #26: Item encourages metagaming
  

One last bit of R1 advice: Include the Item's Name

* Work on your item in a program that allows you to save. Save early, save often. When you're ready to submit your item, copy it from the most recent version of your saved file and paste it into the submission window. We've heard horror stories of people who compose their item in the submission window, and lose their submission due to a browser glitch, power failure, or accidentally closing the window. Don't let this happen to you!

* Make sure you know how to post an item. Posting your submission works just like making a message board post--you can preview how your submission looks before you make that final decision to post. Use the preview function! Use it!!!

* Work on several ideas, and submit the one you like the best. Variety can help your creativity.

* Know the rules. You don't have to know all the rules, but read up on the stuff that's relevant to your item. If you're designing an item for cavaliers, make sure you've thoroughly read the cavalier class...

* Read the judge and fan comments on previous Top 32 items to see why they were kept. If you have time, read the "Judges, please critique my item" threads to see why they were rejected.

* Make sure your item doesn't exceed the word count limit for the round. Seriously--one word over and you're disqualified. Use the word count function in your typing program, they're all pretty close (Paizo uses Microsoft Word, FYI), and if you use the Preview button when you submit, it'll tell you the word count for your submission. If it's over the word count (300 for a wondrous item, including the item name and all the stat block info), edit it down.

* Check your item for spelling and grammar errors. Then check it again. Then hit the Preview button. Then check it again. Then, if you're satisfied, hit Submit.

* Submit something, even if you don't think it's very good, or if you don't think it's good enough. If you never actually submit an item, you have a 0% chance to win the competition.

* Be ready for criticism and try to learn from it.

* Remember the Paizo message board policies, especially unwritten Rule 0, "Don't be a jerk."

* Read Seabyrn's thread about passive voice in writing.

And, just for fun, here's my example from last year of an item submission that fails for many, many reasons.

True. So make sure they're on the character sheet. :)

Tabletop RPGs use a turn-based system to model real-time combat in a manageable way.

Don't base a real-time MMO's game system on a turn-based model of real-time interactions.

A real-time game doesn't need AOOs and immediate actions because those mechanics exist to help model real-time actions in a turn-based game. In a real-time game, they're unnecessary--instead, your character would have instant (0 casting time) actions that you could trigger in response to the actions of other creatures in the game.

I was a designer on Baldur's Gate III. We were trying to model AOOs in realtime combat by creating "ghosts" of your character that would strike out automatically when someone provoked an AOO. Then we realized that in a realtime game, the player could just click the target as it passed him, and shift his character's attacks to that target, no separate mechanic or animation needed.

Part of being a good licensed computer game designer is knowing where the line is between "this makes it feel like the licensed content" and "this is an artifact of the licensed content that doesn't add to actual gameplay in our game."

I remember arguing with a licensor who wanted the massive damage rule in our computer game. We finally won out when we explained that when Timmy the Gamer's fighter character has 100 health and is fighting a dragon, and the dragon "hits" him for 60 health, Timmy expects that he'll still be alive with 40 health, rather than having a chance of instantly dying from "massive damage" even though he should have 40 health left.

Duplicate the fun of the game experience, but don't be enslaved to the constraints of the original game.

The keys to this problem are the PFS potion rules and the Accelerated Drinker trait.

As others have stated, PFS rules say all store-bought potions function at the minimum caster level.

As Dennis pointed out, Accelerated Drinker requires you to have the potion in your hand.

So this alchemist's (optimal) in-combat sequence is this:

Step 0, before combat, carry the potion you want to use in your hand.
Round 1, drink your alchemical allocation extract as a standard action. Drink the potion as a move action. Spit the potion back into the flask as a free action.
Round 2, drink your second alchemical allocation extract as a standard action. Put away your first potion as a move action (you wouldn't want to drop and break it, right?).
Round 3, draw your second potion as a standard or move action. Drink your second potion as a move or standard action. Spit the potion back into the flask as a free action.
Round 4, fight! Note that he's still holding the potion flask in one hand, so he has to either drop it as a free action or not use that hand to fight.

If he's not carrying the potion he wants to use before the combat, that slows down this procedure by one move action (to draw it). If he's acting in a surprise round, that slows him down by one move action because he can only take a standard or a move action in a surprise round.

If he spends 3 rounds buffing himself in order to be really powerful on the 4th and later rounds, that's an appropriate cost. Hopefully the other PCs aren't dead by round 4.

Officially...
Alchemist extracts only affect the drinker. You can't split it up.

As to why these spells are on the alchemist list at all:
(1) You'll note that the regular alch extract list includes water breathing, which is a communal-type spell, so there's a precedent for it.
(2) The alchemist isn't limited in the number of spells he can learn. So, if he wants to learn the communal version of an extract, he can do so--unlike a sorcerer, he doesn't have a fixed limit to his number of extracts known, and learning it doesn't keep him from learning other extracts later.
(3) Many of these communal spells are on the sor/wiz list, and the basic spell is on the alchemist list, so if Spell A is an extract and a wizard spell, and Communal Spell A is a wizard spell, Communal Spell A should be a extract as well. Even if it's not an efficient use of the alchemist's extract slots. Especially since an alchemist can translate a wiz spell into an alch extract if it's on the extract). Basically, if an alchemist never bothered to learn spider climb, but he finds a spellbook or formula book with communal spider climb, he should be able to make use of it, even though he probably has better options for his level 3 extracts.

Unofficially...
If your GM is okay with it, there's no reason why an alchemist with the infusion discovery couldn't make an infusion of a communal extract, allowing multiple people to sip from it and apportion its effects.

But, just like kissing sailors, that can spread diseases, so be careful.

You minis-heads would absolutely wet yourselves to see the sculpts WizKids has been sending me for the last couple of weeks.

It's true. I know this because Erik has deliberately not shown me any of these sculpts because he doesn't want me to wet myself.

Yep! Excellent example, thank you.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

The blood isn't listed as a material component or focus. Thus, you consuming the blood means you're drinking the blood.

Isn't that the definition of a focus?

No.

Magic chapter says:
Focus (F): A focus component is a prop of some sort. Unlike a material component, a focus is not consumed when the spell is cast and can be reused.

Who are we trying to appeal to Scott?

I'm pretty sure we're trying to appeal to people who want their funtime to be fun, not frustrating. Harsh death penalties in a game where death is partly determined by a RNG and by the actions of immature players is frustrating, not fun.

The blood isn't listed as a material component or focus. Thus, you consuming the blood means you're drinking the blood.

The wings are always there. "Activating" them isn't an action.

Yes, the winged alchemist is a mutant freak. :)

MMOs are all about the quick, short-attention-span instant fun. IE, they ARE for kids.

You are insulting people who like a different playstyle than you. That's not-classy behavior.

Looking at my Core Rulebook, it looks like there's room for that. You could always print it a little smaller (say, 90%) if it's not giving you enough room.

Why only for females?

Because Jodi is female, and frequently runs into the "it's armor, it's supposed to be protective, not sexy, stop being sexist toward women in fantasy" argument. She's just making sure her preference is known.

Or, to look at it another way: "Please make sure the ladies can have sexy armor" does not mean "Please make sure ONLY the ladies can have sexy armor."

Why don't game designers bother fixing spells that don't really work as written?

Stay classy, San Diego.

1) TOUGHNESS : don't think that the fighter gain this ability for free at level 2 (it does not say that in fighter description), so the comment in the feat description should be deleted I guess.

You are correct. An earlier version of the rules gave the 2nd-level fighter Toughness instead of a choice of a combat feat. It'll be corrected.

2) PRECISE SHOT : prerequisite is not "Able to use a crossbow" but "POINT-BLANK SHOT" I guess.

You are correct.

3) STARKNIFE : should be in "Thrown" weapons group (fighter description).

4) SLING: should be in "Thrown" weapons group (fighter description).
5) DAGGER : should be in "Thrown" weapons group (fighter description).

Correct on all counts. I think updating the header to say this list is just examples of the category would cover this.

6) WEAPON GROUP : should indicate that bonus do not stack in case a weapon is in various groups (like 'light hammer').

Nothing in the text says that a weapon in multiple groups gives multiple bonuses. "Pick a group. You get a +1 with that group" is pretty straightforward, whether the weapon is in multiple groups shouldn't matter.

7) ARMOUR : should indicate what happen in case of Armor without Proficiency. I guess it's simply forbidden.

Correct, in the Beginner Box you can't use armor unless your class says you're proficient in it.

We work really, really hard to make sure that changes to the books don't affect the positioning of headers in any way, so that page references remain consistent. Sometimes a sentence may break across a page in a different part of the sentence, but it shouldn't affect page references.

For example, the 5th printing update says:
Page 182—In the Attack section, in the Natural Attacks section, in the third paragraph, delete the following two sentences: “In addition, all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting. Your natural attacks are treated as light, off-hand weapons for determining the penalty to your other attacks.”

In the 4th printing, this paragraph started at the bottom of page 182 and ran over to page 184 (skipping 183, which is a page of tables). In the 5th printing, that paragraph starts and ends on page 184. In both printings, the next header is Multiple Attacks, and it starts on page 184 (it just starts a little higher in the 5th printing), and the paragraph spacing was adjusted later on page 184 so both printings otherwise have the same content on that page.

So, to answer your question, you can just print the relevant page, but you may have to check the end-of-page/start-of-page breaks to make sure the sentence crossing from one page to the other hasn't shifted a little bit.

To answer your point about the big-bad villains I'm not really sure. Personally I'd like to see some mechanic in the game to make resurrections more difficult/expensive anyway. You see them here and there in Pathfinder and 3.0/3.5 and it's a pretty interesting concept.

In an online MMO, I'd hate to have an expensive resurrection cost.

Why? Three reasons jump quickly to the top of my list:

Griefing: My character shouldn't be penalized harshly because 13yo Timmy decided to create an assassin character and randomly murderstab my character.

Lag/connectivity: My character may die because my internet provider dropped my connection, or because the server had a hiccup, or because my power went out. My character shouldn't be penalized harshly for that.

Software instead of a living GM: If a monster bugs out, evades, has some sort of glitch, or gets an advantage from the RNG, there's no human GM present to say, "whoa, that shouldn't happen" (or even, "whoa, this CR-appropriate monster rolled well and took out the fighter in one shot, I should reduce the damage in later rounds so this isn't a TPK"). My character shouldn't be penalized harshly because of a software problem.

In WOW, when I die, it's a minimal cost to repair my gear, but it costs me time to run back to my corpse--time, if I were more careful, that I could have spent making gold, killing monsters, or having other sorts of fun. I don't need it to penalize me MORE than it already does.

I'd be really surprised if you can finish that many combat encounters in 4 hours. And with the non-combat encounters, I expect it to run longer. Lucky rolls and players who quickly "get it" may speed things up, but I'd estimate 5-6 hours for new players.

But I'll defer to people who've actually run the whole thing in one shot for a group of new players, if they have evidence that contradicts me. :)

Fuse Grenades: What happens if I hit a target before the fuse runs out? Does it prematurely detonate?

No. It explodes when the fuse burns out, not when it hits something.

I have a player that has asked a question. He is a Summoner with the Synthesist Archetype. He asked if the fact that when he is bonded to his Eidolon His strength would be over 13. Can he take the Power Attack feat since part of the time he would qualify.

Yes, he can, but would only be able to use it when his Str is 13+ (so being fused with his Str 13 eidolon qualifies).

You're welcome. :)

Ahhh...

I would quiet the talk about "scrolls" you might get sued.

Huh?

If you pinpoint an invisible target, you know what square it's in, and can attack that square, with the invis creature getting total concealment.

If you don't pinpoint the target's square, you don't know what square it's in, but you can still pick a square where you think it may be, and attack there. If the invis target IS there, it gets total concealment (just like you had pinpointed its square). If the invis target ISN'T there, the attack misses (there's nothing to hit). If the GM is smart, he'll roll d% whether or not the invis creature is there, so that the player doesn't know if he missed because (1) of the miss chance, or (2) because there's nothing actually there.

Things to remember:

The Core Rulebook was written assuming you're playing one of the PC races in that book.

All of those PC races are healed by positive energy.

The paladin has channel positive energy as a class ability--an ability that was added in the PFRPG (in 3.5, they had turn undead).

The 3.5 paladin LOH writeup didn't mention positive/negative energy because channeling positive or negative energy as a class ability (whether cleric or paladin) wasn't a concept in 3.5. Therefore, 3.5 LOH didn't state that it was channeled positive energy, partly for that reason and partly because the 3.5 PH also assumed you were playing one of the standard PC races.

The PF wording of LOH is an example of using the 3.5 wording without revising it to cover all the consequences of the rules changes in PF, such as good clerics and paladins gaining channel positive energy, and without considering that a future book would have a potential PC race with negative energy affinity (a universal monster rule that didn't exist when the Core Rulebook was written).

If LOH (whether 3.5 or PF) said "heal a living creature" or "uses positive energy to heal," this discussion wouldn't be happening at all.

That said, it's pretty obvious that the paladin is a class that uses holy power/positive energy for its abilities, and therefore its LOH healing should be considered a positive energy source rather than a "typeless" healing like resting, using the Heal skill, or the monk's wholeness of body ability. There's no good reason why the paladin's LOH should be considered "typeless" rather than positive, and at least one good reason why it should be considered positive rather than "typeless." Therefore, we're considering LOH to be a positive energy effect.

Therefore, a dhampir paladin hurts himself if he uses LOH on himself.

Could you attack with claws while wearing a cestus, but not using it?

Considering that it "covers the wielder from mid-finger to mid-forearm" and "your fingers are mostly exposed," it looks to me like your claws (assuming they grow out of the ends of your fingers, rather than something weird like palm-claws or wrist-claws) should be available when wearing a cestus, so you could either claw with your claws or punch with the cestus.

I never said it was overpowered or gamebreaking. I said it was cheesy.

the Catoblepas

There you go, a fine example. Note: it has no "special ability" allowing it to attack this way either. It just does.

And there are many, many things that monsters can do that characters can't do. Monsters are not characters.

A 1st-level tengu using any weapon can have two attacks. A 2nd-level barbarian with the right rage powers can do so as well. A 1st-level abyssal sorcerer can strike out with armor spikes or his blade boot as well as two claws.

For someone who nitpicks rules so much, you're having a problem reading what I typed.

Me: Can a level 1 character make two attacks per round with the sword in his right hand?

I'm not arguing that it's impossible to get multiple attacks per round at 1st level. I'm saying that you wouldn't let a 1st-level character attack with the sword in his right hand, and then make a second attack with that same sword in that same right hand. Yet, because of this free action drop loophole, the OP is suggesting that a character should be able to attack with the sword in his right hand, then drop that sword, then make another attack with that same right hand, whether a claw, unarmed strike, spiked gauntlet, whatever.

TLDR: If you can't right-hand-sword/right-hand-sword-again, and you can't right-hand-claw/right-hand-claw-again, the free-action-drop-so-my-hand-is-now-free loophole shouldn't allow you to right-hand-sword/right-hand-claw. And trying to interpret the wording of the rules to allow right-hand-sword/right-hand-claw is cheese.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Why are you trying to cheese the system?

Oh get off your high horse already. Such an answer is not really productive to the discussion and only shows your own conceit.

When someone says "can I get an extra attack if I attack with a weapon, drop the weapon, and then use that hand to make a claw attack or unarmed strike in the same round?," it's cheese, whether I'm looking at it from a high horse or not. It's either cheese because you're trying to get an extra attack in the round, or it's cheese because you're using a doubtful interpretation of a corner case in the rules to allow you to do something you wouldn't normally be able to do.

Can a level 1 character make two attacks per round with the sword in his right hand? No. Then why do you think you should that character should be able to make a sword attack, then drop the sword, then use that empty hand to make a claw attack or unarmed strike?

Can a level 1 character make two attacks per round using his right hand to make an unarmed strike? No. Then why do you think you should that character should be able to make a sword attack, then drop the sword, then use that empty hand to make an unarmed strike? In other words, why does dropping a weapon as a free action entitle the character to an extra attack with that very same limb?

It's the exact same "the rules may allow it, even though it really makes no sense" sort of exploiting that leads to the commoner railgun strategy.

It's cheese.

Or it's going to create an interesting character who excels at hurting people but has more weak points in other areas and could provide some interesting points to roleplay off of.

I don't see how "my character has found a way to deal huge damage because of a loophole" is an "interesting" character, any more than "I have a crazy-high armor class" is an "interesting" character.

As anything more than an intellectual exercise, that is.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Why are you trying to cheese the system?

Why is it cheese? I am not doing anything power level breaking, or even something hard to imagine being done. I was sure there was no game breaking or mind breaking here. If I am wrong, tell me how and why. I can accept a reasonable response.

Because trying to find a loophole in the system to get an extra attack per round is cheese.

Because the game doesn't have a rule for everything, because it assumes the players have common sense to know that you don't need rules for everything.

Because the game is already designed expecting the players to win (a typical encounter is an *easy* encounter). You don't need to "win harder." Trying to build a character that does even more damage than what's expected is just going to create an escalation race between the players and the GM.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Uh, feat, evolution, whatever it's called. :)

In that case it is important distinction as there is Improved Natural Armor feat and Improved Natural Armor evolution, that despite having the same name work a bit differently (feat grants +1 to natural armor and evolution grants +2). However, the feat can be taken multiple times without limit so you are probably refering to evolution. Unless the feat is intended to have similar limit as well?

I think it's clear that I misspoke when I said "feat," and that I'm not suggesting we go back and change the Bestiary's entry for the Improved Natural Armor feat (which is a monster feat and thus shouldn't have a level-based limit because most monsters don't have levels).

Also, I mentioned this earlier and it was said that its more for multiclass characters with bonus feats or something, but is it correct to fix this feat in a way that makes it available at 10th and 20th level, since you normally can't gain feats at those levels?

Nope, just because a single-classed summoner can't take it at 10th doesn't mean we need to revise the level limitations on it.

Why are you trying to cheese the system?