|
|
|
Recent posts by
Zherog:
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Fannin wrote:
Frank Trollman wrote:
3> Reawakening The Awaken spell turns an Animal into a Magical Beast and gives them sweet untyped instantaneous increases to hit dice and mental stats. You can give yourself the Animal type over and over again with Wildshaping, and that means that you can Awaken yourself again. And...
I'm pretty sure this one, at least, has already been addressed. You no longer gain the Animal subtype when Wildshaping.
(edit)Since you've already responded to the effect that this is wrong, there shall be citations:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm#WildShape
D20srd wrote:
At 5th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any Small or Medium animal and back again once per day. Her options for new forms include all creatures with the animal type. This ability functions like the alternate form special ability, except as noted here.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#alternateForm
d20srd wrote:
The creature retains the type and subtype of its original form. It gains the size of its new form. If the new form has the aquatic subtype, the creature gains that subtype as well.
As an interesting point to go along with this...
The errata, technically, is not defined as Open Game Content. So, while d20srd.org has taken the trouble to add the errata to their site, it's not actually what's in the official SRD. I just checked, and in the official SRD, Wild Shape is still based on polymorph.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clark Peterson wrote:
I was the one the hit the reject button. Sorry about that.
*shakes fist at Clark*
I'll get you, and your little dog too!
*ahem*
Anyway... mind if I pick your brain just a little more on this concept? I can totally accept something along the lines of, "I'd prefer not to answer that."
I saw at least a couple of items in the final 32 that had a "reject" post. Was it the "golden ticket" concept that got those items into the final 32, or something else behind the scenes that we're not seeing in the comments?
edit: and also, to be clear, I completely agree with Rambling Scribe. I think it's very awesome that you're in here answering questions and such. It's much appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clark Peterson wrote:
I started this thread in our Judges Message Boards. It grew over time. It may give some insight to our rejections. We saw so many of these over and over again.
Here are mine:
...
The Thinly Veiled "Modern Item As Magic Item" Item (a huge pet peeve of mine. Heck, we had an item called "iBard". The idea was neat, but there is just no way that name is going to work. We had a PDA, etc.)
I'm gonna go ahead and guess my stone of echoes fell into this category...
I wish all the comments would be released. I understand why they aren't being released, of course; that doesn't change my desire, though. :)
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wolfgang Baur wrote:
Bavix wrote:
PLEASE do something as soon as possible. A font change this early in Pathfinder's run will not be a big deal and I'll guarantee that there are plenty of people in stores taking Pathfinder off the shelf, looking at a few pages, and then putting it right back while rubbing their eyes.
I'm with Bavix; it's nasty. I *can* read it, but it's not the pleasant experience it should be. I notice the difficulty way too much, and I've found it more difficult to get through the issue than I expected, despite the great content.
I spend all day staring at screens and papers. The last thing I need is a small, difficult font taunting me in my off hours.
I usually hate "me too" posts, but...
Me too. I have poor vision (even with corrective lenses, I cannot get to 20/20 vision); I spend all day staring at a computer screen (computer programmer and freelance writer). I'm finding Pathfinder #1 very difficult to read, which is definitely distracting from my enjoyment of it.
I'm only jumping in with the "me too" because I think this is one of those rare times when it's useful.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kahoolin wrote:
Zherog wrote:
Instead, we should do our best to not be offended. I am only responsible for myself; I have no control over how you or anybody else reacts to what I say or do, so it's something I do not concern myself with.
Within reason of course. Ever meet one of those people who thinks that they have the "right" to say whatever they want and if anyone gets offended it's not their problem? Yeah, not nice people to be around.
But I know what you mean, some people do need to be a little less sensitive...
But, see, that's sort of my point. When you're around a jerk like that you have choices.
When the jerk uses a word from George Carlin's list of seven dirty words, you have a choice to be offended or to not be offended.
When the jerk calls you a nappy headed ho, you have a choice to be offended or to not be offended.
When the jerk tells you that your face is so ugly it looks like somebody set it on fire and then put it out by stomping on it while wearing golf cleats, you have a choice to be offended or to not be offended.
We have no control over how others act; we have complete control over how we react. We have choices. I choose not to be offended and instead take other courses of action.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
zahnb wrote:
I do remember on the D&D offical board, that if you already have the feat and you get the same feat due to a class feature, you get to choose another feat in place of that feat. Example, if you had rapid shot and you became a 2nd lvl ranger, you could pick another bow feat in place of rapid shot.
As far as I know, that's not correct. Could you provide a source?
zahnb wrote:
Sooooo
Give him access to another of his god's domain. No reason not to give him one is there?
I'm not saying this is a bad house rule. It's fine. It's just not what actually happens.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|