Bullet Points: 8 Dragonrider Feats (PFRPG) PDF

***½( ) (based on 2 ratings)

Our Price: FREE

Add to Cart
Facebook Twitter Email

Sometimes rules supplements read like the world-setting bible of frustrated novelists. While solid world-building is a useful skill, you don’t always need four paragraphs of flavor text to tell you swords are cool, magic is power, shadows are scary, and orcs are savage. Sometimes a GM doesn’t have time to slog through a page of history for every magic weapon. Sometimes all that’s needed are a few cool ideas, with just enough information to use them in a game. Sometimes, all you need are bullet points.

#1 With A Bullet Point is a line of very short, cheap PDFs each of which gives the bare bones of a set of related options. It may be five spells, six feats, eight magic weapon special abilities, or any other short set of related rules we can cram into about a page. Short and simple, these PDFs are for GMs and players who know how to integrate new ideas into their campaigns without any hand-holding, and just need fresh ideas and the rules to support them. No in-character fiction setting the game world. No charts and tables. No sidebars of explanations and optional rules. Just one sentence of explanation for the High Concept of the PDF, then bullet points.

The High Concept: Eight feats designed to augment the options and utility of dragonriders (from The Genius Guide to the Dragonrider).

The feats included are:

  • Draconic Focus
  • Draconic Fury
  • Dragon Warrior
  • Eldritch Link
  • Elemental Arrows
  • Fearsome Steed
  • Fuel for the Fire
  • Wings of the Rider

As a thank you to all of our customers for giving us 8 out of 10 Top Downloads From Other Companies here on paizo.com for three weeks in a row, this product is free!

Product Availability

Will be added to your My Downloads Page immediately upon purchase of PDF.

Are there errors or omissions in this product information? Got corrections? Let us know at store@paizo.com.

PZOPDFRGGOWC5135E


See Also:

Average product rating:

***½( ) (based on 2 ratings)

Sign in to create or edit a product review.

Not Half Bad... but Not Half Good; Another Lazy Freebie

**( )( )( )

Hello, again. I'm the Questioner, and I review free stuff.

Bullet Points: 8 Dragonrider Feats contains eight new feats for the Dragonrider class. This product looks and reads better than some of SGG's free offerings do (and the artwork on the front page is quite good), but the lazy errors and minimalistic presentation within these free products makes me reluctant to shell out any cash for their paid counterparts.

From the slightly-condescending opening paragraph that seems to be the standard page one "opener" for the Bullet Points series to the copy/paste typos on seemingly every instance of the Bullet Points' back page (like a missing period in the text: "All logos are the trademark of Super Genius Games All rights reserved."), Bullet Points: 8 Dragonrider Feats just comes across as lazy... start to finish. A copy/paste error spanning what seems to be an entire product line over the course of months or even years? Trivial as it is, the editor should have caught something like this by now. I've said it before and I'll say it again: professionalism and attention to detail are paramount.

CONTENT ANALYSIS:

Draconic Focus: A good feat (that probably should have been included in the Genius Guide to the Dragonrider) with only superficial problems. Haste needs to be in italics. Prerequisite lines don't need punctuation.

Draconic Fury: Another decent feat, if worded a tad awkwardly. This feat amounts to a fairly vanilla attack bonus, but it's got an interesting recharge mechanic.

Dragon Warrior: Yawn. Also, the last line should read "any feat that you qualify for."

Eldritch Link: Okay, I get it. We get a vanilla melee feat, a vanilla archery feat, a vanilla caster-ly feat...

Eldritch Link allows your steed to access your spell pool, and is nicely balanced by the fact that it prohibits you from casting a spell if your steed also does. Eldritch Link also features a couple sloppy typographical and grammatical errors. The first line here should read "on any round in which you have established..." and the last line should say "its own feats," not "it's own feats."

Also, this feat doesn't actually require you to have access to dragonrider spells... just spells in general. Given that the feat only works in tandem with dragonrider spells, these prerequisites should have been more specific.

Elemental Arrows: Another dull feat; and why doesn't this require Mounted Archery?

Fearsome Steed: Not bad. Technically, the last line should use the term "modifier" in place of the word "bonus," as the modifier in question isn't technically guaranteed to be a bonus. Furthermore, this feat doesn't require a single rank in Intimidate? Attention to detail, designers!

Fuel for the Fire: Oho! Finally, some inspiration. A great mechanic, and a cool concept. If only they could all be this good. This feat suffers from the same prerequisite problem that Eldritch Link does, however.

Wings of the Rider: Cool imagery. The flavor text suffers from a bit of weirdness in that it references "your eldritch link to your dragon" but does not require and has nothing to do with the Eldritch Link feat. The words feather fall should be italicized here, too. All in all, this isn't a bad feat, though. Wings of the Rider makes for three or four legitimately nifty feats out of eight.

As I said, this product reads better than some of SGG's other freebies, though (such as the Godling counterpart to this product, or the Megadungeon options linked below). Oddly, Owen K. C. Stephens seems to get lazier or farther off-mark over time. This product, unlike some of the more recent offerings, is almost formatted well in terms of both layout (only a single line of wasted space; everything almost lines up) and also in terms of the way feat prerequisite lines are written (an apparent Achilles' heel for Super Genius Games).

Reasonable price tag notwithstanding, Bullet Points: 8 Dragonrider Feats gets two stars and a yawn from this reviewer.

Happy gaming,
- The Questioner


Dragons...Under the Bullet

*****

offering up another freebie to help you understand why you want the rest of them.

This Bullet Point follows the standard format of the previous releases, in that it is a 3 page PDF:

-Cover/Intro page (with artwork flipped to the right side of the cover for the first time)
-New Material
-OGL

So, what do you get for the new material this time around? Glad you asked, the 8 feats presented in this Bullet Point are all designed to be used in conjunction with the Genius Guide to Dragonriders (yet another truly awesome piece of gaming goodness), and are as follows:

-Draconic Focus - 3 times per day, achieve easier focus with your steed
-Draconic Fury - Add Chr mod to attack roll, if successful add 1/2 Dragonrider level to DMG
-Dragon Warrior - While mounted, gain +1 bonus to attack rolls
-Eldritch Link - Your dragon may use your caster level to cast from your list of spells, using their own feats and abilities to determine the outcome
-Elemental Arrows - Enhance your ranged attacks with 1d6 additional damage of the energy type matching your dragon's breath weapon
-Fearsome Steed - If your dragon crits or uses breath weapon, it may make an Intimidate check against all foes within 30ft. who may have witnessed the display.
-Fuel for the Fire - Use your spell slots to enhance the breath weapon of your steed
-Wings of the Rider - Any great falls (such as leaping from the mount whilst in flight) are treated as under a feather fall spell as the rider gains translucent wings that allow one to slow their fall

Artwork for this release consists of 2 pieces, the cover image, a B&W piece by Joe Calkins and another B&W by Smith on the OGl page. Cover piece far outdoes the second piece of art, and makes for an excellent cover image to set the theme for these feats.

Overall, I'm giving this one a 5 for being a solid addition to the rules for Dragonriders, adding a handful of options to players and Gm's alike.


Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Now available (and free too)!

Super Genius Games

Thanks Liz!


Thank you!
now all we need is The Genius Guide to the Dracomancer and I would be a very happy camper.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Cards, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Lunamaria Hawke wrote:

Thank you!

now all we need is The Genius Guide to the Dracomancer and I would be a very happy camper.

OMG, yes, ditto on both counts:)

Paizo Employee Starfinder Design Lead

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Lunamaria Hawke wrote:

Thank you!

now all we need is The Genius Guide to the Dracomancer and I would be a very happy camper.
OMG, yes, ditto on both counts:)

It's still on the schedule! I'm working on rewrites after some playtests found... synergies... I had not expected.


Very nice, you SGG folk keep spoiling us. Another excellent addition to the Bullet Point series.

Paizo Employee Starfinder Design Lead

KTFish7 wrote:
Very nice, you SGG folk keep spoiling us. Another excellent addition to the Bullet Point series.

Thanks! And, thanks for the review. :)


I'm curious about these... synergies!

Paizo Employee Starfinder Design Lead

erichsalvesen wrote:
I'm curious about these... synergies!

It turned out my first dracomancer worked a lot like a wizard who gets to replace his familiar with a full-power eidolon. It was ugly overpowered.


I am DL'ing this product and am willing to give money for Dragonmancer. It is the 1st I've heard of it and I am intrigued.


Seconded! I'd love to see a full spell caster get a hold of a dragon mount! Zomg dreams of draconic domination come true!


Hi again. Downloaded and reviewed.

Happy gaming,
- The Questioner


Out of curiosity...do you hate SGG or something? You've only reviewed their stuff and all of your reviews have been the complete opposite of every other reviewer...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Questioner,

I'm assuming you do not own the Genius Guide to the Dragonrider (since you have only reviewed free products). I must question (excuse the pun) the utility of a review for a product obviously intended for those who own another product from a reviewer with no familiarity with the base product.

Also, quite frankly, the price point must be a factor in a review. If a product is free, the only cost is the time it takes to download it (miniscule) and the hard drive space to store it (ditto). So if the free product contains anything of any value whatsoever, it is worth downloading. Only if the thing infected my computer would I consider a 1-star review appropriate.


I'm assuming he has an issue with SGG all I see are bad reviews and petty little insults in his reviews.

Questioner a few things to try for further reviews:

1. Try not being insulting to the one you are reviewing calling them lazy or accusing them of being condescending etc.
2. Try to actually use the product, most of us do not give much thought to armchair game designers.
3. If you have something personally against the company you are reviewing then don't review it for your review will be biased and not worth the effort.
4. Giving a negative review is not bad but make sure it is for the "right" reasons. (examples KTFish7, Endzeitgeist, Dark Mistress all have given negative reviews but respect those that they review.)
5. Try to be a little more positive in your reviews. Giving all negative reviews is just as bad as giving straight positive reviews.
6. Try to stop nitpicking every single thing. (like forgetting the period in all rights reserved. It shows you are looking for reasons to give a poor review.)
7. A good reviewer will always show both what is good with a product and what is bad.

Here is what I look for when reading the review...
1. Can I or my friends use this in my game?
2. Is there enough crunch to make it worth buying?
3. Can I easily view the product on my laptop and my Kindle?
4. Are there to many obvious errors (Cut and paste errors, too many misspellings rules that are vague or hard to understand?
5. How does the total package look over all?

Dark Mistress, End, and KTFish7 all do these very well, and I look at their reviews to decide if a product I'm thinking about buying is worth the money.


havoc xiii wrote:
Out of curiosity...do you hate SGG or something? You've only reviewed their stuff and all of your reviews have been the complete opposite of every other reviewer...

havoc xiii, hate isn't in my vocabulary. I do feel like I'm picking on SGG though, because my first review happened to target a very poor SGG product (which inspired me to check out some other SGG products, because I know SGG is quite popular and I was surprised to read such a lukewarm offering from such a popular publisher).

Having read quite a lot of SGG's stuff in the few days, I would say that I'm not a fan of this particular publisher. I certainly don't hate anyone who works for them, though. Or anyone at all, for that matter!

ssims2 wrote:

Questioner,

I'm assuming you do not own the Genius Guide to the Dragonrider (since you have only reviewed free products).

I am familiar with the dragonrider.

ssims2 wrote:
Also, quite frankly, the price point must be a factor in a review. If a product is free, the only cost is the time it takes to download it (miniscule) and the hard drive space to store it (ditto). So if the free product contains anything of any value whatsoever, it is worth downloading. Only if the thing infected my computer would I consider a 1-star review appropriate.

I disagree. A great product is still great, whether it is free or reasonably priced. By the same token, a terrible product is still terrible. The price might have something to do with my recommendation as to when-or-whether any given consumer ought to pick it up, but it has nothing to do with the quality of a product.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. For the record: I gave this product two stars, not one. There are a few items worth using in here (although all or most of them suffer from awkward wording and nonstandard formatting).

Happy gaming,
- The Questioner


Questioner then why all the accusatory language? By name calling (Calling Owen Lazy, and Condescending)in this review. You come off as someone who has a particular hate for SGG. It may be that you have no other way to give a negative review with out personal attacks on the ones you are reviewing.


Realmwalker wrote:
I'm assuming he has an issue with SGG all I see are bad reviews and petty little insults in his reviews.

I have no problem with SGG games as an entity, however I might have rated the three products that I have reviewed. I mean absolutely no offense when I say that the problem might be with you. My reviews do not include insults. Describing lazy design as lazy design is not an insult. It is negative, which is something that a critic (hence the name) has got to be when and where negativity is merited.

Realmwalker wrote:
5. Try to be a little more positive in your reviews. Giving all negative reviews is just as bad as giving straight positive reviews.

Trying to be positive when I give a review would make me a bad reviewer. You don't enter a review with a bias toward positivity or negativity - you enter it objectively.

Realmwalker wrote:
6. Try to stop nitpicking every single thing. (like forgetting the period in all rights reserved. It shows you are looking for reasons to give a poor review.)

I'm glad you brought this up. I highlighted that item because it demonstrates a lack of attention to detail on the part of Super Genius Games' editor. This is a copy/paste error that pervades all three of the products that I reviewed, and presumably more (or all) products. This is something that a qualified editor should have caught. Small errors like this appear in every SGG product that I've taken a glance at - and at one or two pages each, that's a high volume of errors.

That was my point.

Realmwalker wrote:
7. A good reviewer will always show both what is good with a product and what is bad.

We are in agreement here. A reviewer is not obligated to look for nice things to say, however. The product should speak to the review and vice versa.

Happy gaming,
- The Questioner


Steve Geddes wrote:
The Questioner wrote:
hate isn't in my vocabulary.
This comment is logically inconsistent. I'm sure such flaws in your post will bother you as much as if you were charging me to read it, right? One star.

Steve; it seems that you're trying to use a logical contradiction which is only technically existent in the common turn of phrase that I used ("not in my vocabulary") against me in a way that implies that I have used or picked upon similar technicalities in my reviews or in my interactions with you or with others on the forums. I feel that I have done no such thing, and I don't particularly appreciate the passive-aggressive dig.

Take it easy,
- The Questioner


Realmwalker wrote:
Questioner then why all the accusatory language? By name calling (Calling Owen Lazy, and Condescending)in this review. You come off as someone who has a particular hate for SGG. It may be that you have no other way to give a negative review with out personal attacks on the ones you are reviewing.

I think I've answered your question regarding my opinion of SGG clearly and frequently enough already. I have no feelings of ill will toward SGG, Owen K. C. Stephens, or anyone that he employs. My review refers to the errors as lazy and to the product as being lazy or sloppy. In professional criticism, this term is a fairly common descriptor when addressing content that the reviewer deems sloppy or hasty. My review does not refer to Owen K. C. Stephens in an insulting manner. At this time I'd like to officially (and politely!) ask you to stop insinuating otherwise.

Thank you,
- The Questioner


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Class Deck, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
The Questioner wrote:
My review refers to the errors as lazy and to the product as being lazy or sloppy. In professional criticism, this term is a fairly common descriptor when addressing content that the reviewer deems sloppy or hasty. My review does not refer to Owen K. C. Stephens in an insulting manner.

Someone has hacked your review:

"Oddly, Owen K. C. Stephens seems to get lazier or farther off-mark over time"


Steve Geddes wrote:
Then you have misunderstood (plus used a semi colon incorrectly). Another one star offering.

Steve, I've made no motion or attempt to harangue, harass, or insult you or anyone else. I think that your behaviour is beginning to feel contrary to the behaviour expected of paizo-dot-com forum-goers.

Steve Geddes wrote:
"Oddly, Owen K. C. Stephens seems to get lazier or farther off-mark over time."

Are you sincerely offering this quote from one of my reviews as an attempt at a personal insult directed at Owen K. C. Stephens? I feel that it is very clear in the context of my review that the laziness in question is entirely in regards to authorship and design - which is the subject of any review - and not to the man himself.

If the author disagrees, I would consider a revision. However, in the context of a professional or even an amateur criticism, I feel that the quote in question is not only unoffensive, but so clearly unoffensive as to imply that you might be looking for a reason to be critical of my review. Every author, no matter how successful, will encounter consumers and critics that have harsh and wholly unflattering things to say about their work. That's not only the way it must be, but the way it should be.

Take some time to browse low-rated, professional reviews (of any sort of product at all) online. You'll find that my review does not use language that you won't find elsewhere - even on professional review sites. I'll admit that it frustrates me that any of this needs to be said. I feel that you know quite well that my review was not personally insulting to any party in any way.

Thanks in advance for your consideration,
- The Questioner


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Class Deck, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
The Questioner wrote:


Steve, I've made no motion or attempt to harangue, harass, or insult you or anyone else. I think that your behaviour is beginning to feel contrary to the behaviour expected of paizo-dot-com forum-goers.

Sorry. You should flag any post you feel is offensive and the mods will delete it (if they agree).

In this case, I've gone back and deleted the ones you seemed to object to.


Steve,

I had already done so, but I'm much obliged nonetheless.

Thank you.
- The Questioner


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Class Deck, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
The Questioner wrote:


Steve Geddes wrote:
"Oddly, Owen K. C. Stephens seems to get lazier or farther off-mark over time."

Are you sincerely offering this quote from one of my reviews as an attempt at a personal insult directed at Owen K. C. Stephens? I feel that it is very clear in the context of my review that the laziness in question is entirely in regards to authorship and design - which is the subject of any review - and not to the man himself.

If the author disagrees, I would consider a revision. However, in the context of a professional or even an amateur criticism, I feel that the quote in question is not only unoffensive, but so clearly unoffensive as to imply that you might be looking for a reason to be critical of my review. Every author, no matter how successful, will encounter consumers and critics that have harsh and wholly unflattering things to say about their work. That's not only the way it must be, but the way it should be.

Take some time to browse low-rated, professional reviews (of any sort of product at all) online. You'll find that my review does not use language that you won't find elsewhere - even on professional review sites. I'll admit that it frustrates me that any of this needs to be said. I feel that you know quite well that my review was not personally insulting to any party in any way.

The fact you so consistently miss the point I am making explains a lot. No doubt you read the works you've "reviewed" with similar care and attention.

No worries. I won't try and point out the inconsistency of your reviewing/posting style anymore.


The Questioner wrote:
Realmwalker wrote:
Questioner then why all the accusatory language? By name calling (Calling Owen Lazy, and Condescending)in this review. You come off as someone who has a particular hate for SGG. It may be that you have no other way to give a negative review with out personal attacks on the ones you are reviewing.

I think I've answered your question regarding my opinion of SGG clearly and frequently enough already. I have no feelings of ill will toward SGG, Owen K. C. Stephens, or anyone that he employs. My review refers to the errors as lazy and to the product as being lazy or sloppy. In professional criticism, this term is a fairly common descriptor when addressing content that the reviewer deems sloppy or hasty. My review does not refer to Owen K. C. Stephens in an insulting manner. At this time I'd like to officially (and politely!) ask you to stop insinuating otherwise.

Thank you,
- The Questioner

I have done nothing wrong, as a member on these boards I use reviews to help me purchase product. When I see things that do not help that process I mention them. I have pointed out several times that it comes off as you are making a personal attack on Owen. You might want to alter the way you write these reviews to to prevent that from happening. I don't mind a bad review they can be helpful, but try to keep from using negative terms such as Owen's writing is lazy or something is Condescending. It will prevent misunderstandings in the future.


Realmwalker,

I will not refrain from describing lazy or sloppy content as being lazy or sloppy. If you choose to read my reviews in a light which suggests that the adjectives and negativity used to describe the product and the authorship is instead being used to describe the author, then I cannot help you. I am sorry that you are offended by my own authorship, but my command of the English language is sufficient enough that I will not be persuaded to believe you should you continue to insist that I have made a personal attack on Owen K. C. Stephens when I have neither done such thing nor come anywhere close to doing such a thing. Furthermore, I do not author reviews in order to prevent misunderstandings born of some failure on any given readers part to apply the statements that I pen to the author instead of to the product. I author reviews in order to accurately and honestly review products.

Happy gaming,
- The Questioner


Then I will personally have no reason to consider any of your reviews as note worthy and will not recommend them as being anything other than biased to my friends who also use reviews on this board to purchase product.


That would be the appropriate course of action for you to take, and you're most welcome to do it.

Happy gaming,
- The Questioner


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'll probably be unpopular by saying this, but regardless of who or what he has reviewed, or the specific phrases used to describe his opinions of the products, I appreciate and encourage this form of careful and critical reviewing. I have seen far too many examples of the sorts of things he (The Questioner) noted (missing/poor punctuation, improper stat block formatting, etc.) and wish more reviewers would call these sorts of things out more often. Too often I see glowing reviews for products, then I purchase them and think "this is a 4-star product? wtf?" So I, for one, appreciate a more heavily critical type of review. Everyone is free to look at all reviews, good or bad, and then see which ones seem to match their own ideas of what is good or bad, and then add value to the reviewer which more closely matches their own feelings.

More reviewers = good I say.

Note to Questioner: I make no judgment calls on the way you phrased things, only that I appreciate your effort and time in reviewing the products and I do not sense any ill will in your reviews. Please carry on with more reviews.

Thanks :)


Again I don't mind the fact he gave a negative review, we need feedback both positive and negative I had a problem with how he worded his review. That is the one thing that will keep him from being as good as Dark Mistress, End, or KTFish7. They give a more professional review in my opinion. We need more people to give reviews and I'm glad he has decided to do it, even if I don't agree with how he does it. A review should help someone decide on if they want to buy a product, not tick off the reader which is what happened with some of us on the boards.

The Questioner really needs to look at his reviews from a different perspective, it is his choice not to do so. A bit of advice sometimes it is important to listen to your audience. Instead of taking these as attacks on how you should or shouldn't word your writing it is feedback much like you are giving those you review. If it is really negative that should tell you something.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sadly, some reviews just get lazier, sloppier and further off the mark as they go.


jreyst wrote:

I'll probably be unpopular by saying this, but regardless of who or what he has reviewed, or the specific phrases used to describe his opinions of the products, I appreciate and encourage this form of careful and critical reviewing. I have seen far too many examples of the sorts of things he (The Questioner) noted (missing/poor punctuation, improper stat block formatting, etc.) and wish more reviewers would call these sorts of things out more often. Too often I see glowing reviews for products, then I purchase them and think "this is a 4-star product? wtf?" So I, for one, appreciate a more heavily critical type of review. Everyone is free to look at all reviews, good or bad, and then see which ones seem to match their own ideas of what is good or bad, and then add value to the reviewer which more closely matches their own feelings.

More reviewers = good I say.

Note to Questioner: I make no judgment calls on the way you phrased things, only that I appreciate your effort and time in reviewing the products and I do not sense any ill will in your reviews. Please carry on with more reviews.

Thanks :)

Thanks to you, jreyst.

Happy gaming,
- The Questioner

Paizo Employee Starfinder Design Lead

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Some days, it's hard to know what to say. Let's start with this.

Thanks for taking the time to review our product, The Questioner!

Obviously those reviews have created a lot of comments, and less obviously I have had a number of people ask my opinion of the reviews.

As a matter of course, I do not comment on my opinion of reviews. It's not a good use of my time, and even if I could somehow be so superhuman as to have no bias affect me when I did so, I could not also manage to prove I had no bias. I do sometimes take time to correct factual errors in reviews, but even that is usually a no-win situation for an author.

Since it has been suggested that mainstream "professional" reviews are the standard by which all reviews should be based, I will say I think a lot of modern reviewers do get very insulting in their reviews. However, facing reviews is part of creating content and releasing it to others, in any format.

I continue to enjoy doing so, and nothing that's happened here changes that at all.


I'm glad to hear it, Owen. :-)

Happy gaming,
- The Questioner

Community / Forums / Paizo / Product Discussion / Bullet Points: 8 Dragonrider Feats (PFRPG) PDF All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.