Eric Stipe's page

214 posts (595 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 214 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

David Fryer wrote:
Anyone interested in helping do some Exalted conversions for PFRPG? The setting is awesome, but I really don't like the "bucket full of dice" mechanic that it uses.

well a friend of my is working on converting the tick system to pathfinder. i'll let you know when it's done.

other than that use the normal classes. make the races special, with a lot of the modifiers there. create some special magic item rules. go to far past this and you might as well be using the setting, i believe they have a system for cutting down on dice.

check this one out it's brilliant!

Dedwrekka wrote:
The Fool wrote:
Dedwrekka wrote:

I think the effect and usage of the syringe is too nonsensical even for my amount of suspension of disbelief.

Half the time I get a nurse at the doctors office who couldn't find the right place to put a needle if they had a road map and two hours on their hands. This is not only saying that they could do it in the amount of time it takes to swing a sword, but that they could do it and the injectee wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

Well he could DODGE. :P

Also this isn't Gurps we're playing, it's Pathfinder. The rules are already a little lax when magic comes into the equation so I don't see a problem with getting creative with medical utensils.

So I coat my dagger with a healing potion and it becomes a healing shiv?


lastknightleft wrote:
final playtest (updated version) pg. 23 wrote:

produce flame (3rd), resist energy (5th),

fireball (7th), wall of fire (9th), summon monster V (fire
elementals only, 11th), fire seeds (13th), fire storm (15th),
incendiary cloud (17th), elemental swarm (fire only, 19th).

I just realized that oracles don't start getting spells relevant to their mystery until 3rd level, am I alone in thinking that makes for very weird situations like the elemental focuses who can't even cast a spell of their element until 3rd level (or ever with some mysteries)? I just went back and checked and have been reading these wrong the whole time. (I thought the first listed spell came in at level one, then the next spell was at level 3, so produce flame was 1st level and resist energy was 3rd level).

I mean with one revelation and no spells related to your theme you really don't seem like much of a speaker for your relevant element. Shouldn't you get a spell relevant to your theme at level one?

In our 5th level and 10th level playtest we were playing it that way and it didn't cause problems within the game. I'm not even suggesting pull back every spell, but just add a spell for every revelation at level 1.

It's that way because that is how the sorcerer works... which is what the spellcasting part of the class is based on. I have house ruled bringing all of those down two levels, on both the sorcerer and the oracle, it make prestige classing a harder choice but easier to do.

A Designer wrote:
Honestly if you only want designer feedback pm or email them. Otherwise, since this is a public forum, people are going to try to hash things out among themselves. I think that this promotes more ideas from us and the gives the designer a different perspective that allows them to change their mind later. This is, after all, still in beta. The more perspectives and ideas they get to read the better the final version will be.


Cartigan wrote:

I find the wording needlessly hard to read. And the rule that the Eidolon can only be summoned once a day patently absurd for a class entirely based around said Eidolon.

And the ambiguity is still there for the dismissal due to damage, regardless of how many times you write and highlight it. And you are still not a designer.

it's because it is summoned back healed, it made more sense when it came back fully healed.

Turns out it is just me.... again. OK, Thanks for the help!!! :)

Is it just my pdf or do all of them have errors in the names of the classes. at the very beginning of the description of the classes the titles are:


Although I might be interested in seeing what a C V Lier is, and the L Chemist could be exactly what the class is, i'm not sure this is what you want it to say.
it looks like the spell lists have the same problem.

I think they also need the cure spells added, like the bard.

I think the only thing i would have like to have seen that didn't get added is the cure spells, bard gets them, and they took the progression from the bard, and it would make sense with the reduced HD for them to be able to heal their eidolon, and while they could never replace the cleric as a healer, it'd be a good addition to the party.

I would say it's easier to house rule something like that then include it in the rules. My DM let me increase speed without adding extra limbs, it cost 2 points.

Kraven Evilfart wrote:

My dm has already stated he will never allow this class as is in our sessions anymore. The rest of the group agreed.

then he should not include any class that allows the players to min max, and should switch to 4th where everything is nice a predictable.

did you notice they increased the cost of the large evolution? not saying its good or bad i just pointing it out.

the re-wording was a good idea though

vagrant-poet wrote:
Go Jason! Go Jason!


Lisa Stevens wrote:
Scipion del Ferro wrote:

How did that post even get in this thread??

I was guessing she meant next Wednesday when she said it last Friday. Last Wednesday seemed to soon from last Friday compared to this Wednesday.

Lisa was trying to be a bit cagey and a little funny and it backfired into her face. :)

I truly thought we would have some revisions up this past week sometime, but I should have known better than to try to gauge the timing like that. How about soonish?


We thank you for anything you can give us, it didn't blow up in your face as far as i'm concerned. you, and paizo always do right by us, we have your back.... well most of us.

This is from Websters Dictionary
Main Entry: or·a·cle
Pronunciation: \&#712;&#559;r-&#601;-k&#601;l, &#712;är-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin oraculum, from orare to speak — more at oration
Date: 15th century
1 a : a person (as a priestess of ancient Greece) through whom a deity is believed to speak b : a shrine in which a deity reveals hidden knowledge or the divine purpose through such a person c : an answer or decision given by an oracle
2 a : a person giving wise or authoritative decisions or opinions b : an authoritative or wise expression or answer

The oracle is a speaker, not a teller of the future!!!

DizzyDev wrote:

So I'm Building an pathfinder alchemist to play in a 3.5 dawnforge campaign... I've always had trouble choose equipment, so I'm asking for some help from the forum. I'd really like to get his AC pretty decent, since he will be running around the battle field throwing Bombs at close range since he is immune to his fire bombs.

10th level Tiefling Alchemist


Immune to Fire and Poison

Feats: Point Blank shot, Far throw, Quick Draw, Defensive archery

If you need to know more, let me know.

I would say the basics should cover you.

Mithral chainshirt enchanted
some sort of dex increaser
amulet of na
ring of protection
wand of cure wounds

beyond that i wouldn't work too hard at it.

DizzyDev wrote:
Are the alchemist bombs spontaneous? I realize he has to prepare them but does he have to prepare so many regular bombs, and so many force bombs(assuming he has the discovery), or does he just prepare so many bombs and choose what type they are on the fly?

yes, they are spontaneous, he makes them when he needs them. he in no way prepares them. every morning he makes the containers for them but that is all, and even that is represented in the same way a sorcerer meditates for a little to be ready to cast his spells.

Carnivorous_Bean wrote:
MerrikCale wrote:
so when is this happening?
Do you mean the update/revision, or living in a closet with Frank Zappa's music? ;)

If you mean living in a closet with frank zappa's music, i'd have to say any time you damn well please. he was a beautifully crazy genius, the best kind.

In the camp i'm currently playing in we have an oracle. at first glance i thought it was a damn good class, maybe not equal to the cleric in healing but useful none the less. i was very wrong. the character is 2 levels ahead of the rest of the party and has repeatedly run out of things to do, except hit it with a crossbow. it reminded me of a first level, 2nd edition wizard, "I cast magic missile" then i shoot at it with a crossbow while the rest of the party kills it.

i felt sorry for the player who was frustrated with the lack of options. to add to it, if she used her spells for anything except healing the party needed to wait days before being fully healed. we spent two days on the top floor of a building in a zombie filled city, because she couldn't even take out the zombies like a cleric could.

the class turned out to be below average.

Zurai wrote:
Can anyone please cite me where it says the Summoner can directly and unilaterally control its Eidolon's actions? I can't find any such reference in the text. The Summoner can certainly tell the Eidolon what to do, but the Eidolon has the option of saying "I'm sorry, Dave, I can't do that". Obviously that's not going to happen often, but there's nothing to suggest that Eidolons are mindless automatons (especially since they do have Intelligence scores), nor that the Summoner has absolute authority over them.

+1 This is an incredibly important thing to remember to all the DM's out there!

Dire Hobbit wrote:
I want to second the sentiment that the new classes should feel like they belong in the campaign "world".

this, as stated above, is entirely up to the DM, and these classes are not supposed to be like that, they are not core classes. this is stated in the beginning of the play-test.

Dire Hobbit wrote:
I wasn't able to organize a playtest of the classes in my group. I will say though that in our campaign, we do relatively little traditional "dungeon-crawling". Most of the action is story based with political intrigue, investigations of crimes or strange occurrences, well on and on. If a character class does not have, what I call "the Big 5"; bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, linguistics, sense motive, that character is going to spend a lot of time standing on the sidelines while the principals of the story argue.
remember even if you don't have it as a class skill you can still put points into it, you just don't get an additional +3, it's not as bad as 3.0 or 3.5, it's not divided in half.
Dire Hobbit wrote:
I'd say how a character class fits into a world is extremely important. And if they don't the player is going to become frustrated with the character.
It is, and they are, but this stuff is up to the players and the DM. to set it down in stone, is silly, the base classes (fighter/rogue/wizard/cleric) do not have how they fit into the world written down. a fighter can be a diplomat, a rogue can be a diplomat, a wizard can be a diplomat, a cleric can't be but we can't all be at something besides healing(just joking, cleric's can make great diplomats) the other classes in the core book are variants of these classes, specialized.
Dire Hobbit wrote:

However, what I really wanted to add was; I don't see how the world fits the summoner. For the core classes, and classes like the cavalier, witch and oracle, I can imagine how a fantasy world is shaped by their talents. A campaign setting would not be the same if wizards or clerics did not have their spells. Wars would be fought very differently without rangers. On and on. But take away the Summoner or the Alchemist? I wouldn't see the need to revise anything. And that makes it feel like you came up with something to sell a supplement.

you are so very wrong, lots of summoners changes things fantastically think of all the "wars" that could be fought between eidolons instead of people, no deaths. suddenly there is a sprouting of arenas that focus purely on summoner fighting (thing pokemon) and the effects of that. then just take them away and the worlds go back to what they were before the classes, kinda sad huh.

Dire Hobbit wrote:
Am I a hard core, "Core classes only" zealot? Hardly! But the Summoner and Alchemist just don't feel like they are in the world nor is the world affected by them.

That is limited by you and your imagination. I can't help you there.

Gui_Shih wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Like the playtest of the core rules, I am looking for feedback concerning the mechanics and flavor of these classes.

The author of the first post on this board appears to disagree with you concerning what does and what does not "need to be talked about in a play test."

Flavor-wise, I think the summoner is world-breaking. Kudos to Set for brilliantly summarizing several believable options for a summoner. An eidolon in the form of a Qadiran race horse reminded me of the Companions from Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar books.

However, I still take exception to the fact that the same summoner could be all of those options. Whats to stop a lonely elf from turning their wolf-like companion into a barbed devil, then into a tentacled cthuloid with sausages for eyebrows?

Furthermore, the fluid nature of the summoner means it faces none of the same cultural or ethical restrictions that face other classes, such as the cleric or paladin. One day your a devil summoning follower of Asmodeus, the next your singing hymns with a solar....

First i'd like to start off by apologizing for my last post, i was in a bad mood and took it out on you, i didn't even think about it until i re-read my post. I am sorry.

as far as the lonely elf turning the wolf in to a barbed devil, well i would say for one the rules, you can't change base forms, a quadruped is stuck with that form. you can only change all it's evolution points when you level up, excepting of course the spell that hasn't been introduced yet. and my DM would laugh at me if i wanted to make such a dramatic change without a damn good reason.

if the summoner is world breaking you should disallow the rogue, i've created hundreds of different flavors of rogue, from the country bumpkin skill using rogue that hates combat, to a sneaky bastard that would stab you in the back if he thought it would make him a buck. the lonely elf is in fact replacing a rogue i had made that avoided combat at every chance, first words at sign of combat where always, "Can't we talk this out?". I can go on and on, the summoner is only as world breaking in flavor as much as any other class, or your imagination.

Puma D. Murmelman wrote:

So i'm going to play my second summoner soon, finding this new class very interesting. But there are some things concerning the eidolon...

1.) The summoner and his eidolon communicate via the 'link' ability, but the eidolon has a base intelligence of 7, so he should be capable of actually speaking a language. So can the eidolon speak and if, what?
-> in my party, the eidolon had the ability to speak celestial, because the summoner was CG and so was, as by the rules, the eidolon.

2.) What does an eidolon look like, or to be more accurate, what can it look like? The rules say, the physical appearance is up to you, but it has to be fantastical in some way. My last summoners eidolon was an biped anthropomorphic more-or-less-female fox/human with blue-white fur. Not very monstrous, but fantastical and good to handle in urban areas if equipped with some robes and hood. Possible?

3.)Can i love my eidolon? That's not an ethical question but more of a general rule-thing. The Eidolon can be a rather smart, charismatic and possibly even attractive (as far as I understand the rules, your eidolon could actually look like one of the viera race from FF12 or any other more-or-less fantastical but still kind of humanoid creature, as long as you do not imitate existing creatures). And if I can designate the eidolons appearance (presence and absence of certain body parts and how they function (i.e. retractable claws like a cat), there is no reason you could not have the same kind of relationship as with other outsiders, such as the succubus.
Again, that's not a 'can I bed my futa-furry-smexy-eidolon' question (GM's choice :D). But i wonder if the eidolon can have a true own personality, feelings and such, being more like a cohort than some animal comanion or ex-animal familiar.

Your thoughts?

Makes sense to me, my summoner is a female elf and she has sex with her wolf like eidolon. i made the DM laugh his ass off and kinda grossed out the other players. ;)

Kakarasa wrote:
Does it have to be?
No, but to stop it from being so changes the class a lot and then it'd be compared to the druid and when that happens it looses, the druid is just to kick ass for you to make a class comparable.
Kakarasa wrote:
I can appreciate your perspective, but customization is what makes pen and paper tabletop fun. It's the same concept behind not having a lawful-good paladin (or anything else out of Aracana Unearthed). This class is just a variant of another core class... why can't it go from being a pet class to a summoning class (it IS the summoner after all, another thread points out some people's desire for a name change, I like it though.) This just changes the direction a little closer to the original class, a Conjurer focued on summon spells. Having new spells would only make it easier to have a closer to prefab monster. I guess that prefabs would make it a moot point though.

I don't disagree that all the groovy stuff in the arcana unearthed isn't, well, groovy. but making it not a single pet class just changes the point (of the class) entirely.

Gui_Shih wrote:

LMAO! Are we not discussing the Pathfinder ROLEPLAYING game? Characters are more than just numbers on a page. Your character is an idea--a personage given life by your imagination, inspired by the abstractions given in the rulebook. The assertion that your character and the rules which govern him/her are independent is simply false.

I am thus far, unimpressed with the summoner class because it seems as if the rules for a 'pet-based class' were created and then given a shallow explanation as an after-thought. I see the value in this, because it allows for a broad interpretation of the rules (i.e. bonding with a nature spirit, making a pact with an alien intelligence, communing with your higher-self, etc.) However, giving such a versatile class a role in a campaign world is difficult. If a given segment of people start gossiping about the local "summoner," just what are they talking about? Furthermore, what does the local non-adventuring summoner do to earn a living?

Umm, yes, character are more than just number on a page. but, the other part of the character doesn't need to be talked about in a play test. i can tell you detailed info about my character, but it wouldn't change the damage per round the character deals out.

you are wrong, a character can be completely independent from rules... otherwise GURPS wouldn't work as a system.

I'd believe you are unimpressed with the summoner... you want everything spelled out for you so you don't have to be creative.

I love the summoner class because of it's undefined, changeable abilities. i can have a wolf like creature that is summoned by a lonely elf far away from home. or it can be a figment of my characters imagination making it more of a disjointed creature with a flexible form.. I know you want all the rules tied down for you. I would tell you to not play this imaginative class instead, play a fighter, you can hit things good.

But the summoner is a pet class not a summoning class.

Gui_Shih wrote:

I can't believe no one has replied to this thread...

Is it just me, or is there a total lack of interest in the roleplaying potential of these new classes? I understand new mechanics can be fun and exciting, but if thats all it takes to attract interest then we all might as well be playing that OTHER edition of the world's most popular roll playing game.

In my opinion, the mechanics of these classes, especially the summoner, alchemist, and witch; feels unnatural and betrays my expectations of how these classes should work in a believable world. Granted, you can't please everyone, but as this playtest has progressed it seems evident that these classes are meant to fill a mechanical niche with little to no regard for the world they inhabit.

I don't need the book to tell me how to role-play something. I need it to have rules put down, that are well balanced. I came up with a great summoner that I can't wait to play. I don't need to share this info with people on the boards because it shouldn't effect what they do with the class. however what game effects the class has are very important to the people on the boards.

as far as the mechanics of the summoner, alchemist, and witch, these classes are optional, they are not automatically added into the campaign unlike the other classes which for the most part should be in the campaign. (this was stated at the start of the play test.) if you don't like them don't put them in, tell you're pc's no. if you dm is allowing them it's up to you if you want to play them. i'm not limiting what i play, and what is playable in my camp's based on how you feel.

Lockgo wrote:
My problem however, is I don't see what this class purpose is over all. I see this class as a mad bomber/grenadier theme. Which I am completely ok with, but I don't see him as something very effective. As it seems to take an entire full round action to actually make and throw one of his potions, and if I'm not mistaken, he has to much nearer then he would probably want to be after throwing some of theses bombs.

I don't need a purpose from a class i can apply it my self. i would say the class needs the ability to focus, but most of the suggestions from the other threads do that nicely.

Tetrasol wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Tim Statler wrote:
Well, there ARE chemical glow stick in the real world that shed light light a torch.
Yes... they're called Sunrods. :) You would just make them as standard alchemical items.
How bout Acid Splash, and purify water, stuff that would be easy for an alchemist to make Light equals Glowsticks (pathfinder rave at Taldor)

Personally i'm hoping all the first level spells, that make sense to be, get made into items that the alchemist can craft.

This just popped into my head and i wanted to see what the machine could turn it into.

The alchemist has some badass poison abilities, what about being allowed to turn spells into poisons. a poison of geas, charm monster/person, and the like, even baneful polymorph. some make more sense as a drinkable poison than any sorta poison applied to a knife, but it could be cool. and it'd make good use of the poison abilities.

I don't really have a problem with the splash part of the bomb damage as much as i do with the range, 10' increments. If i could throw it more than 10' away without taking bigger and bigger penalties it would work better in combat.

I still like the idea of using the evolution pool from the Eidolon (from the summoner) for the mutagens. drink a potion, gain an arm! ;)

I love the poison abilities, but they should be turned into discovery's and optional.

Lord Haliaeetus wrote:
Conservatives VS. Liberals, Who Cares?

I do. I find deciding who is running the country important. I enjoy the argument on both sides, I like conflict by nature, and think good things come out of conflict. I know there are many that don't think it's important and both sides are the same, and i would agree you should stay out of it. Leave it to people who care.. just don't complain, you don't care.

hogarth wrote:

Forgive me if this has been asked already:

If an eidolon has multiple Sting attacks, do they all become poisonous if the eidolon takes the Poison evolution once? It would appear so, since it says "whenenver the eidolon makes a successful attack of the selected type". But on the other hand, it says "pick a bite or sting attack" (suggesting only one attack benefits).

i would say just one, because all the other things work the same way, if you buy a extra set of hands you have to buy claws for each set.

Alex Root wrote:
An Inquisitor can cast spells. To become a Lich, one must cast spells and have a caster level of at least 11 (with a few other prereqs that aren't pertinent to the issue at hand). Does this mean that a level 11 Inquisitor of an evil god could feasibly become a lich?

can you become a Lich if you cast divine spells?

I'm going to be making a rogue soon, a friend is making a ranger, i'm going to get him to grab all the flanking feats with me... we'll kill everything.

I don't like the stat boosting items either, so i just limited them to +2

I would like to thank you all for helping me find the answer to my question. I'm glad we reached a valid well reasoned conclusion.

Abraham spalding wrote:
The only point the Bomb has on the fireball, and it is a fairly big one -- is the lack of save or negation for the splash damage. If you are in the splash range you will get splashed evasion or not.

This is a good point, one i hadn't thought of.

Abraham spalding wrote:

This point is important, however the splash damage is so limited in both range and amount that while the bonus is huge, it doesn't amount to much in comparison to the drawbacks.

Lets not forget however that the wizard with an INT of 18 at level 10 isn't trying, and has access to fifth and fourth level spells as well, which the alchemist doesn't have.

this is true, i just didn't want to spend much time on the side explaining why the wizard has a higher int no one is going to argue that a 18 int wizard is impossible.

Abraham spalding wrote:
In addition that fireball is a standard action with huge ranged, where as the bomb is a full rounds worth of actions still and has much more limited range.

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
Eric Stipe wrote:
.....the average damage output for the wizard for a day of fireball throwing is 350, to only one target.
Where does the "damage to only one target" come from? Fireball has a blast radius of 20 feet, so any creature in that 40 foot diameter sphere is taking full damage unless a save is made or it has resistance.

if you expand the amount to include other people, what else would you assume to be true. that all the squares are occupied if yes, then you would then assume that everyone missed the save, it just gets really complicated. so i just did it on the basis of hitting one person with the fireball, if you want to do the math, when you do the math, the wizard memorizing nothing but fireballs, that is made to throw those fireballs is going to quickly out distance the alchemist in damage.

James Keegan wrote:
I miss Firefly.

yeah!!!!! though i didn't know anything about him at the time, i was born in 1980, looking back Ronald Reagan was one of the best!

DizzyDev wrote:
The Wizard cannot pull off nearly as many fireballs as the Alchemist can pull off bombs in a day, but I Don’t think that’s a fair argument. The Alchemist can focus strictly on bombs, and with discoveries like the incendiary bomb, he might come close to pulling of as much damage with a single bomb as a wizards fireball, if the target stays within the cloud.

A alchemist at 10th level with a 18 int (not unreasonable to assume) would be able to throw 14 bombs that day. a wizard with a 18 int if he wished to focus on fire ball could throw 10 fireballs that day. the average damage output for the alchemist a day is around 301, not including splash damage. the average damage output for the wizard for a day of fireball throwing is 350, to only one target.

but thats with the wizard memorizing nothing but fireball in all his 3rd level and higher spells, so he wouldn't be doing much else.

Zurai wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:
Is the Summoner using the charge action though? If he is not gaining bonuses from charging, there doesn't seem to be any reason it is not possible.
He's using Ride-By Attack, so he MUST use the charge action.

you can charge on a spring attack....

As a rogue player, i would love to see some feats that open up what you can do with skills. some good high level 10+ ranks, feats would be great.

DCironlich wrote:
Not a problem. Physician here x 19 years. It seems a shame to not exploit the pharmacist aspect of the Alchemist given that drugs/medicines/chemical compounds/etc don't fit with other classes as well.

brilliant, just bloody brilliant!

mdt wrote:

I think there was some confusion. If I understand you correctly, your mount is using spring attack as it goes past. You, the rider, is using ride-by attack as your mount goes past on it's spring attack?

If that's correct, I don't see any reason the two feats can't be used at the same time. It's two different creatures using the feats, not one person using both.

That's my thought. Thank you.

Zurai wrote:
When one feat requires that you charge and the other feat requires that you do not charge, you need something to let them both operate at the same time.

Still not sure where it says that.

Spring Attack (Combat)
Benefit: You can move up to your speed and make a
single melee attack without provoking any attacks of
opportunity from the target of your attack. You can move
both before and after the attack, but you must move at
least 10 feet before the attack and the total distance that
you move cannot be greater than your speed. You cannot
use this ability to attack a foe that is adjacent to you at the
start of your turn.
Normal: You cannot move before and after an attack.

Ride-By Attack (Combat)
Benefit: When you are mounted and use the charge
action, you may move and attack as if with a standard
charge and then move again (continuing the straight line
of the charge). Your total movement for the round can’t
exceed double your mounted speed. You and your mount
do not provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent
that you attack.

here are the feats, ride-by uses a charge, the other doesn't, the other limits movement, to normal move, the other limits it to double. why would i need a feat if i meet all the requirements.

i really do want a valid reason, currently i would say it's a dm call, i would allow it, as did my dm. if you and yours do not i have no reason to say other wise.

sedlor wrote:
Eric Stipe wrote:

The witch is a prepared caster.

Woops, guess I didn't read that class well enough. *blush*

That doesn't change the initial question of why isn't the summoner a prepared caster as well?

it's because they based the spellcasting off of the bard, both in how fast they get the spells and number they know, and finally how it works (Spontaneously). i like them better as a spontaneous caster. they did this with the alchemist, which i think should be another preparation caster, though i don't mind the different progression on them, and they did it with the inquisitor. rather or not you like this, this is what they did for the play tests.

Zurai wrote:

What feat lets you use Spring Attack and Ride-By-Attack simultaneously?

The answer to both is "no such feat exists".

I didn't know you needed a feat to use other feats at the same time? can you use weapon focus and weapon specialization at the same time, or do you need a special feat?

Maeloke wrote:

Skilled (ride): 1 evolution point

Mounted Combat: 1 feat
Exotic Riding Saddle: 30 gp

Having your small serpentine eidolon negate one hit on your level 1 summoner per round with a ride check at +12: priceless (and awesome)

LOL this is conversely the most brilliant idea ever, and the worst idea ever... any DM that allows this should be shot.

1 to 50 of 214 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>