John Falter's page

I plan on using a witch as an enemy NPC. I want to use charisma or wisdom on one of my test runs. As someone that has yet to run the class do you think not using intelligence would cause any significant issues?

The reason for the houserule is:
1. The intelligence thing does not make sense to me
2. If I can use something other than intelligence and it works out well it might have some influence to the mental stat being changed in the final version.

My group has done this as well. It has worked great. Try adding perception and sense motive as class skills as well.

John Falter wrote:

I have no doubt in my mind that INT could be justified as the primary score, the question is should it be justified?

I think that is a little bit unfair, I think regardless of the stat that was picked the same statement could be made 'WIS could be justified...' 'CHA could be justified...' There are enough arch-types of the witch that really fit into any of those 'justifications' but that just makes the discussion interesting :)

John Falter wrote:

This whole debate comes down to how different of a class you want the witch to be from the wizard. If you want a weird, specialized wizard, then the current class works. If you want something that will function markedly different from any existing class, then the primary stat should change to wisdom.

I think if we worry about INT/WIS/CHA being the defining characteristic for a spell casting class we might be in trouble. Spell casting is spell casting, and all the stats mechanically works the same way. What distinguishes say the summoner from the bard, and the witch from the wizard are the non-casting abilities. Wizards with there hyper-focus in schools and witches hexes, but very different progression and mechanics. Bards all the stuff they get with their music, and summoners... well summoning that big old beast of theirs.

The stat has more to do with character roleplaying then actual mechanic.

There is more than spellcasting mechanics at stake here.

Wisdom makes a very large impact on the skill strengths of the witch. With intelligence, the witch would do exactly what the wizard does, and, with wisdom, the witch would be strong in fun areas like perception and sense motive. This shift alone would make an enormous difference in party role.

I have no doubt in my mind that INT could be justified as the primary score, the question is should it be justified?

This whole debate comes down to how different of a class you want the witch to be from the wizard. If you want a weird, specialized wizard, then the current class works. If you want something that will function markedly different from any existing class, then the primary stat should change to wisdom.

F

On a different note, problem is that "witch" is a charged word. Many of our archetype witches from fairy tales, mythology, and real world anthropology could be better defined, in PF terms, as Sorcerers or even Druids (or multiclass combinations of Sorcerer, Druid and/or Witch, consider how the Witch rules let you stack levels of other classes for your familiar stats).

Sorcerer covers the "charismatic witch" who may charm people with a smile, a well-established cliche. Also the "born" witch who develops spontaneous powers (thing Charmed or Buffyverse witches)
Druid does treat pretty well the "wise woman" of rural communities. Many of her powers are community-connected (healing, vegetation, poisoning) and since 3.00 the multiple alignments available to Druids have made the class more flexible beyond the original "priest of balance and nature" cliché.
Witch does cover in a pretty neutral way the "lore witch". He/she seeks for knowledge and in the process establishes pacts with some obscure power. And it is also a clich'e that witches have vast amounts of knowledge (cf. Iggwill)...

Yeah, this is true, and I'm sure that many people have played these classes as "witches" in the past.

However, the point remains that the witch basically functions exactly like the wizard. The shift toward wisdom as the primary ability score would ensure a very different feeling character class. Without changing the primary score to wisdom, a similar effect would require the extensive rewrite of what is already a well thought out and balanced class.

Personally, I wish Paizo would completely break the mold on the witch and do the following :

Choose a subclass : Maiden, Mother, Crone

Have a list of core skills. Then treat the Maiden, Mother, Crone similar to sorcerer bloodlines. Each would give 1-3 bonus abilities based on focus, Maiden focusing on Cha (and making it her casting stat) and giving bonuses to charms, etc. Mother focusing on Wis (and making it her casting stat) and giving bonuses to divination. And finally Crone focusing on Int (and making it her casting stat) and giving bonuses to knowledge skills. Each would have 1-3 powers (same each), and each would add 1-3 more skills to the witch base skill list.

I'd love this, and I may house rule this myself. It just so much more fits the 3 archetypes, and there is plenty of precedent in PF for sub-classes within a class (sorcerer, ranger, wizard). It's just the variable casting stat that would be breaking the mold.

Of course, you'd have to come up with a genderless name for each. :( That, honestly, is the hardest part.

I like this idea, but my issue is that it sort of pushes the witch class into a "classic" witch archetype. This would have distinct flavor implications, as it suggests the witch's role in a coven. It would, however, be an interesting break from tradition.

Besides the Wizard, are there other arcane spellcasters who use INT to govern their casting abilities?

Most arcane spellcasters, if my memory serves correctly, use CHA. And, all divine spellcasters use CHA or WIS.

So why can't there be two arcane spellcasters that use INT? Seems there should be.

There are two good reasons for not having two int-based casters with very similar abilities.

First is that, if a party had both a wizard and a witch, the two classes usually end up stepping on each other's toes in party roles. They'd spend the time racing one another to spellcraft checks.

Second is that giving wisdom to an arcane spellcaster would make gameplay for that class feel more unique. Right now, the witch really doesn't end up playing all that differently from the wizard in the same way that the sorcerer does. Hexes are just a cool substitute for school powers and the spell lists are very similar.

As someone pointed out earlier, Paizo should be seeking to create new classes rather than variants upon current ones. As it stands, I feel that the witch is just a creepy wizard, which is nothing new.

Now, I would love to see another intelligence-based caster, but I don't think the witch is the best fit for such a class. Maybe the summoner...

I feel that the bonus spells offered by a familiar, especially the first one offered at second level, will make a great impact on which familiar a witch chooses. However, many of the familiars offer pretty unattractive second level bonus spells which will undoubtedly affect their popularity. Spells like the fox's animate rope or the snake's shocking grasp are far more interesting and more likely to be used than the toad's or the cat's jump.

I think that familiar spells should be rethought to make all familiar options more attractive.

LazarX wrote:

Unlike the DMG witch, this one is heavily built with offensive arcane spells, it also is apparantly built with the concept of study and spell acquistion, the character uses a spellbook. (okay a furry one that needs potty training, but a spellbook nonetheless :) These are clear hallmarks of an int-based caster.

The other thing is that wisdom casters don't study spells, they don't have to they get thier entire spell list for each level as soon as they qualify for them. Int casters have to go out and get their spells.

I disagree that these have to be the hallmarks of an arcane caster. Remember that this is a new class, and what's fun about new classes is finding different ways of doing things. If we maintain the attitude that casters of stat X work a certain way, we may as well not have new classes, we can just have variations on old. Besides, we already got a prepared charisma caster in pathfinder, so I don't think those old stat correlations are (or should be) sacred cows. If you asked 'what would a wisdom-based arcane caster be like' I think witch would be your answer.

And, even if that weren't true, the witch doesn't study a thing. Her familiar studies and the witch communes with her familiar. That sounds like willpower to me (though charisma would also be acceptable).

Charisma would be acceptable, except that we already have scores of charisma-based spellcasters.

I agree that the summoner should be made much weaker. This, of course, wouldn't work with many people's inevitable dragon rider concepts, but, oh well.

However, I do not agree that the witch should be changed around. I like it as it stands. It forces the player to be shrewd and wily in order to survive, much like a witch.

A few issues:

1. How do you rebalance skills around an arcane caster if Wisdom is the primary (i.e. likely to start at +3 or more and go upwards of +7 by end game) given (a) the prevalence of good wisdom based skills (Perception, Sense Motive, Heal, and Survival are the only WIS skills, but every one of them is powerful, particularly the first two, which are arguably the most important two skills you can have)? Skills/level changes to what if not 2+int?

2. How do you balance saves and character progression based on a good Will Save progression combined with WIS as the primary stat (i.e. you will never fail a Will save building)? This particularly comes into play when balancing encounters.

What I've found...

1. I think that if wisdom was the primary ability score, then the witch would end up having less skill points in general, this should at least help to balance things out.

2. Personally, I have no issue with the witch being a saving throw monster. The witch is incredibly squishy as is. But, you wold probably just have to give the witch the cleric progression for balance sake.

However, I don't agree that the witch would need to go to 3/4 BAB, d8, and light armor. What makes the witch cool is that it could mechanically function between arcane and divine. If you made it a druid with different spells, then that's all it would be. Let's make a weird arcane spellcaster, and give the witch it's own niche.

So, my group and I have been discussing the witch, and we feel that witch may actually be better suited as a wisdom caster.

Three reasons for this:

1) Wisdom gives the witch a niche. As it stands, not too much separates the witch from the wizard. As another intelligence-based arcane spellcaster, the witch runs the risk of stepping on the wizard's toes if in the same party. Using wisdom would differentiate game play, especially when it comes to skills, between the two classes. Also, the secondary ability score of the witch, as it is for most spellcasters who don't want to die, is dexterity, and, currently, there are few Wis/Dex character classes.

2)Wisdom is atmospheric. I can really imagine the witch being better at skills like sense motive and perception, than he is at spellcraft. It lets the witch be more spooky.

3)Intelligence implies that the witch studied their craft thoroughly like a wizard. However, under the current description of the class, the witch does not have a solid understanding of where his power comes from. Indeed, some witches apparently have no idea. A wisdom-based caster derives his power from the belief that something else is granted him power, which seems more in line with the current description of the witch class.

I think the issue is that, while it is very possible to have an Eidlon play "second fiddle" for the summoner, the rules as written encourage the Eidolon to take center stage.

I think the central issue with the summoner class is that it does not have too many remarkable features outside of its Eidolon. This is an issue because the summoner lacks a clearly defined role within the party. Indeed, as someone horrifyingly pointed out in a past thread, the summoner does not even need a party and at high enough levels can defeat the Tarrasque on his own. Pathfinder/Dnd is not and never will be a solo game. The game facilitates teamwork, and the traditional classes are designed with a very specific party role in mind.

I know that Kolokotroni will say that the summoner's party role is all in how the player designs their summoner. But, I believe that each classes party role, while they shouldn't be prescribed like first edition dnd, should be given more clear definition.

First off, I just wanna say thanks to eveyone who posted. You may not all agree with my position, but you've been very civil about your rebuttals. Thanks!

xlapus wrote:

Honestly, I would prefer if they went the other direction - get rid of the Summoner completely, making a PC class that has the eidolon abilities as class abilities.

Whether it be from binding outsiders to your body, or molding 'extra bits' for yourself out of ether, whatever works.

This would be an interesting way to go, but the name Summoner wouldn't be accurate anymore. Transmogrifier might though. :)

Sounds like more of a prestige class than a base class, though.

It would really just be fabulous for everyone. It would help new players, DMs, and veteran nerds like us dream up cooler Eidolons faster.

It also would emphasize the fact that the Eidolon is an outsider. It is not just some monster, it is an extra-planar monster like a celestial, and it would be nice to see some of that flavor come through.

Logically, there's no reason the summoner needs 3/4 and a D8, but, in terms of game mechanics, they kind of do.

Mounted combat and crossbow support are both playstyles the summoner is meant to support. It's really hard to justify riding into combat with a lowly D8 HD. Also if/when the pet dies or can't come along, the summoner may end up really screwed on options once they're out of summons. The HD and BAB seem like they're meant to give a minor boost to the class, and I think they're doing what they're supposed to.

I suppose for some summoners. I can just as easily see the summoner playing the hide in a barrel and buff while the Eidolon kills things role.

LazarX wrote:

The Eidolon is tough enough it doesn't need anything more added to the package.

Maybe not for FREE, but perhaps as a prepackaged evolution set?

A "Lesser Demon" set, for example, that gives DR 5/Good, Elec Res, and natural attacks that count as Chaotic, Evil, and then later on a "Greater Demon" set that gives DR 10/Good, Elec and Poison Immunity, Fire/Cold/Acid res, etc etc.

I think a lot of fun could be done with some pre-packaged Eidolons, sets that cost 5 evolution points but give a variety of useful features that, if purchased seperately, would cost more than 5.

I think that this would give many players some additional ideas and general direction to their Eidolon concept. I think some types like demon, ooze, axiomatic/anarchic, elemental, and aberrant would be cool.

I have also seen the approach that it is a construct of pure magic created and held together by the will of the summoner, and that it is a summoned being of incredible might that requires a major portion of the summoners would be considerable power to hold in check.

I like this perspective a little more.

Eidolon is supposedly an outsider, but it has very few traits, barring a few elemental type evolutions, that hint at this extra-planar heritage. I would like to see some planar dependent evolutions like fiendish or celestial powers. While similar powers could be created through the spell and skill evolutions, for flavor's sake, it would nice to see them more explicitly stated.

Ok, so what I've found is that the majority of these concepts depend upon either family ties or upon the Eidolon choosing the summoner. In most cases, the summoner does not summon the Eidolon for themselves.

I actually really agree that the summoner's hit die should be knocked down and peg. The only reason I can see for its d8 is the life-link ability. As it stands, though, the summoner seems to have the greatest capacity of any character to stay out of combat. The Eidolon has more hit die than characters of the same level and the summoner can likely summon up to 8 monsters to do his bidding; why would he ever need to fight?

I feel that the higher hit die and BAB of the summoner is helpful for making the summoner a more diverse character class. However, it is really unbalanced. To test this, roll up a witch and then roll up a summoner; the difference in power potential is pretty staggering.

Disclaimer:* I know the ideas I'm about to present may not be well received by the community. I think these may be viable alternatives to the eidolon-centered Summoner. They are in no way intended as an attempt to devalue or disrespect Jason's or any other member of the Paizo team's work; they're just options to consider.*

I can't say that I'm totally in love with the idea of a PC playing second fiddle to his NPC buddy. While it may be fun to play a monster for a while, I have read a few posts expressing concern about the power levels of the critter -i.e. being close to equal to another complete PC, plus you get another slightly underpowered (maybe) PC as backup.

I'm also concerned about the RP consequences of having an alien being the dominant force of the duo in a humanocentric game world.

To this end, I propose two alternatives to the Summoner class as is; the first adjusts the eidolon power level downwards, and turns it into a capable helper for the PC, but does not overshadow it. The second alternative would be to eliminate the eidolon altogether and retool the Summoner into a true master of the Conjuration [summoning] list.

Option 1:
The first thing I would do is trim back the eidolon to 3/4 HD of the Summoner. At 20th level, the creature would end at 15 HD instead of 17 and the HD would maintain that approximate ratio at lower levels (3 HD at 4th, 6 HD at 8th, 9HD at 12th etc) with a minimum of 2 HD at first. All outsider traits remain unchanged, except it counts as called so Protection from X does not affect its physical attacks.

The only other thing I would do is reduce the number of Evolution points (that name still annoys me) to 3/4 of what they get over the 20 Summoner levels.

I think that those two changes would reduce the power level of the eidolon sufficiently that the PC would become the dominant element of the duo (or at least an equal partner) without reducing it to the point of no longer being an asset for the party.

Option 2:
Cut out the eidolon and all associated...

I like the first idea a lot. As it stands, the Eidolon is a 2nd level character at first level, and that is just plain bass ackwards.

I think a more PC oriented summoner would have class abilities that do not hinge on the Eidolon. For instance, something like channel energy for outsiders. This allows the summoner to play a unique role within the party without their Eidolon.

I have an issue with how vague the class description is about the summoner's acquisition of an Eidolon. Now, I'm asking you: how did your summoner manage to get a being beyond their own power into doing their bidding?

Thus far, my concept's have usually been along the lines of an arcanist who made a deal with a powerful outsider, like a devil, to bind an Eidolon to them.

John Falter wrote:

Role-playing is great, but mechanics serve as a guide for players to role play. For instance, I am a ranger who hates lycanthropes,and I can prove it because they are favored enemy. Or, I am sorcerer of celestial descent, and I can prove this with my celestial bloodline.

I'm not buying this one. Are you saying there's a problem with the fighter b/c of roleplaying issues? That because realistically the fighter's class features (feats for the most part) do not lend a direction for a roleplaying background, but that instead your background may very well dictate your feat choices it's a design problem? And the wizard works the same way, as does the rogue, etc.

Besides, YOU design the eidolon. Who you are may very well dictate what your eidolon becomes. Did your character grow up a runt, always smaller than everybody else? If so, he likely has a rather large melee monstrosity as his always-there bodyguard.

Did you grow up in a castle setting, perhaps with a knight for a father? Then you may very well have a fantastic mount as an eidolon, picking up lance proficiency and making darn good use of it, especially if your eidolon grows into a flying mount.

Honestly, the eidolon is an EXCELLENT roleplaying tool. And these examples just utilize the eidolon's form. I'm not even touching on the skills that the eidolon and summoner may have.

Is your summoner shy? Naturally charismatic but uncomfortable around large groups? Perhaps the eidolon he has befriended has a comforting, humanoid form with Diplomacy and Sense Motive for its skills to pick up the slack where you can't.

Or perhaps you've summoned a creature from some realm of creativity, and it assists you with performances you've been giving all your life, with the added benefit of serving as a bodyguard if anything goes wrong.

See where I'm going here? The eidolon's very lack of definition makes it one of the best roleplaying tools the game has seen mechanically. As has been stated, this is part of the...

I have no doubt that you can come up with many excellent and distinct character concepts. I just think that a little bit of help wouldn't hurt. Maybe you like a blank canvas, but all I can see is white.

Perhaps the difference in our opinions is that you are content with the Eidolon taking center stage. I have a different view of the summoner. I see the summoner has a arcanist of terrifying power who by the force of his will has coerced an extra-planar being, that would normally be able to kill the summoner, into doing his bidding.

Controlling such a creature should be no small task, and I think that the summoner class abilities should reflect that. Instead, the class abilities give the summoner a very Eidolon dependent feel. What's more, many of the higher level abilities, like merge and twin eidolon, smack of anime a little bit too much. I like my anime just as much as the next con-girl, but I don't really like to feel its influence in the oldest table top role playing game.

ruemere wrote:

Lord Fyre wrote:

Do you mean like ... OOTS #373?

Things the class _could_ offer:

- major utility with regards to contacts with outsiders
- ability to explore and investigate far realms in addition to planes
- innate abilities to bind/calm/oppress outsiders
- special powers to create wide area wards (aka anti-extradimensional invasion security systems)
- special powers to breach such wards (who would not want to hire a summoner to secure her residence?)

I actually agree with that a little. Summoner should be a master planar sage and traveler. I mean, they can't even use Planar Binding (I understand the inherrent difficulties, there, mind you.)

How about bringing back some Horizon Walker flavor? give them resistances and immunities to planar effects, that sort of thing.

Thank you for noticing this, too. The summoner does not have to be the sidekick of his Eidolon. He is a master of the planes--it's kind of his job description.

Spacelard wrote:

mdt wrote:

Maybe I'm missing it, but... it seems to me the class is not about playing the Summoner or the Eidelon, but of playing both? You're actually doubling your RP opportunities. There is nothing that says your Eidelon can't RP with others (it speaks, it thinks, it's got a soul and psyche and can have it's own persona).

A good example might be Bleach (Japanese Anime). Each soulreaper has a sword that is an awakened part of their own spirit, and each one can manifest at times. The personality of the sword is often very different than the personality of the wielder, despite the fact they share the same soul.

No you aren't missing it.

It just seemed to pan out during the scenario that the Eidolon was doing all the cool stuff whilst the Summoner stood around buffing, SM to give flanking allies and plinking with his crossbow.
As for RP with others that was pretty down to party members only. Tenticular mass doesn't make a great pub buddy. Most of the builds I have seen for sample Eidolons would stand out in the crowd a bit.
I don't think it has much to do with the individual builds but more of player expectation and for me it just didn't do it. If all the Paladin's cool stuff was for his warhorse or a Wizard's Familiar I would feel the same.
When I play I want the PC to shine not the warhorse, familiar, animal companion or Eidolon.
Don't get me wrong I love the concept and I am sure others will love to play them in a game and although it doesn't do it for me I will still play it for a few more sessions and give feedback.

I guess Jason just felt that if you were going to be spending that much time creating and conceptualizing your Eidolon, it should take center stage.

Why are we being so aggressive toward anyone who isn't thrilled about the direction the summoner class has gone. I feel like his tone has been very conciliatory, and you all are responding by saying, in so many words, "Well, you're stupid and don't understand the class. So you don't have an opinion."

I second his opinions. The summoner has an identity crisis, and the Eidolon does steal the show. I've asked it once, and I'll ask it again, how did such a wimpy character manage to coerce an outsider of wondrous power into doing his bidding on the material plane? I don't know, it just doesn't seem like a feasible task for a buffer.

John Falter wrote:

Right now, the summoner could be anything from a mecha pilot, to a pokemon trainer, to a monster rancher, to a demon binder, to a dark sorceror...

I really have a hard time seeing that as a problem, I really like classes that provide lots of options for characters. If the player is a first timer or relatively new to the game, yeah, it may be too much option all at once, but for anyone with a fully formed concept that the summoner fulfills, I think its a great starting point.

I love customization just as much as the next dork, but I think that giving the player's some direction can provide them with a framework to build better concepts. Why aren't you guys upset about the limiting flavor of the oracle? Or the sorcerer? Or the ranger?

As it stands, all of the customization for the summoner is actually for the eidolon. The summoner himself is pretty flat, and most of his abilities, save the ridiculously unbalanced "Summon Monster" ability, hinge upon his eidolon. While one could make a summoner of any background, the reality is that this will matter very little in terms of actual game play. Role-playing is great, but mechanics serve as a guide for players to role play. For instance, I am a ranger who hates lycanthropes,and I can prove it because they are favored enemy. Or, I am sorcerer of celestial descent, and I can prove this with my celestial bloodline.

A little help wouldn't hurt the summoner, indeed it would make him more customizable.

John Falter wrote:

I agree that the summoner does leave a little to be desired as far as flavor goes. For instance, how did the summoner manage to befriend/ensalve a extra planar being of wondrous power? What are the implications of summoning such a creature, and how does this affect a character?

The summoner could be a very dramatic class to play if its character aspects are more fully explored. As it stands, the summoner runs the risk of becoming the dinky humanoid sidekick of his Eidelon. A stronger sense of character could rescue him from such a fate.

That's what character backgrounds are for. :P

I understand that. But, many other classes, like the Oracle, try to help the character come up with a concept. Right now, the summoner could be anything from a mecha pilot, to a pokemon trainer, to a monster rancher, to a demon binder, to a dark sorceror... It could be anything, and what scares me is that the class, as is, lends itself to being a monster trainer more than a master of the planes.

Furthermore, what little "fluff" we've gotten about the summoner is just silly. C'mon is glowing runes all we're getting here?

Here's what I'm thinking for Half-Eidolon:

The Half-Eidolon is the offspring of a Summoner and their Eidolon. Most of these unions are made by consensual partners, the Eidolon and Summoner not viewing their relationship as Master and Servitor, but rather seeing each other as partners and sharing their love for one another often times, if the Summoner is skilled enough, leads to the birth of a Half-breed. Unlike most Half-breeds, the Half-Eidolon is usually brought up in a caring environment, a physical seal of the Eidolon's commitment to it's summoner. The Half-Eidolon also bears a measure of it's Otherworldly parent's power, able to take on a limited number of evolutions and the ability to change it's form from the standard Bipedal form it was born in, to a form it chooses to practice from a young age.

Type: Outsider (Native)

+2 to STR or CHA, -2 to CON or INT

+2 bonus to Disguise skill checks

Alter Form (Su) 1/day: The Half-Eidolon gains the ability to shift it's base form from Bipedal to either Serpentine or Quadrupedal (Chosen at first level). The Half-Eidolon's Ability scores are not altered while in this altered form, but gains natural attacks and evolutions as an eidolon of their size and form. They may change back to the base Bipedal form at any time, but must wait until the next day to change into their chosen alternate form. This is a Supernatural Ability

Size: Small or Medium (If small, it gets all appropriate modifiers)

Evolutions: The Half-Eidolon chooses any 1 point Evolution from the Summoner class features list. At 6th level, increase the number of evolution points available to 2 plus 1 for every three levels thereafter. A Half-Eidolon cannot choose the Large or Huge size increase, or any evolution that requires a feature that the Half-Eidolon does not possess. Every time the Half-Eidolon gains a level, they may "respend" their evolution points to change their options.

Alignment: Most Half-Eidolon's are born to a Summoner and their Eidolon, and the resulting half-breed is...

This is horrifying and wrong.

The summons go way overboard and it will get ridiculous. My question is: why limit the class so much with summons?

What if the "Summon Monster" ability were replaced with a more diverse ability that functioned similarly to channel energy? Perhaps allowing the summoner to control or even unsummon weak outsiders. This could help the summoner fit a useful niche in the party.

I agree that the summoner does leave a little to be desired as far as flavor goes. For instance, how did the summoner manage to befriend/ensalve a extra planar being of wondrous power? What are the implications of summoning such a creature, and how does this affect a character?

The summoner could be a very dramatic class to play if its character aspects are more fully explored. As it stands, the summoner runs the risk of becoming the dinky humanoid sidekick of his Eidelon. A stronger sense of character could rescue him from such a fate.

John Falter wrote:

How does something feasibly bite and gore something in the same round? That's some impressive neck gymnastics. Perhaps coupling the gore with a charge could make it a more attractive option.

Actually, it's feasible. If the goring creature tears up with its horn, it's just ripping up and back, leaving it access for a bite. In 6 seconds, that's not that crazy.

On second thought, I revoke this statement.

I wanted to favor bite as a common attack form that most creatures have. Gore, on the other hand, is still cheaper than getting extra claws, due to the needed purchase of limbs. I know there are differences... but that was the basic thought.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

How does something feasibly bite and gore something in the same round? That's some impressive neck gymnastics. Perhaps coupling the gore with a charge could make it a more attractive option.

I'm wondering if there's any mechanical benefit to the "Gore" evolution. From what I can tell, the gore does as much damage as a bite, but cannot be upgraded, and does not serve as a prerequisite to any other evolution, as bite does to trip. Why is this a 2-point evolution?