Lunever's page

Yes, simple templates like celestial explicitly say "quick and rebuild rules are the same".

On contrary. advanced does have a separate rebuild entry.

Even if you know that animal int is capped to 2 and ignore the wisdom and charisma issue - a heavy horse should not be more dextrous than a a light one. Also, a light horse should be quicker than a heavy one.

Neither is adressed.

Ranger characters I've been playing used to ride light horses so they could use the higher speed for scouting, while the heavy horses of other characters used to carry barding and serve in melee battle.

Now, as things are, no character with any sense would use a light horse.

If there is a bug, fine, such things happen and can be corrected.
To defend a bug by declaring it not to be a bug just because it's been around for a while does not make any sense.

So please let's start and upload a V1.1 errata for the bestiary second printing.

Even if it was clarified that animal int shall be capped to 2, and that the advanced simple template for horses meant physical stats only - making a heavy horse more dextrous than a light horse still doesn't make any sense. I very much hope for some errata there.

So there's no correcting errata about the advanced simple template for horses?

I mean, sure, heavy horses always used to be tougher, while light horses used to be faster.

But heavy horses that are more dextrous than light ones, and wiser, and more charming? That's complete nonsense.

I hope someone at Paizo will adress this.

I'd go with PC class levels, since often followers can represent disciples or apprentices of a PC.

Still - is there ANY official ruling later than 3.0 anywhere in 3.5 or better in some Pathfinder source?

Biggest problem with bows vs. crossbows since early on in DnD is that apparently the original writers liked bows and disliked crosbows - bows can be mighty and can shoot as many arrows as the archer has attacks, on contrary to crossbows.

The biggest advantage of a crossbow always has been disregarded - the mechanical parts like winches and/or levers are there for a reason - with them you can invest time in order to achieve a greater pull than you could with your bare strength when pulling a bow.

To my knowledge there never have been any DnD rules considering this.

So imho, yes, crossbows - usually utilizing composite techniques - should be able to be mighty, and winches/levers could be customized to a combatant who actually is to weak for the pull - he'd need to invest a partial action (standard or move action) per missing point of strength. There should be a limit to that difference though, but I'm still indecisive how much.

The best option in all DnD 3.5 books ever has been the spell point system. Sure you can mix UA with PF, but I'd love to see Paizo to include their own variant of offering an option to ditch Vancian stuff.

I asked Skip Williams whether the original intention was to have woodland stride as the class feature requirement for the arcane hierophant instead of trackless step, so rangers can qualify as the descriptive text strongly suggest, and he said:

"Woodland Stride is certainly what I *meant* to write, Not sure how Tarckless Step got in there instead."

After having updated that character a bit, I remember that there were 2 other adventure modules played with that character, placed on the Moonshaes (at least by the DM), probably they too were from a Dungeon magazine.

One was about some Moander priests, who tried to subjugate the Moonshaes by corrupting moonwells and abducting archdruids.

The other was about some ancient artifact that was uncovered during mining operations. That artifact also tried to subjugate the islands. I think it was some metallic globe and it had some duergar servants.

Does anyone recognize anything of the above?

Since my Campaign uses Arcane Hierophants heavily, I wonder, whether there have been ever any errata or articles published about the prestige class "Arcane Hierophant" from "Races of the Wild"?

The question I wonder about is:

The class description repeatedly mentions, that this class is mainly intended far wizard/druids, but also for wizard/rangers and specifically mentions, that druids or rangers can meet the class feature requirements.

Yet the class feature requirement is "Trackless Step", which is a class feature only for druids, but not for rangers. It is very probable, that the intention was to set "Woodland Stride" as a requirement, since it is a common class feature for both, druids and rangers.

I couldn't find any "Races of the Wild" errata, nor any articles about that issue. All I found are unanswered questions about that very topic. So if anyone knows some dragon or dungeon article (or dnd insider for that matter) or even just some IIRC discussion with dnd authors, please let me know.

Great! That's exactly what I've been looking for, I just couldn't remember a suitable keyword to find it. Thanks!

I'm currently looking for an old article, Dragon I believe, that had a title like "Re-aligning the druid's sphere". It was about changing the sphere's of influence to avoid oddities like druids being unable to cast Commune with Nature an similar.

Does anyone know what issue this article can be found in?

Thanks for the info, by now I had the opportunity to read through the original adventure. Amazing thing is, back then we didn't find out much about the Ifrit and didn't give it much thought. In the course of the current campaign an Ifrit became an important NPC, whose name was never determined so far. Could be this Jafar, who knows ...

And yes, "get Pyruxal one day" is exactly what my PC intends to do. Our current DM currently plays a campaign in Zhentil Keep during Bane's return 1369 DR, and one of Cyric's Champions already made an appearance, riding a close relative of Pyruxal ...

Hey, great many thanks. To bad that Dungeon issue doesn't seem to be available anymore. If anyone could provide this adventure I'd welcome that very much.

For now, the link provided to experiences with that adventure is already very useful, since it contains at least the name of the dragon Pzyruxal, which I would like to see reintroduced as an old nemesis of the PC involved.

Many years ago I played a good aligned old-school ranger. I too said, I don't trust an evil chromatic dragon the least bit, let's attack her now and get over with it. But the greedy party overvoted me, so I went along.

When the party finally wanted to storm out with the last eggs to claim the promised treasure, I insisted on a different approach - a hostage situation with the eggs being hostages. The dragon grudgingly met our demands at first, letting the party get away with much advance. But one character had to remain in front of the dragon, holding an egg and a powerful dagger. Finally, after some hours of dragon-elf staredown (and continued threats like "you try to enchant me once more that egg is history") finally I threw the egg away in a high arch, used the moment the dragon needed to catch the egg to shapeshift into a falcon (which I could do, actually being a Mielikkian Shadoweir, that is a neutral good half-elven ranger/druid) and started to fly. With the dragon closing in, I shapeshifted into a panther upon reaching a forested area. That moment the gas hit. The DM was rolling dice openly. The inflicted damage minus the shapeshifting healing effect let me survive with exactly 1 hit point (sic!), and after some difficult hide&seek reach the nearest stream and escape as a water snake.

Having been almost killed by being hit with painful acid, the dragon should still be a nemesis for that character, and a nemesis should have a name and personality.

Heck, I'm not even sure where to post this:

Now there's a real puzzle for old school A/D&D players:

I've dug up a very old AD&D character to be reused in DnD 3.5.

Most important event in the charactes live was an adventure played on a paper&pen con (I think it was a FRON or a SOX-Con, in Germany), where he had to face an old green dragon that forced the PCs to recover its eggs from some kind of volcano, and I think the DM was using some DRAGON magazine adventure.

Now I'd like to find out, what DRAGON magazine that adventure was from.
If there is any old school AD&D player out there who has an idea, please let me know!

Long live the Dragons, whether they be advanced or not!