Nerple's page

The archer ranger is probably my favorite type of character to play and I've grown to avoid the Rapid and Manyshot feats like the plague. They just burn through arrows too quickly and arrow management is something I'd rather not deal with when out of town for weeks at a time. And there are only so many arrows you can reasonably take with you.

Just wondering it its worth buying. Normally I wouldn't have to ask for Paizo products but this year has just been bleh. What kind of monster spread are we looking at here?

I agree with you on the past year, I didn't care much for the B2,UM or UC, and I was livid for a few months that 75% of the Adventurer's Armory went into the APG the month after the Armory was released. But the Bestiary 3 is one of the better books they've released in a while. And I don't even care for Asian themed monsters and there are a handful which make me throw up a little (clockworks, cannon golem, pale rider). The amount of classical folklore they have in there more than makes up for all the monsters I don't care much for. Also it is pretty well balanced, I play primarily in a group of 5 players all with different tastes and looking through it, there was a lot for everyone in my gaming group.

Throw me in as another who would choose oracle over cleric or druid for a cohort. Though I am not as particular about which particular mystery. But oracles are a lot less work to run during game sessions which is great when running two characters, and I love the flexibility of being able to go extreme offense or extreme healing/defensive with spellcasting without notice.

Not a fan of the Summoner, or Inquistitor or anything in Ultimate Combat, but if I had to create a top ten list, it would be full completely with Paladins and the over-zealous players that continually play them.

I found a list. It is huge.

Lizards

5 lizards....

Tiny, Small, Medium, Medium, Large

out of pity, the druid should get every special ability right off of any lizard

And not all 5 are Paizo lizards...

This is the definition I worked off of from Meriam-Wbester:

liz·ard
noun \ˈli-zərd\: any of a suborder (Lacertilia) of reptiles distinguished from the snakes by a fused inseparable lower jaw, a single temporal opening, two pairs of well differentiated functional limbs which may be lacking in burrowing forms, external ears, and eyes with movable lids; broadly : any relatively long-bodied reptile (as a crocodile or dinosaur) with legs and tapering tail

You function as a druid -4 once you gain wildshape at 6th. It functions as your current level if a lizard form is taken. What are all the shapes that fit the "Lizard" category?

I just started playing one, and had a lot of trouble finding an answer on this too (Just one of the many vague entries in Ultimate Magic). So went with more a dictionary definition and have access to lizards, dinosaurs, and crocodiles.

Beware of losing Druid levels. The loss includes animal companion progression as well.

Though that would be mitigated if they chose the domain option. My current character is a 5th level Dragon Shaman Druid with 1 level of fighter, and opted for the Fire Domain instead of an animal companion. I went with Fighter because I wanted Dragonhide Plate and liked the bonus feat.

A note on the monk though is the AC/CMD option only works when unarmored. Offhand, without looking it up, I assume that would still hold true in wild shape.

Thanks for the replies.

I opted for a few of the plastic minis and the one from dark sword miniatures which was perfect for one of the two characters I need a miniature for. First time buying from them and picked up a centaur and spectre as well and eagerly await their arrival hoping they meet my expectations I have now from looking through their site.

I've been looking unsuccessfully for 25 or 28mm metal miniatures that could pass for Tengus. Does anyone know a company that produces sucha miniature?

My problem is that I have no interest in playing a goblin..my players have no interest in playing goblins..so this book is just going to take up space and money and never get used..unless there's useful stuff for part one of Jade Regent in it.

More copies for my group then, because we're all chomping at the bit for this book and love playing goblins, and we never all want to the same non-core book.

What I did when creating my pantheon was to lay out a grid of the nine alignments and create two gods for each alignment, to give a classic D&Dish feel to divinity. I made sure all domains were present, even if a few were represented by only one god.

I started much the same way, I wanted to make sure I had all 9 alignments covered. Then I started by stealing the deities from 3.5 and Pathfinder that I liked, then stole a few ideas from the Greco-Roman Pantheon and then a few other ideas floating in my head.

I also took the idea of multiple churches for some of the major deities within my campaign world.

In the end I came up with:
https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1VmeXujio94u7BHvz1NofaxSxf0QeBpGrG BEvO53dHts&hl=en&authkey=CJbU5tEE

Core Rulebook and Adventurer's Armory only. The only exceptions so far being halflings and bachelor's snuff. And probably allowing most of the APG when it arrives.

The only book definitely out of the question for all 5 DM's in my group though is the Magic Item Compendium. We've grown to have a universal hatred of that book.

When pathfinder came out there was a renewal of interest in third party books but that interest has pretty much died as we've generally been disappointed with most of them, and people are now hesitant to purchase them.

The easiest way is to just give them class levels. And actually, I'm pretty sure that's the only way to do it for your example creatures.

That's definitely right for Goblins and Kobolds, Lizardfolk do have racial HD though so not sure on them, though I personally would just give them class levels too.

Recently played a gnome cleric that acted like a teenage emo girl writing bad poetry in his parent's basement, going to inns to listen to "Death Carriage for Cutie", sitting out in the rain because the cold matched his mood, and animating his fallen party members because he refused to let them taste the sweet embrace of death before he did, and haphazardly entering the battle begging to his god that the monster would kill him.

The rest of the adventuring party included a duerger fighter with a charisma of 3 who was rude as hell. A bard fashioned after zoolander, a wizard after Michael Jackson, a halfling rogue modeled after an overly happy Japanese school girl, and an overly gay human monk.

Needless to say that adventure didn't last long.

I once put together a lawful good beguiler with several feats from the Book of Exalted Deeds, specifically the Vow of Poverty and the Vow of Nonviolence & Vow of Peace. She was a pacifistic diplomat who utilized her spells to calm people and work out peaceful solutions to problems.

Not at all what the class is described as being about, but insanely effective.

Had a friend play a similar character, different feats but same methodology and views. Eventually we grew bored of it, so ,y favored soul started flame striking anything that he tried talking to, and eventually ratted him out to his temple(while the rest of the party ratted him out to a fairly well known bard) because he was a necropolitan.

Hey guys, quick question:

How balanced would a class be, if it were essentially a Fighter that got DOUBLE Base Attack Bonus, yet only got feats at, say, level 1 and 4 and each 4 levels afterwards?

How about Double BAB and no bonus feats at all?

Thanks all :D

Have to agree with the rest, it's not even remotely balanced. If given the option I would take it everyday and never think twice about it.

So came upon a situation last week where my group and I were split on how remove disease would work.

The party encountered a vargouille in the middle of the night, and the vargouille successfully got it's kiss special attack off on the dwarven bard. Being a while out of town, and the party too low to cast remove disease themselves, the bard went through the first two phases of transformation (lost hair, leathery wings for ears, tentacles, sharpened teeth) before finally getting into the city and getting to one of the temples to get remove disease cast.

The question is to what extent does remove disease heal the character. Everyone agreed the transformation was stopped and the character was saved. But the party was split on whether or not the transformation was reversed. All agreed the hair would grow back naturally, but was split on whether remove disease would reverse the tentacle, wing, and tooth growth. Some assumed remove disease would remove all effects of the disease as well, others assumed it just halted the transformation but wouldn't reverse the damage done.

Thoughts?

In the end it didn't matter, the dwarf was so shamed that he lost his beard, he retired from adventuring and refused to leave his inn room. But was curious what the community thought for possible future events.

Can anyone describe how expansive the rule set is for buildings and settlements in the Kingmaker series? I have no interest in the Adventure Path itself, only the new rules presented, so don't want to buy the AP and find out the rules for such things is only a one page gloss over or general guideline.

I've found it pretty easy to take inspiration from any kid's activity/movie. I am writing up a campaign now which will probably begin in sometime around New years and one of the adventures is based on a trip to a carnival/circus. Another is based on the movie "It's the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown." Granted my gaming group is all adults so the plots have demonic/evil twists but would be just as easy to make children friendly versions.

Also if you'll be playing around a major holiday (such as Christmas), make an adventure holiday themed. Have them hunt down the grinch stealing Christmas (or similar type holiday), etc.

Since a few people have brought it up, not only do I not really want to see an "automatic demi-god" mechanic, I really don't want to see another set of rules for "Immortals" or anything like it. While I know where people are coming from, and referencing BECMI D&D, right now, in this day and age, it just feels too much like the latest expansion to an MMO (and now with this set, we're upping the level cap . . . )

Personally, I think you can still tell the "upper end" of classic FRPG stories with Epic rules (fighting demon lords, great wyrm dragons, insane titans, demigods, etc), but I think when you start getting into a bracket of the game based on godhood and immortality, its pretty much a new, and separate game.

Also, just because there is a level cap to an epic system, I don't think there should be an automatic "retirement" feature either. Just because someone its, say 35th level, or whatever the upper limits might be, its just means that, as a mortal, they can't really become any better at anything. It doesn't mean there has to be a game mechanic that tells you that the character can't be played any longer.

I agree completely (with the one exception of I generally ignore level caps)

3) Aren't the gem dragons OGL? I'd like to see some of those as well.

I'd like to see them brought back as well, with an option for spells or spell-like abilities as a replacement to psionics.

- I love templates as well, so count me in as another vote for more templates.
- I also love the idea of tapping real world legends and lore, especially some of the more well known ones as a basis, Loch Ness Monster, Brownies, Leprechauns, Chupcabra, Vampire Bats, Headless Horseman, etc)
- Are the Ki-Rin and Zaratan OGL? Always loved them.
- More Lycanthropes
- More Naturally occurring animals, namely Cervidaes(deer, antelopes, Caribou, Moose), Ligers, Whales, Komodo Dragon, and Bobcats.
- Neutral Intelligent Outsiders similar to Teiflings/Devils/Demons, Aasimars/Angels/Azata. One of my favorite homebrew monsters is a CN Outsider who is a trickster at heart and loves to gamble on the results of any encounter.
- An ash-based undead. My thought here is what would a monster be like if the victims of Pompeii were risen.

I have to agree with Kolokotroni here. All my material has always been done from scratch, yet I'm a charter subscriber to the Pathfinder AP, which in my mind is the spiritual successor to Dungeon. I do it just for ideas and new monsters. It kills me not to subscribe to Chronicles too - I wish it wasn't such a mix of world-specific and general material.

Personally, the epic book and savage species were among my favorite books put out by WoTC, and I've lamented for years that there was never a true 3.5 update to the epic book.

I'll second Kolokotroni and gbonehead's sentiments. My group rotates DM's and games every few weeks and everyone that DM's does all of their own adventures and campaign settings (a few having been developed over the past 20 years). As a result none of us buy anything that is campaign setting specific or pre-planned adventure paths. Yet all of us love getting new rulebooks and generally buy all of them that we can from trusted publishers.

That being said, new books I would like to see include:
- New Epic Level book; pretty much has all been said already, have run epic level campaigns before and enjoy them greatly.
- New Savage Species Type book; have had some extremely successful campaigns with this book in the past, with the benefit over templates that all of them can be applied to all levels.
- Compendium of items and monsters from Pathfinder AP's; Like someone else mentioned in this thread. I'd love to use some of this material but I'm not going to pay for an Adventure Path if I am only interested in less than a quarter of the material. But give me the items and monsters in a campaign setting neutral environment and I'd buy it in a second. Any sort of item or spell compendiums would be popular with my group, whether they are compilations of previously published material or entirely new.
- Weapons of Legacy; Someone mentioned this book and it's a book that I loved the concept for but hated WotC's implementation (mainly the need for specific classes to use items)
- Stronghold Builder's Guide; would never have thought of this one but after reading this thread would definitely be interested in such a book, particularly if it also included epic constructions. Looking back, this is an area where my group and I have had a wide array of opinions and a rulebook would of been extremely useful. Though it is a book, I would probably get more use out of than the rest of ym gaming group.
- In line with the Ecology and Environment series, I'd like to see a series of in depth splat books on the inner workings and life within some of the standard institutions within fantasy settings such as temples, monasteries and arcane universities. Granted these aren't rulebooks per se, mostly descriptive text with maybe a few optional feats, character traits, items etc, but it's something that would interest me.
-Asian Theme Book; This isn't a book I would use at all, but several group members have Asian themed areas as very important parts of their campaign worlds and they would use such a book heavily. However if this book was a part of a series of splat books or a hardcover book with several themes I may be interested. My campaign world has areas influenced by the Ancient Egyptians, Ancient Romans, Arabaian/Persian Blend and Native Americans (Cherokee, Iroquois and Mayans) and would love to see those included in such a series or compilation.

Is there any restrictions on which animal companions in the Bestiary are available to Rangers?

To my knowledge all of them are available to Rangers. Appendix 7 (Page 316) seems to confirm this assumption.

The name of this class intrigued me, so figured I would make a few comments that I noticed. This comes with the disclaimer I have never played Eberron and thus I am not all to familiar with the Articifer class or the Warforged and I hate Psionics so I am was reading just from the typical Spellcasters perspective.

- Engineer's Knowledge: This makes sense to me for a few of the knowledges (Engineering, Arcana, Religion), but not all of them. I don't see why an Engineer should have bonuses to Knowledge (Geography, Nature, Nobilty, etc) checks.

- Trapfinding: I agree with the the bonus to Disable Device, but the perception bonus to trap finding (as well as Perception as a class skill) seems out of place.

- Number of Inventions: This seems like an unneeded stat to keep track of. An engineer's power is already limited by the Invention Points category. And with the ability to combine several inventions into one to increase the number of inventions points allowed combined with the fact that one can only wield/wear a few inventions at a time it seems as if the number of inventions is a stat with too many ways to bypass. I'd drop the limit on inventions altogether, probably rename invention points to theory points (just to drop the invention moniker completely and streamline the naming convention) and have the players keep tabs on how many theory points they currently have invested.

- Swapping Functions: The way I read the class this ability seems all too fast. I'd drop it entirely and merge it into rebuilding an invention and increase the time it takes to rebuild an invention by a lot. I would gather rebuilding an invention would be measured in hours, not rounds. With the fast speed of rebuilding or swapping now, it seems a skilled engineer could have a huge advantage over spellcasters because they have a limited number of spells per day while the engineer could constantly be swapping and rebuilding.

- Geniuses: This is an extremely nitpicky entry granted, but figured I would include it. There seems no need to make each entry into a feat, they are fine enough as their own identity similar to Rogue Talents or Paladin Mercies. And for some reason the the calling of these geniuses strikes me as odd. When I think genius I think more of a sage type of character, perhaps rename them as ingenuities which seems more appropriate for an applied knowledge.

- Compartmentalized Inventions: I like this idea, but in keeping with my comments with swapping functions and number of inventions, I'd allow these Compartmentalized Inventions to be quick changes but having each swap-in compartment still count toward invention point total (or at least a fraction of the total). I'd also be careful in making sure players describe how the compartments are built in the invention.

- Extra Invention: In keeping with my comment that the number of inventions is an unneeded stat, I'd replace this with a genius that increases one's invention point total.

-Optional Class Features: I agree with Abussou, I'd remove "Smart Combatant" and "Smart and Deadly". They seem to be a bit too much for too little of a cost. And it turns Intelligence into by far the most important ability into about the only ability score really needed.

- Airship: Another nitpicky entry but nothing seems to cost XP to create in Pathfinder RPG, and would recommend changing the Airship to reflect such.

- Enhancement Bonuses, etc: Another nitpicky entry, but I'd condense the entries so that the items of power and enhancement bonuses for both level up at the same time, similar to a Fighters Weapon Training or a Ranger's Favored Enemies.

In the end, I love the class idea, I'll probably end up revising it to fit my campaign world and use it in my own campaigns. It does seem to need some streamlining though, when I copied all the text into Word and made the tables to condense everything, it still came out to 12 pages long which seems alot for one class. I have some reservations about the Advanced Geniuses (Mainly that some of the construction ones could be done even without taking the Advanced Genius), but no real suggestions at this time.