Yropro's page

22 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists.


This is a fantastic addition, and what Necrocrafts should have always been. Every necromancer needs this!

If you can use third party, Dreamscarred Press Psionics has a class called Aegis, that is literally Stark in Pathfinder.

Alternately, a much more complicated, but fun and mechanical way to do it is the Tinker class, with the Ironclad archetype is easily the best interpretation.

Shin Bilirubin wrote:

A while back, I created the Pathfinder Bestiary Database, to help with searching for tokens across the growing number of sets available.

It is, however, very clunky and looks a bit rough. I'd like to upgrade to a web-based, easily searchable platform, but unfortunately I don't have the know-how to pull off such a feat. I've copied the data to a Google spreadsheet, and had a look at being able to easily search that, possibly using some sort of web app, but I was wondering if anyone else had experience in this kind of thing and could offer some insight?

Ideally, I'd like to be able to add links to specific searches and allowing others to add to the database. At the moment, the spreadsheet only contains the names, quantities, sizes, set and set number of each pawn. It would be nice to expand this to creature types (as many people sort this way), and possibly other things.

Shin B

Not sure if you two still care, but I have a spreadsheet with everything up to Bestiary 4.

Awesome, great writeup!

I've never played Council of Wyrms, but I've definitely heard about it, and will probably mention it to my group.

RIP. That's what I thought.

Right, that's what I was trying to find out, if there was a way.

I'm pretty confident there isn't.

Random question, someone told me they were able to manifest Metamorphosis to their collective. I'm pretty sure there's no way to do that. Can anyone confirm?

Well then how does the mammoth I quoted work?

My gf is playing a summoner and wants an Elk form eidolon. I'm trying to help her make it as a quadruped and noticed hooves suck since they do the same damage as claws but attack at a -5 penalty. So I figured I'd just give it slam attacks instead.

Per Slam for Eidolons: An eidolon can deliver a devastating slam attack. This attack is a primary attack. The slam deals 1d8 points of damage (2d6 if Large, 2d8 if Huge). The eidolon must have the limbs (arms) evolution to take this evolution. Alternatively, the eidolon can replace the claws from its base form with this slam attack (this still costs 1 evolution point). This evolution can be selected more than once, but the eidolon must possess an equal number of the limbs evolution.

Well s+!&, it has 2 Leg evolutions, no arms. Unfortunate.

Then I noticed the Mammoth Eidolon Model from Ultimate Magic.

The eidolon is a large, powerful creature with tusks and a
prehensile trunk (using the tentacle evolution), such as an
elephant or mastodon.
14 points (20 points for Huge): Base Form quadruped;
Primary Evolutions gore, tentacle; Secondary Evolutions
grab (tentacle), huge, large, mount, scent, slam, trample.

Since I see no Arm evolutions anywhere, should I just go ahead and pick slams for her?

Edit: lol, I really appreciate how the text filter is random generated every time you load the page, that made me chuckle.

They're used to summoning, and they're a Monster Tactician Inquisitor.

The DM gave us a template that gave +4 to all stats, +2DCs, and bunch of other stuff, as well as Mythic 1. And he's bummed because that really does nothing for him.

Sounds good. Now I just need to come up with a great way to approach him about it. (I'm seen as a "powergamer" new addition to the group since my Kineticist was accidentally significantly stronger than everyone. And my new wizard is ungodly good at crafting)

This is all for another player who is upset at their feeling weak, and being told they can't do muc to be stronger.

Thank you everyone, I'll try this.

Less the taking it, more the effecting SLA part.

Isn't there a quote somewhere saying that the SLAs functioned as the spell in all respect except having a spell level or something for metamagic?

Right. He's completely onboard with Augment Summoning. It's everything else he thinks doesn't work.

That's why I'm trying to prove that things like superior summoning should work. Just trying to gather quotes and stuff.

Peevenator wrote:
By RAW, yes, they can use it. However, if your GM doesn't want to allow it for Summoners, that's his call to make regardless of design intent.

How does the feat work with the SLA by RAW?

Specifically I meant the Summon Monster SLA.

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

My DM is very firm in his belief that it was no intended for Summoners to use Superior Summoning, or anything other than Augment Summoning?

Is there anything at all I can use to help me sway him?

Edit: For clarity, I'm about about these feats with the Summoner SLA.

Ha, some free time. Mostly a neat search engine I found.


I think if they wanted it to have a specific casting time they'd actually include it in the spell.

I went through a ton of spells last night and I couldn't find any that just referenced a spell and left the cast time blank other than this.

I found something similar in greater restoration that didn't have a listed cast time, but it's pretty easy to see the one above and below it had a cast time.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't thinking Make whole was ever part of any abuse. It's hardly even used. How often do you need to repair magic weapons?

It's for the rare people that make constructs, which is rare due to how massively expensive they are. I can't imagine there's a reason to nerf their ability to heal their summons. The undead repair is a standard action level one spell. And animate dead is far more powerful and prevalent than constructs.

Mending was changed because it's now an at will unlimited use ability.

It's would be silly to leave it a standard.

Also, none of the other 160 something odd spells referencing another spell leave off that kind of information. This is one of very few spells that has no listed cast time.

@Wraithstrike thank you

@david true, but I'd like to point out that text has always been there, in every version, yet the cast time has always been standard.

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

In previous versions make whole has always been a standard action cast time. In Pathfinder it has no listed cast time.


Greater Make Whole has a cast time of 1 standard action just like it always has.

Can there be some clarification on the cast time of Make Whole?

Why is it (as far as I know) one of the only spells without a listed cast time?