b j's page

I had suggested a level of druid, but I am not sure the DM will allow it. We were transported to some prehistoric sanctuary the gods set up to remember/honor the old ways or first era or something like that. It would be a perfect place for a nature oriented character to "see the (green!) light" and convert fully to druidism, but who knows.

I am a halfling fighter/thief mounted combat guy, and I am having a great time. The rest of the party not so much.

As for the APG, I am thinking the same as you, and can see them doing something like that. I just hope it doesn't get too out of control, like the land of splat books era of 3.5. Pathfinder has a good set up, they can offer fluffy/crunchy stuff in the adventure paths and society play, but could keep the core game more focused. We will see what happens though.

3.0 Ranger, 4th lvl Ranger has 4 hd AC, 10th lvl Ranger has 10 hd AC, 20th lvl Ranger has 20 hd AC. Available animals, any.

3.5 around 45 animal choices, 20th lvl ranger has an AC with 8 - 11 hd.

PRPG 11 animal choices, 14 HD at 20th

So in my world, 3.0 to 3.5 was a nerf to the Ranger's AC.

And going from 45 choices to 11, is also a nerf, regardless of how awesome it is to have a 14 HD Kung-Fu Ninja badger.

I need some better crack or something. I had a -4 for small stuck in my head for the Cheetah's CMB mod, not -1. Unfortunately no cheetahs for our ranger, or wolves for that matter.

Still there is no logical reason in my mind for the nerf to the ranger LIST. I think it was an editing mistake, and the "man" is covering it up! James Jacobs is the name attached to the quotes about limiting the list AND he is the editor in chief? Hmmm....

I miss animal friendship. :(

How is a Cheetah better than a wolf for a 4th level ranger? It is small sized, so it's CMB is trashed. Again, why is the ranger limited to so few companions?? What is the justification for nerfing the companion list?? If the companion is only a small part of the ranger what is the major part? A dex fighter beats the crap out of a ranger in combat, the pally has much better magic AND animals. Yeah, we should limit the ranger to a 16 FREAKING HD ANIMAL THAT DOES 1D6 DAMAGE! Stay back, or my pony will kick you for 1d3 a half dozen times. If I want something to RP, I will poop in my hat and call it Ted, THAT will cause problems at the city gate.

Just admit that limiting the list is a nerf and I will walk away. I would still like to know why Jason and crew thought this was necessary. Last play testing reports I read had most in favor of a flat 2 or 3 level penalty. Even at no penalty a druid AC will still take out a ranger AC because of spell pumps. The easy way to tell the Ranger and the druid's companions apart is the giant sized, stoneskined, glowing teeth and clawed, cheetah is the druids, the dead one is the Rangers.

100 tigers would be great, but at three every six weeks or so, it's not really an option. All of the help for 7th, 11th, or 20th level rangers is great, but the question was what about NOW?? 4th level. The current level. Wolf tripper is the only real option, but at such a low HP, it's good for one attack, maybe two.

My real gripe is why limit the AC to the old starting list of 3.5? At least in 3.5 they could have any druid animal,(not realistically but hey). I, like a lot of players assumed the 3 level tax was enough, why screw the ranger by limiting his choices? The quote floating around is since the ranger has better combat abilities, (which is arguable) he SHOULDN'T have a good combat companion??? Also, not wanting to weaken the druid or paladin's ability or uniqueness is a joke, since we have a summoner and a cavalier now. 3.5 hurt the Ranger, and powering up the other base classes further nerfed the class for all intents and purposes.

I DO like to make a full ranged attack and move more than 5', so I took RIDE SKILL! As for the AC builds, they will be great at 7th or 11th level when they are available. Right now the 11 hp wolf tripper will die a horrid death.

Using it to flank only really helps the two weapon fighter, and does nothing for the ranged specialist, which is what our Ranger picked. As for the handle animal skill, I agree a Ranger is better off just training an animal and not using the companion slot. Why get stuck with a 2 HD small sized cat with a CMB of -2 or so, when you could train a Tiger yourself? Share spells is silly and at higher levels the handle animal bonus of a companion is moot.

Looks Official to me! Wow, I don't see a reason to ever take a companion really. BTW, what is different about favored enemy? I missed something I guess. I wasn't much of a Ranger guy really, but can see no reason at all to play one now.

What use is a companion to a Ranger anyway? I see people say you can use it to scout and things like that, but how? Until you can communicate with it, (like at 8th level for the Ranger unless you blow spells) what good is it? I am serious on this, what advice does anyone have for our Ranger player now?

I never realized how unclear the rules are on this. James Jacobs has been quoted as saying that the ranger list is different, but the beta release of the new level by level progression seemed pretty clear that ranger was just druid -3. What justification could there possible be for further nerfing of the ranger's AC?? The three level minus is bad enough, but to say the Ranger is better in combat so his companion should be much weaker AND easier to kill seems a tad off. We need an official ruling on whether the Ranger list is indeed different, or if it was an oversight in the reprinting.

Sarcasm tags should NEVER be used. Period.

As to separation of church and state, we have a private health system now, with the exception of Medicare and Medicaid there is no state involvement. Almost every major city has at least one church owned MAJOR hospital. Over 600 hospitals in the US are owned by the Catholic church. About 1 in five people treated get treatment at a catholic owned facility each year. If the Gov. can replace them, fine go for it. Whether or not churches should own and run hospitals is completely moot at this point, because they do. We have to take that into consideration when reforming health care. Due to federal laws regarding emergency medicine, these hospitals would have to shut down their OB/GYN departments AND their ER's, or they could be required to provide abortions. The Bishops have said they would simply ignore the laws, and push a constitutional show down, or just lock the doors. Either way the losers are the patients.

This is a basically what is going on with the Catholic hospitals. Right now they are protected from providing abortions, and can still get money from Medicare and Medicaid. Foca, could repeal all of those protections. A national insurance option would mean a larger portion of insurance money would now be "federal money" and tied to government regulations. One fear is that any hospital that receives Fed money would have to provide abortions or abortion counseling. The bishops have stated that they would shut down all of their hospitals before that would happen. This article hits most of the points, but all you need to do is search Catholic hospital in the news and you will get plenty of info.

My years living in Western Europe and Midwest America lead me to disagree with statement. Perhaps you should visit Kansas City and Paris in the same week sometime?

Wait never mind, you're from Parsons, that explains everything.

Really? Parsons and Paris ARE exactly alike? Or KC and Paris are full of fat and lazy people, but Parsons isn't? Since I was sarcastically pointing out that most people on the boards were completely discounting our (America's) lifestyle as a reason why our costs were higher and outcomes were lower when compared to Europe and Canada for health care, I can only conclude that your disagreement with my sarcastic comment means that KC/Lenexa and Paris are full of fat and lazy people, but strangely Parsons isn't. Wow, who would have guessed?

Supes is right. Many doctors will stop practicing, though not 50%. Let's say only half of the 20% who are opposed to Universal Medicine stopped, that is around 8,000 doctors. Most would be specialists, that would be crippling for many hospitals. Now add 47 million more patients? Disaster. Well over 75% of the doctors I have asked, (around a dozen) DO NOT support the plan proposed. All of this may be moot anyway, because if a national health plan is passed, and FOCA passes, the US could lose over 600 hospitals. So LOTS of doctors and nurses would be out of work.

On a side note, I find it very refreshing to find out that all of Canada and most of Europe is just as fat, lazy and stupid as us Americans. It's so refreshing to have everyone defend our poor lifestyle. I guess it all depends on the figurehead bolted to the front of the ship.

One thing I would like to point out is insurance companies aren't the people setting the prices for services, doctors and hospitals are. I worked in the business office of a hospital, so trust me when I say they are VERY profit oriented. Nothing changes if we add 48 million people to the mix, and that is why the AMA is on board for the current plan, 48 million new customers.

Everyone throws out the amount spent on health care, but most studies show we spend more simply because we charge more. We charge more because we are capitalists. Again, nothing changes. The hospitals with the worst problems financially are the ones MOST dependent on medicare and medicaid. They subsist, never expanding or improving. Our whole system will be that way. Take away the profits for drug companies and we have no new drugs.

Also, most of those 48 million added won't pay a thing into the system, because they for the most part pay little in taxes. So we take a financial hit from the loss of private insurance, then throw in massive increase in patients, and we are set for total system failure. We need reform, but not massive overnight changes with no clear way to pay for or support them.

Agreed!

This can only happen on pre-orders, and I might at some point REALLY need something fast, so don't take expedited shipping away. Most people who pre-ordered "hoped" they would get their book on the 13th, some paid extra to guarantee it. It was a waste of money, and I hope Paizo gives the 3 people most affected some love, but it's not a world ending thing here.

I know it can be hard to find a good group after a move, I had a couple of long one nighters with some groups in college. One group had costumes and props, I spent the first hour looking for the hidden camera, the last 4 or 5 scared to death my ride would leave me behind. A second group had a DM with a Chihuahua that spent most of the night eating his own poop off the floor (there was plenty), and the rest of the time on the DM's lap licking his face. I am not joking AT ALL!

You still looking for a group?

"Halflings stand about 3 feet tall and usually weigh between 30 and 35 pounds. A kobold is 2 to 2½ feet tall and weighs 35 to 45 pounds. Kobolds with levels in NPC classes have a CR equal to their character level -3. " -SRD

My question is if halflings are taller and weigh less, why are they stronger? I will assume that Kobolds are hunched over and thus shorter, so if we were to nail a Halfling and a Kobold to a board side by side they would be about the same size lengthwise. That means that they are heavier and faster, which would make me think they are as strong as or stronger than a Halfling. I would use the Halfling racial adjustments for both.

As for the challenge rating thing, a third level Kobold warrior should knock the snot out of a 1st level fighter.

I draw mighty Excalibur, swing at the werewolf and oops, I forgot to bring my silver Excalibur, this cold iron one looks so much like it! Or is this my adamantium Excalibur I put too much oil on. Boy these artifacts sure don't impress like they used to! I sure hope the MU brought HIS silver spellbook....