Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Advanced Player's Guide (OGL)

4.80/5 (based on 48 ratings)
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Advanced Player's Guide (OGL)
Show Description For:
Non-Mint

Add Hardcover $44.99

Add PDF $9.99

Add Non-Mint $39.99 $29.99

Facebook Twitter Email

Take your Game to the Next Level!

Explore new and uncharted depths of roleplaying with the Pathfinder RPG Advanced Player's Guide! Empower your existing characters with expanded rules for all 11 Pathfinder Roleplaying Game core classes and seven core races, or build a new one from the ground up with one of six brand-new, 20-level base classes. Whether you're designing your own monstrous helpers as an enigmatic summoner, brewing up trouble with a grimy urban alchemist, or simply teaching an old rogue a new trick, this book has everything you need to make your heroes more heroic.

The Pathfinder RPG Advanced Player's Guide is a must-have companion volume to the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook. This imaginative tabletop game builds upon more than 10 years of system development and an Open Playtest featuring more than 50,000 gamers to create a cutting-edge RPG experience that brings the all-time best-selling set of fantasy rules into the new millennium.

The 336-page Pathfinder RPG Advanced Player's Guide includes:

  • Six new base classes: the monster-hunting inquisitor, the explosive alchemist, the noble cavalier, the prophecy-haunted oracle, the monster-crafting summoner, and the hex-weaving witch
  • More than a hundred innovative new feats and combat abilities for characters of all classes, including Steal, Point-Blank Master, and Bouncing Spell
  • Variant class abilities, rules subsystems, and thematic archetypes for all 11 core classes, such as the antipaladin, the hungry ghost monk, and the urban ranger
  • Hundreds of new spells and magic items, from phantasmal revenge to the Storm King's Cloud Castle
  • A wealth of fantastic equipment, such as fireblast rods and fortune-tellers' cards
  • New prestige classes like the Master Chymist and the Battle Herald
  • ... and much, much more!

ISBN-13: 978-1-60125-246-3

Resources

Looking for more? Check out the Resources and Free Downloads available for the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.

Errata
Last Updated - 12/01/2010

Note: This product is part of the Pathfinder Rulebook Subscription.

Product Availability

Hardcover:

Available now

Ships from our warehouse in 1 to 5 business days.

PDF:

Fulfilled immediately.

Non-Mint:

Available now

Ships from our warehouse in 1 to 5 business days.

This product is non-mint. Refunds are not available for non-mint products. The standard version of this product can be found here.

Are there errors or omissions in this product information? Got corrections? Let us know at store@paizo.com.

PZO1115


See Also:

1 to 5 of 48 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Average product rating:

4.80/5 (based on 48 ratings)

Sign in to create or edit a product review.

good

5/5

good addition to the collection offers good spells and feats, came in on time and I bought the non-mint and I haven't noticed any damage to it.


Players: Buy this after the Core Rulebook

5/5

If you own a Core Rulebook and a Bestiary, what Pathfinder book should you buy next? A campaign setting book or an adventure module would be good answers, but if you're looking for more character options, the best answer would be the Advanced Player's Guide. This was Paizo's first big player-oriented hardcover to be released after the Core Rulebook, and it's safe to say they knocked it out of the park. This book has stood the test of time and still contains fantastic options for the game even though it was released several years ago. If you're playing PFS on a budget, for example, and you have to be choosy with what books or PDFs you buy, start with the Advanced Player's Guide. You'll find enough options in there to keep you busy for years.

What follows is a chapter-by-chapter review. Do keep in mind that this book pre-dates the publication of classes like the magus, vigilante, kineticist, etc., so you won't find options directly designed for them. In addition, because it's part of the RPG line, it does not contain Golarion-specific flavour (though everything in here is compatible with the setting). As a whole, I would classify the art as in the lower-middle spectrum of what Paizo can do, with a lot of reused mediocre stuff from earlier books. The layout as a whole, however, is quite nice.

Chapter 1 (Races): After an Introduction that's really just an expanded table of contents, Chapter 1 expands the options available for Core races (those found in the Core Rulebook). For each race, a sentence or two describes how each of the Core classes and the so-called Base classes (those found later in this book) are represented within the culture. I found this section was fairly generic and tried too hard to make it sound like each class was common in each race, so there wasn't anything that seemed special. Next up are alternative racial traits for the Core races. These are important in that they allow a player to swap out one of the special features of a race (like an elf's automatic familiarity with elven weapons, or a gnome's resistance to illusion) for a different special feature. In other words, it's a good way to customize your PC just a little more and ensure that not all dwarfs are skilled at stonework, for example. Last, this chapter presents new favoured class options for each of the Core races: instead of the normal rule that a new level in a favoured class provides 1 hit point or 1 skill point, these new options allow a particular race to get something different. For example, a gnome with the favoured class of bard could get an extra round of bardic performance each day, or a half-orc with the favoured class of fighter could get an additional +2 to stabilization rolls when dying. Note that each race only has new favoured class options for handful of classes (not all of them). Unlike the alternate racial traits, I wasn't particularly impressed with the flavour or thought given to the new favoured class options: many of them didn't seem to have any particular tie to the race. Half-orcs, for example, can increase their bomb damage if their favoured class is alchemist, while human paladins can start to get energy resistance--there's nothing in the write-up of these races that make these bonuses seem natural or logical. From an optimization perspective, these new favoured class options are quite useful--I just wish they were better from a storytelling perspective.

Chapter 2 (Classes): One of the most important things that the Advanced Player's Guide brings to Pathfinder is the introduction of six new "Base" classes: the Alchemist, Cavalier, Inquisitor, Oracle, Summoner, and Witch. I don't have a lot of space to review each one, so I'll try to be concise.

The Alchemist fills a real niche in the game, is quite versatile, and would be really fun to play. They get special abilities to rapidly make alchemical items (of course), but also can manufacture bombs, cast magic spells (in the form of drinkable "elixirs"), and temporarily "hulk out" by drinking a "mutagen." As a GM, my only concern is the fact that the bombs resolve against Touch AC, so in games I've run the alchemist PC hardly ever misses and does substantial amounts of damage as an area effect. I also think that perhaps the mutagen feature should have been reserved for a specific "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" archetype, as I don't thik it fits well as part of the basic assumption of alchemists.

The Cavalier could probably have been better represented as a Fighter archetype. Cavaliers are mounted knights who swear an oath to follow the precepts of a particular order. Different orders provide different bonuses, Cavalier's mounts are hardier than normal, and the class provides PCs and their allies with some limited use of teamwork feats (discussed below). As written, the class is fairly bland, and I don't think it fills a hole in what could be covered well by other classes. You also see Cavaliers relatively rarely in gameplay because, frankly, they're just inferior to other builds (and I should know, because I've played one for a couple of years now!).

The Inquisitor is one of those classes I'm a bit torn about. The idea is that they're specialists in rooting out corruption and heresy within their faith, which is thematically really cool: but I don't see how that fits naturally with the activities of the vast majority of adventuring parties in the game. The class is conceptually unique and has a lot of cool and useful abilities, some of which seem to fit from a flavour perspective (like Bane) but others that just seem kind of random (like Monster Lore and Cunning Initiative).

The Oracle is another interesting class that I'm unsure about conceptually. Mechanically, they're spontaneous divine spellcasters who don't worship deities per se but instead strive to unravel a particular "mystery." As they advance in level, they get "revelations" which are special powers. Some of the revelations are really cool, and the mysteries are very flavourful. I like the class better after reading it carefully, though I'm still not sure about the name of the class (since divination isn't the focus) nor about the vague relationship they have to deities. They are a divine spellcasting class that is much simpler to play than clerics (though less effective), and thus potentially a good choice for new players.

The Summoner as presented in this book is infamous as the most overpowered class in all of Pathfinder, to the point where most GMs and PFS disallow it. "Unchained" Summoners (as they're usually called in contradistinction to a different type from another book) are, of course, really good at summoning lots of monsters, which is annoying for everyone at the table because it dramatically slows down gameplay. But more problematically, each Summoner gets an "eidolon" which is a bit like a completely customizable and incredibly powerful monstrous animal companion. If you have an Unchained Summoner, you may as well be playing a solo campaign because you probably don't need anyone else in the party to win most encounters. I'm not sure how the Unchained Summoner ever made it through playtesting, but it stands as an example that even great companies like Paizo can make major mistakes.

The Witch is a full (up to 9th level spells) spellcasting class that receives special powers called hexes. Some of the hexes are really flavourful and cool, and the concept of the class as a whole is one I really like. There are two things about the class I'm not a fan of: first, familiars are a major part of the class and as both a player and a GM I find familiars really annoying to deal with (because they rarely contribute positively to a play experience); second, each witch receives bonus spells depending on what "patron" they choose, but the patrons are just abstract concepts (like "Agility" or "Water") and have no substance or flavour to them, and no real potential for story development. I think it was a bland and almost forgettable way of implementing a really cool idea (mysterious forces granting a character power in exchange for . . .?). I should also note that one of the witch's hexes, Slumber, has proven overpowered and problematic at a lot of tables.

So as a whole, I think the Alchemist is a real success, while Witches, Oracles, and Inquisitors are solid additions to the game. The Cavalier is mostly forgotten, while the Summoner is a good example of what not to do in terms of game design.

The Classes chapter then continues by offering each of the Core classes something special, often in the form of "archetypes." If you don't already know, archetypes are packages of abilities that swap out some of the features of a class in exchange for other features, and they've become an important part of most builds for experienced players. Here's a summary of what each Core class gets.

1) Barbarians receive a lot of cool new options for rage powers (though, oddly, a lot of them relate to consuming alcohol) and several archetypes that don't change a lot of class features but that are quite good;

2) Bards get some fantastic and (sometimes quite dramatic) archetypes, at least as written--but admittedly, I don't hear about them being played very often;

3) Clerics receive the introduction of "subdomains", which are, as the name indicates, "branch" domains. A cleric with the Sun domain, for example, could now choose the replacement special power and domain spells of the Light subdomain. It's a way to allow the further customization of clerics since they don't have a lot of class features to trade out for archetypes;

4) Druids get archetypes that are all terrain-based and quite formulaic, along with a handful of "animal shaman" archetypes that have the same essential ability to gain an aspect of a particular animal's powers.

5) Fighters get a lot of archetypes, most of which are poor in terms of flavour ("Archer" or "Two-Handed Fighter") but some that are quite nutritious, as it were, to aiding particular combat styles;

6) Monks get a lot of archetypes, most of which are pretty bland but some, like the Zen Archer, the Monk of the Four Winds' Slow Time ability, and the Monk of the Healing Hand's capstone power are pretty cool;

7) Paladins get archetypes that are okay, but there's some clunky features for the Divine Defender and Sacred Servant. There's also the introduction of the Antipaladin (formally an "Alternate" Class) which I know a lot of people demanded but I'm just not a fan of the concept because I think it devalues the essential goodness of the Paladin idea;

8) Rangers get new archetypes and some new combat styles. I really like the Guide archetype, as the Terrain Bond feature seems much truer to the niche that rangers should fill as wilderness experts. The Infiltrator and Skirmisher archetypes also get some cool stuff;

9) Rogues receive 30 new rogue talents and 12 new advanced rogue talents to choose from, though most are of the "1/day, roll two d20s and take the better" on a specific skill check type. I like the Fast Getaway talent (allowing a rogue to sneak attack and then withdraw), and imagine it would keep a lot of rogues alive. The class also receives several archetypes, but most are pretty thin and forgettable (though the Cutpurse could be used to devastating effect depending on GM discretion);

10) Sorcerers receive 10 new bloodlines, and although I'm not an expert on the class, they look useful and meaningful;

11) Wizards get new elemental schools to specialize in, and some of the special powers look like a lot of fun (like the Air school's Cyclone power or the Water school's Wave power). There's also the introduction of "Focused Arcane Schools" which you can think of as "super specialization" in a particular aspect of a School in order to gain replacement powers.

Whew! A lot of stuff in that chapter. Moving on.

Chapter 3 (Feats) contains a *lot* of new feats. The summary table which gives a one-line description of each one fills four pages. Many of the new feats are standalone things, but others can be grouped by type: several give an additional use of class features ("Extra Rage Power", "Extra Rogue Talent", etc.), make it easier to use the new combat maneuvers introduced at the end of the book, create new metamagic options for spellcasting (with "Dazing Spell" responsible for a lot frustration to GMs), etc. A new type of feat, Teamwork Feats, are introduced for the first time in this chapter. The idea with Teamwork Feats is that if two PCs (or allied NPCs) have the same feat, they both get bonuses in particular situations: for example, if two PCs have the "Allied Spellcaster" teamwork feat, they each get a +2 bonus on caster level checks to overcome spell resistance. I do like the concept, but the proven problem is that it's often hard to get other players at the table to have their PCs take the same one that you're taking, and the bonuses provided by the feats aren't so amazing that groups are inclined to carefully coordinate.

Chapter 4 (Equipment) contains about 25 new weapons (including some of those fun, weird polearms D&D veterans will recognize), a handful of new types of armor, a lot of new pieces of adventuring gear, and several new alchemical items. There's not a lot here that's earth-shattering, though some items, such as Weapon Blanch, have become de rigeur for every smart adventurer. It would have been nice if more of the equipment was illustrated, and that better choices were made on what was essential to illustrate: I know what an hourglass looks like, for example, and don't need a picture, but seeing what a "light detector" looks like would have been interesting.

Chapter 5 (Spells) has 57 pages of options for spellcasters of every stripe. Reading through, I noticed a surprising number of cool Paladin spells, a lot of Bard "finale" spells (that are cast and instantly end bardic performance), and a lot of ninth level spells. Some of the spells I really liked include Blaze of Glory, Fire Snake, and Hero's Defiance, and the picture of Cacophonous Call on p. 209 is hilarious. Every spellcaster is bound to find something useful, but there are some problematic ones introduced in this chapter, like the Create Pit line, that GMs need to be aware of.

Chapter 6 (Prestige Classes) introduces eight new options that PCs could, but probably won't, strive for. Pathfinder long had a reputation for not making much of the prestige class concept, and that's only recently begun to change. Really fast verdicts: 1) Battle Herald: Love the concept, but everything is tied off an "Inspiring Command" bonus which just progresses too slowly, making the entire prestige class weak; 2) Holy Vindicator: no design room for the concept, and the abilities don't help; 3) Horizon Walker: the bonuses in some terrains are fantastic and in others completely "meh"; 4) Master Chymist: Classic Jekyll & Hyde alchemist; 5) Master Spy: I liked this more than I thought I would, and could see it used for a lot of NPCs or maybe a PC (in just the right campaign). Gets clever and useful foils to most means of detection, but abilities come on line much later than they should for most adventures; 6) Rage prophet: Not impressive. 7) Stalwart Defender: Good, cool abilities that fit the theme, and a good capstone power.

Chapter 7 (Magic Items) has something of everything: magic weapons, armor, wondrous items, minor and major artifacts, etc. The new metamagic rods are really powerful considering the price, the new staves are pretty boring, and there's a lot of stuff geared specifically for the new classes, which makes sense. If you've dumped Strength and are relying on Muleback Cords, you've got this book to thank. My only regret is that the chapter introduces so many fun cursed magic items, and I hardly ever get an opportunity to use any in a game.

Chapter 8 (New Rules) is an important chapter containing three new concepts: additional combat maneuvers, hero points, and traits. [I'm almost done, but have run out of space here. The end of the review can be found at: http://jhaeman.blogspot.com.au/2017/07/advanced-players-guide-rpg.html]


A very awesome book

5/5

this expands almost perfectly on what the core is.

They add some very solid and original class ideas.

This a must buy for some that like pathfinder


5/5


The Shinning Example of What Pathfinder Books Should Be

5/5

The Advanced Player's Guide (APG) is to this day one the best books for Pathfinder. It introduces a number of (now iconic) classes unique to the system.

The overall balance of the book is amazing. Alchemist and Inquisitor are probably the two most well-balanced classes in the game, and the latter is what I consider to be the best designed one in all of Pathfinder.

We get a few alternate rules that are pretty cool, such as word casting and character traits. We even get new combat maneuvers added to the fold!

The possibilities of character creation allowed by this book greatly increases the variety and fun of Pathfinder. If you can only buy a single expansion book, buy this one.

The book is not perfect, of course. The Summoner class (and even more so, its archetypes) would really benefit from clearer wording. It's sad to see cool ideas such as word casting being completely abandoned after this...

Still, those are minor problems in comparison to all the good stuff that is included in the APG, and the book still deserves its 5-star rating.


1 to 5 of 48 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
901 to 950 of 1,085 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

Viriato wrote:

I see your collective points, and admit I spoke with haste. I guess I was just mildly disappointed that this book didn't really provide my current shield fighter with the zomgawesome options I was expecting, and that a number of those clash with the 3.5 material I am still using.

As for the tower shield, good thing I stopped using it, as apparently I was doing it all wrong. The feat description itself doesn't really state it, and the official Pathfinder SRD lists the Tower Proficiency Feat as - and I quote - no penalties on attack rolls when using a tower shield.

Odd. Here's what I found, from the PFSRD:

Tower Shield Proficiency (Combat)

You are trained in how to properly use a tower shield.

Prerequisite: Shield Proficiency.

Benefit: When you use a tower shield, the shield's armor check penalty only applies to Strength and Dexterity-based skills.

Normal: A character using a shield with which he is not proficient takes the shield's armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all skill checks that involve moving, including Ride.

Special: Fighters automatically have Tower Shield Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it.

And from the tower shield item description:

When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a –2 penalty on attack rolls because of the shield's encumbrance.

The TS Prof feat just repeats the text from the armor and shields proficiency section, when it describes the consequences of non-proficiency in armor and shields.

Tower Shield is interesting, but I don't think I've ever played a 3rd Ed character who used one, just because I didn't want to take the penalties for it. There are advantages, of course, like being able to use it for cover, and some of the shield fighter's and phalanx fighter's abilities work better with a tower shield, which was intentional, because I wanted there to be a little more love for the tower shield in the game.


In fact, the cover, expecially used with prepared action, was the best, smart use for towershields.

remember that Tower Shield can be dropped quickly. Advance with cover, and drop and start the slaughter was one option in certain situations.

Nevertheless, with this new class features, things could change in better..


Jason Nelson wrote:


Odd. Here's what I found, from the PFSRD:

[ooc]Tower Shield Proficiency (Combat)

...

The TS Prof feat just repeats the text from the armor and shields proficiency section, when it describes the consequences of non-proficiency in armor and shields.

If you look at the feat's brief description here, you'll notice it says "No penalties on attack rolls when using a tower shield", which is how I always interpreted it. In hindsight, it's actually a bit misleading:

- A character uses a tower shield without being proficient in it. He takes the shield's armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all skill checks that involve moving.
- A character uses a tower shield with the due proficiency. The shield's armor check penalty only applies to Strength and Dexterity-based skills.

See what I mean? The way I read it, the only part also applied to the penalty on attack rolls. Which is how I've always played it, rejoicing in the fact that the Fighter, as a weapons expert par exellance, finally got his due and an edge over other shieldbearers by being already proficient in the Tower Shield.

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

Viriato wrote:
Jason Nelson wrote:


Odd. Here's what I found, from the PFSRD:

[ooc]Tower Shield Proficiency (Combat)

...

The TS Prof feat just repeats the text from the armor and shields proficiency section, when it describes the consequences of non-proficiency in armor and shields.

If you look at the feat's brief description here, you'll notice it says "No penalties on attack rolls when using a tower shield", which is how I always interpreted it. In hindsight, it's actually a bit misleading:

- A character uses a tower shield without being proficient in it. He takes the shield's armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all skill checks that involve moving.
- A character uses a tower shield with the due proficiency. The shield's armor check penalty only applies to Strength and Dexterity-based skills.

See what I mean? The way I read it, the only part also applied to the penalty on attack rolls. Which is how I've always played it, rejoicing in the fact that the Fighter, as a weapons expert par exellance, finally got his due and an edge over other shieldbearers by being already proficient in the Tower Shield.

Here's the cut and paste from the page you linked. I'm still not seeing where it says "no penalties on attack rolls when using a tower shield."

Quote:

Tower Shield Proficiency (Combat)

You are trained in how to properly use a tower shield.

Prerequisite: Shield Proficiency.

Benefit: When you use a tower shield, the shield's armor check penalty only applies to Strength and Dexterity-based skills.

Normal: A character using a shield with which he is not proficient takes the shield's armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all skill checks that involve moving, including Ride.

Special: Fighters automatically have Tower Shield Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it.

The "Benefit" does say that "the shield's ACP only applies to STR/DEX skills," but I'm not seeing the part where it talks about ignoring the -2 attack roll penalty being ignored. You just got the "flat -2" crossed up with the "if you're not proficient, -ACP to hit" - one doesn't replace the other; they BOTH apply separately. Prof only gets rid of the latter, not the former.

Anyway, regardless, fighters do get a leg up by getting this as a free feat, which nobody else does. And, as you noted, the shield fighter or phalanx fighter (now I can't remember which one) does explicitly reduce this attack roll penalty. So you got that goin for ya. :)


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

He was looking at the feat table on page 116 of the Core Rules where it says:

Tower Shield Proficiency*
No penalties on attack rolls when using a tower shield.

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required.
Justin Franklin wrote:

He was looking at the feat table on page 116 of the Core Rules where it says:

Tower Shield Proficiency*
No penalties on attack rolls when using a tower shield.

AHA!

Thanks for that. I was seriously puzzled, because I was not seeing that text anywhere.

Yes, we know the rule of thumb is "text > table," but if you see what seems like a self-explanatory note in a table, you might not think it necessary to look any deeper than that.


Jason Nelson wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:

He was looking at the feat table on page 116 of the Core Rules where it says:

Tower Shield Proficiency*
No penalties on attack rolls when using a tower shield.

AHA!

Thanks for that. I was seriously puzzled, because I was not seeing that text anywhere.

Yes, we know the rule of thumb is "text > table," but if you see what seems like a self-explanatory note in a table, you might not think it necessary to look any deeper than that.

Talking about a similar issue, the table entry for Perfect Strike reads

Quote:
Roll twice for unarmed strikes and take the better roll

while the text for Perfect Strike reads

Quote:

You must use one of

the following weapons to make the attack: kama, nunchaku,
quarterstaff, sai, and siangham

Always making sure to get their hopes up before they get there, huh?

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Card Game, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

... and on the opposite way, the text for cosmopolitan is 'gain two new languages' which is relatively meh, but the actual feat gives you two languages and two mental stat skills as class skills, which is much more impressive. If the text had been gain extra languages and class skills it would have been far more interesting and I'd have probably jumped straight to it for a read!

Shadow Lodge

Ok, this might sound like a weird question, but how big is the pdf file? I'm hoping to buy it tonight and wondered if I'd want to go somewhere with a faster internet connection or not (depending on its size). Thanks.


Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
Ok, this might sound like a weird question, but how big is the pdf file?

53.4 MB

Shadow Lodge

Ambrus wrote:
Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
Ok, this might sound like a weird question, but how big is the pdf file?
53.4 MB

Thanks Ambrus, appreciate it.


I gotta say, seeing as how my only character at the moment is a gnome sorcerer, I'm disappointed that there aren't any favored class options for him. I would have thought it a given seeing as gnomes are an innately magical race with a bonus to charisma.

All in all the choice of which races received which favored class bonuses seems somewhat arbitrary (half-orcs favor sorcerer, really?). Since the core rules allow players to choose their characters' favored class freely, shouldn't the APG reflect that too? I would have preferred that all the races be treated as humans; with a favored class option for every base class. Seeing as how a human sorcerer now has the means to gain an extra 20 spells known during his career, I can't help but think that my gnome got cheated.

Meh.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Downloaded it and quickly flew through it. Looks great, but I can't find in it where it mentions starting ages for the new base classes. Did I miss it somewhere?

Dark Archive

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
blu4lyf wrote:
Downloaded it and quickly flew through it. Looks great, but I can't find in it where it mentions starting ages for the new base classes. Did I miss it somewhere?

Good question. There's certainly no entry in the index for "starting age", or even just "age", the way there is in the Core Rulebook.


Ambrus wrote:

I gotta say, seeing as how my only character at the moment is a gnome sorcerer, I'm disappointed that there aren't any favored class options for him. I would have thought it a given seeing as gnomes are an innately magical race with a bonus to charisma.

All in all the choice of which races received which favored class bonuses seems somewhat arbitrary (half-orcs favor sorcerer, really?). Since the core rules allow players to choose their characters' favored class freely, shouldn't the APG reflect that too? I would have preferred that all the races be treated as humans; with a favored class option for every base class. Seeing as how a human sorcerer now has the means to gain an extra 20 spells known during his career, I can't help but think that my gnome got cheated.

Meh.

I've gotta figure you've read this...?

http://paizo.com/store/downloads/pathfinder/pathfinderCompanion/pathfinderR PG/v5748btpy8dmh&source=search

I haven't, but presume it as some gnomish stuff of value.


Has anyone noted how the inquisitor's slayer, and true judgment ability mention how the bonuses from judgment still work in rounds while the judgment ability mentions nothing about rounds being used.
I remember while in the beta the Inquisitor's judgment started at a +1 and increased every round but it seems that was taken out however it looks like the two aforementioned abilities weren't changed to reflect this.

If I'm wrong can someone explain what im missing

Grand Lodge

Michael Klawitter wrote:

Has anyone noted how the inquisitor's slayer, and true judgment ability mention how the bonuses from judgment still work in rounds while the judgment ability mentions nothing about rounds being used.

I remember while in the beta the Inquisitor's judgment started at a +1 and increased every round but it seems that was taken out however it looks like the two aforementioned abilities weren't changed to reflect this.

If I'm wrong can someone explain what im missing

The lvl 2 Inquisitor's spell "Flames of the Faithful" also mentions the increasing bonus, on p. 222

Dark Archive

Picked up my copy at my FLGS. W00t!

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Ambrus wrote:

I gotta say, seeing as how my only character at the moment is a gnome sorcerer, I'm disappointed that there aren't any favored class options for him. I would have thought it a given seeing as gnomes are an innately magical race with a bonus to charisma.

<snip>

Meh.

The current theory is that the gnomes are already 'the best' at sorcerer because of the charisma bonus and didn't need a more favoured approach.

Kind of like how in 3.x the Elan charisma penalty kept them from being the race best suited to Wilders. Else their powers meshed too well.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Matthew Morris wrote:
Ambrus wrote:

I gotta say, seeing as how my only character at the moment is a gnome sorcerer, I'm disappointed that there aren't any favored class options for him. I would have thought it a given seeing as gnomes are an innately magical race with a bonus to charisma.

<snip>

Meh.

The current theory is that the gnomes are already 'the best' at sorcerer because of the charisma bonus and didn't need a more favoured approach.

Kind of like how in 3.x the Elan charisma penalty kept them from being the race best suited to Wilders. Else their powers meshed too well.

Well, the humans got a +2 CHA bonus, too ( if they want ), so what's the reason they get a fantastic special and the gnomes and halflings get none? ^^


Jason Nelson wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:

He was looking at the feat table on page 116 of the Core Rules where it says:

Tower Shield Proficiency*
No penalties on attack rolls when using a tower shield.

AHA!

Thanks for that. I was seriously puzzled, because I was not seeing that text anywhere.

Yes, we know the rule of thumb is "text > table," but if you see what seems like a self-explanatory note in a table, you might not think it necessary to look any deeper than that.

So the table description is not misleading; it's just plain wrong. And as the text itself doesn't explicitly state that the penalty on attack rolls is also cancelled out, one can be led to false assumptions. *sigh* Goodbye tower shield fighter...

Thanks for clarifying my point, Justin Franklin.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Viriato wrote:
Jason Nelson wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:

He was looking at the feat table on page 116 of the Core Rules where it says:

Tower Shield Proficiency*
No penalties on attack rolls when using a tower shield.

AHA!

Thanks for that. I was seriously puzzled, because I was not seeing that text anywhere.

Yes, we know the rule of thumb is "text > table," but if you see what seems like a self-explanatory note in a table, you might not think it necessary to look any deeper than that.

So the table description is not misleading; it's just plain wrong. And as the text itself doesn't explicitly state that the penalty on attack rolls is also cancelled out, one can be led to false assumptions. *sigh* Goodbye tower shield fighter...

Thanks for clarifying my point, Justin Franklin.

Always glad to help.


Matthew Morris wrote:
The current theory is that the gnomes are already 'the best' at sorcerer because of the charisma bonus and didn't need a more favoured approach.

No offence intended, but that theory seems flawed. With a +2 to Charisma, bonus feat and an extra spell known per level humans are clearly the penultimate sorcerers. A gnome (or any other race for that matter) compares poorly next to the human's extra spells.

The APG offers all manner of great options for a great many character, so it'll certainly be popular. I'm simply saying that the lack of options for my character (who already has a bloodline and so can't benefit from any of the new ones) has left me rather disappointed by this much anticipated book.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Card Game, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
magnuskn wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Ambrus wrote:

I gotta say, seeing as how my only character at the moment is a gnome sorcerer, I'm disappointed that there aren't any favored class options for him. I would have thought it a given seeing as gnomes are an innately magical race with a bonus to charisma.

<snip>

Meh.

The current theory is that the gnomes are already 'the best' at sorcerer because of the charisma bonus and didn't need a more favoured approach.

Kind of like how in 3.x the Elan charisma penalty kept them from being the race best suited to Wilders. Else their powers meshed too well.

Well, the humans got a +2 CHA bonus, too ( if they want ), so what's the reason they get a fantastic special and the gnomes and halflings get none? ^^

Gnomes get bonus Cha, bonus Con, a penalty to a dump stat (Str) Small size, a bonus on illusion magic (that as of the APG can become a bonus on a couple of other magics). All of this adds up. Sure, the feat and skill for a Human is nice, but it doesn't add up to all that.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Enlight_Bystand wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Ambrus wrote:

I gotta say, seeing as how my only character at the moment is a gnome sorcerer, I'm disappointed that there aren't any favored class options for him. I would have thought it a given seeing as gnomes are an innately magical race with a bonus to charisma.

<snip>

Meh.

The current theory is that the gnomes are already 'the best' at sorcerer because of the charisma bonus and didn't need a more favoured approach.

Kind of like how in 3.x the Elan charisma penalty kept them from being the race best suited to Wilders. Else their powers meshed too well.

Well, the humans got a +2 CHA bonus, too ( if they want ), so what's the reason they get a fantastic special and the gnomes and halflings get none? ^^
Gnomes get bonus Cha, bonus Con, a penalty to a dump stat (Str) Small size, a bonus on illusion magic (that as of the APG can become a bonus on a couple of other magics). All of this adds up. Sure, the feat and skill for a Human is nice, but it doesn't add up to all that.

Of course there is nothing stopping you from giving the Gnome Sorcerer the same favored class option as the human as a house rule. (Also I wouldn't be surprised if we see an option like this in Ultimate Magic).


Enlight_Bystand wrote:
All of this adds up. Sure, the feat and skill for a Human is nice, but it doesn't add up to all that.

Gnomes used to be a good choice for sorcerer; on par with humans. But tallying it all up I'd gladly trade in the gnome's various racial traits for an extra spell known per class level. Spells known are what matters most to sorcerers.

Justin Franklin wrote:
Of course there is nothing stopping you from giving the Gnome Sorcerer the same favored class option as the human as a house rule.

Except that I'm the player, not the GM.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ambrus wrote:


Justin Franklin wrote:
Of course there is nothing stopping you from giving the Gnome Sorcerer the same favored class option as the human as a house rule.
Except that I'm the player, not the GM.

Right well there is that.....


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ambrus wrote:
Enlight_Bystand wrote:
All of this adds up. Sure, the feat and skill for a Human is nice, but it doesn't add up to all that.

Gnomes used to be a good choice for sorcerer; on par with humans. But tallying it all up I'd gladly trade in the gnome's various racial traits for an extra spell known per class level. Spells known are what matters most to sorcerers.

Justin Franklin wrote:
Of course there is nothing stopping you from giving the Gnome Sorcerer the same favored class option as the human as a house rule.
Except that I'm the player, not the GM.

Then talk to your GM. I am both a GM and a player in two different campaigns. As a player, my character is a human Sorcerer, so I'm fine. In the campaign I am running as a GM, I got a gnome Sorcerer. I am giving him the option for this bonus, because I don't want to punish him for his selection of race. It's unusual as is that someone chooses to play a gnome.


magnuskn wrote:
In the campaign I am running as a GM, I got a gnome Sorcerer. I am giving him the option for this bonus, because I don't want to punish him for his selection of race. It's unusual as is that someone chooses to play a gnome.

This strikes me as sort of funny. Now that the APG has been released, it seems that the perception is that any player selecting anything other than human for a sorcerer character is being "punished". I can't dispute that cause that's how I see it too. The human's favored class bonus is clearly superior to any others a sorcerer character could choose.

I'm curious; say, if a few weeks ago, your player had approached you and asked you whether, instead of a bonus skill or hit point, his gnome could gain an extra spell known each level, would you have believed it to be a fair and balanced trade off? It hadn't occurred to me to ask my GM because it hardly seems fair to equate spells known with hit or skill points.

First off, I'm of the opinion that the sorcerer class needs more spells known. The human's favored class bonus is one way to achieve that, though it leaves sorcerers of all other races out in the proverbial cold. Certainly it'd be easy to grant the same opportunity to all other races, but where does one draw the line? What's to stop a GM from house ruling all of the races' favoured class bonuses so that that character of any race can select them? Well nothing, except that that'd create a common pool of options that anyone could benefit from which, when you think about it, might have been a better way to present such an option in the APG. Simply create three optional alternate favoured class bonuses for each class that any character can select. It'd seem to be more equitable at least.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ambrus wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
In the campaign I am running as a GM, I got a gnome Sorcerer. I am giving him the option for this bonus, because I don't want to punish him for his selection of race. It's unusual as is that someone chooses to play a gnome.

This strikes me as sort of funny. Now that the APG has been released, it seems that the perception is that any player selecting anything other than human for a sorcerer character is being "punished". I can't dispute that cause that's how I see it too. The human's favored class bonus is clearly superior to any others a sorcerer character could choose.

I'm curious; say, if a few weeks ago, your player had approached you and asked you whether, instead of a bonus skill or hit point, his gnome could gain an extra spell known each level, would you have believed it to be a fair and balanced trade off? It hadn't occurred to me to ask my GM because it hardly seems fair to equate spells known with hit or skill points.

First off, I'm of the opinion that the sorcerer class needs more spells known. The human's favored class bonus is one way to achieve that, though it leaves sorcerers of all other races out in the proverbial cold. Certainly it'd be easy to grant the same opportunity to all other races, but where does one draw the line? What's to stop a GM from house ruling all of the races' favoured class bonuses so that that character of any race can select them? Well nothing, except that that'd create a common pool of options that anyone could benefit from which, when you think about it, might have been a better way to present such an option in the APG. Simply create three optional alternate favoured class bonuses for each class that any character can select. It'd seem to be more equitable at least.

Quite honestly, I think it is a fantastic bonus. I had built my Sorcerer around having many skill points ( INT 14, human, favoured class bonus = 6 SP/Level ), but I will take the extra spell every time after level three.

However, I think that the Sorcerer did need this boost. It seems clearly a stealth buff for the class so that it can compete with specialist wizards, although making it human-only strikes me as an error. I will probably make it available to all species, so that people who'd want to play something else than humans don't get discouraged from it. Although I'll probably keep it to the core races, I am not so much a fan of playing "super-special" races. :p


Okay, crunch time! (I could have sworn this came up in the preview thread...)

Keep in mind that you must choose a spell that is 1 level lower than the highest-level spell you can cast. This means at level 1-3, you're better off taking the hit point or skill point, I can't really think of many 0-level spells I'd really want to learn.

At fourth level, you get your 4th pick level 1 spell. At fifth, you get your 6th. Once you reach sixth level, you start actually seeing some return, getting your 3rd-pick level 2 spell. At seventh, however, you're getting your 5th-pick level 2 spell. Repeat ad nauseum. Having more spells is nice, but you're not getting your top tier of spells, so you have to wait until 8th level still to get your 3rd third-level spell.

Yes, it looks overpowered at first glance, but it's a far more marginal benefit than at first appears. At least in my humble opinion.


magnuskn wrote:
However, I think that the Sorcerer did need this boost. It seems clearly a stealth buff for the class so that it can compete with specialist wizards, although making it human-only strikes me as an error.

Agreed.

Sevus wrote:
Yes, it looks overpowered at first glance, but it's a far more marginal benefit than at first appears. At least in my humble opinion.

Your assessment is valid. And you're right; it's not necessarily the best thing at low levels, but one is always free to take the hit or skill points instead while it's advantageous to do so. Even if they're not of the sorcerer's highest level spell, gaining more spells known is still a superior choice though; one I'd be hard pressed to forgo if I had the option, which I unfortunately don't. =/


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ambrus wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
However, I think that the Sorcerer did need this boost. It seems clearly a stealth buff for the class so that it can compete with specialist wizards, although making it human-only strikes me as an error.

Agreed.

Sevus wrote:
Yes, it looks overpowered at first glance, but it's a far more marginal benefit than at first appears. At least in my humble opinion.
Your assessment is valid. And you're right; it's not necessarily the best thing at low levels, but one is always free to take the hit or skill points instead while it's advantageous to do so. Even if they're not of the sorcerer's highest level spell, gaining more spells known is still a superior choice though; one I'd be hard pressed to forgo if I had the option, which I unfortunately don't. =/

Talk to your GM about it, is what I say to that. I'd hope s/he'd see that it is unfair to deny you a vital bonus for choosing a race when you didn't know about the availability of the bonus and/or that it is better for diversity to give this possible bonus to all sorcerer's.


Possible house rule: You must take the favored class bonus once per level of the spell you are trying to learn.

Thus, you could get a cantrip or 1st-level spell for one expenditure of your favored class bonus; a 2nd-level spell will cost two; a 3rd-level spell will cost three; etc.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Randall Jhen wrote:

Possible house rule: You must take the favored class bonus once per level of the spell you are trying to learn.

Thus, you could get a cantrip or 1st-level spell for one expenditure of your favored class bonus; a 2nd-level spell will cost two; a 3rd-level spell will cost three; etc.

That'd nerf this bonus into oblivion. But if you think it is ZOMGOVERPOWERED, then go ahead, it's your game.


Jason Nelson wrote:


Tower Shield is interesting, but I don't think I've ever played a 3rd Ed character who used one, just because I didn't want to take the penalties for it. There are advantages, of course, like being able to use it for cover, and some of the shield fighter's and phalanx fighter's abilities work better with a tower shield, which was intentional, because I wanted there to be a little more love for the tower shield in the game.

A friend of mine played a 3.5 tower shield fighter, taking the -2 penalty.

It was ok, but the build was too defensive to be useful for the party. And there wasn't much to do to fix the problem.
However I think that It will work better with Pathfinder, a character can take Vital Strike and a few other feats to improve his offensive abilities. I'm seriously thinking about playing a figther (or anything else plus 1 fighter level) with tower-shield for the next campaign.


Ambrus wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
With a +2 to Charisma, bonus feat and an extra spell known per level humans are clearly the penultimate sorcerers.

Who are the ultimate sorcerers then?


Alternity wrote:
Ambrus wrote:
With a +2 to Charisma, bonus feat and an extra spell known per level humans are clearly the penultimate sorcerers.
Who are the ultimate sorcerers then?

Spellweavers, with all those arms. But, yeah, I don't think that's what he meant!

Grand Lodge

Gorbacz wrote:
Viriato wrote:

Your point? I replace a series of standard Fighter features to make him more shield-themed, without picking or choosing. One of them happens to give me half the same benefits as the one it's replacing, essentially making him more vulnerable. What am I missing here?

Also, from the Phalanx Soldier:

Deft Shield (Ex): At 7th level, the armor check penalty
from a shield and the attack roll penalty are reduced by
–1 for a phalanx soldier using a tower shield. At 11th level,
these penalties are reduced by –2. This ability replaces
armor training 2 and 3.

I thought the Fighter was proficient with tower shields, which already negates the abovementioned penalty to attack. Why bother including it?

If you are using a Tower Shield you always get a -2 penalty to attacks, regardless of being proficient or not. Not having proficiency just makes it worse.

This is taken directly from the Core Rules Book.

Tower Shield Proficiency (Combat)

You are trained in how to properly use a tower shield.
Prerequisite: Shield Proficiency.
Benefit: When you use a tower shield, the shield’s
armor check penalty only applies to Strength and
Dexterity-based skills.
Normal: A character using a shield with which he is
not proficient takes the shield’s armor check penalty on
attack rolls and on all skill checks that involve moving,
including
Ride.

This means there is NO -2 penalty at all IF you are proficient which this means that ALL fighters are automatically proficient in the use of Tower Shields and the only class that is unless they take Tower Shield Proficiency (There is a pre-req of having the Shield Proficiency first too).

So in saying that you always have a -2 penalty to attack regardless of having the Tower Shield proficiency is incorrect.


Deanoth wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Viriato wrote:

Your point? I replace a series of standard Fighter features to make him more shield-themed, without picking or choosing. One of them happens to give me half the same benefits as the one it's replacing, essentially making him more vulnerable. What am I missing here?

Also, from the Phalanx Soldier:

Deft Shield (Ex): At 7th level, the armor check penalty
from a shield and the attack roll penalty are reduced by
–1 for a phalanx soldier using a tower shield. At 11th level,
these penalties are reduced by –2. This ability replaces
armor training 2 and 3.

I thought the Fighter was proficient with tower shields, which already negates the abovementioned penalty to attack. Why bother including it?

If you are using a Tower Shield you always get a -2 penalty to attacks, regardless of being proficient or not. Not having proficiency just makes it worse.

This is taken directly from the Core Rules Book.

Tower Shield Proficiency (Combat)

You are trained in how to properly use a tower shield.
Prerequisite: Shield Proficiency.
Benefit: When you use a tower shield, the shield’s
armor check penalty only applies to Strength and
Dexterity-based skills.
Normal: A character using a shield with which he is
not proficient takes the shield’s armor check penalty on
attack rolls and on all skill checks that involve moving,
including
Ride.

This means there is NO -2 penalty at all IF you are proficient which this means that ALL fighters are automatically proficient in the use of Tower Shields and the only class that is unless they take Tower Shield Proficiency (There is a pre-req of having the Shield Proficiency first too).

So in saying that you always have a -2 penalty to attack regardless of having the Tower Shield proficiency is incorrect.

This was settled above, read Jason Nelson's posts. Even if your proficient, you take a -2 penalty on attack rolls even if you are Proficient. Which is why Deft Shield is useful.


Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

This book is chock full of advanced awesomeness!
I really appreciate the approach to the entire book, which seems to be one of offering options, as opposed to piling on "more and more." Kudos and taking this approach.

Thank you.


I'm a bit confused about the granted power for the new Caves subdomain:

Advanced Player's Guide p. 88 wrote:

Tunnel Runner (Su): At 8th level, you can move through
tunnels and caves with ease. Activating this ability is a
standard action. You can move across any stone surface
as if under the effects of spider climb. You can also see very
well in darkness, gaining darkvision out to a range of 60
feet. If you already possess darkvision, extend the range
by 60 feet. While underground, you also gain an insight
bonus equal to your cleric level on Stealth skill checks
and an insight bonus equal to your Wisdom modifier on
initiative checks. You can use this ability for 1 minute
per day per cleric level you possess. These minutes do
not need to be consecutive, but they must be spent in
1-minute increments.

Are all parts of this granted power tied to the 1min/lvl/day time limit, or is the insight bonus to initiative a constant modifier?

Scarab Sages

Kolazi wrote:

I'm a bit confused about the granted power for the new Caves subdomain:

Are all parts of this granted power tied to the 1min/lvl/day time limit, or is the insight bonus to initiative a constant modifier?

I'm inclined to say the whole ability is either on or off, for 1min/level/day.

I say that simply because the duration is listed immediately after the Stealth and Initiative bonuses, which would imply that, if the duration was only relevant to part of the ability, it would be the part of the description it was nearest to.
And I can't see them giving a limited-duration initiative bonus, but 24/7 spider climb.


Advanced Player's Guide wrote:
At 17th level, the horse lord can grant his animal companion temporary hit points equal to his ranger level once per day. While these temporary hit points last, when his mount is within 30 feet of the him, he can choose to share the damage taken by his mount as if using shield other.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE hire a rules editor! Jason Bulmahn has cool ideas, but either hasn't the time or the inclination to write them down in terms of the mechanics.

  • Is this ability a standard action? Move? Swift? Immediate?
  • How long do the temporary hit points last, if they are not lost to damage? An hour? All day? Until your mount is no longer within 30 ft.?

    This is just one example I'm posting because I happened to be reading it. The examples in the core rules and in the APG are legion -- it's like a rough draft, not a final rules document.

  • Silver Crusade

    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Advanced Player's Guide wrote:
    At 17th level, the horse lord can grant his animal companion temporary hit points equal to his ranger level once per day. While these temporary hit points last, when his mount is within 30 feet of the him, he can choose to share the damage taken by his mount as if using shield other.

    PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE hire a rules editor! Jason Bulmahn has cool ideas, but either hasn't the time or the inclination to write them down in terms of the mechanics.

  • Is this ability a standard action? Move? Swift? Immediate?
  • How long do the temporary hit points last, if they are not lost to damage? An hour? All day? Until your mount is no longer within 30 ft.?

    This is just one example I'm posting because I happened to be reading it. The examples in the core rules and in the APG are legion -- it's like a rough draft, not a final rules document.

  • PLEASE PLEASE read the Core Rulebook. Supernatural abilities are standard actions, unless the specific ability says otherwise.

    As for the temporary HP, I would say that it lasts for the next 24h, but yeah, the wording could be clearer.


    Gorbacz wrote:
    As for the temporary HP, I would say that it lasts for the next 24h, but yeah, the wording could be clearer.

    There any any number of examples in which they last an hour, so who knows? And that's my point.

    P.S. Thanks for the heads-up re: all (Su) = standard; I had indeed missed that one.

    Silver Crusade

    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Gorbacz wrote:
    As for the temporary HP, I would say that it lasts for the next 24h, but yeah, the wording could be clearer.

    There any any number of examples in which they last an hour, so who knows? And that's my point.

    P.S. Thanks for the heads-up re: all (Su) = standard; I had indeed missed that one.

    Yeah, it's kinda buried in the Core Rules, but I have a Binder PC in my RotRL campaign, so I had to learn Su rules by heart :)


    What I love the most about this book has to be the summoner. I can't wait to play one.

    Also, with a lil' bit of tweaking you could base an entire campaign around a group of summoners, give them like five more eidolons, and call it a fantasy style pokemon game, lol.

    901 to 950 of 1,085 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Paizo / Product Discussion / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Advanced Player's Guide (OGL) All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.