Setting the Record Straight Re: Apes with Hammers and "Druids"


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 170 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Last year the rules of PFS changed to disallow animal companions to use weapons, and a FAQ post made it more difficult to control animal companions. Since that time there have been multiple references to a particular character that have been in error, and this continued misinformation casts a friend of mine in a poor light.

Concept

The original concept of the "Ape with a hammer" came about from several of us discussing what you could do with an animal companion after a session of Pathfinder that I was running (I believe that I might have been running Council of Thieves at the time for my group).

Many of us thought that an ape with a weapon would be an interesting concept. None of us thought it would be a game breaking concept that would ruin the game or anyone's fun.

The primary player that was interested in this option was a friend of mine (going by Brother Elias on these boards, when he still posted) who was rebuilding his character with the release of the Pathfinder RPG.

At the time he had a druid with a dog animal companion. The dog was incredibly dangerous in combat. I'd venture to say that the dog was a much bigger threat than the ape ever was.

Wanting to see if he could do it, he rebuilt his character as a cleric with the animal domain (cogent later in this discussion because people, when discussing animal companions and the need for handle animal, continually reference druids and rangers who have that as a class skill, when clerics with the animal domain do not).

Approval

The character was generally fleshed out and my friend posted the concept and the relevant details in the PFS general discussion. Josh Frost, who was, at the time, the campaign coordinator, approved the build, and even went so far as to include language in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play to point out that an animal companion with the proper limbs could actually hold a weapon.

Again, this is important because the concept was not anything done in secret. It was something presented to the campaign coordinator and the general PFS public, and it got the green light.

Setbacks

Before the character could even be played, clarifications regarding the boon companion feat altered the build. My friend didn't complain, nor did he lobby for any changes. He simply changed his rebuild before he ever played the character and made adjustments.

This is important because my friend did not complain and lobby for changes whenever something did not go in his favor. For the most part, if the rules say what the rules say, he adapts accordingly, especially if he is allowed to, or has time to, change anything that might be dependent on the ruling.

Don't Listen to Developers if They Don't Have on Their Official Hats

The above became much more important as PFS wore on, but in the early stages of PFS, just after the release of the Pathfinder RPG, we didn't know that some developers, designers, and editors didn't have "official" weight behind their comments.

It was bluntly stated by a member of the Paizo staff that animal companions whose intelligence score goes above animal intelligence allows them to learn common and allows their master to issue them orders in common instead of making a handle animal check.

This was commonly mentioned on the boards, all over the place. It was an assumption by at least a visible portion of the community that posts on the boards. This assumption was never challenged by anyone at Paizo until later on.

Your Existence Offends Me

This is the one that really bothers me. At least one PFS player at a local convention, after the convention was over, came on the boards, here, and complained about the existence of the ape animal companion.

If there had been an issue with the rules, or with the ape domination combat or various scenarios, I could understand the concern. The problem is, the complaint centered around the existence of the animal companion.

I was there at that convention, in most of the sessions with my friend and his characters animal companion. Not only did the animal companion not dominate any scenarios, but my friend quite often held back and didn't send his animal companion into situations because the group already had eidolons and animal companions from other characters rushing into combat.

In fact, said character died and had to be raised in one scenario that weekend. The ape didn't make him invulnerable or make the scenario too easy.

This was something that began to sour me on some PFS players. I can understand someone saying that a given option makes combat too easy or invalidates other players, but to just say that a concept is offensive just seems to be very bitter.

I could complain about, for example, a group of characters from Osirion that introduced themselves in each scenario as terrorists and made ululating noises as they threw bombs, and perhaps I should have. However, it was very ingrained in me not not make waves against someone's concept of a character they are playing.

Rules Changes and Clarifications

As a result of this complaint, there was a deluge of players that apparently are offended by weapon wielding apes. Apparently weapon wielding apes are too much for people to stomach, despite the existence of Mwangi in the setting.

Apes with weapons were banned.

Now, here is a point of misinformation. While my friend was upset that apparently his character option was banned by committee, he was still willing to change his animal companion. He didn't take his ball and go home. The only thing he really did was point out that he got the concept okayed before he ever did it, and pointed out where it was spelled out in the Guide, mainly to counter the flood of people that don't know him and never played with him that suddenly started saying that he was intentionally trying to "pull a fast one."

Then, hot on the heels of the "apes with hammers" ban, the FAQ that mentioned that animals of any intelligence still need to be controlled by handle animal in order to be given orders in combat.

Again, my friend was fully willing to comply and alter his character, but when he asked about being able to retrain his skills so that he had ranks in handle animal, he was told that the FAQ was a rules clarification, not a change.

So despite the fact that a good percentage of the board assumed that intelligent animal companions could be given orders, and despite the fact that a Paizo staffer had mentioned this, a very strict "no rebuild" was laid down.

Even at this point, my friend briefly considered just adding skill points as he got levels, but, this being the cogent point, a cleric does not have handle animal as a class skill. It would have taken him multiple levels to get to the point to where he could actually control his animal reliably, since he couldn't rebuild.

Exodus

On top of all of this, sentiment in the PFS threads turned very ugly. Many people ascribed motives to my friend, and many others continued to make comments that he should have "known" that he was "gaming" the system, even with approval.

Other people were decrying the concept and deriding him for even attempting the build in the first place. These comments were harsh and uncalled for, and increasingly added motivation and untruths into what actually happened in this situation.

It became very clear to both of us that if enough people didn't like your concept, it could be "voted" out of existence. It also became clear that even Venture Captains were piling on with the harsh commentary and vicious characterization.

Neither one of us play PFS any more. Every once in a while, I check back in, because at one time, I invested a lot of time and effort to get it going in my area, but the culture, at times, strikes me as increasingly elitist and insular.

I know this probably won't quell all of the comments about the "guy breaking the rules with the over powered super ape with the hammer that ruined Pathfinder for everyone," but it's hard for me to still see comments by people this long after the fact maligning my friend over this issue.

He's gone, you don't need to keep kicking him. Don't worry, you got rid of the undesirable.

Liberty's Edge

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
KnightErrantJR wrote:
He's gone, you don't need to keep kicking him. Don't worry, you got rid of the undesirable.

I must missed the whole thing that made this come back...


Dragnmoon wrote:
KnightErrantJR wrote:
He's gone, you don't need to keep kicking him. Don't worry, you got rid of the undesirable.
I must missed the whole thing that made this come back...

There was a comment, by a Venture Captain, no less, referencing the incident again, connecting it to the monk controversy at the moment.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Weirdly enough, the animal companion, "Ape with a hammer," kind of describes the player character concept of one of my players in my Sunday game. The character idea was cool enough and he was into the idea enough that we kit-bashed together a vague sort of "intelligent gorilla" race for him to play. There should be a thread on the boards somewhere here about me mulling over how to make it. When the Advanced Races guide comes out, we'll rebuild him a bit to make sure we're in line with game expectations.

Now, I know PFS has to be much more regimented, but I just wanted to say I support the idea as a cool one in concept at least, and possessed of a lot of weight in the Golarion world when you consider the Mwangi expanse and the terrible ape warriors that live there.

The Exchange

In the thread you are referring to, I don't think the VO was making any sort of slight against your friend or the situation. It seems like he was referencing how developers of the game we love can create clarifications that completely change how some of us play. I don't think there was any ill will in his posting, and this seems to be a bit of a hostile overreaction.


Joseph Caubo wrote:
In the thread you are referring to, I don't think the VO was making any sort of slight against your friend or the situation. It seems like he was referencing how developers of the game we love can create clarifications that completely change how some of us play. I don't think there was any ill will in his posting, and this seems to be a bit of a hostile overreaction.

Maybe, maybe not. There were inaccuracies in the statement and I felt the need to clarify.

I'm not sure how explaining how the situation actually happened is hostile or an overreaction, since the events outlined are accurate.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

An ape with a hammer?
Ugh, that's disgusting. Yuck.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Technically any human holding a hammer is an ape with a hammer.... *ducks*


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Technically any human holding a hammer is an ape with a hammer.... *ducks*

Dad blamed evolutionist. *thows a small statue of Darwin at BNW* ;P

Liberty's Edge

Jared Rascher wrote:
Joseph Caubo wrote:
In the thread you are referring to, I don't think the VO was making any sort of slight against your friend or the situation. It seems like he was referencing how developers of the game we love can create clarifications that completely change how some of us play. I don't think there was any ill will in his posting, and this seems to be a bit of a hostile overreaction.

Maybe, maybe not. There were inaccuracies in the statement and I felt the need to clarify.

I'm not sure how explaining how the situation actually happened is hostile or an overreaction, since the events outlined are accurate.

The overreaction was to it as a negative comment from the VC. It was more of a joking jab at the folks with Monks thinking about jumping off of cliffs.

To be honest, your friend's ape with a hammer was not the only AC that was being referenced in that string of posts, far from it. A lot of people involved were going back to LG days, where we would see incredibilty overpowered ACs break mods at no danger to either themselves or anyone else in the party, other than boredom.

Large dire tigers, large crocodiles, and other companions that could solo encounters were not at all uncommon. Heck, the gnome Druid riding his large gorilla's shoulder into combat is one I had to live with, in one mod.

So, someone may have objected to your friend's AC; but most of the rest of us were responding from the viewpoints where we had actually experienced the game-breaking AC with a weapon in actual play.

Heck, in LG, even if you didn't have an AC, the odds were that you were going to be buying a riding dog as a combat companion through 5th level, just for survivability's sake.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Too many folks are all too eager to throw vitriol and accusations around, forgetting that there are actual people and context on the other side of the screen. The scene around here really does feel less welcoming these days, and that makes me really sad. Sorry to hear about your friend KnightErrant.

Quote:
I could complain about, for example, a group of characters from Osirion that introduced themselves in each scenario as terrorists and made ululating noises as they threw bombs, and perhaps I should have. However, it was very ingrained in me not not make waves against someone's concept of a character they are playing.

Those guys sound like complete jerkasses and should be shunned.

Yes, I note the hypocrisy. But that's some well-considered vitriol and accusation.


Mikaze wrote:

Too many folks are all too eager to throw vitriol and accusations around, forgetting that there are actual people and context on the other side of the screen. The scene around here really does feel less welcoming these days, and that makes me really sad. Sorry to hear about your friend KnightErrant.

Quote:
I could complain about, for example, a group of characters from Osirion that introduced themselves in each scenario as terrorists and made ululating noises as they threw bombs, and perhaps I should have. However, it was very ingrained in me not not make waves against someone's concept of a character they are playing.

Those guys sound like complete jerkasses and should be shunned.

Yes, I note the hypocrisy. But that's some well-considered vitriol and accusation.

Thanks Mikaze. Appreciate the kind words.

The Exchange

Jared Rascher wrote:

Maybe, maybe not. There were inaccuracies in the statement and I felt the need to clarify.

I'm not sure how explaining how the situation actually happened is hostile or an overreaction, since the events outlined are accurate.

There is more than just your friend that went into this ruling. I remember about the time the clarification came out, I heard of a polearm-wielding ape riding on the back of the wildshaped druid charging into battle. I don't think that was in reference to your friend at all. I think there were a couple of builds from different sources that people had in mind about that topic. I don't think the VO was meaning any disrespect or calling out specifically your friend.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joseph Caubo wrote:


There is more than just your friend that went into this ruling. I remember about the time the clarification came out, I heard of a polearm-wielding ape riding on the back of the wildshaped druid charging into battle. I don't think that was in reference to your friend at all. I think there were a couple of builds from different sources that people had in mind about that topic. I don't think the VO was meaning any disrespect or calling out specifically your friend.

This, and the build that was with it, was what I remember. The monkey had a reach weapon and was tripping everything around the druid, while the druid tore through the tripped targets. I don't remember a hammer wielding monkey, and would have been less opposed to that.

On another note, if you're near me. I feel that our group is anything but welcoming. There's a mini celebration each time we bring in a new member, and we continue to celebrate each time a member returns.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Joseph Caubo wrote:
In the thread you are referring to, I don't think the VO was making any sort of slight against your friend or the situation. It seems like he was referencing how developers of the game we love can create clarifications that completely change how some of us play. I don't think there was any ill will in his posting, and this seems to be a bit of a hostile overreaction.

This, my intent was merely to discuss the changes.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

These were the two posts in question. I don’t think I was being mean or disparaging in any way. I was just giving an example of another situation that created about as much, if not more furor, and why in this instance I’m not being as heavy handed in my opinion of those interpreting the rules in that way.

I certainly have and had a very strong opinion on those who chose to interpret the animal companion rules in a very gray way, but I’m not going to rehash that opinion.

”Andrew Christian” wrote:

Hey, I agree, that some developers and designers got it wrong too. Which is why my opinion is not as heavy handed as it was with the pole apes and sword monkeys or no handle animal druids/rangers.

However, it says in the description of flurry of blows, that it works like Two-Weapon Fighting. Which certainly seems to explicitly indicate that you can't make the "off-hand" attacks with the same weapon you make your "primary hand" attacks. Sure, it required a bit more explanation than was given to fully describe what would happen should the monk only carry a single weapon and want to use flurry of blows.
But it makes a lot of sense to me that it should work the way its just been clarified, and its the way I've always interpreted it.
”Andrew Christian” wrote:
”Jiggy” wrote:


”Andrew Christian” wrote:


pole apes
I don't know what you meant by that, but my mind interpreted it in a way that now requires Brain Bleach.

Back last February or so, there was a clarification regarding how animals with intelligence over 2 worked in regards to handle animal.

In the past, people assumed that if they used their companions level 4 ability bump to bump their companion's intelligence to 3, they were then a magical beast, could understand common, and didn't require any training (or pushing) so could basically act as a second character.
So they'd kit their chimpanzee out with armor and a polearm of some sort, and have the chimpanzee act just like a 3 or 4 intelligence fighter would, instead of an animal being forced to wear armor and carry a sharp stick.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

The thing that drives me nuts (in the case of the changes of heart on intelligent animal companions and weapon-using monks) is when people say "it's always worked that way" even when there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Sigh...

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think that the ruling was made because of your friend, I believe it was more of a widespread problem with Ape ACs in general that needed to be clarified. I think Brother Elias felt most of the hurt was because he was the vocal minority on the boards and one of the few willing to admit that he had a character with an Ape companion. To think that the rules change was because of him is inaccurate and to think that any post thereafter that refers to Ape animal companions is about him is also inaccurate.

That being said, it does seem to me that the boards in general the past year or so have taken on a more negative and condescending tone. I don't know what the cause of it is, whether because the VOs don't post as much as they used to, if there are certain posters that are negative or aggravate others, I don't know.

Whatever the reason is, it needs to stop. A player leaving the game of his own volition is one thing, but if someone feels that the community on a whole rejected them, then that is a big problem. This game is big enough that NO ONE will like EVERYONE they play with. That is part of OP. You may get seated with a GM you don't like, or players you can't stand or even character classes you don't like. That is the nature of the beast. As a player, you have a social contract to make the best of it, for the betterment of the table. I am NOT saying that you need to sit with a bad GM every time you play, nor that you need to force yourself to game with those you don't like. You DO need to do this once in awhile, whether it is by choice or not (think convention-style organizing here).

Think of it as giving back for all of the scenarios you played with a great table or with an awesome 5-Star Iowan GM.

The same goes for GMs (and most of them recognize this already). You aren't going to have a great table of role-players every table. Sometimes you are going to get a great table of roll-players. And you know what, that's fine, because they are PLAYING THE GAME their own way. Just because your players don't play the way you do or the way you prefer, you have to live with it and make it a great experience for them.

On a final note, I think everyone needs to take a step back from the boards when they get the urge to post something right away. When you respond to someone, pretend like they are your best friend that happened to post on the same board. Odds are, your posting style might change, and probably for the better.

Liberty's Edge

On a final note, I think everyone needs to take a step back from the boards when they get the urge to post something right away. When you respond to someone, pretend like they are your best friend that happened to post on the same board. Odds are, your posting style might change, and probably for the better.

Great advice!!!


Todd Morgan wrote:

.... with an awesome 5-Star Iowan GM.

Todd... I'm confused ... I haven't gotten my 5th star yet ... I didn't know we had an awesome 5th star GM in our area

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
Todd Morgan wrote:

.... with an awesome 5-Star Iowan GM.

Todd... I'm confused ... I haven't gotten my 5th star yet ... I didn't know we had an awesome 5th star GM in our area

This

Dark Archive

Did either of you take a step back and think before posting or did you just post the first thing that came into your heads...


Todd Morgan wrote:
Did either of you take a step back and think before posting or did you just post the first thing that came into your heads...

I sat back in my chair .. thought about it .. giggled and posted....

so yeah ..I thought about it


Todd Morgan wrote:


That being said, it does seem to me that the boards in general the past year or so have taken on a more negative and condescending tone.

This, or you can call it elitist or a sense of entitlement, which also did not seem to exist on these boards nearly as much til more recently. I guess the growth of the game has had both a positive and negative impact on the community.

Quote:
On a final note, I think everyone needs to take a step back from the boards when they get the urge to post something right away. When you respond to someone, pretend like they are your best friend that happened to post on the same board. Odds are, your posting style might change, and probably for the better.

And this is why I have yet to post in the thread about not playing PFS. I have not yet thought of a way to post my thoughts and feelings there without some of it sounding like an attack on the attitudes you and I have mentioned above. And no matter how civil I make it, I do not want to deal with the potential negative, elitist, condescending posts it may get in reply.

Dark Archive

You have my respect, Enevhar and while I can't speak for the rest of the VOs, just know that I appreciate that sentiment and were you ever to need anything, just PM me :)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KnightErrantJR wrote:

On top of all of this, sentiment in the PFS threads turned very ugly. Many people ascribed motives to my friend, and many others continued to make comments that he should have "known" that he was "gaming" the system, even with approval.

Other people were decrying the concept and deriding him for even attempting the build in the first place. These comments were harsh and uncalled for, and increasingly added motivation and untruths into what actually happened in this situation.

It became very clear to both of us that if enough people didn't like your concept, it could be "voted" out of existence. It also became clear that even Venture Captains were piling on with the harsh commentary and vicious characterization.

I feel your pain. I wasn't around for the topic in question, but I see this type of reaction to things waaaaay too often.

I've seen the same reactions to using beguiling gift to hand a druid a steel shield, or wanting to Take 10 on skill checks when possible, or wanting to use a heavy shield as one's primary weapon ("Captain Andoran"), or wanting to take iterative attacks with different weapons without taking TWF penalties, and a host of other things.

Every one of them was met (by some) with the exact same "how dare you" attitude that you describe, complete with accusations of trying to "game the system" or "pull a fast one". With the exception of the beguiling gift issue (never resolved, to my knowledge), these were all simple instances of "I'd like to employ this Core Rule" and were eventually clarified to function just like the allegedly cheesey person thought they did.

I believe that sometimes people get so attached to the game and so comfortable with their own gaming habits that they begin to let their own preferences ascend to a sort of "canon" and become sacred cows. They fail to separate their game from the game. And when someone tries to play the game in a way that doesn't fit their game, they feel offended.

And this is the single greatest flaw I've seen in the Pathfinder community. I started playing PFS about a year ago, and shortly thereafter came to the messageboards. It didn't take long before I was shocked by the level of elitism I found, and if I hadn't already found a great local group (where this kind of stuff really doesn't happen), I probably would have quit. The readiness of certain entrenched players to condemn those who don't fit their mold is astounding.

All that being said, I must emphasize this point: THE MESSAGEBOARDS DO NOT REPRESENT THE PLAYERS!
Obviously, the elitist pricks we've all encountered are real people who could be met at a convention - and it sounds like you have met some of them. But they're the extremely vocal minority. Heck, I myself am much less of a d*ck in person than I am online, and I'm just one person!
If you keep lurking on the messageboards to see if the community's gotten any better, it's just going to look worse and worse. If you want to meet the good people, you're going to have to look around at the table, not on the messageboards.

I hope you'll come back.

Scarab Sages

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Todd Morgan wrote:

stuff...

That being said, it does seem to me that the boards in general the past year or so have taken on a more negative and condescending tone. I don't know what the cause of it is, whether because the VOs don't post as much as they used to, if there are certain posters that are negative or aggravate others, I don't know.

more stuff...

I just had this very thought before I read this topic, and was wondering if I should create a post asking if it was just me thinking this. Not sure why this is happening either. Hopefully this is just a bump in the road for PFS.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think we all need to really focus on what we are saying and how we are saying it. All it takes is inaction for this 'bump' to become a mountain :P

Grand Lodge

Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
Todd... I'm confused ... I haven't gotten my 5th star yet ... I didn't know we had an awesome 5th star GM in our area

It does happen from time to time...when I visit :-)

Liberty's Edge

KnightErrantJR wrote:

I know this probably won't quell all of the comments about the "guy breaking the rules with the over powered super ape with the hammer that ruined Pathfinder for everyone," but it's hard for me to still see comments by people this long after the fact maligning my friend over this issue.

He's gone, you don't need to keep kicking him. Don't worry, you got rid of the undesirable.

I do think it is amusing that you complain that people ascribed negative motives to your friend and you want to set the record straight, but then you go and do the same thing.

hogarth wrote:
The thing that drives me nuts (in the case of the changes of heart on intelligent animal companions and weapon-using monks) is when people say "it's always worked that way" even when there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Sigh...

Ditto. Rules changes, even stupid rules changes I can live with.

Lying and saying a rules change isn't a rules change just bothers me on a fundamental level and draws my ire.

The Exchange

Groucho Marx - "Years ago, I tried to top everybody, but I don't anymore. I realized it was killing conversation. When you're always trying for a topper you aren't really listening. It ruins communication"

Now, some time ago I got very "flamed", first at a convention, then on the board. Enough to cause me to question if I wanted to play in the campaign. All over a spell tactic that I had never even used, just considered. (the Beguiling Gift and Steel Shield that Jiggy mentions above).

the reason I bring it up, I would like to say that I have not found "that the boards in general the past year or so have taken on a more negative and condescending tone" - quite the reverse. A year ago it was worse - for me anyway. Now I think it's a little better. Not by any means GOOD, but better.

Guess I just have to be the contrary one....

Paizo Employee Franchise Manager

As with elsewhere on the boards, if you feel that any poster in the Pathfinder Society forum is violating any of our site's terms and conditions (including the "don't be a jerk" clause) please utilize our flagging system and move on. If folks are concerned that the tone of the boards is less than desirable, please bring example posts that you feel bring the conversation down to our attention.

The Exchange

Jiggy wrote:

....(trimmed for space)....I've seen the same reactions to using beguiling gift to hand a druid a steel shield, ....(snip).... With the exception of the beguiling gift issue (never resolved, to my knowledge), ....(snip)....

well, the resolution was for me never to cast the spell, and my Bard to swap out the spell when she leveled. The final count by me was 30% of the responding Judges would not allow it to work at thier table, with a large portion of those expressing the sentiment that I was a "Cheating druid hating bigot" (for a while I considered putting that on my characters table tent - but then I came to my senses.), and should recieve special attention to see what else I was trying to pull. Or just extra attention from the monsters.

But things are more mellow on the boards now. maybe I should revive the thread and we can see if people can discuss it in a thoughtful manner now... nah, not worth it.

The Exchange

Mark Moreland wrote:
As with elsewhere on the boards, if you feel that any poster in the Pathfinder Society forum is violating any of our site's terms and conditions (including the "don't be a jerk" clause) please utilize our flagging system and move on. If folks are concerned that the tone of the boards is less than desirable, please bring example posts that you feel bring the conversation down to our attention.

thanks Mr. Moreland!

but I actually think it's getting better (mostly).

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

nosig wrote:
But things are more mellow on the boards now. maybe I should revive the thread and we can see if people can discuss it in a thoughtful manner now... nah, not worth it.

Hey, it eventually worked for T10! Maybe the time is ripe! ;)


Next thing you know we won't be able to have wolves hold double swords in their mouths and Spring Attack people! >:/

That's not a bad idea actually...


Jiggy and nosig,

Just remember that I agreed with you on both Take 10 and the use of beguiling gift. ;)

1 to 50 of 170 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Setting the Record Straight Re: Apes with Hammers and "Druids" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.