Druid, and other PaizoCon banquet information!


Prerelease Discussion

351 to 385 of 385 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
So to hit the Ranger (who's usually sniping in the back, away from the fray) the maximal Fighter would have to roll a 9. But to hit the Paladin it would have to be a 14. I like dem odds...

Yep, seems a reasonable variance to me. Though I'd personally bet that all 'martial' classes except maybe Rogue (I wouldn't count Alchemist as martial) get at least Expert in armor (and weapons) by 20th.

Iron_Matt17 wrote:
But then again that ignores all the Legendary effects for everyone.
Personally, I doubt that Legendary has any effect on attack or AC beyond the +1. Saves clearly do, as do skills but the increased/decreased crit chance is probably sufficient on attacks/AC.

I seldom disagree with you DMW, but I think if there are medium armors that the best heavy armor will be 2 AC better than the best light, much like it is in PF1. The step from light to medium would go up 1 representing one feat's worth of AC, with the drawback of losing speed. The second step from medium to heavy would give another +1, with less cost to mobility because a higher step should be something better than the previous.

Also, I think AC is the natural default for higher armor proficiency. I could see DR, crit resistance, or mobility coming into play too, but there's somewhat of a PF2 pattern that suggests AC.

That said, the PF2 pattern also suggests that a maxed out person should be hittable (and a normal person crittable by a higher CR), so I'm not sure how the math resolves there. I'll shift my vote to DR for now.

Liberty's Edge

Castilliano wrote:
I seldom disagree with you DMW, but I think if there are medium armors that the best heavy armor will be 2 AC better than the best light, much like it is in PF1. The step from light to medium would go up 1 representing one feat's worth of AC, with the drawback of losing speed. The second step from medium to heavy would give another +1, with less cost to mobility because a higher step should be something better than the previous.

This is also totally possible. I'll note that there's the advantage of not needing as much Dex for heavy armor even if the total Armor + Dex bonus is the same, though. More on that below.

Castilliano wrote:
Also, I think AC is the natural default for higher armor proficiency. I could see DR, crit resistance, or mobility coming into play too, but there's somewhat of a PF2 pattern that suggests AC.

The math has shifted pretty drastically. I'm not sure PF1 is a good barometer for this one.

Castilliano wrote:
That said, the PF2 pattern also suggests that a maxed out person should be hittable (and a normal person crittable by a higher CR), so I'm not sure how the math resolves there. I'll shift my vote to DR for now.

Just needing to invest less in Dex is a pretty big advantage in its own right. If I'm correct you need Dex 24 (which is to say a starting Dex of 18, 4 ability ups, and a high level item) to equal the AC you might be able to get with Dex 12-16 (a vastly lower investment) and Full Plate.


And don't forget they are adding traits to armours as well... (such as the noisy trait) So that adds another dimension to the armour discussion.
If their will be anything with DR, I think it should be part of the Legendary Armour ability. Unless they are keeping the magical properties exactly like 1e.

And good point on the Ranger armour to Expert DMW, I'll keep that in mind from now on. So 45 AC...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Well, attack bonus is universally Level + Attack Stat + Proficiency + Weapon.

That makes a maximal Fighter +35 (20 Level +7 Str + 3 Legendary +5 Weapon). Someone without Proficiency beyond Trained but retaining a +7 stat would be +32. With a more reasonable 18 stat they go down to +29.

So it's about a 6 point swing, but a lot of that is stuff that nobody is actually gonna have that low if they intend to attack with weapons.

So to hit the Ranger (who's usually sniping in the back, away from the fray) the maximal Fighter would have to roll a 9. But to hit the Paladin it would have to be a 14. I like dem odds... But then again that ignores all the Legendary effects for everyone.

Another benefit for the Paladin is that the Fighter can only crit if they roll a natural 20 to bypass beating their AC by 10 (5% Chance). While the Ranger can takes a crit on a 19 or 20 (10% Chance).

The Paladin also has a shield which will potentially absorb an entire hit’s worth of damage if they are hit, meaning that they can more safely take any damage the fighter does land on them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
So to hit the Ranger (who's usually sniping in the back, away from the fray) the maximal Fighter would have to roll a 9. But to hit the Paladin it would have to be a 14. I like dem odds...

Yep, seems a reasonable variance to me.

Iron_Matt17 wrote:
But then again that ignores all the Legendary effects for everyone.
Personally, I doubt that Legendary has any effect on attack or AC beyond the +1. Saves clearly do, as do skills but the increased/decreased crit chance is probably sufficient on attacks/AC.

Then what does it mean to be Legendary with weapons? It HAS to mean more than the +3 to attack...

I also can imagine it being frustrating for the optimal Fighter to be face off against my Paladin, if what he needs to roll to hit is a 14... And that's optimal.
I imagine my Paladin fighting a clone of himself and how long that would take if my Paladin's attack would be 33. (20 Level +6 Str + 2 Master +5 Weapon) That's a 16 just to hit!

Hopefully, he's an evil clone so I can Smite...er, I mean... Blade of Justice(?!) him... heh.

Fighter Vs. Paladin: Unstoppable Force meets Unmovable Object.

Paladin Vs. Paladin: Metapod Vs. Metapod. The Hardening.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Well, attack bonus is universally Level + Attack Stat + Proficiency + Weapon.

See; I think that is where my brain is going wrong, I prefer things in 3s, I just stumble a bit over the above combination. Not that I cannot add a magic item plus and what-not (hopefully), I am not sure about this one, for some reason all the modifiers are doing my head in, a bit, with PF2.


Weather Report wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Well, attack bonus is universally Level + Attack Stat + Proficiency + Weapon.
See; I think that is where my brain is going wrong, I prefer things in 3s, I just stumble a bit over the above combination. Not that I cannot add a magic item plus and what-not (hopefully), I am not sure about this one, for some reason all the modifiers are doing my head in, a bit, with PF2.

One way to help could be to put level and Proficiency together. Those two vary little from stat to stat. So just add them as one. A level 5 character would have a 3-6 variance. A level 10 character would have a 8-12 variance. And a level 15 character would have a 13-18 variance. Just consider it Stat+Proficiency+Weapon. It looks like that's the way they have it on the character sheet...


Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Well, attack bonus is universally Level + Attack Stat + Proficiency + Weapon.
See; I think that is where my brain is going wrong, I prefer things in 3s, I just stumble a bit over the above combination. Not that I cannot add a magic item plus and what-not (hopefully), I am not sure about this one, for some reason all the modifiers are doing my head in, a bit, with PF2.
One way to help could be to put level and Proficiency together. Those two vary little from stat to stat. So just add them as one. A level 5 character would have a 3-6 variance. A level 10 character would have a 8-12 variance. And a level 15 character would have a 13-18 variance. Just consider it Stat+Proficiency+Weapon. It looks like that's the way they have it on the character sheet...

Totally, I know that proficiency and variation of Level are one, in a way, but my brain keeps separating them, causing a problem, not running smoothly for me, unlike every previous edition has, despite my affection for the system.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
See; I think that is where my brain is going wrong, I prefer things in 3s, I just stumble a bit over the above combination. Not that I cannot add a magic item plus and what-not (hopefully), I am not sure about this one, for some reason all the modifiers are doing my head in, a bit, with PF2.

I'm sorry this is an issue for you. In defense of the system on a logical basis (though, unfortunately, it seems unlikely to help you), PF1 added way more things than that (I mean, BAB + Ability + Enhancement + Feats + a dozen other things).


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
See; I think that is where my brain is going wrong, I prefer things in 3s, I just stumble a bit over the above combination. Not that I cannot add a magic item plus and what-not (hopefully), I am not sure about this one, for some reason all the modifiers are doing my head in, a bit, with PF2.
I'm sorry this is an issue for you. In defense of the system on a logical basis (though, unfortunately, it seems unlikely to help you)

I guess I am illogical and stupid, definitely nothing likely to help me; I'll go tell all my friends, thanks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Apparently a little techy too.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Apparently a little techy too.

Have you ever seen Cruising, with Al Pacino, marvellous film.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
I guess I am illogical and stupid, definitely nothing likely to help me; I'll go tell all my friends, thanks.

We're all illogical about something. I'm still not happy about PF2 Discern Lies for no logical reason. I can make all the arguments that it's mechanically good, and even know they're true.

Still not happy.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
I guess I am illogical and stupid, definitely nothing likely to help me; I'll go tell all my friends, thanks.

We're all illogical about something. I'm still not happy about PF2 Discern Lies for no logical reason. I can make all the arguments that it's mechanically good, and even know they're true.

Still not happy.

Yes, though this brings me to my completely logical state of hatred for skills such as Sense Motive.

As for logical rules, the only reason for the big numbers in PF2 is due to the 4-tiers success system. My query is an egg or chicken thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Weather Report wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
I guess I am illogical and stupid, definitely nothing likely to help me; I'll go tell all my friends, thanks.

We're all illogical about something. I'm still not happy about PF2 Discern Lies for no logical reason. I can make all the arguments that it's mechanically good, and even know they're true.

Still not happy.

Yes, though this brings me to my completely logical state of hatred for skills such as Sense Motive.

As for logical rules, the only reason for the big numbers in PF2 is due to the 4-tiers success system. My query is an egg or chicken thing.

The 4 degrees of success system doesn't require big numbers. It requires one number to sometimes be bigger than another and sometimes smaller, but only the relative size matters.

E.G there is not mathematical difference between Rolling at a +15 versus a DC20 and rolling a +25 versus a DC30. They could have had much smaller number gains with tighter differences between DCs and still preserve the 4 degrees systems.

The +Level to everything basically stems from three things as far as I can tell. Firstly to make everything operate by the same rules and scales. In PF1E the Saves, Bab and AC mechanics worked off entirely different rules and scales to the Skills systems (and marginally different scales to each other.) So to eliminate that you have to have a unified system. Now people (in general) like to get better at things, so now you can either give many resources out for people to invest in different areas (essentially saying "here are you 10 points this level, spend them on everything from attacks to skills, with x restrictions") or give automatic progression with the option of some small variance (so things operate on similair scales still.) They went with the latter. So the question becomes how much automatic scaling? Well you can have either bumpy or smooth. They opted for smooth.


Malk_Content wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
I guess I am illogical and stupid, definitely nothing likely to help me; I'll go tell all my friends, thanks.

We're all illogical about something. I'm still not happy about PF2 Discern Lies for no logical reason. I can make all the arguments that it's mechanically good, and even know they're true.

Still not happy.

Yes, though this brings me to my completely logical state of hatred for skills such as Sense Motive.

As for logical rules, the only reason for the big numbers in PF2 is due to the 4-tiers success system. My query is an egg or chicken thing.

The 4 degrees of success system doesn't require big numbers.

Yes, it does.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
I guess I am illogical and stupid, definitely nothing likely to help me; I'll go tell all my friends, thanks.

We're all illogical about something. I'm still not happy about PF2 Discern Lies for no logical reason. I can make all the arguments that it's mechanically good, and even know they're true.

Still not happy.

Yes, though this brings me to my completely logical state of hatred for skills such as Sense Motive.

As for logical rules, the only reason for the big numbers in PF2 is due to the 4-tiers success system. My query is an egg or chicken thing.

The 4 degrees of success system doesn't require big numbers.
Yes, it does.

Have you ever thought about explaining your opinion or do you just like leaving everyone guessing?


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
I guess I am illogical and stupid, definitely nothing likely to help me; I'll go tell all my friends, thanks.

We're all illogical about something. I'm still not happy about PF2 Discern Lies for no logical reason. I can make all the arguments that it's mechanically good, and even know they're true.

Still not happy.

Yes, though this brings me to my completely logical state of hatred for skills such as Sense Motive.

As for logical rules, the only reason for the big numbers in PF2 is due to the 4-tiers success system. My query is an egg or chicken thing.

The 4 degrees of success system doesn't require big numbers.
Yes, it does.
Have you ever thought about explaining your opinion or do you just like leaving everyone guessing?

With this one, I think you got it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The 4 degree system does require big numbers to a degree, because of where the markers for the degrees are. You have to have numbers big enough that +/-10 is a reasonable possibility for the 4 degrees system as developed to be relevant whatsoever.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Shinigami02 wrote:
The 4 degree system does require big numbers to a degree, because of where the markers for the degrees are. You have to have numbers big enough that +/-10 is a reasonable possibility for the 4 degrees system as developed to be relevant whatsoever.

With a smaller spread of numbers you of course reduce everything accordingly. You can have a 4 degrees of success system with smaller numbers by (for example) having the Crit Fail/Crit Success be based on -/+5 instead of -/+10. You'd have to shift other things around as well of course. In that example the iterative attack penalty would be more balanced at 0/-3/-6 with Agile making it 0/-2/-4. DCs would also want to scale more slowly.

Our current specific numbers for 4 degrees does better with larger numbers, but the system idea as a whole does not.


Malk_Content wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
The 4 degree system does require big numbers to a degree, because of where the markers for the degrees are. You have to have numbers big enough that +/-10 is a reasonable possibility for the 4 degrees system as developed to be relevant whatsoever.
With a smaller spread of numbers you of course reduce everything accordingly. You can have a 4 degrees of success system with smaller numbers by (for example) having the Crit Fail/Crit Success be based on -/+5 instead of -/+10. You'd have to shift other things around as well of course. In that example the iterative attack penalty would be more balanced at 0/-3/-6 with Agile making it 0/-2/-4. DCs would also want to scale more slowly.

I would actually prefer the above (+1/2 level), but did not one of the designers say +1/2 level looks good on paper, but they had some problem with it in design?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Weather Report wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
The 4 degree system does require big numbers to a degree, because of where the markers for the degrees are. You have to have numbers big enough that +/-10 is a reasonable possibility for the 4 degrees system as developed to be relevant whatsoever.
With a smaller spread of numbers you of course reduce everything accordingly. You can have a 4 degrees of success system with smaller numbers by (for example) having the Crit Fail/Crit Success be based on -/+5 instead of -/+10. You'd have to shift other things around as well of course. In that example the iterative attack penalty would be more balanced at 0/-3/-6 with Agile making it 0/-2/-4. DCs would also want to scale more slowly.
I would actually prefer the above (+1/2 level), but did not one of the designers say +1/2 level looks good on paper, but they had some problem with it in design?

My main issue with it is lumpy levels. I never really found any of the 1/4 or 1/2 level mechanics in PF1E that great as it led to some levels that didn't feel all that satisfying to level into.

A fairly easy house rule to accomplish things would be to collapse the levels down to ten. So that Level 1 gives you the benefit of 1-2, level 2 gives you 3-4 etc. You get the full effect of the class features, but keep the level scaling component on a scale of 1-10 rather than 1-20.


Malk_Content wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
The 4 degree system does require big numbers to a degree, because of where the markers for the degrees are. You have to have numbers big enough that +/-10 is a reasonable possibility for the 4 degrees system as developed to be relevant whatsoever.
With a smaller spread of numbers you of course reduce everything accordingly. You can have a 4 degrees of success system with smaller numbers by (for example) having the Crit Fail/Crit Success be based on -/+5 instead of -/+10. You'd have to shift other things around as well of course. In that example the iterative attack penalty would be more balanced at 0/-3/-6 with Agile making it 0/-2/-4. DCs would also want to scale more slowly.
I would actually prefer the above (+1/2 level), but did not one of the designers say +1/2 level looks good on paper, but they had some problem with it in design?

My main issue with it is lumpy levels. I never really found any of the 1/4 or 1/2 level mechanics in PF1E that great as it led to some levels that didn't feel all that satisfying to level into.

A fairly easy house rule to accomplish things would be to collapse the levels down to ten. So that Level 1 gives you the benefit of 1-2, level 2 gives you 3-4 etc. You get the full effect of the class features, but keep the level scaling component on a scale of 1-10 rather than 1-20.

I feel you get enough from levelling without feeling a loss from not getting +1 to everything, but I agree with you about 10 being the highest number, I am now thinking of Nigel Tufnel in Spinal Tap "...but...but this goes to eleven..."


Shinigami02 wrote:
The 4 degree system does require big numbers to a degree, because of where the markers for the degrees are. You have to have numbers big enough that +/-10 is a reasonable possibility for the 4 degrees system as developed to be relevant whatsoever.

The d20 alone provides this necessary variance since you can go roughly +/- 10 from the 10 result. From here it's just relative on what number you gotta roll to "hit", independent of the mods.

+5 to hit vs 15 AC and +20 to hit vs 30 AC alla re affected by the degrees of success system the same. The one thing that changes is how feasible it is to get the super lopsided scenarios like hitting on a 2 vs a goblin when you're high level.

Dark Archive

You can totally have a 4-degrees system with smaller numbers. Remove the +Level proficiency bonus and you still have an 18-point range of variation for skills, for instance - much smaller numbers overall, but still a large enough range to facilitate a +10/-10 variation. You could even decrease the spread further and lessen the amount you need to pass/fail by to crit and still wind up with a 4-degrees system with smaller numbers overall.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
But, Light armour +2 + max Dex +6 (due to soft cap) = +8 vs. Heavy armour +6 + max Dex +1 = +7.

My suspicion is that it's actually more like Max Dex +5 for light armor by default...but then there's Mithral (or similar materials for non-metal armor), which adds 2 or so to Dex Cap (allowing the full magic item enhanced +7 Dex Mod on Light armor and +3 on Heavy). There might also be something like Adamantine adding +2 to the armor bonus (making for the same Armor + Dex Mod cap but no need for higher Dex).

That makes the math work out perfectly in the long run.

Archetypes for all Blog wrote:
You also gain access to special armor: Gray Maiden plate. Gray Maiden plate is a level 3 item that costs 600 sp, grants +7 AC and +3 TAC, and has a Dexterity modifier cap of +0; otherwise, it uses the same stats as full plate.

It seems that you were right on the money DMW. The Grey Maiden Plate adds up to +7 with a +0 DEX cap. I think the Full Plate is still +6 AC with a +1 DEX cap, which is why it's mentioned as different. (Though has the same check penalty, weight, etc...)


Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
But, Light armour +2 + max Dex +6 (due to soft cap) = +8 vs. Heavy armour +6 + max Dex +1 = +7.

My suspicion is that it's actually more like Max Dex +5 for light armor by default...but then there's Mithral (or similar materials for non-metal armor), which adds 2 or so to Dex Cap (allowing the full magic item enhanced +7 Dex Mod on Light armor and +3 on Heavy). There might also be something like Adamantine adding +2 to the armor bonus (making for the same Armor + Dex Mod cap but no need for higher Dex).

That makes the math work out perfectly in the long run.

Archetypes for all Blog wrote:
You also gain access to special armor: Gray Maiden plate. Gray Maiden plate is a level 3 item that costs 600 sp, grants +7 AC and +3 TAC, and has a Dexterity modifier cap of +0; otherwise, it uses the same stats as full plate.
It seems that you were right on the money DMW. The Grey Maiden Plate adds up to +7 with a +0 DEX cap. I think the Full Plate is still +6 AC with a +1 DEX cap, which is why it's mentioned as different. (Though has the same check penalty, weight, etc...)

Also, I'm guessing that would mean a +2 TAC for Plate armor, which would indicate for things targeting TAC, given what we know of the Chain Shirt: +6 TAC for light, +4/+5 for medium (I'm guessing +4) and +3 TAC for heavy, barring Mithral/Magic.


I still think that Full Plate will be:
6 AC, 3 TAC, +1 Dex Cap
All they needed to do was transfer the DEX to AC for the Grey Maiden Plate. TAC doesn't need to be touched...


Iron_Matt17 wrote:

I still think that Full Plate will be:

6 AC, 3 TAC, +1 Dex Cap
All they needed to do was transfer the DEX to AC for the Grey Maiden Plate. TAC doesn't need to be touched...

That would actually make regular Full Plate better than the special faction locked Gray Maiden plate, because Dex up to the Dex Cap will certainly apply to TAC. So if Gray Maiden Plate is 3 TAC, then Full Plate pretty much has to be 2 TAC.


Ok, I'm seeing that now. But the math is not working in my head...

Level 6 Full Plate Paladin: +6AC/+2TAC+1 DEX+6 Levels+10=23AC/19TAC
Level 6 Grey Maiden Plate: +7AC/+3TAC+0 DEX+6 Levels+10=23AC/19TAC
So there's no difference between the two? Except a slight change in AC/DEX cap?

Also...Why is it +6 TAC for Light armour? (according to Tholomyes) When the Chain Shirt is +1 TAC according to the blog?

Liberty's Edge

Iron_Matt17 wrote:

Ok, I'm seeing that now. But the math is not working in my head...

Level 6 Full Plate Paladin: +6AC/+2TAC+1 DEX+6 Levels+10=23AC/19TAC
Level 6 Grey Maiden Plate: +7AC/+3TAC+0 DEX+6 Levels+10=23AC/19TAC
So there's no difference between the two? Except a slight change in AC/DEX cap?

Well, the Grey Maiden version you can go Dex 10 and not suffer whatsoever, so it saves you stat points, at least.

Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Also...Why is it +6 TAC for Light armour? (according to Tholomyes) When the Chain Shirt is +1 TAC according to the blog?

This assumes light armor has a +5 Dex Cap. That'd combine with the +1 from a Chain Shirt for a 16 (by 10th level, anyway).


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:

Ok, I'm seeing that now. But the math is not working in my head...

Level 6 Full Plate Paladin: +6AC/+2TAC+1 DEX+6 Levels+10=23AC/19TAC
Level 6 Grey Maiden Plate: +7AC/+3TAC+0 DEX+6 Levels+10=23AC/19TAC
So there's no difference between the two? Except a slight change in AC/DEX cap?

Well, the Grey Maiden version you can go Dex 10 and not suffer whatsoever, so it saves you stat points, at least.

Well, saves you from stat points for armour that is... Skills on the other hand... ;^P But I can see where you are coming from here.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Also...Why is it +6 TAC for Light armour? (according to Tholomyes) When the Chain Shirt is +1 TAC according to the blog?
This assumes light armor has a +5 Dex Cap. That'd combine with the +1 from a Chain Shirt for a 16 (by 10th level, anyway).

Ok, I thought so.

BTW, congrats on the called shot on the armour stats, DMW.

Liberty's Edge

Iron_Matt17 wrote:
BTW, congrats on the called shot on the armour stats, DMW.

Thanks. :)

I'm quite pleased to have been correct, I mean, the math very much supported that conclusion, but it's still nice to see my analysis pay off.


I feel like getting dex to 12 seems like it would be really easy in this game, which means the Grey Maiden plate is only ideal for a small subset of characters. Which I guess is about what you want for a prestige class that is gonna be pretty niche.

Although, I'm glad the art is a little less lithe and boob platey compared to some older Grey Maiden stuff, because it is now the heaviest of heavy armor.


Well we might see some weird dwarf prestige or something that ends up giving them mountain plate or something.

I wonder how hell-knight plate will stack up against it.

I also wonder if prestige dedications are going to be a trend to unlocking gear. It would actually be kind of cool that when you take a prestige they give you cool stuff. (I want some special red mantis stuff!) Heh you just know the Cayden one is going to set you up with that real high proof stuff.

Which it just occurred to me that would work super well for gunslinger to be a prestige.

351 to 385 of 385 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Druid, and other PaizoCon banquet information! All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion