Search results

Portal:Geography - PathfinderWiki

Scrap AoOs and we'll call it a deal.

I have them as mammalian in my campaigns, only they will dye their fur to better camouflage with their surroundings. And one of my favorite 3e moments was killing the dragon and breaking Meepo's heart.

They've said that if there were a Pathfinder 2e, it likely wouldn't be for at least another 6-8 years from now.

Apples and oranges.

Random sidetrack - kobolds were originally going to be mammalian, until the first artist though the specified green skin (fur) was because they were like a lizard rather than a camouflage adaptation..

I did something similar in a recent religious campaign, where the PCs were all members of a holy order and none of them had any divine abilities. Nonetheless, they could each cast Cure Light Wounds 2x a day and Knowledge (Religion) was a class skill. As other players joined or they rolled up...

Me too - it allowed for a more hollistic form of stat growth without relying on items or random drinks handed out by a strange sycamore.

This is where I've wound up. A descriptor, not a straight-jacket. And the less I have to bother with alignment mechanics the better. I will have to say that as far as descriptors goes though, I always liked Monte Cook's alternate alignment system in Book of Hallowed Might, wherein you had...

I just verified that they do in the MM1, no idea about later books. Although now I have this picture in my head of a fire elemental dying from fire, with the thought in his head that his mom always warned him that the Compendium would kill him.

You may get a kick out of this - http://www.enworld.org/forum/5741936-post101.html

I think in Paizo's case, the open playtest was an double-edge blade - yes, it allowed the community to buy-in make suggestions, some of which were incorporated. On the other hand, it also left a lot of "what ifs" dangling out there for everyone to still point to, years later. It also hounds...

Considering that 4e fire elementals have fire resistance 25, the simple answer is they didn't.

4e fire elementals aren't purely made of fire, as in earlier editions and thus complaining that they aren't exactly like those from prior editions is a non sequitor. And you may wish to recheck your source of information - a 4e medusa can still turn a character to stone.

The 4e fire elementals are pure fire, as in prior editions - they're mixed with something else, such as wind and thus they have Resist Fire 25. So no, it's not an apples to apples comparison.

Very strongly, but it should also make a point that there are some groups that don't like to play with Rule 0 - and as long as they all agree up front, it's not wrong.

I was thinking the same thing - could someone define out the various monster roles and possibly the PC roles? There's a lot of jargon in a simple 4e discussion, for instance it took a me a few minutes to recall what an Extended Rest was.

Out of curiousity, is there something wrong with reading the teasers from a playtest? Does it cause cancer, for example, or cause orphans to eat imitation gruel? Please let us know, so we aren't so reckless with our lives.

It's not about you liking or not liking 4e or liking or liking any version, for that matter. ran·cor (rngkr) n. Bitter, long-lasting resentment; deep-seated ill will.

I don't know this thread in isolation maybe not, I'm thinking more of the majority of your posts/threads seem to have a definite bias against WotC, or at least that's my read of them. This thread. The post where you said that WotC operatives were sneakily slandering and slanting summaries...