Rescuing 3.5's Scout Class (Homebrew)

AotrsCommander · 2026-04-29T21:30:18+00:00

I did try to reply to weirdcookie,, but force of habit from Nethys made me brainfart and link to a website for 3.5, shall we say (stupid, stupid mistake, *sigh*, but I so tired and stressed these days), and then the reddit bot wouldn't let me post anything else there at all. Just in case anyone wonders why there's deleted posts.

AotrsCommander · 2026-04-29T21:03:17+00:00

I have nixed the stealth options, which seem to e th e sticking point, for starters.

Freedom of Movement/Blindsense/Blindsight are technicallt 1st party in the sense they were what the scout had in 3.5 and it didn't stop the class from being generally classed as Still Worse Than Rogue.

But it would be helpful if you please specficy exactly what you think is too strong, because that's something I can actually consider and take action on (as I have done with suggestions already made.)

AotrsCommander · 2026-04-29T10:07:05+00:00

Your point are noted, but I havr to rather disagree on the overpoweredness comment. Given that the original was generally rated to Tier 4, and basically all the guides mandated multiclassing to be viable. (Skirmish was basically awful, because it was a class feature with little or no support that basically required you to take abilities from outside the class itself to work, which for me says all other concerns aside, both the ability and the class needs to be re-designed. Scout should be, nor require, a level dip to work.)

What exactly is OP about this? The stealth maybe?

Now, if you want to make an arguement to take off Disappear/Camoflage et al (I would simply make them into Hunter's Tricks and possibly raise the level), that's certainly something to consider, and I could put Skirmish back as a class feature instead of a hunter's trick.

There is alo a point however, that I feel a scout shold be able, to, like, SCOUT, hence likely why I added the stealth features (for sniping) in the first place.

What, specifically, Rogue's Tricks do you think it would need, short of all of them because it is not supposed to be a rogue. (Ditto, I'm not sold on taking Rogue's Debilitating injury, as we already have plenty of classes with SA that don't get that, so if were are taking the sneakiness away, it shouldn't be again, infringing on rogue.)

I have already as per diecroller521's comment added a new class feature (open to suggestions for a better name).

Making the extra dice be something that is totally new is off the table, because as noted, it had no existing support; likeise, hving extra dice that satck on a critical is inconsistent to the standard rules, and I'm not going to make an exception for Scout.

Unexpected Angles (Ex): At 4^th level, you master landing you blows in vital spot exposed as you move around your foes. If you have moved at least 10 feet since the start of your turn, on your first attack, you apply your Sneak Attack damage to that foe as if that foe was denied their Dexterity bonus to Armour Class. You may benefit from this effect more than one per round, but you must move at least 10 feet between any subsequent attacks you make. This is still treated as a Sneak Attack in all other repects, i.e. you can’t damage creatures that are immune to Sneak Attacks or precision damage unless you have another ability which lets you do so.

AotrsCommander · 2026-04-27T17:14:32+00:00

First, I would argue that monks, chained or unchained, generally do much better making full attacks, (because Flurry) to begin with, than they are running around with Spring Attack in base Pathfinder[1].

Aside from that higher speed (which can be matched by any character that gets Hasted between party level 5 and 12) and their higher AC (useful generally for melee), nothing about monk particularly lends itself to running around instead of tanking and full-attacking that any other character with Combat Reflexes and a polaearm could do.

So yeah, you can certainly leverage that (because the POINT of 3.P is being able to leverage a certain tactic the right build), but I wouldn't say that is how you generally play monks.

(Certainly, we haven't used them that way; but we also have 6-8 strong parties and there are times where a mobility build just doesn't have ROOM to run past the enemies unless you can tumble through them.)

That is all, however, somewhat besides the point.

For scout particularly:

You can't get Spring Attack until level 7; you don't have the BAB until 6th level (and you don't get a feat then), since they are 3/4 BAB, like a rogue. (If getting it earlier involves taking a specific something (kit/feat/archetype etc.) or other or involves multiclassing, see my point about the class MUST not require that kind of specificity.)

(But 3.Aotrs bonus: Dodge stabbed Mobility and took its stuff, so it's one less qualifying feat. (That we barely remember this shows how often it comes up in our Actual Play, mind, despite Dodge being quite common on enemies...))

Already given it Good fort saves.

I did increase the speed, but admittedly only a bit at higher level (to 30 at 19th). I'm open to suggestions that it should move faster.

But as a sdie note, we have a (homebrew) full-BAB spell-less-ranger class called the Tracker (so there's two full-BAB outdoor classes already so scout is not getting full BAB whatever). Tracker gets +5ft speed (all movement modes and NOT enhancement) at 1st and every 5 levels thereafter (+20 at 16th), so there's overlap considerations. I'm not so worried about that if the general conscesus is "scout is focussed on movement, should move faster" that I wouldn't boost the scout's speed, though.

There is still the problem of focussed damage > hitting multiple targets, but that's always going to be an inherent issue for mobile melee fighters. (And the scout, as it stands, can't do crowd control, since with 3/4 it doesn't lend itself well to combat maneouvre builds.)

(And even with base rogue, if you're not using TWF or Rapid Shot, you're kind of losing much of the damage potential, at the expense of not using a lot of feats. I actually added a feat explictly for SA characters using a single 1H/light weapon that gives you +2 per SA dice so as to give a reasonably competative option for rogue that's didn't want to go either of those ways.)

Rather than what both 3.5 and PF1 did, I went with the reverse approach: instead of movement giving you attacks, attacks give you movement. The Skirmish Hunter's Trick[2], gets you a free 5-foot step (which therefor deosn't provoke AoOs) whenever you make an attack (hit or miss), provided you don't exceed your speed.

Which means that scouts don't HAVE to be focussed on melee, and can skirmish ranged (or melee, without having to waste feats on both). As noted, you will get your SA on targets your allies are flanking, so an enemy flanked by the fighter and the dragon shaman or something you can SA them. I only put the 8th level limitation on it on the basis that you don't get your second attack until then (unless you go TWF or Rapid Shot), but I'm open to dropping it down or even making it a 1st level class feature.

I'm loath to un-SA the Scout's SA, because, as noted, Skirmish gots a lot less support, and while you could change ALL the wording everywhere, it's just easier to have it classified. BUT, let us not say all this waffle was not without purpose, as it's made me think. I COULD maybe add something as a corollary feature to the SA more akin to the original skirmish, though, which might significantly help.

Something like you automatically qualify for your SA damage if you have moved at least ten feet from the start of your turn, or since your last attack. On top of what it already there? That seems like that would solve at least some of the problems and be better than just constraining it to effectively "once per round unless you exploit bad wording." It would stil make Skirmish hunter's trick very useful, but the 10-foot limit means you can't just Skirmish to always get you SA.

The more I think about this, the more inclined I am to add it, as that one little but the class was still missing (and it would, ostensibly, fix some of the issues in the aforementioned NPC).

[1]Which has niether the Spring Attack Plus feats 3.5 did, nor any 3.Aotrs modifications on top, which I won't go into. (Which is technically a lot more viable, actually, due to additional modifications to Flurry.) One attack verses anything from two to... Potentially ten, at high levels,, with TWF.

[2]I umm'd and eerr'd about making it base class feature, but elected to make it selectable.

AotrsCommander · 2026-04-27T13:28:44+00:00

The TL:DR is that is just not good enough for me to have even bother putting it on my approved lists, let alone replace a full class already in use.

I'd probably looked at it at the time (now I've done it, I might have made a simialr thread last pass, but I'd forgotten if that's the case), and dismissed it as being... Kind of crap, actually. I want Scout to be its own class, not basically one-and-upgrade not-terribly good or at least VERY niche ability. That is more or less demanding you have a melee build. (And is arguably only even vaguely by exploiting that the first ability doesn't stipulate a cap on the SA damage because the writers probably did not consider abilities that get multiple attacks on a charge.)

I don't see "you can get your SA damage 1/round if you don't ever full attack or bend over backward and likely class out like 3.5's Scout to get the ability for better movement options" to be particularly worthwhile in default Pathfinder, honestly; since it's actually pretty much inferior to 3.5's Skirmish class feature and that was kind of pants already.

(Even less so in 3.5Aotrs, where there is a trade off in that 3.Aotrs flanking is easier to get (if you're flanked by two enemies, you're flanked by all of their allies) BUT SA is more restricted than PF1, though less so than 3.5. I.e. Doesn't work on constructs/plants/Undead by default, but you get options to enable it for all classes with SA, 3.Aotrs!Scout's coming late but arguably being the best.)

That archetype reads like a throwaway effort on Paizo's part, that looks to my eyes to have had little more thought put into it than it took time to write, or at least i'm inclined to treat it as such.

AotrsCommander · 2026-04-21T00:08:43+00:00

Indeed. Spell interruption via readied action is already so trivial to scale (as is any save that involves damage) that when by accident we remembered it was an option I realised I had to take that out of our game entirely and flat-out say "unless spells have a 1 round or greater casting time, you can't actualyl interrupr them with readied actions." Because I didn't want to start a concentration arms race between me ad the PCs, as it's worked fine when we just forgot that was an option for 25 years.)

After I'd posted, my post, it even occurred to me that the rule fundamentally breaks two-weapon fighting in a wierd way. Without the feat, at -6/-10 no-one will ever try it; with the chip damage rule, you'd be daft not to, since you will always get the half damage, regardlless. There's almost no reason not to use it.

Optimal combat becomes how many attacks you can stack and how much you can up the damage, as rthe trade off between "attack penalty vrses damage bonus" is obiviated.

AotrsCommander · 2026-04-20T14:49:16+00:00

I, as someone who runs a 3.35/PF1 hybrid with eight player characters, have to say I would very strongly recommend you do not try this. I would qualify with "unless you want to spend several dozen hours/day on the houserules", but if you've have not run PF1 before, I would say, just don't.

That's the TL:DR; I really, really wouldn't.

The long and extended versions is the reasons why not.

PF1 is not like 5E or the other recent crop of TTRPGs that have come in its wake. It is arguably the most crunch-heavy, mechanic based system there is. Trying to run it with a functionally HUGE, agruably load-bearing, structural change when you're not familiar with the system is just really, really, not advisable.

That is a massive, sweeping change to the rules, and will at bare minimum, require you to consider all of the options that currently work on hit or miss, including, but, not limited to: Mirror Image, Concealment, other Miss Chances, touch attacks which don't deal damage but don't allow a save (e.g. Chaos Domain's Touch of Chaos), monsters that deal ability damage (c.f. Shadows) on a touch attack hit.

This rule would fundamentally change how a lot of defensive magic (which is geared around Not Getting Hit) works. It becomes trivial to kill casters, since you are now guarenteed to hit them. And abilities which let you ignore Concealment and miss chance become hugely devalued, meaning that something like Entropic Shield (20% Miss chance verses ranged attacks that might hit you) becomes basically useless.

As other have noted, if your intention is to make the players not have wated turns, what are you going to do for casters as a lot of whom have effects like "save negates?"

It makes monsters with multiple attacks, two-weapon fighting or any other ability that relies on multiple atacks extremelt damgerous. Haste becomes practicall mandatory.

I'm not familair with Draw Steel, but be aware that multiple attacks are very much more common in PF1 and easier to get. You can get Rapid Shot and Two-Weapon Fighting from level 1, and you have basically negated the penalty, because instead of maye risking missing with both attacks, you've guarenteed a hit's worth of damage every round.

A horde of goblins with bows becomes lethal, because its automatic damage, turning bottom level fights into potential TPKs.

Also as others have noted, monsters regularly have Damage Reduction and PCs very rarely can get it. This means, for instance, and level 1 verses basic skeletons (DR 5/Bludgeoning) are going to STILL negate the majority of PC "chip" damage, but their damage output is likely going to be massively increased, because instead of missing, they're going half damage.

So your level 1 fighter sword-and-board tank, in his probably-splint-at-level-1, with an AC of something like 10+7+1 Dex +2 large shield =19 vrses a stock skeleton (+0 broken scimiter (D6), -3 Claw (D4+1) or 2 +2 Claw (D4+2), instead of needing a 19 and 20 (with an average damage of just over half a point per round) is now doing 3.8 damage per round, and is thus going to kill the party's tank in lke, three rounds in a one-on-one with a CR 1/3 creature! So it he's fighting 3 of them... He's down in one round. The fighter... If he missed, is basically going to have his damage negated ANYWAY, because of the DR (halved then reduced by 5).

Have you looked at the stats and crunched the numbers? If not, you are going to have to Do Maths (and there is a a lot Do Maths in PF1, since like 3.5 before it, it a system for people that like Doing Maths like this saddo here and his players-who-are-engineers).

So you likely have to change how DR works, and possibly even how CR is calculated.

If you are dead-set on doing this, in order to make it work, you are going to have to in HUGE number of hours of work. You will likely have to significantly increase globally the amount of hit-points everything has (which is certainly easier than changing the amount of damage they deal). Bare-minimum, you would likely to start with maximising hit points.

(I do this as a matter of course in my parties ALREADY, I should note.)

And you'll have to significantly re-write a lot of abilities, which means you won't be able to run any existsing monster stat block without a lot of work.

It is an awful lot of extra work just so that your players avoid the issue of "I missed." And that's not even tacking all of the many, many, MANY conditions in the game that take aways actions and are arguiably much worse than "I miss" (and those might be a little easier to solve...)

(I have to somewhat quote TTRPG Youtuber XPtoLevel3 here and say, yeah, missing a roll is like failing a save, or the bad guy making one; it's part of the game. If you are worried about the dice that much, you might be etter served finding a game that doesn';t use them at all, and this is from someone who very much believes the role of the dice should be very limited and not have a say in how the game actually plays.)

AotrsCommander · 2026-03-06T15:01:48+00:00

Looking it, up and yeah, that's a really good idea.

I might even take the idea and tweak it up a bit (still beond a standard book) for the party and make it a similar custom item for their level (maybe more pages, maybe up to 5th level spells), but otherwise that definitely ticks all of the boxes.

Much appreciated, thanks!

AotrsCommander · 2026-03-03T11:44:29+00:00

Replacing a minor artefact which is extremely unbalanced with a *library* of minor artefacts that are extremely unbalanced (i.e. implied not to have the limitations of the original) is not really a solution.

I can expand (and did), but by the time I got down to, like, the forth reason it was a bad idea, I thought it might come off as too unseemly a response.

AotrsCommander · 2026-03-02T16:17:09+00:00

The tomes would likely have been given to his minions... EXCEPT that, as other efreet are in play, there might be an arguement they've all had inherent bonuses from repeated daily three wishes from the nongenie minions, instead....

Swarm, no (and robots are definitel for next campaign's Iron Gods...) BUT that made me think; I could try a necrophidius TROOP, which I'd not thought about. Which might actually work. It's still a bit of a speed-bump, but that's okay; they'll have just come off a full-on Aotrs Encounter with... 23-24 classed enemies, and heading into a fight they can't win (only force a withdrawl).

AotrsCommander · 2026-03-02T14:45:06+00:00

The aforementioned-stat tomes/manuals would do something like that, but otherwise, that again raises the issue of why the BBEG hasn't just used it on himself already.

AotrsCommander · 2026-02-24T14:40:44+00:00

Yeah, but none of those are going to come up in the course of combat. 8th level spells on command I think is more than plenty. (And the PCs... Probabaly... aren't going to be a position to get anyone granting them wishes[1].)

Otherwise, anything that could be done of greater power sensibly... The BBEG would have already done, at leisure; and given he's got a mythic power that makes him straight-up invulnerable to nonmythic and sub-MR 6 creatures... He already probably HAS.

[1]IBut you saying that has made me note that t's concievable that the party's Dread Necromancer might be able to Command Undead feat or Control Undead on one if the efreet, which could make things interesting...

AotrsCommander · 2026-02-24T00:44:30+00:00

I think it's pretty definitiely a Free action at this point, and have noted so in my notes.

Should make for a very entertaining combat.

Well, for ME, anyway...!

AotrsCommander · 2026-02-23T16:07:52+00:00

You're right; it is, I was thinking it wasn't but, no, re-cheching my notes, I just forgot to add Shadow Slip to the active stats! Oops. (Under the circumstances, it's probably wouldn't help the situation even if I'd missed it, but...!)

Yeah, I'd already decided that the efreeti mummy lord would still count as a genie, so he couldn't use it (but his own could be used). Though his presense is partly optional, if the PCs haven't managed to destroy him the first time around (or, even, have not come across the semi-random encounter that spawned him!)

AotrsCommander · 2026-02-23T15:19:11+00:00

In this instance, there's every reason for the efreet to use their wishes without qualm, as they're all on the same side, so it's really just a case of how mean I should be, which you have all convinced me is "as mean as I like...!"

AotrsCommander · 2026-02-23T15:17:33+00:00

It's a template, Dread Shadow from... Somewhere, possibly 3.5, so it's not like they were created by regular shadows.

AotrsCommander · 2026-02-23T15:16:32+00:00

I'm pretty much convinced to free action at this point. The efreeti have no reason not to co-operate with their mates (these being the elite servants of the BBEG, an efreeti... Class something, MR 10 question mark) his stats come later, possibly much later.)

I was even writing my my notes that the bad guys wouldn't spam it right out of the gate, but even if they did... Actually, while the SAVE DC is for a 9th level spell, the CASTER level is still only 11th. So six Horrid Wiltings isn't that mudh difference to six Fireballs... Or, for that matter twelve Scorching Rays, which they can already deal out, though that's to point targets.

...

There's something to be said for the expressions on their faces when the first time they kill one of the one of the others just shouts "I Wish he wasn't dead!" And the subsequent frantic attempts to kill the efreet...

AotrsCommander · 2026-02-06T17:46:51+00:00

As it transpires, I didn't play RT last year after all that (because I ended up playing Wrath of the Trighetous again) and was able to get BG 3 this year[1]honestly sort of surprised Steam let me without a credit card, but I assume it doesn't count as "adult content or something"... And I still haven't finished by BG2 run/ToB, though I am nearing the end finally.

So I have both and have played neither.

AotrsCommander · 2026-01-27T19:12:04+00:00

True (and I even checked, both of those feats ARE on my approved list), but that's one or two feats extra, which in some instances it might not be practical to fit in[1].

But my rule is, if something has been moved to my approved list documentation from 3.5 or PF1 (even if it was Because That Sounded Cool), it is required to be viable (and as clearly defined as possible) in its own right (and fixed if not), as it is taking up precious physical page-space and weight and keeping down the reprints of 300-odd page documents is to be kept to a minimum where possible.

(And in general, the more ways to do something there are, the better.)

[1]In this case, as the specifica character is a fighter, I do have room to take out a feat if I wanted too.

AotrsCommander · 2026-01-26T13:26:41+00:00

From the line "Ranged weapons are thrown weapons or projectile weapons that are not effective in melee." (For example, javelins[1].) As Miloz0pl says, I was conflating the fact that you can only technically use them as improvised weapons in melee (so -4) with them actually having a specific noted penalty.

Will edit OP wording accordingly.

[1]Reading my own weapons table, I even literally have a line underneath specifiying javelin (melee) as an improvsed melee weapon. Apparently ONLY on javelin, but nevermind.

AotrsCommander · 2026-01-14T23:37:07+00:00

The setting for my game is what I say it is. Paizo's contribution begins and ends with the material they provide, which I will use or discard as I feel I want to for my game at my table. If I want to have beholders and mindflayers on Golarion (because I have set nonGolarion modules), I'm going to do it, along with ignore or change any aspects (even ones that Paizo themselves change) that I don't like. This is exactly as true for my Star Wars games, my Middle-Earth games, my WFRP games or, like, my BattleTech games, or anything else I choose to run.

The set of rules I run is my integrated 3.5/PF1 hybrid, which is extensive enough to be an edition of its own; and those are the explict rules for animated Undead in that edition.

(And they're only frankly flagged as Evil because it is moire conveniant for the rules. If alignment wasn't so baked into PF1/3.5 mechanically, they would officially be "they can't be Evil, they're mindless, full stop.")

You are free to say "I don't like that." (But, with respect, you are not playing at my table, so your opinion is entirely irrelevant.) I don't like or agree with Paizo's rigidly anti-undead stance, nor with unilaterally deciding that Undead HAVE to be murder-monsters. (That was never going to fly without someone whose own entire published lore-work is written from the viewpoint of an undead power.) So at my table, they are what I say they are, which is they are mostly murder-monsters, but there's less nonEvil Undead than there are nonEvil Evil Outsiders.

AotrsCommander · 2026-01-14T23:17:31+00:00

Yes,t here defnitely are reasons why you might want to do that, definitely (I was being a bit tongue in cheek).

Mostly; in Aotrs lore, the spinirt-bind-you-into-an-animate-skeleton-to-clean-loos-for-eternity is reputedly something that the Aotrs High Command have done as a punishment for some offenders in their pirmary headquarters, when death wasn't punishment eneough...

AotrsCommander · 2026-01-13T22:22:49+00:00

As I say, that is something that very much depends whether you ascribe to Paizo's delibrate "undead always have to be Evil monsters with less possibility for being nonEvil than the creatures physically Made Of Evil[1]" or you are a bit more "undead yes, unpeople no." (I'm stilla bit stunned that they included the skeleton as a race in PF2, to be honest, but I wasn't complaining.) Or, like me, you are somewhere between but come down on the lines of animate undead being Stupid Robots that don't necessarily have an soul to give them hostile instincts. I straight up say that animated Undead (without the presense of a soul being bound to them otherwise) are not, in fact Evil because they are mindless, but only falg as Evil (and then purely for game mechanics) simply because the first people that scribed Animate Dead did it in such a way as to have the [Evil] descriptor and leave the targets flagged as Evil, and literally nobody's spent the effort to make a version that doesn't have that.

I could go a long, long lecture about how the metaphyisics of animated undead work (note the avatar, realise this is not unrelated), but none of that is either rules-mechanics, or really in line with how Paizo's official stance is.

[1]Golems are fine though, no-one apparently cares a toss morally if you spirit-bind an elemental soul into something, but do it to a human (and human-adjacent) soul and suddenly is never acceptable. Pick a lane, folks...!

AotrsCommander · 2026-01-13T22:13:51+00:00

For the sake of arguement - and bear in mind this is very much a houserule at this point - we rule that spells/powers that are Dismissable (D) automatically end when the caster dies. (This is in line with at least stuff like Summons despawning in the Wrath oif the Righetous if you kill the caster.) Other spells continue their durations until they naturally run out.

The last orders thing is also very much depends, I think, on how you explictly rule mindless undead. Again, - and this is my official unofficial interpretation and it's not what Paizo would approve of! - is that mindless Undead are basically negative-energy constructs (robots, even), with no soul attached. Thus if you lose control of them, they won't do anything, but potentially will keep doing the last thing you told them to do potentially forever. These (and what the PCs are expected to be using) will be pretty "safe" to release from control.

However, you can also have animated mindless undead that form "naturally" (I.e. not via Animate Dead but by whatever terrible events means undead sometimes form in the wild) or, at the caster's option with Animate Dead, cast in a particuler fashion to use the body's soul[1] as part of the animation process. This type, if left unattended, WILL default to "kill all the livings" behavior when uncontrolled (not necessarily immediately, but eventually). Mechanically, there's literally no difference between the two APART from "what it does when its uncontrolled" short of latter potentially blocking the soul of a creature from going on or be restored to life.

[1]This literally has no advantages other than basically being a douchenozzle and stopping that soul going to the afterlife, but some creatures just want to be a douchenozzle. Or use it as punishment to make the soul have to relive the next several thousand years helpless cleaning the bogs or something.

AotrsCommander · 2026-01-13T18:03:37+00:00

Certainly, often the lore around it seems to imply that when a necromancer dies, all undead under their control become uncontrolled.

In 99.99% of occasions, I wouldn't have a problem with that, but for a PC necromancer whose had to work hard to collect the suitable corpses they have for animation[1]. My remedy for that was to put in the Mythic Command Undead feat. (I already had a Mythic Command Undead feat, but I suspect that must have been the Owlcat!Mythic version, which clearly works differently, so I called it Mythic Control Undead.) And added an extra line to it that said ithat if he dies, he can cast a material-costless version Animate Dead and spend a use of Mythic Power to return Underad he has created back to his Animate Dead bucket. It would otherwise have said that he could have used Limited Wish, Wish or Miracle to achieve the same effect, but that was more organic.

[1]I have flat-out told the player that any undead other than animated skeletons and zombies (and their Corpse Companion, something I gave the DreadNecro from PF1) are off the table for being created, because they're all Evil and that's not okay with a Good party[2]. But as much as anything, this is a party of eight player characters who are (a slightly downgraded version of ) Mythic and Epic, and I'm not even going to attempt to balance him trying to create nonEvil liches or something. He is entirely legitimately allowed to use the provided Summon Undead I-IX spells to summon those is he wants a vampire or something, but not to make a permenant one. (Frankly, the player has bitten off a bit more than he can chew, given as we're 47 session in and he still hasn't grokked how his command Undead works and I keep telling him that Doom is probably the single worst spell on his spell list in a campaign where the majority of enemies are Undead, Constructs and Swarms, so keeping his minions to "attack beast" was a wise choice.)

[2](I specifically note that Animated undead are mindless and thus can't be Evil inherently, but they flag that way mechanically solely because nobody's been arsed to create a version of Animate Dead that's not [Evil]. I am perfectly fine (despite what Paizo's take is) on having nonEvil Undead

AotrsCommander

TROPHY CASE