Nick_i_am

Yes, it might seem unusual that a druid, esspesally one with a 'mount' companion doesn't have any ranks in handle animal, esspesally as he spends most of his time on animal-back, but there is somthing of an RP reason for it.

Good read. This is why I probably wouldn't be confident in myself as a DM, esspesally as jerk players would find themselves being hit in the face with a meteor any time they rolled a 1.

Hmm, so Airin counts as a Bactrain camel, 40 feet movement and con of 16 with an 'offhand' bite attack and can learn 6 tricks and one bonus trick. I assume that, according to the rules, I can't start her with the 'combat riding' package, so i'll stick riding on her (three tricks, come, heel, and stay) and upgrade her for combat riding whenever I am able (to add attack, defend, down, guard). My only other question is that, as an animal companion rather than a 'normal' animal, will Airin need checks (according to the rules) to keep her under control in combat like a normal horse, or in this way, is she considered to have the 'intelligence' of a warhorse?

ROFL classic.

Honestly, who wouldn't?

this is getting hot.

No rush, i'd just like to be clear on how I can use Airin and summons in battle.

Also, i'm having some problems finding a clear deffinition for the rules reguarding animal companions, summons, and mounts in combat.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

You can be Airin

Are you trying to justify the fact that you smell?

Best. Theme song. Ever TEH FALL

You mean, horny.

oh yeah, Taichi.

Isn't that a card game?

Feast upon the blood of the living. Or cut myself. Or put on some REALLY dark makeup and pretend I can fly.

Stop adding to the relevence of this thead.

that doesn't make it relevent or interesting.

Well it's not much of a secret now you freaking morons.

Yeah, if your dudes start running all over the place for no apparent reason (except when there is a grenade around) then switch off 'move at will' because they usally get themselves killed like that.

http://roleplayer.justgotowned.com/ But yeah, both awsome games, I used to play a lot of coop Soldiers with Llyranor, good days. Doomsday i'm completely addicted to. You'll get used to it though. Hard is a challange, but easy allows for rambo mode without that much risk. For chapel, the tank you start with is more powerful than anything else on the battlefeild, so just keep that alive, use HE shells to level the village and roll through slowly and gently. Learning to make libral use of direct control is a must.

Yeah, I roleplayed that really creepy smile at the end of the game after that chick finally breaks his will to live. Oh, and if you arn't 'roleplaying' because you didn't get to chose what your character looks like despite being able to define them in game, then you're totally not a shallow moron.

Where's my candy you jerk.

Case in point.

I dunno, I pretty much agree with Llyranor, worshipping old games for their own sake is pretty sad. Sure, Xcom (for example) was a great game, and still is, but whine whine, why won't someone make a new Xcom, they don't make them like they used to, wah wah wah is laughable. Don't get me wrong, I loved PST, and that's an understatment, it's my favorate peice of storytelling in any medium, and not for being 'just a game' but because in being a game it was able to bring to life a story that was powerful to begin with. Likewise, Giants, Hostile Waters, Sacrifice and Battlezone 2 are 4 of my favorate games, all from 'the good old days' and all pretty much finantial failures, while my current favorate game, Hearts of Iron 2, is hot of the shelf, and simply doesn't try to be more than it is. What i'm saying is that there WERE 'good old days' for computer games, and they were days before console crap meant that anything that didn't appeal to the masses failed because on production values it had to compete with things that did appeal to the masses, and in the days before people really got obsessed with graphics and other such completely superficial things. Look at the new Relic RTS, they're praised on the innovation on being able to blow things up! WOW! You could do that in Z 10 years ago. In fact, in terms of innovation, a game like Z blows most modern examples of it's own genre right out of the water. Likewise, Warzone 2100 by the now dead pumkin studios. What i'm saying is that there WAS a 'golden age' of games, but only by vertue of modern games being more and more watered down with mainstream crap with, inevitably, caters to the lowest common denominator. However, nothing has really changed, either these games didn't sell, or are so old that nobody even cares, so the only real differance is that market types have realised that if they are going to invest, it's going to be in what's already proven. Either way, clinging onto substandard antiquities is laughable at best.