|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Well, at that price (48k), anyone can activate the manacles, even without putting them on someone. It also works in a radius, rather than effecting only a single target.
That's way better than the item as described, which is limited by being forced to grapple the target, and only works on that specific target. I don't actually know how much that should reduce the cost, but it seems like it should be by quite a bit, actually. Those are both pretty big limitations as opposed to the hypothetical 'ring of silence' that lacks them.
Doesn't Greater Beast Totem require level 10? So you have to forfeit a post-10 bloodline power to get it.
This is correct. So you'd probably need to give up wings (and probably Draconic Resistance to avoid Natural Armor redundancy). Which hurts, but on the other hand fly is on your spell list (and you get free at 13th from Bloodline). You can pick up Superstition or some other Rage Power at your option.
That's not quite where I was going with that. I mean, those two statements are sorta contradictory.
I don't. Not always, at least. As said above, I generally start with the build.
Sure, but it wasn't directed at you alone, it was directed at everyone who sees those two processes as separate.
I know what I want to play. Mechanically, that is. The fluff is developed during the gameplay.
See, this still doesn't quite make sense to me. How do you decide what Favored Enemy to have as a Ranger, what skills to invest in, what Traits to take, and so on?
And heck, even if you pick all of those purely on an optimization basis don't they inherently suggest a certain amount of backstory? I mean, Traits explicitly note a particular background element, and all the rest sort of beg the question of where they got that particular skill or ability.
I've certainly begun with a particular build, but by the time I've finished character creation I always have at least the germ of a backstory in mind. And it sorta boggles my mind how anyone can manage to not develop something similar in the course of doing so.
Fudging rolls as a GM without informing your players that you do so is, in fact, cheating. And generally super inappropriate behavior.
This is not to say you need to mention every time you do it, but you definitely need to note whether that's a thing you do at some point when talking about your general game policies and House Rules.
Doing anything else is straight-up lying to your players. Which is just seriously bad form.
Do players REALLY do this? I don't see it much in modern RPGs. I will see people playing "let's pretend" and defining what they feel their character is/does/can do/will do/has... etc. Or sometimes talking (in character or OOC) about what the PC they built can do... Seldom about HOW to play the role... or even about the role they are playing...
I dunno about you, but most people I play with think and talk about this pretty extensively. I really don't enjoy games where that didn't occur (and have quit games over them not encouraging doing so, actually).
Talking like focusing on the characters and who they are isn't common thus seems deeply surreal to me. If you aren't doing so, what's the point of playing an RPG rather than a complicated board game?
I mean I like complicated board games, and they're quite a bit less effort to prep for. Without caring about your character and the story of their adventures, why would you ever put in the work an RPG requires?
This paragraph makes no sense. The two aren't separate processes, they're intimately connected to each other and doing one in a vacuum from the other makes basically no sense.
I mean, how do you even come up with any detailed backstory absent the character's stats so you know what their capabilities are? Do you guess at random?
And how do you come up with stats without knowing who you want to play?
Given that you can explicitly drink a potion as a Standard Action and pull it out as a Move Action, and can explicitly do both in a round...logically opening a vial must be a Free Action (or non-action). That being the case, I see no reason closing it wouldn't also be a Free Action.
Which, again, makes dropping it and it spilling sorta not a problem. People stealing it still is, and the action economy is still crap, making it a bad idea in combat, but it's not just gonna spill out unless you're super careless.
Succubi have 7 HD and are CR 7, so I'm guessing a 7 level class?
After that point, I don't think a full spell caster is ever gonna be a good call. That said, a Charisma based class is obviously gonna be really good for anything approximating a Bestiary Succubus. And you can make good use of the full BAB by going with a full martial class.
So with that in mind, I'd be inclined to go Paladin, Antipaladin, or Bloodrager (depending on Alignment). All are Full BAB and make good use of the Succubus's very high Cha and Con scores.
15 point-buy is not necessarily non-heroic. It's pretty easily doable to make heroic and impressive with that as long as you're willing to dump a stat.
Which makes them flawed heroes, but not unimpressive.
Remember, everyone with a PC Class is fairly impressive to start with, and precious few of those have more than one stat at 16+...something a PC can do easily.
It does limit your classes and capabilities somewhat (and I prefer higher point-buy myself to reduce the need to dump stats), but 15 point-buy is totally workable.
Now, if you specifically don't want to deal with the mechanical (and possibly thematic) consequences of low stats, that's very doable. I mean, let's examine one build designed to minimize those costs:
Half-Orc Empiricist Investigator with Student of Philosophy, Fate's Favored and Sacred Tattoo:
Str 16 (14+2) Dex 12 Con 12 Int 16 Wis 10 Cha 7
Feat: Medium Armor Proficiency
That gives you +3 Fort, +5 Ref, +4 Will Saves, solid AC, a perfectly good melee offense and, starting at 2nd level, for every purpose except for feinting and Perform effectively no stat less that 12.
You can do even better on the 'stat compensation' game by taking the Conversion Inquisition on an Inquisitor, or dumping Wis on a Bard and taking the right Versatile Performance. Or dumping Dex on certain kinds of Oracle.
Really, compensation of that sort is very doable.
Being a prepared caster as opposed to a spontaneous one is huge. Especially if, like a Cleric or Druid, you have the whole list to choose from.
Just being able to use whatever specific spell fixes problem X with a little foreknowledge or time is a huge narrative toolbox right there. And, really, a large part of why asking for specifics is a little misleading. It's not like invisibility or teleport alone offer unstoppable narrative power (though both offer a fair bit), but being able to use either of those or a hundred other options at your whim and as necessary or convenient sure does.
So anything that gives you that.
That particular bit is referring to a specific encounter. Apparently with multiple instances of one Bestiary monster. So in that encounter? Yep.
Though what in the heck has Int 21 and DC 13 Saves? I'm super curious.
Trevor Burroughs wrote:
Potion vials can (and should) be made of metal. Add in that there's no real mechanic for this and why would it break?
Someone taking it is another matter entirely, and quite plausible.
The problem with that example is that after they threw off the control, they remembered there was a sun and believed in it again. The belief in its nonexistence lasted as long as the magic and no longer.
Nobody is arguing that magic can't make you believe things while it's ongoing. It certainly can. But you didn't choose to believe them, and you don't keep believing them forever once the magic is gone.
This sort of ignores the fact that my other two points are more objective than that one. Especially the latter.
My point has always (aside from noting that making it all Will Saves made no sense and was otherwise unpleasant) been that there are vastly better ways to do this kind of thing.
Players having narrative power over their own character is one of the key points there, yes.
And, for the record, I've successfully stopped myself from falling in love once, so that's definitely possible.
now, if you think there's a objective reason that this makes the game worse, provide it, otherwise, stop s%$@ting all over this idea, especially since this is how some other games run it.
Uh...I've listed a number of pretty objective examples of how doing this in any blanket fashion makes no sense (and most people care about game worlds making sense), makes the game less fun for many players (also bad), and that there are much better mechanics for doing this (and have cited examples).
To reiterate: From my first post on (and including my most recent ones) I've said that if you want something like this there are many good ways to do it. Just not the one suggested.
For a concrete example of this (basically stolen from FATE, which I've been citing as an example since my first post) use Hero Points, and give players Flaws, and when they come up (something the GM should note when it happens), the player can spend a Hero Point to ignore them or gain a Hero Point by giving in to them.
is basically where your sided ended. we're here for the benefit of the OP, give advice and discussion to help them succeed at this.
Not actually a response to anything I said.
Having them based on random dice rolls rather than player choices based on mechanical incentives is still an extremely suboptimal way of doing this. It means that players will either succumb to temptation or not in en entirely random fashion rather than when it actually makes sense and is appropriate.
If the player basically has to succumb some time, but can decide when, you get a much more logical pattern of behavior.
1. it was the aforementioned staring contest.
For ten days?
2. i suppose, but do you keep it every single time? I definitely always wake up in different positions
Eh. Some people sleep in one position pretty much consistently. If you wanna say people can't do that you should tell them before they go to sleep, though. People mostly know how much they toss and turn in their sleep.
3. what reasons are just barely good enough or just barely not good enough.
Uh...failed saves are a good reason. Aside from that I'd probably let them decide that for themselves. Getting hit in the stomach might do so, but it's an entirely meaningless thing mechanically, why not let the player say whether it happens?
4. why do i gain control then?
Because that's how that works in real life? I mean, you can hold your breath until you pass out...and then you start breathing.
I game terms, holding your breath would be a free action, which you can thus no longer take once unconscious.
Eh. Very few character traits properly explain failing at a Save vs. Dominate Person or Bestow Curse. It's an interesting idea, but doesn't work well in the format.
Saves are an awful way to do this, though. There are vastly better methods (some of which can even be added to Pathfinder pretty easily), but rolling randomly? Not a good idea at all and does not lead to consistent characterization.
Umbral Reaver wrote:
My motives are being questioned, so: I was thinking mostly about White Wolf games where characters often do roll dice on their urges and fears. Although, I suppose in that case everyone is usually playing a particular creature type that has a well known set of problems. The will save is too all-encompassing.
That's definitely one big problem there, yeah. There's an in-world reason why a vampire, say, has certain almost irresistible urges that are outside their control in-universe as well as by the game rules. Pathfinder characters have no such excuse.
The other big issue with this is that in OWoD you could always auto-succeed by spending Willpower. So if you cared enough you could always resist. And NWoD has way fewer of those situations, and can spend Willpower for large bonuses that almost ensure success when they do happen...again, if you care enough.
There's no equivalent of that in Pathfinder by default, and even Hero Points don't do a very good job of mimicking it.
Even in the right group, you need a whole lot of House Rules to make this sort of thing work IMO. And there are better ways to do it even then. See my above discussion about games that allow manipulation of PCs via carrot/stick mechanics rather than forcing them to on a mechanical level.
Similarly it doesn't mean everyone is inherently an evil person - rather it represents a shift in the understanding of the nature of people. For people like me, the idea that everyone has darkness within them not only isn't an alien concept, it seems reasonable: it just matters whether or not your conscience is in charge, or your darker nature at that time.
I never said it did.
The issues with this is that the experience of being mind-controlled isn't hard to get, mind control isn't the only magic that requires a Will Save (Bestow Curse leaps to mind) which damages how much it makes sense, no other Saves work this way (which gets weird thematically), and that you don't gain bonuses to resist spells you'd object to more.
Frankly, look at it this way: Even the world's worst meth addict won't kill their kids for a hit if he already has a steady supply of meth for free...and yet Dominate Person can easily make you do precisely that even if you have someone in the party who can do it to you every time you ask.
This can create new and interesting worlds that haven't been explored prior or that have various rule subsystems kludged on after-the-fact - including addiction to magical compulsion or temptation and redemption, the addictive/seductive nature of magic, and so on.
The thing is you can do that without making failing to Save a failure of character. Just say that mind control feels good and use the existing addiction rules. This might result in a Save penalty vs. mind effecting stuff eventually, but it doesn't make failing a save always and inevitably a failure of character.
I still disagree. Making all Will Saves failures of character damages player agency for no real gain that can't be done better and likely easier with different less agency damaging mechanics.
People didn't misunderstand anything. The pitch was for it to be a failure of character every time you failed a Will save. For that to be what a failed Will Save meant.
Which is really objectionable.
Now, even just applying it to a particular Save is still pretty objectionable as a GM, since it's still denying the player the right to make decisions about their own character (ie: the only thing they actually get to make decisions about).
But if you want to do that as a player? Sure. That's totally reasonable. And also not what the pitch was suggesting or what was being objected to.
EDIT: Ninja'd. Ah, well.
How do you know they haven't blinked?
Can i make a player's character drop their weapon when they fall asleep?
Did something make them fall asleep magically? If not, probably not, sleeping with a weapon in hand and on top of you is very possible.
Can i, for whatever reason, make a player's character throw up?
Only if there's some reason for them to do so.
Can i force a player to breathe if they're holding their breathe for too long?
Not until they go unconscious.
Sure...but the argument isn't that they shouldn't roleplay that. They should. The argument is that they are magically compelled to do those things, they aren't doing them simply because of a failure of character on their part.
And that's a relevant roleplaying consideration in its own right.
This sort of presupposes that players are interested in playing a character in a collaborative storytelling game, rather than winning a fight in a wargame, however.
Nobody is arguing that perspective at all.
Actually...no. We were talking Alignment, which Vance had nothing to do with, not magic (which he had everything to do with).
bitter lily wrote:
Sorcerers are kinda pseudo-Vancian rather than Vancian in the classic sense.
Different Int scores still have a few unfortunate implications I'd generally prefer to avoid.
That said, Lashunta exist, and I'm fine with them and similar examples of extreme sexual dimorphism in non-human species.
bitter lily wrote:
According to the PF Wiki: the University of Lepidstadt was founded in 4422 AR; the University of Korvosa in 4488 AR; and the Sincomakti School of Sciences in 4570 AR. None of those, IMO, demonstrates an ages-old inheritance of the love of education, untouched by influence from Taldor & Cheliax. Did I miss something?
No, that's fair enough. But it wasn't quite what you said before and I was trying to clarify that Varisians are as well educated as most people...which in no way includes knowledge of ancient Azlant.
bitter lily wrote:
As for the rest of your answers, esp the bit about Azlanti & Thessalonians worshipping Pharasma primarily as the goddess of prophecy, thank you very much.
You're quite welcome. Always happy to be of assistance. :)
The thing about that is that the Master Spy can turn their Mind Blank on and off at will. So that only works if you can cast the spell on them without them realizing what you're doing. It's possible, but iffy with something you need to be in person to do, given how obvious spells are by default.
bitter lily wrote:
Given the Raven Black's hint down-thread, I ran off to look Groetus up in the PF Wiki. It appears that aboleths likely do show up in the Boneyard, but then get gobbled up by Groetus, given that Pharasma permits gobbling for atheistic souls. So then only iconoclastic aboleths would make it to one of the outer planes. It still might make for an interesting conversation or two out there...
For the record, that only happens to the bad atheists. And not in the sense of Evil, in the sense of not meeting their own standards and the like.
Nicer things happen to good atheists.
The thing is, this is basically victim blaming. 'Oh, if you were strong enough that wouldn't have happened to you. Having your free will violated is a failure of character on your part.'
I mean, it's non-real victims and effects, sure, but the logic gets really disturbingly close to a lot of real world attitudes that lead to things like honor killings of women who've been raped. And it's not some character in the world doing that, but the setting itself saying that such an attitude is correct.
It's much the same situation as a setting where all women get -4 Int because they're stupider. You can argue that it's true in-setting not in the real world, but by making it so, you're implicitly endorsing a real-world attitude I find utterly unpleasant and awful.
It's ugly and I want no part of it.
On a more purely game related note, all players in a traditional RPG have is their character's choices. They don't control the world, or even really control what happens to their character, all they control is what their character chooses to do. If they haven't got that they haven't got anything, so flat out taking it away is bad and not fun at all for the vast majority of players.
Now, if you want to set up a system where persuasion and social skills, or even the characters stated internal baggage have a direct mechanical influence on the character and what they can do, there are plenty of games for that (Apocalypse World has a great system for manipulating other PCs, FATE is very good at making people live up to their stated personality traits), but those systems don't work like failed Will Saves in Pathfinder. At all.
They tend towards more 'carrot and stick' approaches, where going with what someone persuaded you to do (or what your own impulses say) is mechanically rewarded, and not doing so is mechanically punished. But almost all the time, you do have the choice to refuse (FATE occasionally leaves you without that recourse, but only if you aren't careful and are seriously not working the system right, and even then only rarely).
Both of those games also give the players more narrative control of the world, which makes occasionally having less of it of their characters less of a blow.
Personally, for Saves, I'd be inclined to just strongly recommend high Will Save classes for a game using Sanity. Though I would also apply Bravery to rolls vs. Sanity loss as a default. That makes sense to me. It's not like there aren't plenty of them. Still, if you want them, see below.
In terms of total Sanity, if you want it to get higher adding your current level to it flat-out seems a reasonable (and simple) route to go, though how necessary that is seems unclear.
In terms of Threshold...I dunno if a change is super necessary, really. Getting a 14 in a mental stat and adding an Item at appropriate seems like it does well enough, mostly, and most martials I've seen or built have that much.
Maybe add a Feat for +2 Sanity Threshold? Or give something like that as a free bonus to it for any character without spellcasting? The latter appeals since non-casters need help anyway, and you could add a bonus on Saves vs. Sanity Loss to them as well (maybe +1 at 1st and then another +1 for every three levels in non-caster thereafter?).
That'd be properly thematic, given that spellcasters going insane is sorta very in-genre.
This is simply mechanically untrue on a couple of levels.
Firstly, Horror Adventures (where its noted that spells are aligned acts) says it's entirely up to the GM how many spells result in an Alignment shift. All numbers are hypothetical examples and/or vague advice, not hard and fast rules.
Secondly, per the Cleric description "A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features"...so if they directly break her tenets, even being the right Alignment doesn't help them at all. Sarenrae may be more merciful than most in this regard (being the Goddess of Mercy)...but there's very definitely a line.
Note: The above quote is edited for blue-thing removal.
Well, that's why I used the acronym for As Far As I Remember.
Well, sure. Just aiming for clarity. :)
But See Alignment requires that you specify an alignment you want to check for, so again, the arcane casters are using the matrices and filters provided to them by the divine casters. Which is not to invalidate any points you're making; I'm just saying that it doesn't have to be the final answer.
Well, you can experimentally try it with different frameworks...at which point (by the rules) it doesn't work at all. Which sorta argues for the one framework it works with being objectively correct.
Heck, you could give it to people unfamiliar with the framework, tell them to try it with different frameworks, and the fact that only the one worked definitively proves which framework is objectively real. You could even research spells for other frameworks, but with nothing to hang them on I doubt they'd function.
The iconoclast part is that I do not believe that there is One True and Right Way (TM).
Well, depends on what you mean. In Golarion, Alignment is basically part of the laws of physics. It can be misunderstood, but can't actually be wrong per se any more than any other natural law.
Sarenrae does indeed still give them spells. They're Neutral, and thus within one Alignment step of her. That doesn't actually mean she approves of what they're doing.
In fact, per James Jacobs, she's explicitly right on the verge of stopping doing that, or at least giving them a talking to, and has only held off this long to try and give them the opportunity to redeem themselves (being the Goddess of Redemption, and all).
And even officially, she explicitly disagrees with them pretty strongly on multiple levels.
edit: Ninja'd. I'll continue this in PM if you wanna go further.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Druid. A casting-focused druid would give your party battlefield control where you have none, give you an animal companion to help your frontline and act as a flanking buddy for the rogue, and all you ever need for items is a wisdom headband and a saving throw cloak.
It also works quite adequately for the 'free healing' idea I note above. Assuming you want to play one, of course.
1. Talk with the player about why this is occurring. Heck, have him (or anyone else in the party) make a Knowledge check as appropriate to the creature to realize this. If he keeps the look and behavior, well, he knows the cost of that.
Actually, even if he doesn't change his behavior, this is useful information, and the sort of thing the character should be able to figure out more easily than the player. If you know it's true you can plan for it, which can result in very good things tactically (invisible friends positioned to take AoO at people coming for him being the first obvious option that leaps to mind).
2. I wouldn't re-write any encounters or outright say OOC that it's a bad idea. But I would suggest ways they could get a better idea of which option to pick, possibly OOC. For example 'There are spells to see whether something is a good idea, maybe you guys should try one of those just to make sure, since this is a pretty big decision.'
I mean, do they have a Cleric? Augury is a 2nd level spell and will warn them of their doom pretty reliably if it'll happen quickly, and Commune can definitely get you a 'this is a bad idea' answer. Hell, throw out a scroll of augury or commune to give them the hint. Or, as another option, give them the opportunity to find the missed information that says this is a bad choice.
3. I'd need more information, but PCs seldom die outright in my experience, and while them going down makes encounters harder, it doesn't really make them much more resource-intensive on the whole.
Still, how intelligent are these foes? And how much of you knowing this is a bad strategy is the fact that you know the PCs stats?
I mean, if their Save DC is, say, 20 most things will fail that pretty reliably, so spreading out makes sense if they're underestimating the PCs. How overt is it that the PCs are super badass?
Never said you were inconsistent, or that they don't exist.
Cool. Just clarifying my own response to that answer.
I wanted to chime in with my opinion about if the alignments are "real" to people in Golarion. Evidently they exist, as there are spells to detect them with, just like you can detect poison. But at least according to one developer, Golarion creatures don't use the alignment terms like we do.
Right. And I'm totally willing to accept that. But that just means they don't use that terminology, not that the concept doesn't exist.
Dvork the Brave in my example above exists in Golarion, even if no one would use game terms to describe him. But even if you run with this take, as I've done in our game, it doesn't preclude stuff like what was proposed by WormysQueue above; it's plausible that priests of Pharasma or other folks with "alignment meters" have sussed out a chart from the detectable alignment auras, and even named them like they are called on our character sheets or in the Bestiaries. And if so, hey, there you are, nine slots. However, it would be far from the only game system they would be able to figure out - they could for example easily determine how many times per day you could use your spells/abilities to determine your e.g. "power level" and so on, and in the end reverse engineer poor Dvork the Brave down to game terms. A real can of worms - as always when the game systems and world immersion meet :)
My impression has always been that some people have indeed done precisely this. In detail, with charts. The issue is that doing so involves some rather specific magic, a willingness to go a fair ways to conduct your experiments, and a whole crapload of people to survey.
In short, it's a very rare and specialized knowledge base. I tend to assume knowledge of the coherent systems by which Alignment works (or of how many spells a Wizard has, or any other specific measure like this) are the equivalent of, oh, a particular area within advanced physics. Certain specific people are familiar with specific subsets of these facts (alignment, the spells available to a particular class, etc.) and have the terminology to talk about them (at least with other people who learned about them from the same places)...but they're highly skilled and rather rare specialists and don't use most of the terminology outside talking with other such experts since it'd be pretty impenetrable, instead using layman's terms to explain the situation.
I wouldn't be surprised if such knowledge was more common in, say, Ancient Azlant, but today? Not super common.
bitter lily wrote:
Given that Harrowings are so popular with their descendants and, honestly, based on the sin magic they employed, I assume that Thassilonians for sure had the 3x3 grid. Not necessarily the Dvoraks among them -- the Runelords. And priests. And other educated folks. I'm basing that on the belief that Varisians aren't big on "education," but could easily have retained that much of the culture after Earthfall. (The harrow deck, in particular, requires master-to-apprentice education.)
Seems a reasonable guess for where they got that, yeah.
Though I've gotta disagree on Varisians not being big on education. Remember, no more Varisians are illiterate than any other people, and Ustalav is mostly ethnically Varisian...and have some rather notable universities.
bitter lily wrote:
Did Thassilonians worship Pharasma?
They did. It's been noted and made explicit.
bitter lily wrote:
Yep, them too. Both they and the Thassilonians primarily venerated her as the Goddess of Prophecy, interestingly enough.
bitter lily wrote:
Aboleths hate the very notion of Gods and worship none, so no.
bitter lily wrote:
And do aboleths go to her boneyard?
They do. Everyone goes there to be judged whether they believe in Pharasma or like her or not.
This is technically true, but Alchemists, Wizards, and Bards all have access to See Alignment, so it's verifiable that, say, a CE person and a LE person are different with arcane magic (or alchemy) as well.
Green Smashomancer wrote:
Uh...Sarenrae doesn't do this. She didn't do this even in the (since retconned) Taldor stuff.
Not even the Cult of the Dawnflower does that. They do some warmongering and the occasional assassination, but not terrorism. And Sarenrae doesn't approve of them or their life choices anyway.
Shelyn gives a +4 bonus on all Perform checks. So...that's pretty amazing. The other benefits aren't half bad either (assuming they ever kick in).
Not Sarenrae. Sarenrae may be best girl, but her Deific Obedience boons suck.
Eh. +2 Perception isn't bad and the others are all okay for some characters.
Not the best Obedience to take without a Prestige Class though, no.
If you play a class with healing magic (especially a spontaneous caster) and spend days you aren't actively adventuring/doing other stuff burning all (or most) of your spells on healing the poor free of charge, you are effectively donating a whole crapton of gold in the form many people need the most.
A 6th level Oracle who leaves one slot free for emergencies at each level and burns the rest on healing those in need (and possibly condition removal) is effectively donating 1500 gp of healing per day. Not counting stuff with their 0-level spells (as noted above).
Now, an Oracle may not be the best choice in a party already including a Cleric, but it's just an example. A Paladin can do at least as well burning all their Lay On Hands (especially for Condition Removal stuff), and a Witch can take the Healing Hex and heal a theoretically unlimited number of people per day without expending a single spell slot (and iuse spell slots on stuff like condition removal too). And both those Classes fill needed roles in that party (main melee guy and arcane caster, respectively).
Becoming Mythic is much harder than becoming a Lich, for the most part.
I mean, any Wizard can be immortal by reaching 20th level, too, but becoming a Lich (while difficult) is a lot easier than that, too.
Heck, there are lots of ways to be immortal in the sense of unaging.
With the advent of the slayer class is there still a reason to make a rogue/ranger multiclass?
I'm a little unclear on why that combination was ever a thing? What features do you want that are only accomplished that way?
I mean, with an Unchained Rogue, Rogue 3/Ranger 2 can give you an entirely Dex-based character with Power Attack and Evasion...but Slayer predates Unchained Rogue making that clearly not what you're talking about (and means that Rogue 3/Slayer 2 is a better option to achieve that result).
I'd definitely go Investigator or Vigilante for a butler that can hold their own in combat. Which would depend on whether they have a 'normal butler' identity and another more martial one or are just known as a dangerous fellow as well as a butler.
Investigator also has the advantage that with Infusion you can fix 'the master' a 'soothing tonic'. Which is wonderfully thematic and amusing. I'd probably go Empiricist...but then I really love the Empiricist Archetype.
I would not go with Majordomo. It's a bad archetype and there's very little you can do with it you can't do with a baseline Investigator one way or another IMO.
Phantom Thief is also valid if you don't mind being not so good at combat.
While I agree with your point for the most part, it is worth noting that many of the benefits you cite only come online at level 4. So levels 1-3 the disadvantages in armor are quite real (though in terms of weapons, you get the scythe, which is martial and solid) and you only have one attack at those levels as well.
One solution (and one of the few multiclass combos on a caster that's worth taking) is a single level of Monk followed by straight Druid. That gives a second attack via flurry and a solid AC buff eventually (and more than enough AC early on if you can swing Mage Armor, which there are several ways to do).