Fatespinner's page

As a PFS GM I would say "No."

I wouldn't go out of my way to "bone the character." I would refuse to allow it at my table. I choose to abide by the rule stated which cites that a weapon of that size is simply too big for the character to use at all.

If the player wants to lodge a grievance with the Venture Captain or with the PFS Coordinator, he can feel free to do so.

Fatespinner wrote:

Here's my also-ran for the year. I ended up not going with this because I couldn't figure out a better way to phrase the conditions under which the wall can be oriented and the wording as written seems a little awkward to me.

18,000 seems a bit costly, especially given the limited duration, and I'm not sure it would've been considered Superstar, but I like this otherwise. Seems like a nice item that can obviously be useful for its basic intent but also allows plenty of other ways a clever player could manipulate it for some "bonus" effects.

Mechanically, I believe your apostrophes to denote feet should be spelled out.

Yeah, I wasn't sure on the pricing here either. I mean, on one hand, it's a 1/day slotless command word item that creates what is probably going to be a +1 (or better) enchanted steel wall. On the other hand, it roots the wielder in place and, if something DOES manage to breach/destroy the wall, the bands are destroyed as well. Probably could've gone cheaper.

Thinking about it now... I think my actual submission was considerably over-priced as well. :(

Here's my also-ran for the year. I ended up not going with this because I couldn't figure out a better way to phrase the conditions under which the wall can be oriented and the wording as written seems a little awkward to me.

Bulwark Bands
Aura strong conjuration; CL 13th
Slot none; Price 18,000 gp; Weight 4 lbs.
Description
These thick iron bands can be applied to any shield with a DC 15 Craft (armorsmithing) check. Once attached, the bands enable the shield to be greatly expanded once per day with a command word. While expanded, the shield forms a single 15' square wall oriented in a manner of the wielder's choosing that must extend 5' in both directions from a side of the square which the wielder occupies. The shield and its wielder are immobile while so deployed. The wall is made of the same material as the shield, complete with any enhancement bonuses the shield possessed prior to expansion. The shield may remain expanded in this manner for up to 3 rounds before collapsing and is collapsed prematurely if the wielder drops the shield. If the wall is destroyed or breached by any means, the bands are destroyed and the shield returns to its normal size, otherwise unharmed.

Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, wall of iron, creator must possess 5 ranks of Craft (armorsmithing); Cost 9,000 gp

You're levitating, so no.

The wolf man speaks truth. You aren't in contact with the ground, so no pressure. Now, if someone WANTED to push down with their foot and touch the water/ice/whatever intentionally, I'd let them.

In all honestly, I think Runzyl is the best candidate for the gauntlets. They give +2 to attack and damage. Therefore, characters who rely on single devastating blows are only gaining +2 damage on a single hit, while Runzyl could potentially squeeze +10 damage across 5 hits in the same round.

Intensified shocking grasp is very nice, but I tend to avoid melee touch spells. Too risky.

There's a lot of really strong melee touch spells out there, which is exactly why almost every arcane caster I play inevitably picks up spectral hand. It lasts several minutes and can thusly be used at an time when "buffing" is happening and it permits you to make touch attacks at range (with a bonus to boot!).

Yeah, the hand is fragile, but it is incorporeal, meaning that only magic weapons and spells can harm it (unless you're fighting incorporeal foes). Additionally, any attack directed at destroying the hand is an attack that isn't hitting one of your allies!

It's possible that, in some of these cases, they might also be talking about Pathfinder Society games in which case not all characters will be the same level. The party is not coherent from session to session, some players being more active than others, etc.

Something that my group used to do in 3rd edition was "roleplay votes" at the end of every game session. Each player could cast a vote for one other player whom they believed did an exemplary job of playing their character (whether through clever roleplay, a particularly clever maneuver in combat that saved the day, etc.). These votes were worth 1/10th of a level each. With 5 players at the table, one person could conceivably accrue 4/10ths of a "bonus level" in a single session (since you can't vote for yourself). Sometimes this would lead to some minor variation in party level, but seldom did any one player "run away" with the votes on a consistent basis. It still incentivized staying in character and furthering the spirit of the game by providing some reward to the players and, of course, the votes were completely free of GM bias. The votes belonged to the players and only the players, so they were essentially in control of whether or not anybody got to get too far ahead of the pack. All GM-assigned XP was divided evenly amongst the party.

Since you haven't specified a race preference, you might look into making him an elf for several reasons.

1.) Built-in spell penetration (elven magic).
2.) Can stack DEX and take Weapon Finesse with his weapon (I recommend a rapier), affording you higher AC/Reflex/Initiative than if you'd spread your points between DEX and STR for melee.
3.) Bonus to INT. Your racial bonus was probably going to go here anyway.
4.) Immunity to sleep, bonuses vs. enchantment. Even though the Magus has a high base Will save, WIS is usually a dump stat and thus your Will save is usually not as good as most other casters.

If your spell is not designated as "dismissible" (i.e. it does not have a (D) after the duration tag) then you may use dispel magic to automatically succeed on dispelling your own effect.

You automatically succeed on your dispel check against any spell that you cast yourself.

If your spell is dismissible, then you can end it's effect at will as a standard action.

I generally limit my players to no more than 2 "free" actions per round. If they want to speak as a free action, I require that the player speak aloud, in-character, what they wish to say and it must take no longer than two full seconds to speak. The other characters hear exactly what the player said, verbatim, and nothing more.

EDIT: In response to MDT, yes, things like quickdrawing weapons or plucking arrows from a quiver for rapid firing I don't even really consider "free actions," they are merely part of the attack action. But I suppose technically they ARE actions. The game limits those for me, though, by the number of attacks per round a character is capable of.

GâtFromKI wrote:

Bleed has vocal and somatic component.

Sure - but it'll take a successful application of Spellcraft, character experience with that sort of magic, or simple metagaming cheese for low-level PCs to instantly figure out that the spell the bad guy cast to make their recently-but-no-longer stable buddy start to bleed all over the carpet was only a bleed orison.

If your party doesn't have at least 1 (if not 2 or more) characters who can reliably make a DC 15 Spellcraft check at 1st level, you're the exception, not the rule. Just saying.

EVE Voice, which is part of EVE Online, is an excellent in-game voice chat system and places no real extra strain on the host machine beyond simply running the game itself.

Reading the description of the cleric orison bleed, I noticed that it does not inflict actual bleed damage to a dying target, it merely forces a creature below 0 hit points to resume dying. This means that a creature who successfully stabilizes himself by way of a CON check (as per the normal rules for dying) could be subjected to the bleed spell and then succeed on the CON check again next round, stabilizing once more without any outside help.

I realize that orisons are not supposed to be terribly powerful, but if this is genuinely how the spell actually works, I really can't think of any reason to use it.... ever. Now, if the spell actively prevented "self-stabilization" and essentially forced the target to receive a Heal check/magical healing or face inevitable death, I think it would be a lot more practical.

There is a little bit of ambiguity in the verbiage for the spell, though. It states that the creature does, in fact, take 1 point of damage each round, but it says "That creature begins dying, taking 1 point of damage per round." Does this mean it gains the 'dying' condition, taking the damage as part of that condition (and allowing self-stabilization as noted previously) or is 'dying' in this case simply a descriptor and the spell actually deals 1 point of damage to the creature each round until stabilized by an outside force?

*screaming fangasm*

OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMG

Since we'd decided that Nathaniel and Erfan were known to each other (if not necessarily "friends") before coming to Ravenloft, Golarion is good for me as well. Erfan's story is generic enough that it really could be anywhere, though.

Fatespinner wrote:

2.) A tree is not a creature, therefore it is an object. Treat accordingly.

So, you're suggesting that a tree is non-living matter?

I'm suggesting that the mechanics of the game divide every physical thing into two types: creatures and objects. If it doesn't have a statblock and it can't take actions, it's an object. A tree fits this description, ergo it is an object.

It seems strange to say, in the first instance, that the spell is limited by the area's size and, in the second instance, that it's limited by the area's volume. That is to say, if we assume that your initial interpretation is correct, wouldn't that likewise limit you to disintegrating only a 10-ft length of a 40'x5'x5' object; the amount of the object which can fit into a 10-ft cube?

You may disintegrate "as much as a 10-ft cube." This implies 100 cubic feet of material. If disintegrating an item larger than 100 cu. ft. (such as disintegrating a section of cavern wall), it destroys a 10' cube as the spell dictates. If used against a standalone object, it is capable of destroying a similar volume of material (i.e. up to 100 cu. ft.).

If you allow disintegrate to "bore holes" at the caster's whim through material, you effectively eliminate the need for spells like passwall which does PRECISELY that same thing (bore holes through material).

As to the second point (re: trees and non-living matter), if the spell can disintegrate a person (which is living) then it can disintegrate a tree (which is also living). The rules pertaining to objects are simply more applicable than the ones for creatures in the case of a tree.

1.) The area disintegrated by the spell is defined as a cube, thus it is implied that the area cannot be modified. Now, if directing the spell against an object that happens to be 40'x5'x5', then it would work since it affects the entirety of the target object, but you couldn't use the spell to simply bore a hole through rock in such a way. There are other spells for that kind of thing specifically (such as passwall).

2.) A tree is not a creature, therefore it is an object. Treat accordingly.

Remember that humans, half-elves, and half-orcs get a free floating +2 to any stat as their racial bonus in Pathfinder. Therefore, it is entirely possible for a member of these races to have a natural stat of 20 in any one category.

As others have stated before, though, it is impossible to reduce a stat below 7 with point-buy before racial modifiers are applied. The most front-loaded point buy spread possible (assuming the standard 20 points that Society uses) is: 20, 18, 8, 7, 7, 7 for humans and half-races, or: 20, 20, 8, 7, 7, 5 for other races.

Hey! It's Erik Mona Day again!!!! HAPPY ERIK MONA DAY!!!

Please cancel this order and my continuing subscriptions. I cannot afford them at this time.

This spell causes a touched object to glow like a torch, shedding normal light in a 20-foot radius, and increasing the light level for an additional 20 feet by one step, up to normal light (darkness becomes dim light, and dim light becomes normal light). In an area of normal or bright light, this spell has no effect. The effect is immobile, but it can be cast on a movable object.

If a caster were to cast light on an object like, say, a 50' length of rope and then that rope were unfurled to it's full length and laid out along a dark hallway or dropped down into a darkened shaft, would it illuminate everything within 20' of any part of the rope? Meaning you essentially get a line 40' wide and 90' long of illumination from one cantrip cast on a 50' rope? What limitation is there? What if you cast it on a cavern wall? Does the entire wall glow? Only 1 5' x 5' section?

I ask because the idea of using a "glow rope" seems pretty damn useful to me and I wonder if it's legal.

Hah! And they say Evokers are only good for blasting!

Despite the fact that it makes me physically cringe from an optimization standpoint, the Crossbow Mastery tree is pretty thematically excellent. A heavy crossbow normally employs a hand crank and a stirrup which must be placed against the ground, held in place by the wielder's foot, and manually cranked back to set the receiver.

Damion, on the other hand, is capable of snapping the receiver back in the blink of an eye like some kind of superhuman and maintain a full rate of fire with it thanks to his feats. I look forward to the combat descriptions to come. :)

Depending on your prohibited schools, either magic missile or shocking grasp is good to have available because, even though the primary purpose of a Conjurer is not damage dealing, sometimes you just NEED that little oomph.

Enlarge person is another good choice, although at level 1 the long casting time can be a liability. Expeditious retreat can boost your speed by 30', meaning you can move 60' in a round and still cast a spell or make an attack afterwards. Very handy for fights where mobility is key.

The monk needs all the help it can get. Let it stack.

As a counterpoint to this thread, let's talk about which classes you just don't care for. I'll start!

#1 - Summoner: I hate casters that summon stuff. It's an absolute nightmare to have all the various summonable monsters' statblocks available and, moreover, even more annoying to have the summoner's player spend half an hour declaring the movements and attacks of his upteen-thousand summoned minions. This is doubly problematic with the eidolon, as it has a mutable statblock and can be altered on the fly with evolution surge and similar spells. Ugh.

#2 - Alchemist: I just don't get this class. You hurl bombs at stuff. Okay, that's cool. And you maybe cast some primarily self-only buffs on the side. Yeah, you might make some helpful infusions for the party, but this class mostly buffs itself and blows things up. Mostly I see people taking a dip in this class for the extra tentacle attack it allows and then being a fighter and/or barbarian the rest of the way... which is a ridiculous visual, IMO.

#3 - Cavalier: For the same reason I don't like summoners, I don't like classes that rely heavily on an animal companion/mount to "do their thing." Sure, you don't NEED a mount to be a cavalier, but that seems to be a big part of their schtick. Without the mount around, cavaliers are just really weird fighters.

Fatespinner wrote:

#2: Magus - Finally, a spellsword done right. I absolutely love spell combat, I just wish they had some more variety in their spell options.

Don't they have a thing where they can add spells from the wizard list?

Yes, but it costs a valuable arcana slot for one spell. (Two if you bump down a level.) Generally not worth it for most things. The magus is very good at what he does (kill stuff) but for versatility, you just can't match a wizard.

#1: Wizard - They were my favorite before and are still my favorite now. I love being able to prepare for any occassion!

#2: Magus - Finally, a spellsword done right. I absolutely love spell combat, I just wish they had some more variety in their spell options.

#3: Rogue - I've always loved rogues, and the addition of rogue talents only makes them better in Pathfinder. Still, I feel they are a bit behind the power curve vs. most classes, but I still love the feel of the class anyway.

I generally limit my players to three quivers of 20. One on each shoulder and another on the non-dominant side hip. In essence, though, we don't really track them very carefully. At the end of combat we'll say "How many do you think you shot? 12? Okay."

60 arrows should be more than ample until you get up into the higher levels, at which point efficient quivers should be the order of the day.

With a standard 20-point buy, an 18 in a single stat should practically be EXPECTED for any S.A.D. class. You don't even really need to sacrifice much to get it. You can have a human with 18, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12 if you really want. For a fighter, barbarian, or most other martial classes, a 12 in CHA is largely useless unless they plan on pumping Intimidate, so many players opt for 10 or less in that stat in favor of higher DEX and/or CON. WIS is slightly more important, as it influences Perception checks and Will saves (which are used much more often than social skills in a typical campaign) so a 12 here is pretty common. INT is also not terribly useful to martial characters, particularly human ones (who already get extra skills anyway), so this one is also frequently left at 10 or less.

Basically, what I'm saying is that, due to the racial adjustments in Pathfinder, 18 is the new 16. Almost any character is going to have one. Those that don't are either multiclassing, aiming for specific feat combos, playing a M.A.D. class, or self-nerfing intentionally.

An interesting question came up recently in a PFS scenario I as playing at the local convention last weekend. Our cleric was trying to use his heavy shield to bash an enemy because it was more effective than using his scimitar (the enemy had DR/bludgeoning).

Clerics gain Shield Proficiency as a feat, but not Martial Weapon Proficiency (shields). Using a shield to bash is specifically listed as a martial bludgeoning weapon. The question is: Does the Shield Proficiency feat grant the ability to bash with said shield without the usual non-proficiency penalty? Or must a character possess Martial Weapon Proficiency in order to bash without penalty?

Here's why there is confusion: Improved Shield Bash lists ONLY Shield Proficiency as a prerequisite and makes no mention of Martial Weapon Proficiency. This means that a cleric could take Improved Shield Bash and STILL be swinging at a -4 penalty when using the bash. In a similar vein, it would be possible for a character to take Martial Weapon Proficiency (shield) and NOT have Shield Proficiency, meaning the shield's armor check penalty would apply to his attack rolls.

Why DO gm's make their players destroy the character sheet after death? Is it just adding insult to the injury of the lost PC? Are they trying to make sure the player can't sneak the character into another game? Are dead character sheets some kind of threat to be dealt with?

I've never FORCED a player to destroy their character sheets, but in the past we've done it as a form of ceremony in which the players gather around a burn barrel or grill and perform the actual funeral service for the fallen PC in-character, culminating in us setting the character sheet on fire and letting it burn away.

*shrugs* It's just roleplay. If a player didn't WANT to destroy their sheet, I wouldn't make them. It's just something we've done voluntarily before and everyone thought it was pretty cool.

Thanks to a generous birthday gift from my father, please unsuspend me for now! :D

Question one:

Would you consider a Flesh Golem a construct AND undead? After all, one of the spells required to create a Flesh Golem is animate dead. The reason I'm wondering is I'm running a very undead-heavy campaign right now where one of my players is a ranger who specializes in the slaying of the undead and another is a paladin. Would you rule that their bonuses against undead count against this monster?

Question two:

I think I have a pretty good understanding of the limitations on the rogue's sneak attack, except for one thing... Let's say a rogue is fighting a creature, and the creature's attention is diverted elsewhere for some reason, and while it is distracted the rogue hides, in a bush for instance. The creature eventually returns to find the rogue and beat him to a pulp, but can't seem to locate him, but he's definitely on his toes, has acted, and is not flat-footed. Could a rogue still fire a crossbow bolt from the bush and sneak attack the monster, since it is not aware of his location? And although the monster is not flat-footed, would it be considered flat-footed to the rogue's attack since it doesn't see it coming and can't defend itself, somewhat like being flanked?

Thanks.

1.) No, a golem is a construct, not undead. It does not gain any of the usual undead immunities/resistances and is not animated by the same forces.

2.) A creature needs only to be denied it's Dexterity bonus to AC in order to be sneak attacked. It does not have to be flat-footed. If the creature does not know the rogue's location, then it cannot use it's Dexterity bonus against the rogue's attacks. Thus, sneak attack is applicable.

Hi there,

I'm playing my first Pathfinder campaign. I'm a level 5 bard gnome. I have 8000 gp to spend on weapons and other magical items to beef up my aresenal. I currently have the following weapons: a shortbow, a rapier, and a masterwork longbow. My armour consists of light leather armour and a buckler. I also have a riding dog.

I tend to play a supporting role in our group, usually hanging back during combat and using my performances and spells to bolster my companions' abilities. I like to use my knowledge and diplomacy to help the group.

I'm finding the list of items I can purchase overwhelming and am seeking advice on some useful items to buy.

Thanks!

My recommendations for a ranged support bard:

1.) Headband of alluring charisma +2 - 4000gp
2.) +1 longbow - 2000gp (added to your existing masterwork)
3.) wand of cure light wounds - 750gp
4.) masterwork chain shirt - 250gp
5.) cloak of resistance +1 - 1000gp

Short, simple, and effective. Yeah, you could go for the "swiss army knife" approach and just get bunches of wands, alchemical items, and potions, but intelligently choosing your spells known and staying mobile while firing arrows should pretty much take care of things.

Definitely enchantment.

Mass hold person, feeblemind, dominate person/monster, and all kinds of good control/disable spells in that school. Necromancy can levy a few curses here and there, and it wrecks havoc on undead, but as far as pure disable/control, enchantment is definitely the stronger choice. Necromancy is a "sometimes" food, unless your campaign is full of undead.

Please suspend all my subscriptions until further notice while I seek new employment. :(

And Fatespinner, don't worry about Andolphas's attitude, it's not directed at you as a player.

Likewise. I don't expect Damion to be anyone's best friend in-game and he's not exactly the most charismatic and likeable fellow. As far as he's concerned, he has a mission to do and if you guys can make that mission easier, then there's no reason to make trouble. He's still Lawful Good, but he doesn't have the same constraints as a paladin. If one of you were to register as evil, for example, he'd be suspicious as hell, but if he was able to determine that you weren't part of the problem, he'd have no qualms working with you. Paladins can't do that. :)

Basically, more emphasis on the 'Lawful' and not quite so much on the 'Good.' He still embodies the selflessness and general integrity of a Good person, of course, which is why he wasn't extorting Smenk for additional compensation.... and why he's willing to descend into what sounds like a total death trap to him for essentially no payment. There's a threat to the people, a host of undead, and that's a serious problem that needs to be dealt with!

Every time I go to build a character to use a crossbow, I get about 60% of the way through the feats before wondering what possessed me to use a crossbow.

Even if the character had a +0 for strength, a bow doesn't require a feat investment to fire multiple times per round. A bow doesn't require a feat investment to not provoke AoO's while reloading. Also, a strength of +0 now doesn't always mean it will stay at +0. Belt of Giant Strength anyone?

Yes, crossbow crit range is 1 point better, but if you're going for a crit build, using any sort of ranged weapon is not your best bet.

Take a bow and you can open with Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, and Precise Shot.

Well, the heavy crossbow also has 1d10 for base damage as opposed to 1d8, which makes up the difference for not being composite in my opinion (at my character's strength level).

And yeah, I could invest in a belt of giant strength, but I'm going to want to allocate that slot to DEX-enhancement instead since it's much more useful to my concept (and WIS is even more important than DEX).

I'm not particularly going for a "crit build," but I would like to see some ways of making a crossbow not suck. If there is a crit build that makes it work somehow (can't see that being a practical solution for a 3/4 BAB class), I'm all ears.

So, the Crossbow Mastery feat is pretty cool (if you like crossbows) but the prerequisites are pretty steep. Granted, just about any archery concept is going to want Point Blank Shot and Rapid Shot, so those aren't really a "tax" but then you add Rapid Reload and Crossbow Mastery itself to the mix, which basically don't do anything except allow you to fire a crossbow just like a regular bow (but only one specific KIND of crossbow).

I have a character with relatively low STR (13), so I thought it would be kind of cool to go the crossbow route (I have no intention of investing more points into STR going forward) since the damage die on a heavy crossbow is a tiny bit better than a longbow, and the 19-20 crit range is pretty decent. However, said character is not a fighter, nor a ranger, and so that 2-feat tax is hurting pretty bad.

My question essentially boils down to this: How badly am I hurting myself by going this route instead of settling for a mighty (+1) composite longbow? Are there any unique functions of a crossbow that I can exploit (other than the fact that they can be fired from prone with no penalty)? Any cool feat trees that might help me out? I like the idea of this concept, but I'm worried it's going to end up so weak as to be nigh-unplayable, particularly at higher levels. For the record, the character is an inquisitor, currently level 3, and is human. Our GM also let us sacrifice the two starting traits for a bonus feat at 1st level, so I've got Crossbow Mastery at level 3... and nothing else (feat wise) except the prereqs for same. Any insight is appreciated. :)

You're a wizard. Rent some store space and sell your spellcasting services. Since you can only cast first level spells, at book price that's 20gp per spell slot, minus maybe a 20% cut for the business space from the owner. Assuming you've got a solid INT, that's 60gp a day easily made right there for a 2nd-level wizard. Even more so if people buy cantrip castings from you.

Apparently, Damion's true alignment is Lawful Angry.

My most interesting high-level caster character was probably Esper, an air genasi Abjurer/Incantatrix who specialized in dealing with outsiders. He ended up joining the Harper's Guild (Forgotten Realms) and was pretty instrumental in completely preventing a demonic invasion of epic proportions. I believe at endgame he was something like Abjurer 5/Incantatrix 10/Archmage 2. This was in 3.5 of course, using the original Incantatrix PrC from Magic of Faerun before they revised it in the Player's Guide.

Can you tell me what the source for muleback cords is?

APG. It's one of the cheaper wondrous items.

Does anyone know if this spell:

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/spells/iceCrystalTeleport. html#_ice-crystal-teleport

can be used on unwilling targets?

If it can't why would you cast it?

Target: one creature

Saving throw: Will negates

Doesn't say the target has to be willing, nor does it say "Harmless," so yeah, you can use it on unwilling targets.

I hope that "hardness 0" is a typo, though, otherwise that ice is painfully easy to destroy at the level when this spell is able to be cast (9th+). I think it was maybe supposed to be "hardness 10."

I think it bothers me because BEFORE THIS ARCHETYPE a player would have been perfectly fine calling himself a separatist from the mainstream religion and getting the full benefits of both domains. That's really no different from following a different philosophy or religion altogether.

I see what you're saying. The base cleric has the option of choosing to follow a "philosophy or concept" instead of a specific deity and choosing pretty much whichever domains he wants at full power, and could very easily just say that he's a "separatist" cleric for roleplay purposes as opposed to actually taking the archetype.

In light of that, yeah, the archetype is pretty much pointless. IMO, the separatist archetype should give up the favored weapon in exchange for an ADDITIONAL (i.e. 3rd) domain that operates at a lower power level as per the current archetype rules, to reflect some kind of "deviant ritualization" of the faith. The favored weapon is a pretty small sacrifice, though, so I would probably reduce the archetype's channel energy strength by one die size, meaning d4s instead of d6s, to reflect the characters "less powerful connection" with their deity.

Separatist cleric of Norgorber.

Domains: Evil.... and Good.

"Why of course I'm not an evil cleric! Could an evil cleric do this?!"

EDIT: Damn, couldn't actually do that, upon reading the rules. But you could take Healing or Glory or some other "goody-goody" domain that isn't actually alignment-opposed.

Scribe Scroll. For free. At 1st level.

Yeah, see invisibility is useful to have. Do you want to prep it every day? Probably not. Scribe a scroll and stuff it in your scroll case. How about scrying? Probably not using that one every day either. Scribe a scroll or two, stuff it in the scroll case. Overland flight? Darkvision? Tongues? Scrolls, scrolls, scrolls!

"But Fatespinner, a sorcerer could just take the Scribe Scroll feat too."

Of course they could, but they'd need to allocate some of their precious "spells known" to actually having the spell in question before they can scribe it. A wizard with a bit of downtime is the ultimate swiss army knife.

Then, with a scroll case full of divinations and a transmutation or three, he fills all his ACTUAL spell slots with offense/defense magic as needed, kinda like a sorcerer would have, and he gets higher level spells sooner to boot.

That, my friends, is the advantage of the wizard.

EDIT: Partially ninja'd by Kalyth.

Dot.

I assume normal hit point rolls as well. So max at 1st, then 2 more d8s...

2d8 ⇒ (1, 8) = 9

Well, they balance each other out. :)