KaeYoss's page

underling wrote:

Why not release an updated hardcover with 20% new like you mentioned, and an errata file or pdf update available for current owners to download? I guess you'd have to work out how, but without knowing what you have planned, it'd be hard to be specific.

Because 20% new content goes FAR AND ABOVE mere errata. That's a new book.

Some refund/special discount should be in order. And an indication that this is the revised edition, of course.

Maybe if someone already has the PDF for the old version, they get some discount. If you're a subscriber to the chronicles line, you get an extra discount, and a bigger if you bought the old version on paizo.com (be it a regular purchase or via the subscription).

I'm sure there are quite a few people who wouldn't mind an updated version of the book, and the number of people who'd buy it (again) will rise if you give them a decent deal.

The update PDF thing sounds good as well.

Of course, there's the question on whether this would be a part of the subscription. I think if you force it on every subscriber, you'll lose descriptions. I don't know how many, though.

Kaeyoss [..] what you just mentioned reminded me of something ID and Super Ego, also Ego. The ID being the part of your subconscious mind that goes after the animal needs as well as in General what do you want. This is usually falling around food, sex, and violence. Still it is going after what you want. The Super Ego is what society wants from you (now then remember this is highly dependent on the society you grew up in as that is usually the society it draws from) Ego is the neutrality acting as the water gate to allow the too to flow out at times that hurt you the least.

Super-Ego is the whole "nurture" part, again subconscious (or at least mainly so), and is what defines morality and so on - all the cultural and social values and definitions you have been taught. What actions are considered good, bad, proper, naughty, etc.

And the Ego is mostly conscious. All the thinking we actively do is done by the Ego. It does indeed mediate between super-ego and ID - and the outside world. This is the part that allows us to apply our own thoughts to ID and Super-Ego to explore them, double-check them against reality, and, especially in the case of ID, steer it towards constructive behaviour.

Personally, I always maintain that good is better at repressing the ID, and that order has a weak Ego, because it lets the Super-Ego run rampant. This means that LE has no personality at all. It's just acting on base urges and expectations of others, following other people's rules to seek pleasure and avoid pain.

Chaos, on the other hand, has enough ego to make its Super-Ego work for the Ego, instead of the other way around.

Which is why chaotic alignments are the best for you, while lawful ones are the best for your ruler.

My request would be to do away with Alignment Restrictions for base classes

The paladin class assumes a lawful good character. They could create variations for other alignments, but they'd need different powers to fit.

Monks... I think this still fits. They thrive on personal discipline. It's what gives them power. Remember that for them, the lawful part refers to strict adherence of a personal code which restricts their behaviour. Some of the rules they follow might be rules for rules sake, like "do not dye your hair" or "don't eat after sundown". They draw power from this self discipline. It doesn't mean that they're all justicators.

Barbarians make sense as non-lawful. They are wild by definition.

Druids... I wouldn't mind if that went away. You can be CE and worship nature for its pure destructive power and so on.

Clerics should keep the "stay near your god's alignment", though in some cases, the gods should make exceptions. Some gods don't care about alignment at all, and so on.

Wikipedia wrote:

Chaos typically means a state lacking order or predictability.

For me the defining act of chaotic is unpredicability.

It's one quality of chaos. In D&D, the freedom and individualism parts are more important, especially since we're talking about people, not a system.

a man with a gun walks down the street and sees a cat stuck up a tree, he climbs the tree and helps the cat get down; 2 blocks away he sees another cat up a tree but instead shoots the cat. THAT is chaotic.

Personally I think its harder for people to play chaotic than it is to play any other alignment, simply because 90% of people have morals that define and restrict our actions like its our own personal suit of laws.

Note that chaotic is not the opposite of good. Morals do not counteract chaos.

Chaotic in D&D means you follow your own guidelines instead of what others want of you, think of you, expect of you, or tell you to. It doesn't mean you don't have any outlook or code.

Chaotic Neutral is the most volatile and dangerous alignment in the game and probably the hardest one to roleplay.

Just think: If a LG paladin was to leave his allies fighting and leave the dungeon you would say he has violated his alignment and commited a CE act (leaving his comrades to die for no reason) however a simple FEAR spell compells the paladin to commit this CE act :) its a good thing they become immune to it at 3rd.

Remind me never to play a paladin in your game. Or anything else. If you think you can break someone's alignment by making him fail a save, people's alignment must jump all over the place in your games.

As a DM I generally ignore the Law/Chaos Axis outside of cities. For me Good vs Evil defines a game as heroic or villainous, Law vs Chaos only applies when moral issues and drama comes into play.

What does "speaking for battle" even mean? Battle isn't a sentient thing

Good good isn't sentient, either, and a lot of people think they need to cry out its name all the time.

Huh? Googol and googol-plex are and have always been precisely defined.

I am sorry you feel that way.

That text is included in the description for Rogue Talents, but NOT for Advanced Talents. Also, the wording for the bonus feat for the advanced talents implies that it may be taken repeatedly.

The fighter still has more feats than the rogue(and he gets them on top of his class abilities), the fighter gets some exclusive stuff (and pretty much all of it rocks), and the fighter has the strong BAB, which means combat feats will be available to him a lot earlier (example: no rogue that doesn't multiclass or go epic can ever get Pinpoint Targeting, which is a really great feat. Fighters can get it at 16th, Rangers at 10th (!!!))

On the skills front, I'm looking at elf fighters, half-orc paladins, halfling clerics, etc... who will be getting 1 skill point per level in most cases.

The others aren't as extreme (as it can often make sense to play them really, really stupid, and the game won't give you a nasty bonus to ruin that), but still, you'll need to go with a really low ability score and make an intentionally bad choice in favoured class.

Never made sense to me that a barbarian, who can't even READ, has more skills per level than fighters (likely to train, rather than learn through intuition/life experience)

In fact, fighters go to fighter school, where they just learn how to put sharp things into soft things that scream and bleed (the only skill they really learn, and it's not even a skill in this game - you'll need to play HOL for that). Barbarians grow up apart from civilisation (let's just assume that the barbarian in question is not just a barbarian in class levels, but also in culture - not always the same!) need several skills to survive. They need to learn not just to kill enemies for their XP, but also how to hunt and prepare foot, how to live off the land, and so on.

wizards (who are the most likely to be studious yet who have a lower point/lvl as a balance vs. their higher Int, which also seemed silly).

Look at sorcerers. They don't get more than 2+, either (and their int usually sucks). And bards get 6+ even their int is usually not bad, and they get some extra perks in the skills department.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

The assumption in pathfinder is magic of any power is a limited thing.

Huhwhat? Do you realize how many different things in the bestiary have at-will spell-like abilities? And not just outsiders, either. Your argument is totally inconsistent.

I guess I just don't see why the warklock "doesn't fit". Frankly, I liked the concept myself. It was a different type of charcter with a whole new mechanic. Though I liked things like the beguiler or the scout to a degree, they were essentially mulit-classed characters. For a new base class, I liked to see a whole new mechanic. Things like the warlock and the artifcer fit that bill

The warlock brings nothing new to the game. He's a spellcaster. So are 7 out of 11 core base classes. He might get his powers from pacts (or from inheriting them from someone who made a pact), but there's already the sorcerer for that stuff.

The only thing that the warlock has is a break from one of the core assumptions of the game: Player characters don't get to go full power magic all day.

If you don't like that assumption, change it. That way, everyone is like this.

Scouts are the same to me. All they really added was "I can move and be an effective attacker". Something like that must be fixed on a more basic level.

I am just saying that Pathfinder obviously is not fundamentally opposed to at will magic as cantrips are now just that. I don't believe thats semantics at all

0-level magic is nice flavour and/or utility, but it doesn't change the power level of the class. The wizard's threat level isn't changed when you go from resistance 1/day to resistance /will.

I went the 4e route and added succubi to the Devil roster, given the outlook of Demons.

And, as I said: Succubi make sense as demons! They still want to cause mayhem, destruction, suffering, death. Just because they're not HULK SMASH stupid and evil doesn't mean they can't be demons. In fact, most demons are quite smart. They're not Int 0 attack enemies. Not in Pathfinder.

Succubi have a different MO than, say, a Hezrou, but the results go in the same direction.

Succubi are subtle creatures. They pretend to be your friend (or your lover). They make you to give in to your passions and base urgings. Forget your honour, forget your conscience. Do this for me, love! Before long, brother is turned against brother, father against son, kings descend into madness and the people rise up against this evil tyrant, and the result is pain, death, humiliation, the end of honour, and so on.

Always remember: Demons and devils are different in that they have different goals (devils want corruption, demons destruction), but they're not limited to one narrow way of behaviour to reach their goals. Not in Pathfinder.

Our characters were investigating a series of murders surrounding a courtesan. One of her clients had become obsessed with her and had summoned a devil (an erinyes) to make a deal to get the "love of his life". The erinyes showed the man how to summon demons as a mean to destroy his rivals for the courtesan's affections. When our party discovered demons were behind the killings, we geared up with demon-slaying equipment (cold iron weapons). The joke was on us when we encountered the erinyes mastermind, who summoned devils to fight us (who needed silver to be hurt more effectively).

It is all a matter of outlook and approach to your scenario.

It's 4 + 1/2 level

I want to make sure that I'm not coming across as trying to be smart here. But the core rulebook does contain some Golarion elements (pathfinder chronicler prestige class and the gods). I'm not saying that to smart off, but I know in my home brew I made several gods and of course the player of the cleric picked which one of them?

None. He went with a Golarion one out of the core rulebook.

The core rules have very, very, very little setting material. So much less than the 3e core books had.

We have the names of the gods (to have something there, and it doesn't take up a lot of space) and one prestige class (which is as much a showcase of "look what you can do with those PrC thingies to make them tools for developing a world" as anything else)

So, as a GM, I do face the occasional "why am I even making a home brew with all the work when Golarion is out there?"

To which I was hoping Paizo would say, "'Cause we're throwing you a bone with some rules that might fit a home brew."

Why should they do something like that? They'd need to get to know another setting (to do it properly. I mean, I could make a "Knight of The Rose" PrC, but it would probably suck because I know virtually nothing about Dragonlance), introduce extra rules they haven't talked about at all yet (so we need 30 pages of extra material for this little bone) and/or break some law (as a lot of stuff is closed content). And for what?

Better they create stuff that is usable in most games that use the PF core rules, and at the same time work in the campaign world they put most of their effort into.

That's breaking two laws with one action, as we say in the Cerulean Void.

Even if I'd have been much happier with no Golarion gods in my core rules!:) And a dwarven defender instead of a pathfinder chronicler.:)

But dwarven defender? Nah! :P

It may work well for you and lots of other players and not feel like D&D without the spell slot requirement

but for myself and lots of others, probably the number one house rule used is that all spellcasters are at-will casters.

And may I remind you that I said that I wouldn't mind something like this?

Because you changed the system. I wouldn't want to play D&D without the tactical considerations of spell selection, because it would feel weird, but I have played other games where you just have "mana" (which always felt uninspired, because everybody is doing it). Go ahead and do that.

What I don't like are classes that are just there to change the rules.

"This class is nothing new under the sun as far as the game world is concerned, but they get to use mana instead of spell slots!", "This class is so boring that you can put roleplayers to death with it, but you ignore the rules for iterative attacks, you get to have a parry roll instead of AC, and lower numbers on the dice are better" and similar stuff is just crap if you ask me.

And note that the warlock is even worse for you than a wizard, because you get to choose even less spells than a sorcerer, and then you're stuck with those forever.

This is one thing I do not understand about the "i dont want lots of new stuff" crowd. How does the existance of an at will magic user change the game for the wizard or sorceror or any of the existing classes?

Mind you, if someone went and made an alternative where magic in general were like that, I wouldn't mind, but before they go and make a class whose only right to exist is "I'm different, mechanically", they should devote their energy and time for stuff we actually need.

Note that there's already a couple of warlocks: One for 3e - you can still use that - and the Tome of Secrets has another.

If you want those, and use those, I'm not losing any sleep with it.

But I wouldn't hold my breath for Paizo to do something like this. It seems to me they don't like the concept. As I said, the 1st-level magic stuff like elemental ray has been changed from at will to 3+ability score per day in the final version, and we're just talking about a relatively weak back-up ability. I really doubt they'll make a "I'm a wizard, but I use different rules than you" class.

KaeYoss wrote:

killion: A number so big that it would kill you.

Seen a googolplex already?

If a googolplex is defined as "1 followed by as many 0 as you can write before you get tired" (well, that was the original definition), the definition of a killion is "1 followed by a as many 0 as someone could write if he wrote really really fast and kept at it until well after at least two Ends of the Universe came to pass"

I had a blast playing fey'ri (elf planetouched with succubus blood) in the past. Shapeshifting can be so much fun.

Out of the core races, the top three are human (works for everything - the default race if other races wouldn't fit better), elves (smart and graceful, being able to take the long view, and enjoy more in life than just work and getting drunk) and gnomes (cheerful, likeable, but slightly out of phase with this world).

Dwarves are actually among my least favourite, in part because the "live to work, get drunk, and be rude" attitude they're often depicted with, but mostly because I have seen too many crappy dwarf characters played by jerks.

For starters, I HATE 2+Int/lvl skills

especially on classes with Int as a dump stat. Aside from parity between 3.5 and Pathfinder, what reason is there to maintain this relic?

Personally, while I wouldn't have minded a general increase of skill points, I don't think it's that much of a big deal.

Yes, the favored class mechanic helps a little in this regard, but it means that only certain combos will ever be particularly skillful, which I dislike.

One important observation: While you don't get more skill points, they often are worth more now: One rank of Stealth will give you the equivalent of a rank of Hide and a rank of Move Silently.

Moving on, while I find that the Paladin's Mercies are interesting, I dislike the lack of bonus feats on the paladin class. Especially since they tend to have more limited/focused melee ability than most other classes (short-duration buffs, and limited-use abilities). They just feel like the least customizable of the classes in a lot of ways, AND really beg to take both martial-type feats, and healing-type feats.

The Paladin's abilities work best as unique class abilities. And they work really well. In fact, more than a few people consider them overpowered.

As for customisation: They do get to choose their mercies. Not a big deal, but it's something. They also don't get to choose their auras because they just get them all.

And, one of the things I like: While they don't get martial bonus feats, they're not really restricted to one style of fighting. You can keep on using sword'n'board or use a large big greatsword, but it also works really, really well for two-weapon fighting and ranged attacks. The smite bonus to attack will counter-act the two-weapon penalty, and the damage bonus will apply to each attack with each weapon.

For the Rogue, I read their higher-tier (lvl 10+)of bonus abilities to read that any of them may be swapped for a bonus feat with no limitation, unlike the lower tier. Is that the case? And if so, does anyone feel that perhaps rogues now gain TOO many bonus feats, as they gain almost as many as fighters in addition to their other class abilities (Weapon Focus, Finesse, Bonus feat, then a bonus feat every other level potentially from 10 on).

Plus, fighters get some class abilities of their own now.

Fighters are not about to be upstaged by rogues. Seriously: want a juggernaught of martial destruction? Fighters outdamage rogues 11 times out of 10. And they can own rangers, barbarians and paladins, too, especially since you consider that fighters just do - no x/day power, no "only good against enemy X", all the power, all the time.

Have all the changes attained any semblance of balance between the martial classes and the spellcasting classes at higher level?

That's a good idea. It even put images in my mind of Tai Lung's escape (Kung Fu Panda) or the Kick Boots (Castlevania) - don't look at me that way, those are my son's toys.

Some less-than-happy poster would object that the current system is already allowing this... kind of.
1) if you have a wall nearby: do a high jump on it, take hold, then do another high jump from it.
2) if you have two walls: do several high jumps, not forgetting to take hold between each.
You'll need some ranks in Climb, though. And those would be several move actions, allowing the enemy to escape higher - and you to take falling damage :(

*killion: A number so big that it would kill you.

I'm not gonna make this all pretty with bold parts or anything, but here's an updated androsphinx stat block.

Guys want to be pretty, too.

*pout*

KaeYoss wrote:

If you want something on the fly, use the gyrosphinx, slap the advanced template on it, and say it's the male version.

Isn't that a little sexist? *High Five*

I was actually referring to the fact that the Androsphinx's CR is higher, so if you want separate stats, and want to keep the old CRs, the easiest way to do that is to add the advanced template to the sphinx we have.

Some monsters we wanted to leave off the list so that you'd need to use planar ally or planar binding to conjure them up. Genies are a great example of this.

:P

Genie's friend boosts caster level - irrelevant for planar binding. And planar binding is quite unfriendly, while summon monster only calls willing creatures.

I am just questioning your statement "at will casting has no place in Pathfinder" is all. Simply put, why do you say that? Its certainly not fundamentally against Pathfinder

I'm not saying there is no at will magic. I'm saying the game doesn't put that stuff into the hands of characters. And no, cantrips do not count. Neither do orisons.

Do you really think that a game that made the 1st-level school, domain and bloodline magic limited (usually 3+key attribute) - stuff that usually does 1d6 +1/2 level, not very powerful - will do a class that does all its magic at will?

I think not.

I further think the warlock's mechanics didn't fit 3e at all. I think a decision like this ("Is magic limited or not") should be made at a systemic level. If magic is limited, it's limited for all classes. If it's unlimited, it should be thus for everyone.

And I think that the game has always worked well with spell slots, and it should not go away. Not as the standard. Let someone make an alternate system maybe, but the game will no longer be the game it is when we're taking this away.

Varisia? It's very Borderlands.

He's not chaotic, he enforces his own version of the law.

KaeYoss wrote:

Cleric 3/Wizard 3/Mystic Theurge 4

Yes, but compare a mystic theurge that starts as an oracle/sorcerer to one that starts as a cleric/sorcerer. Your comparison changes two variables (the divine and the arcane class). This comparison changes one variable (the divine class only).

Cleric/Sorcerer already loses out because he needs one more level of sorcerer. It's even weaker than a cleric/wizard.

I say to be fair, we need to compare to the stronger alternative.

Yeah, right. All those astrologers really do have the universal truth or never make a single cent.

Your average real world fortune teller isn't successful because of actual predictions using high wis. They can give you a good show using high cha.

People go to those successful people (because otherwise they wouldn't be successful), which means they don't go to wis people for their prophecies. QED.

I think your confussing earlier stuff. You said the Oracle is not about devotion, and I said they were, (look at focus).

Oracles are a different breed of divine caster, not another breed of sorcerer.

Are sorcerers a different breed of arcane caster? If so, why do they use cha instead of int?

They're not sorcerers in the same way that druids are not clerics. They're their own class.

And in this case, cha makes sense because they have innate talent (which is tied to Cha in Pathfinder). They cast without preparation (which is virtaully always tied to Cha in Pathfinder and D&D).

So they use divine magic. Doesn't mean they have to use wis because of that. Not all divine casters do. Paladins are the proof of that. Not all casters have to.

Also, I agree that the mental stats need equal show, but honestly I think that Wis is probably the least used.

Otherwise, it's used by monks pretty heavily, and by everyone who wants to be strong of will and/or perceptive.

I wouldn't be against the Oracle being able to choose between Wis and Cha, though. That could be cool and offer diversity.

I suggest a breakaway from that instead of having nature broken down into four elements just have it as one, or leave it out altogether.

I would like to see the foci based more on concepts like life, which could include healing, Peace, love (I know love has been done to death) Time, Strength.

An excess of melee touch/close range abilities and bizarre level restrictions(5th level?)

This brings to mind a question that I've had for a while now. Where are the oracle class abilities that represent speaking on behalf of something?

It works like this: Oracle appears, shows the awesome power of its focus in a display of awesomeness, and doesn't even need to say how to great Life/Battle/Flames is, because everybody just saw it.

I see your name is well-chosen: Shuriken - small and pointy.

unfortunately i'm not interested in a relationship. personally, i'd rather stare at images of Tomoyou Daidouji.

That was a first. Ultradeadly ninja types are rarely well-spoken, so I surprised them by obliging them.

i don't really like men. anything with tentacles is fine.

KaeYoss wrote:

There's Lawful Stupid, too.

Stupid is universal.

There's also True Stupid (the wishy-washy "must preserve the balance at all costs, even betraying my party members mid fight because we're winning too well!" true neutral hogwash).

All three are banned alignments in my games.

A vow to take vengeance upon a group of nobles that killed you kid brother no matter the cost, is definitely a vow that will put you in confrontation with laws...is that chaotic? or is it lawful because the justice is vengeance based.

How will they take vengeance? Bring them down and deliver them to the law, so they will get the lawful punishment for their crimes? Or just kill them?

If it is the former, it is lawful. A citizen's arrest. If it's the latter, you're a vigilante. A chaotic person.

There's Lawful Stupid, too.

Stupid is universal.

It's still not a work-around. If you are an Aasimar who has Celestial tongues you actually lose out. You don't gain any NEW language, and in fact are restricted ONLY to a language your party probably won't know.

Either that or what we're talking about is no big deal. A lost language?

As long as they a definitive nod relating to the Oracle's traditional role as a divine mouthpiece/messenger, I think the name itself is fine.

We need to remember that the PF oracle is not a carbon copy of Delphi.

We could go on forever, futilely arguing over the name (futilely because it was said that it's not going to be changed), but the fact is that the PF oracle is not someone who hides away in a cave, takes drugs and spews prophecies. It's not the cave, either.

It's a speaker (which is the origin of the word oracle: To speak) for a concept. The Speaker of Wisdom (or whatever they'll call the knowledge focus) might be about the prophecy thing, but the Oracle of Flames is all about fire.

The mystic theurge class is balanced on the assumption that arcane casting and divine casting use different ability scores.

10th level Mystic theurge:

Cleric 3/Wizard 3/Mystic Theurge 4: Casts 4th-level spells in either class, while a single-classed character would have 5th-level spells.

Oracle 4/Sorcerer 4/Mystic Theurge 2: Casts 3th-level spells in either class.

16:
Clr 3/Wiz 3/Mys 10: 7th-level spells instead of 8th-level spells
Ora 4/Sor 4/Mys 8: 6th-level spells.

You're two levels of spells behind the single caster. Sure, you get tons of spells, but what does it matter? You only get one spell per round, and the other guy's spells are so much better than yours!

I think you just proved my point. Wisdom is about understanding, perception, and insight. I don't see Oracles being particularly forceful of personality. People come to them looking for council, interpretaion, and insight, they don't go to them with flowery speech (and most definetly not social grace).

Mechanically, the Oracle using Cha makes no sense other than to keep it as a "divine sorcerer". But that is not what they are.

The Oracle is not a diviner, priest, or fortune-teller. Rather, an oracle is a mystic philosopher, councilor, village elder, wise man on the mountain, or gypsy wise woman.

My problem is that experienceing and understanding the world

I'm not saying Devotion to a deity, but rather devotion to whatever their focus is. War, Death, etc. . . In a non-metagaming way, the less devoted would take levels in other things.

Which is good, because it would be boring.

[Off topic]To be honest, I think realisticly, Sorcerers should be Wis, too, especially with what you just said, because there is nothing Charsmatic about how a Sorcerer uses/advances their power.[end off topic]

Dedication to a higher course or an ideal is wisdom. Power through learning is intelligence. Mastering powers you just have is charisma.

It's also a "balance" thing. The mental stats should get equal screen time.

And it's a "backwards compatibility" thing: Sorcerers use Cha. Spontaneous casters use Cha. Guys with innate power (power you're born with, power that's trust upon you) use Cha. I think it's a nice concept, and I don't think it should be done away with.

ZappoHisbane wrote:

Threeshades wrote:

I think it's sad though that you have to come up with house rules to get all of the interesting races balanced. Especially on this otherwise greatest RPG system of them all.

I think if they were that interesting, they'd be core. I suspect rather that what makes them interesting is that they're not core. People who like playing monstrous races (myself included) tend to enjoy something different from the norm. If lizardfolk were balanced with humans, dwarves, elves and tieflings, well... then they'd be dragonborn, and boring. :)

I think dragonborn are interesting. Because theyre not humans. Like Dwarves, Elves, Halflings and Gnomes. Those are humans, just in slightly different proportions. If I wanted to be a human, i wouldnt need to play a role playing game.

Dragonborn. What, except their goofy looks, makes them not human?

I say that's the cheap way out. Star Trek syndrome - aliens are just humans with raging mutant acne.

No, it takes more than that for a human to create a non-human persona.

Wow! Triplets! He-Man, She-Ra, and Thundarrr.

Back to the original topic:

any thoughts on changing the Monk's "High Jump" ability to allow 4x the height (basically like a distance jump)?

"If you have something to push off, like a wall, the DC for a high jump is equal to height x2. If you have two walls (or trees or something like that) opposite each other, the DC for a high jump is equal to height.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

MerrikCale wrote:

KaeYoss wrote:

My take on the classes/PrCs mentioned:

Warlock: I guess you mean a "at will" caster guy. I don't think there will be something like that for Pathfinder, not in its current incarnation.

and yet all wizards have essentially at will spells as cantrips

No where near the same. Not even close.

Its the same only in that its at will casting which for some reason was said to have no place in Pathfinder. Not sure why

KaeYoss wrote:

My take on the classes/PrCs mentioned:

Warlock: I guess you mean a "at will" caster guy. I don't think there will be something like that for Pathfinder, not in its current incarnation.

and yet all wizards have essentially at will spells as cantrips

We can call it a day.

The other sphinxes were cut from the book, probably for space reasons.

How many sphinxes do you need?

If you want something on the fly, use the gyrosphinx, slap the advanced template on it, and say it's the male version.

Okay, they told me not to reveal this, but I'm a rebel at heart!

The real reason she has a gem in her head is that it's an Elven Memory Gem. It imparts knowledge.

Of course, in the case of Merisiel (never the sharpest knife in the drawer), it's mainly "Breathe in. Breathe out. Breathe in. Breathe out."

Black dragon ninjas. That's all that needs saying. No one of you will be able to sleep tonight.

I seem to remember one Roman emperor being killed by an assassin who hid in the latrine and waited for him to use it then thrust a sword up.

Oh, and this is Arcane Strike. Not Divine Strike. The wording might not be perfect, but the GM still has the last word on... well, everything. Including whether it's possible or likely that frozen cows from space fall on your character's head and kill him. Just saying.

Want to find loopholes? Moo.

Taking Arcane Strike for a crossbow is sub-optimal, to say at least.