Lord Pendragon's page

I, personally, have no real problem with Dervish Dance. The only real issue I have with it is that it only works with a Scimitar.

This never bothered me, mostly because I tend to completely divorce mechanics from flavor text. My magus picked up Dervish Dance but he's not a whirling dervish, nor is his weapon a scimitar.

Mechanically, yes. But in-game he wields a gunblade and fights with it using a self-taught style of swordsmanship that emphasizes speed over strength.

I guess if you must always use the flavor text as written I can see how it'd be bothersome. But both as a DM and a player, I've never felt the necessity.

My magus' "scimitar" is a gunblade. Last time I DM'd sturges they weren't bugs but porcelain dolls that distended their jaws and latched onto the PCs to suck out their blood.

I stick to the mechanics for balance reasons. But the flavor text is all mine. :)

There is a difference between PC conflict and Player vs Player. PC conflict is good when both players are in on it and having fun.

I agree.

In one of my most successful campaigns as a DM, one PC was a little girl, while the other two PCs were young adults. The campaign wound up having several instances of player conflict.

In one instance, the young woman tried to force the child to take a bath, which the child refused. This resulted in actual combat rounds wherein the young woman tried to grapple the child into the water, but ultimately failed.

In another instance, the party was exploring a very creepy haunted house when the two adults came across a scene where ghosts were re-enacting a brutal rape. They managed to keep the child from the room so that she wouldn't have to see it. (The child's player actually did not know what was in the room, or why the other two players were trying to keep her out, since that information was given to the adults' players via written note.)

The party conflict in the campaign, both the instance that actually involved combat rounds and the one that didn't, added a great deal to the game. But it was never player versus player. It was always character versus character. And even then, none of the characters involved were motivated by antagonism towards the other characters.

The situation doesn't break verisimilitude for me. He's a barbarian, which means he's tough. It's hardly unbelievable that he could overcome the physical pain of a wounded foot to make his escape.

I don't think he'd be dragging himself, or hopping or limping. He's a savage barbarian.

Next time, invest in some iron manacles.

The only thing that would upset me would be if there weren't a blood trail to follow.

I mean, sure, he could ignore the pain well enough to run off at nearly regular speed. Barbarian and all. But he'd still be leaking.

and no need to be mean science rob... im a little kid(relatively)

Darkorbit, I don't think you did anything wrong. However, your DM has allowed you to use far too many race points in building your custom race, resulting in an overpowering advantage over the other players.

My suggestion would be for you to simply use one of the base races in the CRB. That will quickly bring you back in line with everyone else. :)

When I game, I like to think of my PC as one of the main characters in his own novel. Sure, there's the possibility that he might die, but unless it's the final chapter of the novel, it's not likely to be permanent. I do not enjoy playing revolving-PCs. I like investing in one PC's story/background/development over the course of a campaign.

As such, I am strongly against penalties for death. They discourage heroism and risk-taking in general. They discourage forming strong attachments to your PCs. For me, at least, they take away a lot of the fun from gaming.

I can understand that perhaps in some games folks are so cavalier about PCs being revivable that such penalties start to look attractive to the DM. Luckily for me my experience has been that players see death as enough of a failure already, without tacking on additional penalties.

its not straight up awesome in execution unless you think about getting the most out of it and unless you flat out got great rolls, its a very MAD class even if you do go the Dervish Dancer route.

I agree. I did wind up with great rolls so I'm not facing MAD, but to get the most out of the magus class you definitely need to have 3 good stats minimum, either strength or dex, int, and con. While you could give up a high int and just go with getting items to boost you to the minimum needed to cast your spells, that removes your effectiveness as a blaster/debuffer, which is a large part of the magus' versatility. Likewise a low con will make standing on the front lines for any length of time more dicey.

Its a great class and one that I enjoy playing but I have about the same expectations of them that I have of other classes - sure they have a damage spike schtick when crits/shocking grasps go their way but for the rest of the time the have to work hard to make sure they hold up their fair share of the burdens of adventuring with the rest of the party.

One mistake I made with my magus was not writing up an alternative to Arcane Mark at 1st-level. I refused to use Arcane Mark to activate Spellstrike/Spell Combat, but without that extra attack, you're going to feel really underwhelming at low levels.

I highly suggest that folks planning on playing a magus from level 1 either suck it up and use Arcane Mark or, if you're like me and find it untenable, see if your dm will allow you to write up an alternative cantrip that seems less silly, but also provides that magical melee touch attack.

another option is to use Spring Attack. you can cross ally squares, make an attack from an ally square, then end your move in an unoccupied square. pretty sure you can't combo it with Shocking Grasp though... but can always ask (and investing 3 feats might lend weight to your ask)...

Hrm. That's an interesting idea. But expensive. So expensive. I've had characters go down that route before, but I'm hoping it won't be necessary this time around.

My character is dex-based and has Acrobatics maxed out. Between that, Lunge, and spells such as Bladed Dash, I'm hoping he'll be able to find a way to get somewhere advantageous. :)

For 3rd lvl the only other even useful options are perhaps familiar and wand wielder.

Wand Wielder never appealed to me, mostly for flavor reasons. My PC's flavor is as an airship captain and semi-pirate, and when I envision him fighting, I like the idea of him alternating between one- and two-handed grips on his sword (not mechanically, just fluff-wise).

Now Familiar I gave a lot of thought to. I think a hawk pet/familiar would have fit the character rather well, and as a player I place a lot of value on Perception. It's not a class skill for magi sadly, but getting a hawk familiar could help compensate for that.

Unfortunately I then read the rules for familiars in Pathfinder, and discovered that in order to grant its bonuses to you, the familiar has to be in arm's reach. And that just seemed silly. I'd be fighting while my familiar was flying overhead, not with the bloody thing on my shoulder. >.<

So yeah you have a fair point. I hope to see another Arcana or two in future books.

Me too!

I think the two classes are balanced as is. Removing one of the disadvantages of the sorcerer requires either a replacement disadvantage, or a commensurate bonus to the prepared casters.

I'd probably wind up giving the prepared casters a sorcerer's daily spell slots. Turnabout, fair play, yadda yadda.

Speaking of future plans, what weapon enchantments have folks found synergize best with the magus?

I've heard a lot of folks recommend spell storing, but given Spell Recall it strikes me as underwhelming, especially since a stored spell loses your caster level.

What are you guys putting on your blades?

How does your DM feel about spell research? I decided to research this spell for my magus (or plan to research it in a few levels):

Obviously this spell is tailored for a magus. But you could research some form of anti-SR for any caster. If your DM is amenable, you could work out something similar.

Yes, your ring of spell storing w/ Dispel Magic at CL 5. I'm sure that will work wonderfully for you.

D'oh, I always forget about that bloody caster level bit when thinking about the Ring of Spell Storing. :p

Perhaps buy a scroll of dispel magic (of an appropriately decent caster level) and give it to one of the party's casters, asking them to burn it on Fickle Winds should it get tossed your way?

I definitely do not prefer this kind of adversarial play. However, so long as the you make it clear that this is the kind of game that you're running (to the other players), then they can choose whether or not to play in that sort of game.

Should they accept, then they are aware that some players may be trying to steal from them, and decide how to react to that.

If you do *not* tell them, they will almost certainly feel betrayed. They are likely working under the assumption that they're playing a co-operative game, and to be told only after the fact that this isn't the case is douchery at its finest.

Were such a bait-and-switch done to me, It'd be the last time I'd game with that DM, period.

@the OP, the main reason a range-focused cleric can be iffy is that not only do you have to spend feats to get the necessary archery feats, but you are also going to have to invest in Reach spell, since Cure Wounds spells are touch. A melee cleric is likely going to be able to just reach over and tap the fighter, and therefore not need it.

But it is definitely doable, if expensive.

Also, I agree with Jiggy about your casting stat. While bonus spells are nice, if you don't plan on going into attack/control spells, the extra Wisdom is mostly wasted. Not entirely. Some bonus spells can be nice, the boosted will save doesn't hurt...but it's likely you could put those points somewhere else that they'd be more beneficial.

Carry a sword.

No sane adventurer counts on being able to use his preferred combat tactic in every encounter. It's why my fighters carry bows. It's why my archers carry swords.

Sure, you won't be as effective as you would be in your element. But you won't be useless.

You could also look into picking up a Ring of Spell Storing and having a party caster toss Dispel Magic in there, so you can deal with the problem yourself.

Contingency plans, man. Always gotta have em.

Druid is a good healer and if you're dead set against a cleric, a very solid choice.

That said, a cleric doesn't have to be boring at all. It depends on your concept. I once created a Lawful-Neutral cleric of a an Evil god whose shtick was wading into combat with a greataxe, killing his foes, then sucking the life out of their dying bodies to empower himself.

Luckily for the rest of the party, he lived by a very strict mercenary code which meant you could absolutely trust that once he'd taken a contract, he'd never turn on you. But the way he got things done wasn't always pretty.

Just remember that clerics can be about more than healing, even if they are responsible for healing as needed. The fact that they can substitute any non-domain spell for a Cure Wounds means you can prep all sorts of fun stuff and only burn spells for healing as necessary.

Still, I understand that clerics aren't for everyone. If not...druid.

If it were a more significant spell I'd probably disallow #5, but Jump? Yeah, I'd probably just let a bard pick it as a level-up spell on their list...

I am just curious as to what people think about player vs. player conflict within a game when both players are acting in character.

I have seen this happen a couple times, and in my experience it has never worked out. Players, even adults, simply cannot see an attack on their character as anything other than an attack on themselves. The player who loses the PvP conflict is always left hurt and upset, both with the other player, and possibly with the entire group for allowing it to happen.

I strongly recommend disallowing it, or at the very least strongly discouraging it.

Yes, the code is, mechanically, a set of external strictures on the player. But I think it's silly to envision a character saying "I've signed up to be a paladin, and I have to follow the rules if I want to remain a paladin." That seems like a rather metagame perspective, for one thing. And it doesn't seem like a particularly good perspective, inasmuch as acting in a certain way because you don't want to suffer the consequences of acting in a different way isn't altruism, it's fear. On the other hand, "I live my life according to a strong moral code, and because I do, I am a paladin" strikes me as more coherent.

I agree completely. Paladins are born, not made. Some of the most intriguing paladin concepts I've come across are for paladins that didn't even know they were such and, in some cases, hated that they were. :)

Not in my case. I've played under GMs where that has happened, but when I host games, if the players optimize and cake walk encounters, I let them.

Why? Because I'm smart enough to know that, if they are optimizing for that purpose, then that is obviously what they want.

This may definitely be the case, but it's not always the case. Take me for example. I enjoy optimizing not because I want every encounter to be a cakewalk, but because I enjoy system mastery and using that mastery to put together a character build. But I also enjoy challenging combats.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

I recognize that this can mean more work for my DMs, particularly if they're using pre-made encounters. Luckily for me, my DM has been willing to put in the extra effort, and I enjoy his games (and appreciate him) all the more for it.

For those DMs who might consider it, he often handles the need for increased challenges by simply adding more bad guys. An encounter that might have been a cakewalk can be anything but if you just double the standard amount of dudes. :p

So! Problem is, if I don't lower the DCs in the upcoming AP, he will die. He will die over and over.

I don't see why this would be so. With a 16 dex, 18 con, and 12 wisdom he's going to have good saves, awesome hit points, and fair AC (for a rogue anyway). He will probably fare better than the rest of the party in resisting spells and effects, and be able to absorb more hit point damage than anyone other than an optimized tank.

We already have two, possibly three, charisma based characters, so him spending all his points on social skills is a waste.

It's not a waste if he enjoys these skills though, is it? Sure, your group may not have a lockpick. But that's easily solved by one of the other charisma toons picking up leadership and hiring a sneak, if that is necessary.

He can't contribute anything reliably.

I have trouble with this statement. It sounds like in-character, his guy is a fence doing his best to participate. No he's not going to mechanically do as well as the others, but he's not goofing off or endangering the group. I don't see why you'd try and force him to play a character concept he may very well be less passionate about due to him failing to measure up to some kind of implied contributory requirement.

I often object, as a player, to characters that are RP'd as goof-offs and clowns. In-character I'd have no reason to adventure with someone who doesn't take the life-or-death situations we find ourselves in seriously. I do not play idiots, so taking the clown into the Hall of Many Nasty Things just ain't going to happen.

But that doesn't seem to be what's going on here. In-character his guy is a fence. Has some decent (if redundant) skills, and eventually his dagger proficiencies will sort themselves out once he has gained some experience and learned the appropriate TWF techniques (feats).

I honestly don't see a problem.

I've always thought of them as equal but different.

The wizard requires more finesse to play well, since you will need to consider what spells to scribe into your book, and then pick which spells you think will be the most useful on a given day. If you have an idea of what you'll be facing, being able to tailor your spell load-out accordingly can be immensely effective. The flipside of that is that if you guess wrong you could wind up with a lot of spells that prove ineffective.

The sorcerer is the complete opposite. He cannot constantly add to his spell list. He can't change which spells he knows on different days to tailor his abilities to a given encounter. However, with good spell selection he can unload a lot more spellpower than the wizard. Sorcerers are traditionally better blasters than wizards. Also, their ability to apply metamagic on the fly can make them adaptable mid-combat in a way that wizards aren't.

Obviously, I'm ignoring the various new items that have been (erroneously imo) added to the game to completely bypass these weaknesses. So if you are playing with all published materials available, ymmv.

The problem with a ranged rogue is that they would only get to sneak attack in the first round, and only if they go before their foes (so that their foes are flat-footed.) Otherwise, you have to be flanking.

This problem can be solved with the spell Improved Invisibility, which would let you sneak attack constantly so long as your foes can't see through invisibility.

That's going to require either a friendly mid-level caster, or a somewhat expensive magic item.

As a side note, the system you described seems far, far away from Pathfinder. >.>

Leadership is an amazing feat, mainly because it allows a PC to shore up his weaknesses.

Are you a wizard in need of a meat shield? Leadership!

Are you a rogue without a flanking partner? Leadership!

Are you a fighter who could use more buffage? Leadership!

My paladin took leadership and picked up a holy sword that was an angel (mechanically a cleric). Its job was to cast lots and lots of buffs on me.

I'm a pretty serious optimizer. I enjoy the puzzle of building a character, of selecting synergistic feats, etc. I don't feel like this hampers my RP, since my characters personality, history, foibles, etc. aren't predicated on his mechanical attributes. While others in my group may not spend as much time at it, several of them are long-term (20+ years) gamers, and definitely have a solid level of rules mastery. They don't build their characters to be weak either.

We've never had any drama that one character was "outshining" the others.

Our DM has never had trouble throwing challenges at us that were appropriate for our power level.

I can understand the concept of a DM wanting to save himself the work of having to power up pre-written adventure foes for a stronger group. But such a DM should understand that he may be buying his convenience at the cost--at least partially--of his players' enjoyment of the game.

My choice would be this on the baby sacrifice issue: "Everyone and everything dies, even gods. If this world must die must die, then let it die with one man saying, 'I will not do this.' There are many worse deaths. Let us chose a moral one."

I was reading through the older posts in this thread and came across this gem. This is a true paladin.

Regarding polytheistic game worlds, I disagree that it means the paladin is suddenly uncertain of his god's ability to back his principles. Being a paladin of a particular god isn't like picking a horse to bet on at the track. It's about faith. And that means having the faith that, no matter how many gods there are, yours will prevail.

Now I can see an argument being made that pantheons such as the Greek or Roman would not support this kind of faith, blatantly flawed as those gods are. And I'd agree with that. But then, a campaign world with those kinds of divinities is no place for paladins.

Lord Pendragon wrote:

A world saved through innocent blood is itself tainted for all time.

The world is not a sentient being, it has no soul, if it is saved by the means of killing an innocent than the world spins on, unaware that innocent blood saved it, unaware that it has been saved, in fact unaware at all as it's not sentient!

The sun will not turn red as a consequence, the sky will not darken, the seas will not boil.

The world will spin on, oblivious.

Ignorance is no excuse. Consider Arthurian Legend. Arthur was doomed because he slept with his sister. It did not matter in the slightest that he didn't know she was his sister at the time. He committed an act that tainted him, period.

I did not mean to suggest that the world is sentient. But rather that everyone in it would be thereafter tainted and doomed, just like Arthur. They may not know why, but their lives were bought with Evil. It would be up to a later champion, a true paladin and not a pretender, to try and redeem them.

Naturally the DM has the right to set up the morality of his worlds as he sees fit, which I mentioned in my earlier posts. However, given the pedigree of the paladin concept, I've always felt that looking at classic ideas of faith, honor, redemption, and Evil are worthwhile. :)

I tend to like to fill out my defensive items before going into more situational stuff.

That said, I recommend an Amulet of Natural Armor +1.

And therein is the dilemma. In a game where a "d6+1" group (that doesn't perfectly optimize stats, gear, feats and skills) can still succeed, it only takes one (who has to 100% perfectly plan out stats, feats, gear, and skills to maximize a combat concept, who knows there's spells you don't waste your time on ever and only weapons with superior damage to crit ratios should be utilized) to leave other players feeling inferior for having dared to go with something outside the "must-have" guide.

In my last long-term game as a player, we had some PCs that were clearly stronger powerhouses than others. This didn't create any of the problems that are currently being touted as inevitable in this thread. The two strongest PCs, the paladin and the fighter/barbarian, knew their job was to engage the biggest threats on the field. Our enemies (especially by 20th level, but also long before that) were not stupid. We never faced one guy. We went up against large groups.

The fact that the fighter and paladin could dish out a lot of damage wasn't a weakness. The group depended on it. And there were plenty of kills to go around.

Dunno. I hate these threads where folks seem to intimate that optimization is naughtybadfun. Some people (myself included) enjoy the technical aspect of character creation. We enjoy the puzzle. So long as the DM is experienced enough to handle it, it doesn't have to be a problem.

It seems most people don't ever put that much thought into recommending arcane accuracy and just do it because the forums say its good.

If you think about it though its rather lack luster.

For me the problem was that a lot of the magus arcana are lackluster, particularly the ones with low or no level requirements. Finding an arcane I could take at level 3 that I was really excited about was simply not possible.

So I chose Arcane Accuracy figuring that against foes with extremely high ACs it could prove situationally useful. And we definitely encounter those from time to time. My int is very good (19 currently, will bump it to 20 then boost with items as opportunity/money allows) so it's a not insignificant bonus when I need it.

I wish there were something more all-around useful, but nothing caught my eye.

30' foot reach at 3rd level? what is his build?

He's playing a Large race and using a kusarigama, which is a reach weapon (which doubles your natural reach). It may only be a 20' reach actually now that I think about it. But since he takes up a 10x10 space it's 30' in practice. Naturally, he's taken Combat Reflexes. :p

I have no doubt I'll catch up and possibly even surpass him once we reach mid-level, when I can start burning through more Shocking Grasps. But at this stage of the campaign, he's definitely the heavy-hitter.

Lounge work only during your turn, so it don't help with AoO normally.

Hrm. Good point. I'm not too broken up about it though, since I didn't plan on burning a feat on Combat Reflexes anyway. I was more interested in 1) being able to cast higher-level spells without worrying about a concentration check, and 2) being able to attack past other members of my party. If everyone shows up, we have 5 melee attackers (plus a bard bow-jockey and alchemist explosives expert), so in tight quarters getting into a position to attack in melee can be challenging. Having the option of using Lunge to attack from the second row could prove very valuable.

I played a paladin for 2 years of weekly games, the longest-running campaign I've ever had the pleasure of being a part of. Mine was a paladin of Pelor (3.5) and the chosen champion of that god, blessed with a sacred shield, holy griffon mount and, by 20th-level, a sword that was an angel.

Paladin ethics fascinate me, and let me start by saying that nobody is wrong. As we all know, the important point is that the GM and player are on the same page regarding the morality of the game world. That said, let me add to the discussion by talking about how it worked in our game.

The ends never justify the means. Now I've seen a few folks in this thread talking about buying a bus ticket to go shopping and so on, but that's not what we're talking about here. What we're talking about here is a moral scenario, in which a paladin is given the option of accomplishing a goal (the ends) through a certain set of actions (the means), wherein the goal is noble (usually saving the world) and the means are tainted (killing an innocent, for instance).

Some folks in this thread suggest that the paladin should kill the child and save the world, even at the cost (most assuredly) of his own soul. To do otherwise would be to value his own soul over the well-being of the entire world, a sin of both pride and arrogance.

I respectfully disagree. Doing so not only taints the paladin, it taints the entire world. A world saved through innocent blood is itself tainted for all time. What good is it to save the world if, in the process, you destroy its soul?

The hard choice here, for the paladin, is to risk the destruction of all to find a way to save the world and its innocence. To not take the easy way out, no matter how painful it is. He has to have faith that he can find a way to save the world that doesn't involve killing an innocent. God is with him in this. By God's grace, he will find a way, or die trying.

(Incidentally, this gives me a great idea for a future campaign that has been "saved" through innocent blood. The sun goes dark, and the world turns into a cold, "post-apocalyptic" type setting until the adventurers can discover what happened ages ago, and redeem the world from the paladin's sin...)

Can a paladin lie? Yes, but he will never do so if he can possibly help it. Paladins are champions of truth. However, they are not (at least how I play them), stupid. To further is heroic purpose, he may be forced to lie. Should he do so, he will seek confession with a priest of his God at the earliest opportunity.

Can a paladin travel/associate with evil individuals? Yes and no. Mortals are fallible. Many of them commit petty evils on occasion. This does not make them Evil with a capital E. Their alignments are probably Neutral or Lawful-Neutral. These he can deal with. Evil with a capital 'E' is reserved for the truly despicable. For demons and morals with truly black hearts. These he cannot abide. Tolerating such for convenience's sake is, again, the easy way. And the paladin is not about the easy path.

In my game there was a cleric of Farlangyn who would repeatedly make...morally questionable...suggestions. Luckily for him, I was the leader of our group, so they remained suggestions only. Still, I gave him the Evil Eye (Detect Evil) repeatedly throughout the campaign. He never pinged on the Evil-dar. Luckily for him. :p

Paladins are about doing what is right despite the difficulty. They are about choosing never to sacrifice the innocent. To tolerate Evil. To take the easy way out. They're about taking the high road, and having faith that God will show them the way.

when i think CE, i picture mindless slaughter just for fun.

Of course you can define it any way you like, it's your game, but while mindless slaughter is certainly CE, there are many more flavors of CE than just that. CE is Evil without any rules. Breaking the rules for your own benefit certainly strikes me as chaotic evil.

Also, you may want to consider the degree of evil theft constitutes in your world. Is it big evil, like murder? Or is it more of a little evil? If so, it'll take longer for a full alignment shift.

Once you do change it though, you should definitely create a situation where the PC learns what's happened. That'll be the fun part. :D

How does sundering my ranged weapon prevent me from moving?

It doesn't, he was replying to Arisett.

I just read in another post about a PC intensifying Fireball. I'd definitely planned on picking up Fireball in case I needed to do some blasting, but 15d6 for a 4th-level slot (at 15th-level) seems really nice! Especially since I'll already have Intensify Spell for Shocking Grasp.

Any and all magus tips/tricks from folks who've played them up are more than welcome. This is my first time playing the class, so I'm sure there's a lot I'm missing, even if I am a mechanics junky. :p

From a non-mechanic's perspective, it fits the backstory. Level 1 diviner wizard with a blade he can't quite completely identify. He uses it as his arcane bonded object and BAM ! All subsequent levels are Magus (bladebound kensai), if he wants to or not.

Nice!

The rules seem unclear to me. I can see a case being made for allowing all three examples you gave in the OP.

But...example 3 just feels wonky to me. Both the Cleave and the Cleaving Finish come from the same source. The same "swing" if you will. In my mind that means you are extending your swing to slash through the primary target and into a secondary target. To cleave the same target twice you'd have to reverse your swing, literally make a different swing.

...yeah. I can see the arguments for it, but as a DM I'd rule you can't spend the extra attacks from Cleave and Finishing Cleave on the same target.

Guys, you might want to take the Theurge vs Witch conversation to another thread, rather than derailing poor IcyShadow's request for Theurge build help. >.<

Seriously tho i dont see power attack unless it's a must have as a prereq. another thing I dont see often is toughness.

Take it from us, this is not common. For a PC focused on a two-handed weapon, Power Attack is one of the most powerful feats in the game.

Toughness is also very strong in PF. You may not be seeing it much if folks are still thinking of the 3.5 version though, which sucked donkey nuts. It's another case of PF's similarities to 3.5 sometimes hiding rather significant changes.

Common things I see at the table: TWF, quick draw (a feat I have been known to house rule and give out for free), rapid shot, improved shield bash, combat reflexes, combat expertise.

And just to prove how misleading personal anecdotes can be, I almost never see quickdraw or combat reflexes, and haven't ever seen improved shield bash or combat expertise in over 5 years of steady once-a-week gaming.

Now I'm trying to imagine how Bull Rush would look as an AoO. Might be a fun tactic for those with reach weapon to keep opponents at the proper range...Darn. :(

Trip is your friend. :)

Sometimes however you can get a good story or reason for the cheese.

Absolutely. I remember a thread at ENWorld called (I think, it's been a while) Iron DM, where DMs were given an absolutely ridiculous monster and required to come up with its appearance, backstory, etc. It was something like a Fiendish Half-Dragon Anarchic Ooze or somesuch, though with a lot more templates than those I listed.

The winner was absolutely amazing. Turned out to be the blood of a demon god or something. :D

You're reading it incorrectly. The reason it mentions magical bonuses to escape artist and checks to escape a grapple is because there are ways to get those things other than Freedom of Movement. For instance, you could use this spell to stymie a gnome rogue whose used to wriggling out of grapples. You could use it to grapple Random Monster X, who has magical bonuses to escape grapples. etc. etc.

Inescapable grasp provides more than just Freedom of Movement suppression, hence the list of additional bonuses.

An attack of opportunity provides you with a single melee attack. Combat Maneuvers (unless otherwise specified) can replace a single melee attack. Therefore, unless noted in a specific maneuver, you can indeed perform a combat maneuver in place of the single melee attack granted by an AoO.

I'm considering a Magus (Kensai) so that Wizard Dip for Mage Armor looks better. I think I'll stick with Divination to always go in the Surprise round rather than admixture though. Too bad you can't take more than one magic trait.

If I understand the kensai correct from reading posts on these forums, they already wind up with a pretty hefty AC. A dip into wizard might cost you more than you gain, unless there are other bennies you're looking for.

Question: Are you using your Arcane Points to give your weapon a enhancement bonus?

Absolutely. I currently have 6 AP points (4 from int, 1 from 1/2 level, 1 from special item). We usually have about 3 combats a day, rarely more. That leaves me with 3 extra points and nothing to spend them on other than Arcane Accuracy. I'll likely be trying to remember to use this even if it doesn't feel absolutely necessary, at least until I get to 4th-level and can use those points to start recalling Shocking Grasp.

Three things to note.

1) It suppresses Freedom of Movement for the duration. That means that, for the duration, the target is treated as not having Freedom of Movement. That includes every part of Freedom of Movement.

2) You can use this ability at the beginning of your turn, as a swift action before you begin your turn. That means that when you then attempt to grapple him, he's not immune.

3) The ability lasts until the until the beginning of your next turn, meaning that (so long as you have the ki points needed) you can chain this ability to keep your opponent's Freedom of Movement suppressed for as long as you need.

Using your AoO to attack does not stop movement.

Using it to trip on the other hand.... *evil grin*

In short I feel that spell research is very like custom magic item creation and needs to be monitored carefully.

I absolutely agree. My magus currently has plans to invent two spells, which I've already gotten approved by my DM. It's a powerful tool that let's players be creative both thematically, and in developing their characters' abilities.

That said, just like custom magic items or options from splatbooks/3rd-party sources, the GM has to be very careful to understand each thing he's allowing into his game, and decide whether or not it's going to disrupt game balance.

But I'm a little worried, as they reach higher levels, the chance of losing their weapons increases (due to making more attacks per turn) and the consequences become more dire (being disarmed against a dragon is a lot mroe dangerous than being disarmed against goblins.)

Our group does not use critical failures, precisely for this reason. Due to the numbers involved, it penalizes the PCs far, far more than the NPCs.

But hey, if your group enjoys them, so be it. I'd basically leave it as is. If, at higher levels there are a couple deaths due to critical fumbles, you may want to re-visit the issue with your group.

"Hey guys, are we still enjoying fumble rules? We can remove them if you guys would prefer."

If they are still cool with it, cool beans. As you said, it's all about having fun. If they've realized it's more deadly for them than their enemies and would prefer to remove them, you can always ditch them then.

In a game that i am currently running, there is a CN rouge/shadow dancer who fancies herself as a prostitute. She coaxes male NPCs (with plenty of successful diplomacy checks) into the crime, and then proceeds to rob them of their valuables before sneaking out the following day.

Is this evil?

As the god(s) of the world in question, only you can answer that. Basically 1) is prostitution Evil, and 2) is theft Evil?

I do not mean legal. Human laws have nothing to do with it. I mean cosmically, objectively Evil. And the gods (you) determine that. In my worlds, willing prostitution may be self-destructive, but is definitely not Evil, nor would theft be, though theft is certainly chaotic. But you(r gods) may feel differently.

and what should be done if so?

If you decide that one or both of these practices are Evil, then a gradual alignment shift to CE is warranted. Hidden from the player of course, until she's hit by an alignment effect she didn't realize she was vulnerable to. >:D

Other than that, nothing. Rogues/shadowdancers have no alignment requirements, so there are no penalties for slipping into evil, other than, as I already mentioned, potentially becoming vulnerable to spells/effects that target Evil.