Ventnor's page

If you're taking requests, cartmanbeck, would you mind taking a crack at Ifrits next?

I'd say maybe a Half-Elven sorcerer with the Paragon Surge spell? They can cast that spell to temporarily learn another spell via a temporary bonus feat, which sounds like it could be what you're going for.

Probably don't want to give a perception bonus. Its a stronger skill than any others. That's why the owl and eagle only give their perception bonuses under certain conditions.

Maybe a perception bonus when tracking something?

Out of curiosity, how optimal is a Dex-based brute rogue, using a weapon like a Spiked Chain or an Elven Curved Blade?

You could try refluffing Sawtooth Sabers as twin cutlasses. They're basically longswords that are set up specifically for dual-wielding.

Spellcraft really shouldn't be its own skill.

Let Knowledge Arcana deal with Arcane Spells, Knowledge Religion deal with Cleric, Paladin, and Inquisitor Spells, and Knowledge Nature deal with Druid and Ranger spells.

Ashiel wrote:

You're arguing semantics.

No, I am arguing defined gaming terms, in the context of the game.

Quote:

It takes some evil to be Neutral. Satyrs using their magics to get some BJs from the local shepherd boy is pretty suspect on the morality scale (he's using that poor boy as a sex toy). Ill will or not, that's pretty messed up since the only reason the satyr is doing it is for their own pleasure. Same with knockin' up the local maidens.

The succubus is more likely to be more destructive with it, but it's not evil 'cause she's a succubus. Professor Xavier would be a pretty evil fellow if he was occasionally using his mind-affecting powers to have Jubilee pannin' the goods when nobody was looking. Even if his intention wasn't to harm or knock the good mutant up, that's basically what we're talking about the the satyrs. Using mind-affecting spells and/or powers to invoke...

It doesn't take "some evil" to be Neutral. He just isn't motivated to do either weal or woe to others. There's no need for neutral characters to do Good and Evil actions in equal measure, but having said that if the primary defining behavior of the character was Evil then you would imagine that would make the character Evil.

Succubi are evil, well, because that's what they are. They are literally the embodiment of temptation corrupting the soul. That's what demons are, a physical depiction of evil. The fact both use Charm abilities is incidental to why they use them.

Your own quote from the appendix states "Charmed characters retain free will but makes choices according to a skewed world view."

The DM is free to give the affected person a second save (violently opposed), require a charisma check, or even consider sexual assault an "attack" that breaks the spell. I understand your point about the charisma check making the sex consensual, but I disagree. Since the charmed person retains free will, I think a DM would be within his rights to say sexual assault is an "attack" if he so...

How much free will do you have if some random guy convinces you that your brother's going to cause the apocalypse unless you stab him right now?

Honestly, I do think that most enchantment spells should have an evil descriptor, because taking away someone's ability to make choices is one of the most evil things you can do.

Ventnor wrote:

So why not allow it? Individual DMs could restrict Paladins to LG in their home settings if they so desired, and people could play NG or CG Paladins at official events and such. Really, I don't see any downside for officially allowing Paladins be any good alignment.

I didn't address this earlier because I was busy so sorry for the late reply

You are allowed. Pathfinder is built to be altered. If you want add, remove, or alter part of the game you are not only allowed but encouraged by the game itself. There is a whole section on these forums for house rules. So have at your CG and NG Paladins. Why do I have to change my game? I play Pathfinder with the fluff that was included because I like it. If I didn't like it, I would change. You want to change the CRB (at least this is the impression I'm getting, correct me if I'm wrong), which changes the game for me. So again, why can't you change your game? Why do I have to change my game?

How is it changing your game?

The problem come from the definition of a chaotic person being someone who does not submit to authority. That is the thing that makes them chaotic.

As to the second part, no a Cleric of Cayden could not work to promote tyranny and oppression and continue to draw upon Cayden's divine power, as that would be a gross violation. However the cleric isn't under any obligation to act to stop it, either. The cleric would be encouraged to do so, and would be likely held in greater favor, but no obligation.

Conversely, a Paladin must help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

See the difference?

I dunno, not acting to stop tyranny might be a gross violation on the part of Cayden's clerics.

Also, a chaotic cleric is submitting to Cayden's will, yes? That's what clerics do; submit themselves to a greater being for divine powers. By your definition of chaotic, there can be no chaotic clerics.

Ventnor wrote:

I just don't understand how Paladins of any good alignment destroys Pathfinder fluff forever. I really don't. All I keep hearing is "PALADINS WON'T BE PALADINS ANYMORE EVERYTHING IS RUINED SHARK JUMP AAAA"

D&D survived Druids being allowed to be any neutral alignment. It survived Evil Rangers. Why is Paladins of any good alignment the straw that breaks the camel's back? Why is it an idea so abhorrent that anyone who asks about it is automatically labeled a munchkin powergamer weeaboo? How does it destroy the "Holy Crusader for Good" concept that is central to the Paladin? Why would it make Paladins who are incorruptibly pure suddenly meaningless?

I don't believe anyone said it would ruin the game, did they. My position, at least, is that in Pathfinder, Paladins are LG. If you want to change that for your games you can. Why must I change it for mine?

I have also said that using Pathfinder's definition of Chaotic Good, a CG Paladin would not swear to follow a code.

That is what I have been discussing. If you (or anyone else) wants to change the discussion then go ahead. Just don't try to say I'm wrong because you're talking about something else.

I dunno, all I've been hearing is that Paladins wouldn't be Paladins anymore, despite the fact that they'd still smite evil, lay on hands, and cast divine magic. And really, Paladins would still be LG. Opening up the Paladin to any good doesn't prevent a LG Paladin in any way, shape, or form.

So why not allow it? Individual DMs could restrict Paladins to LG in their home settings if they so desired, and people could play NG or CG Paladins at official events and such. Really, I don't see any downside for officially allowing Paladins be any good alignment.

I just don't understand how Paladins of any good alignment destroys Pathfinder fluff forever. I really don't. All I keep hearing is "PALADINS WON'T BE PALADINS ANYMORE EVERYTHING IS RUINED SHARK JUMP AAAA"

D&D survived Druids being allowed to be any neutral alignment. It survived Evil Rangers. Why is Paladins of any good alignment the straw that breaks the camel's back? Why is it an idea so abhorrent that anyone who asks about it is automatically labeled a munchkin powergamer weeaboo? How does it destroy the "Holy Crusader for Good" concept that is central to the Paladin? Why would it make Paladins who are incorruptibly pure suddenly meaningless?

And again, we are discussing these rules in this setting.

When Malachifinder is the best selling RPG (or even in the top 20) I will go to the board for Malachifinder and explain that these are the rules for the Malachifinder system, because it is for the Malachifinder setting.

But as far as I know, the Malachifinder system doesn't exist. I have no interest in the Malachifinder style or system, because it doesn't exist.

I do have an interest in being able to sit down at a table of people who have read the rules and have them all present something that fits in the setting.

In the case of a Paladin, when one of my friends says "I'm playing a Paladin" for me to have a rough idea of what that means, so I can create a character that works well with someone playing a paladin.

And when someone says I am Chaotic, Lawful, Neutrl, Good, Evil, etc...that also tells me enough about what they plan to do that I can adjust to make sure we all can work together.

Because, you know, that is kind of important in Pathfinder.

Maybe less so in Malachifinder.

It looks like your basic argument is that it's too much work to say "I'm a Lawful Good Paladin."

Seriously. That's all you have to do. Just add two little words if Paladins are allowed to represent more character concepts.

And I do see how removing the fluff from classes makes the setting bland and boring, or worse a canvas for the ridiculous.

Part of the point of buying the rules for the setting is that it is written by people who are good at making interesting settings that mesh well together.

The point of buying the Core Rulebook is for the core rules of how to play the game. The core should only provide fluff suggestions, not fluff straightjackets.

The LG restriction isn't in the Inner Sea Guide. If it was, this wouldn't be an issue. Note that in the core rulebook, Clerics aren't restricted to worsjipping Gods, but in Golarion, they are. PF isn't restricted to Golarion. It can be used as the mechanical underpinnings for a multitude of fantasy settings. So why not make the core expansive, and then restrict rules for various campaign settings?

I'll reiterate. I'd be fine if the fluff said "Paladins are usually lawful good. In some campaigns, the DM may restrict the Paladin to be only lawful good." That would be okay.

But straightjacketing the paladin so that Paladins can't be wandering knight errants? So that Paladins cannot be flawed characters (since roleplaying those flaws will usually get your powers revoked)? That just seems mean-spirited.

I just don't see why maybe lightening some of those restrictions completely destroys the fluff of the setting forever.

I'm not saying Wizards don't learn spells. I'm not saying that Gods don't exist. I'm just saying that maybe Paladins being champions of all kinds of good doesn't render Golarion invalid in any way, shape, or form.

Ventnor wrote:

Either all classes have to be restricted to one concept, or all of them should support multiple concepts.

Why? Why does it have to be all or nothing? The fighter is a pretty wide open character, while the ranger comes with a little bit more flavor in regards to nature. Is this unfair? The various fluff provides setting. You, as GM can then alter that setting to your preference. If there is no fluff, there is no setting. Then you, as GM, have to create a setting out of whole cloth, then explain the setting to your players because no one has any frame of reference (which many people like and game that way).

I don't see why providing more expansive fluff to the Paladin suddenly makes Pathfinder a fluffless wasteland inhabited only by munchkins and trolls.

Why is it all or nothing that the Paladin has to be lawful good or Pathfinder is ruined forever?

Ventnor wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Ventnor wrote:

I still haven't had my question answered.

Why should legitimate character concepts that could be realized using Paladin mechanics be automatically disallowed because a few people are extra-sensitive that someone they don't know is using those mechanics in a way that they feel is "wrong"?

For the same reasons "legitimate" concepts that could be realized using Wizard mechanics are disallowed if they don't include spellbooks.

It is part of the class.

What you seem to want is GURPS. GURPS is great. Pathfinder is not GURPS.

I just don't see why being inclusive instead of exclusive is a bad thing. Why is every super holy paladin suddenly rendered invalid by the inclusion of more freedom-oriented paladins?

That is the setting.

Would you say it was a failure to be inclusive to not have dinosaurs in a d20 Modern Setting?

Not every setting has all things. And when you don't define things, such as classes, as specific within the setting, you have no setting. You have Gurps.

Can GMs be flexible if they want to? Yes. The GM can always do whatever they want, whenever they want.

Should we make that the default? No, because then there is no setting that is the default we all make changes to for our personal flavor.

If Paladins cease to be paragons of law and virtue, that changes the setting. People don't automatically trust Paladins, they aren't seen as unquestionably good and lawful, they lose a lot of what makes them cool and unique.

If you don't find that aspect cool and unique, you can change it, much like if you don't like walnuts, you can remove them from the recipe.

But "being inclusive" isn't how I would describe it. One person might think adding Jellybeans to a Steak is awesome, and not doing so is being "exclusive".

I think the game, as written, creates an interesting setting that everyone who sits down can understand quickly, much in the same way that saying "I am a Paladin" in game conveys...

Thing is, the Paladin concept is extremely restrictive. Even clerics, who have been held as an example of only being allowed to worship Gods, can actually worship elemental forces or demon lords if they so desire. Fighters can be self-trained farmboys or veteran soldiers. Rogues don't actually have to be thieves if they don't want to.

Why is there just one class that has all this unnecessary fluff? Why is "I am a Paladin?" more important then "I am a Fighter," which doesn't say anything about a character's motivations or personality?

Either all classes have to be restricted to one concept, or all of them should support multiple concepts. I just don't see why allowing Paladins to be knights errant suddenly makes it so that "YOU MUST INCLUDE ROBOTS IN EVERY FANTASY SETTING EVER AAAA"

Ventnor wrote:

I still haven't had my question answered.

Why should legitimate character concepts that could be realized using Paladin mechanics be automatically disallowed because a few people are extra-sensitive that someone they don't know is using those mechanics in a way that they feel is "wrong"?

For the same reasons "legitimate" concepts that could be realized using Wizard mechanics are disallowed if they don't include spellbooks.

It is part of the class.

What you seem to want is GURPS. GURPS is great. Pathfinder is not GURPS.

I just don't see why being inclusive instead of exclusive is a bad thing. Why is every super holy paladin suddenly rendered invalid by the inclusion of more freedom-oriented paladins?

I still haven't had my question answered.

Why should legitimate character concepts that could be realized using Paladin mechanics be automatically disallowed because a few people are extra-sensitive that someone they don't know is using those mechanics in a way that they feel is "wrong"?

Ventnor wrote:

ciretose wrote:

At least Rynjin is honest in that his issue is the concept.

The thing most people who like playing Paladins will tell you they like about the class is the fact that they get to be exactly what Rynjin doesn't like.

An nigh-unattainable honorable, trustworthy, paragon of virtue.

It is the strict nature of Paladins that makes people love to play them.

I personally have no interest in playing a Paladin, as it isn't a concept I am interested in playing. But I understand the appeal of wanting to play that kind of over the top heroic unquestionably great hero of heroes.

Do you not get the distinction?

The problem is, you're limiting people who want to use the paladin mechanics to play something other than a "nigh-unattainable honorable, trustworthy, paragon of virtue."

Seriously, what is so terrible about the concept of a wandering knight, beholden to no one but himself and his god? About a slave who is chosen at an appointed hour to rally his fellow slaves and take the fight to the oppressive empire?

Paladin mechanics could be used to represent a whole range of characters. Why is that a bad idea?

Everyone has said it would be fine as an archetype or alternative to move some of the mechanics to a variant class.

But would you say "You're limiting people who want to use the Cleric mechanics to play something other than worshiper who prays and follows the teachings of a god or specific concept?"

If someone wants to use Cleric mechanics to play a character that was, say, the child of a God (so all of their divine spells are from inborn power, and not worshipping a god or concept), then I say more power to them! Or they could use cleric mechanics to play an actual aspect of a God that was given human form for whatever reason. Heck, if the player wanted to flavor their spells as various fire-and-forget magitech devices, why not?

Maybe all of those characters aren't appropriate for all campaigns, but a Lawful Good incorruptible pure pureness character might not be appropriate for all campaigns. Should Paladin mechanics be off limits then, even if they could be used to support a character that would fit into a different campaign?

I think that classes should be able to support a broad range of characters. Paladins should be able to support a John Henry type character as much as a Lancelot type character.

At least Rynjin is honest in that his issue is the concept.

The thing most people who like playing Paladins will tell you they like about the class is the fact that they get to be exactly what Rynjin doesn't like.

An nigh-unattainable honorable, trustworthy, paragon of virtue.

It is the strict nature of Paladins that makes people love to play them.

I personally have no interest in playing a Paladin, as it isn't a concept I am interested in playing. But I understand the appeal of wanting to play that kind of over the top heroic unquestionably great hero of heroes.

Do you not get the distinction?

The problem is, you're limiting people who want to use the paladin mechanics to play something other than a "nigh-unattainable honorable, trustworthy, paragon of virtue."

Seriously, what is so terrible about the concept of a wandering knight, beholden to no one but himself and his god? About a slave who is chosen at an appointed hour to rally his fellow slaves and take the fight to the oppressive empire?

Paladin mechanics could be used to represent a whole range of characters. Why is that a bad idea?

Eh, I don't see why you need a name change, really.

It isn't a huge leap at all.

Rather than citing an article written for Dragon Magazine (obviously for 3.5 and bordering on 3pp...) lets look at what it actually says in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook. And I'll use bold, like you do.

"Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them."

Not much I need to add. Says it pretty clearly.

You're not bolding the most important word of that passage, so I did.

Implies means that the following words are only suggestions. You don't have to follow any of those behaviors, and you could still be chaotic.

Pendagast wrote:

Instead of saying no, I calculate the roll he will have to make, and the negatives for doing something difficult and tell him to roll.

Calculate? Or make s@+% up? ;P

There's a difference?

Ventnor wrote:

That doesn't answer my question. Why do Lawful Good gods give their greatest magics to followers they hold to a lesser standard than their Paladins?

This is a false argument.

Clerics cannot:
Lay on hands
Smite
use mercies
Gain their cha bonus to saves
etc.

If your talking purely spell levels, then I suppose you are correct.

The question should be:
Why do clerics have to rely more on the spells their Lawful Good god gives them, instead of being personally invested with more overall passive power like a paladin?

I'd say that Clerics getting Divine Intervention whenever they feel like it trumps all that. That and their ability to summon angels to solve all their problems. ;P

Ventnor wrote:

That doesn't answer my question. Why do Lawful Good gods give their greatest magics to followers they hold to a lesser standard than their Paladins?

Why do they not give their greatest magics to first level clerics? Or inquisitors?

Each class gets the boons that each class gets. I'm not interested in you trying to bait this already horribly derailed thread into a CoDzilla fight, but thanks.

I'm just saying that the Paladin's fluff, which you say is so central to the class, makes no sense as long as the Cleric also isn't restricted to the Paladin's code as well.

That doesn't answer my question. Why do Lawful Good gods give their greatest magics to followers they hold to a lesser standard than their Paladins?

Aratrok wrote:

A character with many levels of fighter is a character that is exceptionally good with weapons. Absolutely. This does not necessarily need to be formal or military training.

But that's not the point. The point is that you can use the "Fighter" class to portray the mechanical side of innumerable character concepts, as with many other classes. Why should certain classes like "Paladin" be arbitrarily limited in what they can be used to portray?

Except it does, unless you ignore the text and want to a flavorless mechanics based game using your house rules.

Armor training.Weapon training.

@Ashiel - Even a Cleric that follows a concept, adheres to that concept or risks falling. Except in a flavorless houseruled game. Mmmm... flavorless gruel...please sir, might I have some more?

@Ventnor - Without a code, why exactly is the Paladin given their power in the logic of your setting?

With a less strict code, why is a Cleric given greater power than a Paladin?

Ventnor wrote:

Meh, leaving the fighter thing aside, I'm going to repeat that the Paladin's fluff makes no sense, versimilitude-wise, because they're held to strict standards by the Gods who grant world-altering magic to Clerics who don't have these standards.

I mean, why would you take strict vows to have less strength than someone else? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Clerics are held to strict standards by the specific Gods that they worship. They must pray daily for spells and if they violate the code of conduct required by her god they can lose all spells and class features except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons until they atone.

Which would be worse to play, a fallen Paladin or a fallen Cleric?

But Paladins have to follow two Codes of Conduct, that of their God, and the standard Paladin Code as well. And for that, they don't gain the ability to raise the dead, perform miracles, or call on their God's most favored angels to fight for them. They're literally restricting themselves to be less powerful that the followers that don't have their extra restrictions.

Your main argument for the Paladin's code is that without it, the Paladin wouldn't make sense as a character archetype. I say that with it, the Paladin doesn't make sense, literally because Clerics have both more power and more freedom than a Paladin of the same God does.

Meh, leaving the fighter thing aside, I'm going to repeat that the Paladin's fluff makes no sense, versimilitude-wise, because they're held to strict standards by the Gods who grant world-altering magic to Clerics who don't have these standards.

I mean, why would you take strict vows to have less strength than someone else? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Ashiel wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Those are still alignment restrictions. And following a god is a restriction. Hell, following a concept is a restriction.

If you want a game that is just mechanics, they exist. They ain't DnD or Pathfinder.

I'm not sure why you keep trying to make this about all restrictions. The only restrictions I've mentioned revolve around alignment and forced fluff, and yet you keep trying to attack my position by implying I don't want any restrictions at all which isn't true and is far from what I've said.

Your definition of "Forced Fluff" seems to be pretty much anything that isn't pure mechanics, which is exactly what I said.

You want a game that is just mechanics, without any restrictions at all.

But of course, then even in your mechanical arguments, you frequently argue for adding additional benefits to mechanics to get around mechanical limitations, stating they are implied by the fluff...

You want a house ruled system without any flavor you don't like that lets you get around any limitation you deem "cruel".

And you can have it in your house rule based game.

But that system, in my opinion, would be horrible. It would worsen the "that guy" phenomenon by giving absolutely no baseline for character expectation for the setting and it would create tons and tons of loopholes for an Rain Man's paradise style of gaming that would not sell on any scale.

Flavor is not something that gets in the way of your "Super awesome idea , rar! (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻"

(or whatever silly emoticon of the hour you are using today)

Flavor is the backbone of a quality game. It is the shared historical metaphors that allow us to have a shared experience without having to pass around sheets and sheets of background information. We all get the shorthand. Asmodeus as Lucifer, Varisians as Gypsies, etc, etc...

Remember the Star Trek episode with the Darmok, where they only spoke in metaphor? That is what the flavor allows 5 people sitting around a table to be able to...

I suppose then, you'd be fine if all Fighters are required to be soldiers, then? As you've mentioned, classes are based around strict archetypes. If they lack flavor, then they shouldn't be in the game. Fighters possess no intrinsic flavor like the Paladin, Cleric, or Wizard do, which makes them "not interesting to read."

Basically, the argument I'm hearing from you is "you cannot color outside the lines, because it confuses people." This argument, however, doesn't apply to more generic classes like fighters or rogues. Said classes can be used to create a multitude of character types, which is apparently a failing of the system.

If restrictions are what make classes great, then would you agree that fighters and rogues are the worst classes in Pathfinder, then?

ciretose wrote:

Those are still alignment restrictions. And following a god is a restriction. Hell, following a concept is a restriction.

If you want a game that is just mechanics, they exist. They ain't DnD or Pathfinder.

I'm not sure why you keep trying to make this about all restrictions. The only restrictions I've mentioned revolve around alignment and forced fluff, and yet you keep trying to attack my position by implying I don't want any restrictions at all which isn't true and is far from what I've said.

And also you are simply wrong. You can have clerics of literally every alignment and godless clerics in the core rules and even athiest clerics. Trying to argue a cleric's restrictions for alignment and drawbacks as if it were even somewhere near a Paladin's restrictiveness to play is insane. Anyone with eyes in their head and brain cells in their skulls can clearly see that if you want to play a cleric you can be:

Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral, Lawful Evil, Neutral Good, Neutral, Neutral Evil, Chaotic Good, Chaotic Neutral, and Chaotic Evil.

Clerics even have lighter restrictions. They must grossly violate the their god's teachings (if they even have a god) to need atonement, and then they merely can't gain more levels of cleric and/or use their spells while being a cleric of that god. But a Lawful Good cleric who falls to Lawful Evil could merely adopt a new God.

Contrast the Paladin who so much as sneezes in the direction of something that is considered evil or against his CoC and he loses everything and must rush back to town to seek a cleric to atonement him.

I'd also like to point out again that Gods hold their Paladins to a higher standard than the guys they give their truly world-shattering magic to. A cleric can use a miracle for a morally-dubious purpose, as long as they're serving their deity, while Paladins can't cast miracles and are not allowed to do any straying from the "one true path," even if that path is the stupidest way to solve a problem.

It doesn't make sense to me.

Since a Paladin's Code is essentially the Cleric's Code + multiple other restrictions, shouldn't the Paladin be proportionately stronger than a Cleric as well? I mean, Lawful Good deities give their strongest magical powers (restoring the dead and miracles, for example) to followers who they hold to a lower standard than their Paladins.

That really doesn't make any sense at all.

05.) Mark of Desperation: A mark which only flares up when its bearer's life is in danger, it provides a +1 bonus to stabilization rolls and to all saving throws against death effects

Honestly, I think a dual-klar wielding Shoanti Ranger could be a pretty fun character to play.

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned dual klars.

I could totally imagine a fighting style based off of that. And it would be awesome.

Why doesn't anyone suggest White haired witch archetype to get a hair attack :P

Because people like hexes and white-haired witches don't get those?

Aasimar can get 2 wing attacks at level 11.

Okay, so I was looking through the Advanced Race Guide, when I realized just how dumb-sounding catfolk and ratfolk sound. I mean, sure, they look like cats and rats, but they're really the only races who seem singled out by that designation in their name.

After all, gnolls aren't called hyenafolk. There aren't ravenfolk, there are tengus. It's vanaris, not monkeyfolk. And gods help you if you call a minotaur a bullfolk.

So, why don't we have cooler names for catfolk and ratfolk, if every other animal-themed race gets a better name?

I wonder... maybe Combat Expertise, instead of being its own action in combat, should instead improve fighting defensively in some way.

So, I was looking over the Aldori Sword Lord online guide the other day, when something struck me. Combat Expertise as it currently exists really serves no purpose other than a feat tax for certain combat maneuver builds.

Reason being that we have Fighting Defensively, which anyone can do without spending a feat. Both Combat Expertise and Fighting Defensively offer the same benefit; trading accuracy for AC for a combat round.

Why does Combat Expertise exist then, if you can get basically the same bonus without having to spend a feat on it?

What if the Raven was a genie that was cursed into its current, bird-like form? Part of the sorcerer's motivation could have been trying to free said genie's true powers, having been promised a wish if he manages to do so.

At any rate, I would have let him reskin the bird either way. Let him get invested in his character, and all that. Certainly doesn't sound like he wanted any mechanical advantage there.

Only way to get Dex to damage for Ranged Weapons right now is via the Gunslinger's Gun Training feature, I believe.

I'd say that the Shadow Bloodline from the Advanced Player's Guide, or it's wildblooded counterpart in Ultimate Magic, the Umbral Bloodline, should provide the illusion-focused sorcerer you're looking for.

So, it's pretty much known that the most optimal build for the Magus is the Dervish Dancing Scimitar build.

One particular Magus archetype has caught my eye lately; the staff Magus. Obviously, they use a more suboptimal weapon. But is there anyone whose played one? And what was the experience like?

Ventnor wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

Aelryinth wrote:

XP cost the way 3.5 handled it sucked because of how it interacted with levels and xp gain.

Getting weaker after making magic items is a standard fantasy trope. The xp cost in Paizo is almost non-existent at later levels, because it takes so much more xp to gain a level in Paizo. Keep in mind that it takes more xp to reach level 12 in Paizo then it does to reach level 20 in 3.5. At level 17 8000 xp to make a 200k item is a mere fraction of a CR17 encounter.

And it would FIRMLY shut down simulacra making magic items, while in actually penalizing nothing, while letting Crafters put something of themselves into every item they make.

There should also be a stated 'value' to crafting magic items, so people can charge fairly for their time.

he's also missing the #1 rule: Enforce time requirements, with the corollary of 'what is everyone else doing while the wizard is sitting around crafting?'

==Aelryinth

I would increase the percentage of XP loss.

"I have finally created the Staff of Fire that we need to defeat the Troll-King of Mt. Terrible once and for all!

Also, I seem to have forgotten how to cast fireball. And lightning bolt. And haste.

Also I seem to be frailer now. And I've forgotten that knowledge about nature that I was learning specifically so that I could learn about creatures that live on mountains. And that ability I learned to use my weapons with finesse, in case my foes closed with me. I don't know how to do that either, despite the fact that I was working on how do that for several weeks now.

Huh."

You are in a fantasy world so use your imagination.

You are pouring part of your very soul into the item you are making which could mean things you once knew are gone and so has your health.

You do realize that there is a disease that causes you to lose things you once knew on a day to day basis.

So crafting magic items gives you Alzheimer's disease, then?

Aelryinth wrote:

XP cost the way 3.5 handled it sucked because of how it interacted with levels and xp gain.

Getting weaker after making magic items is a standard fantasy trope. The xp cost in Paizo is almost non-existent at later levels, because it takes so much more xp to gain a level in Paizo. Keep in mind that it takes more xp to reach level 12 in Paizo then it does to reach level 20 in 3.5. At level 17 8000 xp to make a 200k item is a mere fraction of a CR17 encounter.

And it would FIRMLY shut down simulacra making magic items, while in actually penalizing nothing, while letting Crafters put something of themselves into every item they make.

There should also be a stated 'value' to crafting magic items, so people can charge fairly for their time.

he's also missing the #1 rule: Enforce time requirements, with the corollary of 'what is everyone else doing while the wizard is sitting around crafting?'

==Aelryinth

I would increase the percentage of XP loss.

"I have finally created the Staff of Fire that we need to defeat the Troll-King of Mt. Terrible once and for all!

Also, I seem to have forgotten how to cast fireball. And lightning bolt. And haste.

Also I seem to be frailer now. And I've forgotten that knowledge about nature that I was learning specifically so that I could learn about creatures that live on mountains. And that ability I learned to use my weapons with finesse, in case my foes closed with me. I don't know how to do that either, despite the fact that I was working on how do that for several weeks now.

Huh."

I'd say that you should take the False Focus feat. It allows you to use a Holy Symbol as your component for an Arcane Spell.

Should help with the flavor pretty well, I think.

Isn't the feat called "Dervish Dance?" I thought Dawnflower Dervish was an archetype. For the Bard, I think.

So basically, these spells are for those Eldritch Knights who actually want to make use of their armor proficiencies?

Honestly, I think something that might be cool would be a debuffing Magus who focuses more on debilitating spells.

You can get Touch of Fatigue by level 3 with Spell Blending, which makes one of your attacks every round have a chance to fatigue foes. Prepping Chill Touch also allows you to basically make debuffing attacks for an entire combat with one cast, at higher levels.