primemover003's page

Why would it need to be any longer than one round? On his turn the Ranger would use a move action to keep the bonus up for his companions.

I would say one round, each round he'd need to give up a Move to continue sharing.

primemover003 wrote:

Yep Mage Armor and Magic Vestment don't stack, You'd have the +4 armor bonus of the Mage Armor overlapping the +2 Armor (enhancement) bonus to your clothes.

I have been putting "armor" bonus and "armor enhancement" bonus in two separate stackable categories since 3.5 came out with barkskin that had "natural armor enhancement" bonus that stacks with "natural armor".

That would work if you were enhancing an item or yourself... but Mage armor is a spell effect and really doesn't fit the example of the amulet of Nat Armor or the barkskin enhancing a Nat AC of zero. Magic vestment already works exactly like barkskin in that it'll enhance your clothes or armor. It shouldn't work with an intangible armor bonus.

You'd be better served with a Haste potion for +1 AC/ref save and a Blur or Displacement Potion for some miss chance.

Yep Mage Armor and Magic Vestment don't stack, You'd have the +4 armor bonus of the Mage Armor overlapping the +2 Armor (enhancement) bonus to your clothes.

But I don't disagree this is a very good playtest of the Monk against what is usually always a nasty fight, a dragon! I like how you also showcased the ability to negotiate obstacles by Jumping up to the rooftops.

A monk like any non-spellcaster is going to rely on their equipment and items to boost them through encounters. One of my players frequently plays a monk and has a ready stash of Mage Armor potions and either Magic Weapon or Magic Fang oils (or Greater). Magic Tattoos of the above are also very popular.

Lacking any ranged attacks is a problem of the monk and my players frequently stock up on Necklaces of Fireballs, Bags of Boulders, Beads of Force, or Iron Bands... or when they play ninja style monks they use poison shuriken.

Well that's the beauty of Circumstance bonuses... Your half orc's eating glass while threatening the local merchant lord, I'd give him a +2 to his check. Are you holding me upside down by one ankle from a 50' tower... there's a +2 bonus for sure.

But a real intimidation machine would be the one being held upside down by the ankle and say, "Drop me. If you don't you'll find that you wished you had."

Actually I don't mind giving up your iterative attacks for another at your Highest BAB, however what no one has brought up is that the second target must be adjacent to the first target. The old Cleave/Great Cleave allowed you to attack any other creatre you could reach. Now Cleave is useless against flankers.

That is not cool.

My group plays with the massive damage rules scaled for size (as per the DMG) and have no problems with it. We also play the 20, 20, confirm = kill rules. In both cases it only happens once in a while and it makes the game really fun. The Players love when they one shot a big nasty monster or a pesky foe goes down to system shock. It's also fun to watch them scramble if one of them goes down. Even though it can suck for a player to die (especially at lower levels) but my players are game enough to deal with it as long as they get the chance to use it aginst my monters.

Are the rules in the DMG2 the same or similar to the mob rules used in the Shackled City AP, perchance? Those worked quite well.

Yep those are one and the same. They're also the rules used to make the Mob of Fiendish Baboon in "Here There Be Monsters."

I don't own DMGII so am not familiar with these rules. Could you paraphrase them? Do they essentially perform the same function using different mechanics? Btw, DMGII is non-OGL, right?

Basically the Mob template takes a large group of small, medium, or large creatures and makes them a big swarm. They are considered a 30HD creature or so, get massive bonuses to overrun and grapple attacks and do damage to you without needing to hit. For every individual creature you kill by targeted spell you give the Mob a negative level and when the negative levels = it's HD the mob disperses. Area of effect spells do 50% more damage and reducing the Mob to 0 hps disperses them. The Mob Template is a generally a CR 8 monster.

How do your players deal with the fact that their 8 die fireball should kill a 20' square CR 8 mob of ordinary orcs, but in fact do only 32 points of damage (due to the +50 percent Area of Effect damage boost) to a mob with like 135 HP? Or do you have the fireball eliminate single creatures within the mob, imposing negative levels on the mob based on the number of individual orcs killed?

Even though the 28pts of damage on average of an 8d6 fireball would kill 40 standard orcs, the 42 pts of damage (28*1.5) done to a Mob of orcs doesn't kill it because they're supposed to be a tougher opponent. 40 standard orcs would barely give experience to the party, but the Mob template makes them a viable challenge. It might push the abstraction of play a bit, but a 12th level party vs. 4 mobs makes for might dramatic play!

I think using multiple mobs for small scale mass combat against a party of adventurers is a fantastic idea. I will more than likely implement that idea some time soon!

Effectively infinite, with a cheap level 1 wand; 0 against most non-medium-sized-humanoid opponents in most cases, respectively.

Trip is one of those tactics that's very powerful against a very small subset of opponents. It works wonders against medium or smaller creatures with two legs, medium BAB, and low strength. It doesn't work at all against anything that doesn't come in range of you, against anything Huge or bigger, or anything that's got 4+ or 0 legs, or anything that's fairly large and very strong. Basically, it only works well against mooks. Against giants, dragons, constructs, oozes, vermin, ranged attackers, etc etc etc, it falls flat on its face and the character built to use it is nigh-useless.

Nerfing Improved Trip doesn't change that a bit.

My Psychic Warrior tripper quickly learned that putting humanoids on their back was fun but bigger monsters and freaking dire animals were a pain. But even against big monsters it's not impossible cause at 4th level I tripped a young adult Blue Dragon out of the sky! As it stands now Trip is still useful, just not as dominant as it was. With the extra feats gained by all classes having Trip as one of many weapons is not a bad thing.

I also never thought Imp. Bull Rush was useless, just situational. If your DM never put battlefield hazards in your encounters then Bull Rushing an enemy was only good to set up AoO's. But if you include bridges, cliffs, rivers of lava, pools of acid, or spiked pits, etc then Bull Rush was fantastic!

Again the CR/EL system is not math or science... it's art and trial and error. And there is such a thing as designing encounters geared for a certain class, ability, skill, etc.

For one, I'm trying to make a point. I'm arguing on the basis of an explicit ruling from the book, and it feels like it is being ignored in favour of personal opinion. For two, I'd like to avoid references to kettles.

Unfortunately the point you're tryin to extrapolate from that section doesn't hold up with a single character. A two person party can overcome what a solo PC cannot, but even then you have to err on the side of caution. The CR/EL rules aren't a science, it's not 1+1=2.

As many have pointed out Adventuring is a team sport. And the home team for 3.5 is Tordek, Lidda, Mialee, and Jozan built with 25 point buy. The only true way to playtest rules is to make up characters and run them through encounters.

Bullrush gets plenty of use especially with the Knockback Feat, Rampaging Bullrush, and Shock Trooper. The Dungeoncrasher fighter substitution levels from Dungeonscape are a little over the top IMO. Awesome Blow only gives a 1d6 damage. 2d6 and 4d6 for the two subst. levels is more appropriate than 4d6 and 8d6!!!

Imp. Trip is a more powerful feat than the other Imp combat maneuvers because Prone is such a detrimental condition. Trust me I play a tripper and it's my most powerful option! It's not completely broken though as big monsters, strong monsters, monsters with multiple limbs, or a combo of those makes Trip less effective.

Losing the attack at the end is a little disappointing but we should playtest it to really determine that.

In a subterranean encounter the guy with the Torch is going to be surprised, a lot.

But one nitpick in defense of the Splash Weapon vs. Swarm... splash weapons deal 1.5 damage agains the swarm and if she had Alchemist's Fire instead of Acid the swarm would be taking another round of fire damage unless it takes a full round action to extinguish it or finds some water and swarms being Int - creatures it'd likely just burn! So that's 10.5 damage per flask over 2 rounds, meaning it'd only take 3 hits to kill the swarm. Granted rollling 13+ to hit does suck, but I'd definitely try it!!!

I saw the Rage Points and thought, oooo. It's an interesting way to keep barbarians fun while not making them just another fighter variant. Plus, when I rebuilt my old AD&D character to use Pathfinder, the combination of 3.5 psionics and Pathfinder Rage Points meshed well. From a compatibility standpoint maybe they're not the best, but that could be solved by turning the rage powers into barbarian specific feats and selecting one as he/she levels up.

No they shouldn't be feats... they should be class abilities chosen at the given levels, just like rogues get their talents.

Quick reply.

Keep all six disciplines.

If magic and psionics will have complete transparency, it will impossible to match 8 school with 6 disciplines one-on-one. In fact some subschools match some subdisciplines better. The equivalencies should be re-adjusted.

If we're going to allow more light-manipulation powers (Marvel's Dazzler anyone?) to create holograms (that word sounds too modern though) and such, maybe we can create a light-based subdiscipline in psyckokinesis.

Hologram does sound too modern... Psionic illusions should be called Mirages.

That's just ridiculous... the Rogue's choice to pick up minor magical abilities (which isn't mandatory) is nothing like 4E's built in power sources. It's comparing apples to handgrenades. The option for some useful low level spells without having to dip into a full casting class makes the Rogue more attractive to players who would likely multiclass and/or max out UMD.

I think it's a great choice.

Even with Detect Magic at Will, the Caster needs to concentrate. Now against a static magic trap means that it takes 3 rounds to determine what it is and how to deal. This means that when placing magic traps the encounter needs to be a little more dynamic. Placing another trap (a mundane one) or a weak monster or npc that synergizes with the trap evens up the odds a little. A hidden sniper can certainly give the concentrating character a big headache.

Vaguely along the same lines, I always wanted to see more books and such devoted to mundane equipment. Cloths, everyday items, kids toys ect. One of the reasons ...and a 10-foot pole is one of my all time fav gaming books. But a book from Paizo about the pathfinder world on mundane equipment would be nice. And I am glad they have the topic included in maps, it is kinda silly when their not.

Well it's not pathfinder, but if you can find one (most likely on Ebay or maybe amazon) the Aurora's Whole Realms Catalogue is priceless!

My barbarian player is a power gamer and even though he could probably abuse the hell out of the point system he really dislikes the points, though he loves the powers.

He said if he wanted to play with points he'd play a psion. When he's playing a Barbarian he wants to smash monsters' faces in.

But yes this particular drow is yummy. The cover is also fantastic... I loved the Red of CotC, but the Black covers will be made of awesome.

As something of a illustration buff it's kinda hard to get a lot of facial detail and expression from jet black skin. Tbhat's why you see a lot of blue, purple, and grey shades and red, green, purple, and blue lighting elements in drow illustration.

From my money Brom is the King of the Drow, but I also like Justin Sweet's work (from the icewind dale games) for a dirtier look. I also love WAR's drow Tempest from the Shadows of Istivin arc cover.

Brom's Drizzt
Justin Sweet

Fox_Reeveheart wrote:

Thats my concern, I would like to see some playtest reports if people blow through these rather quickly.

Having run a barbarian through a few quick combats, I can speak to this. Running a barbarian felt like running a psionic character: you have the temptation to blow everything at once, but also a desire to conserve points for later encounters. In the end, this made the barbarian experience feel almost identical to the psionic experience; you are constantly calculating and weighing options in a very deliberate, tactical fashion.

Since calculating and weighing options doesn't feel particularly barbaric, I made the following suggestion on another thread: rage points equal one round of rage apiece, and you can use one rage power each round while raging, at no point cost. Many rage powers would have to be rebalanced or restricted to higher levels, and in the end would work more like combat feats than psionic powers.

This exactly what my Barbarian players said. I didn't want to mention it felt like playing my PsyWar to them, but they brought it up.

We all liked the Rage Powers, but thought they should be cleass abilities chosen at certain levels, like Rogue Talents at 10th. Instead of using a brand new mechanic keep rage the way it is but allow the Rage powers to be used either Con bonus/rage for the weaker ones or Con bonus/day for more powerful abilities.

In discussing Rage points with my players the point came up, which echos Epic Meepo's comment in another thread that playing the Barbarian with Rage points feels like a Psychic Warrior more than a Barbarian.

Bbn is supposed to be an easy class, and deliberating on how many rage points to burn does increase the amount of bookkeeping for the class. The most frequent Bbn player in my group even commented that he should be concentrating on killing things, not how many points he should spend. To throw an alternate system out there we thought that the Rage Powers should also be similar to Rogue Talents or Turning Attempts.

At x level you gain access to a Rage Power (chosen from a list for that level) and depending on the strength of said power it would last either Con bonus times per Rage or Con bonus Times per Day. Rages would last 3+Con bonus in rounds. So Strength Surge could be used 4 times per Rage by a Bbn with a Con of 18. The Rage Power ot Auto-confrim a critical could only be done Con bonus times per day, and perhaps only 1/Rage.

Actually at one time we played without minis, but I honestly can't remember how it was done. But then again my group likes the tactical aspect of it.

primemover003 wrote:

Stop counting in feet and count in squares. It's easier to do the math of 1-3-4-6, than 5'-15'-20'-30'. Ditching the grid makes AoO's a little trickier. Counting is something you should've mastered before gradeschool people.

I agree on all counts here, though I don't think the problem is counting in feet. This just isn't that big an issue.

Ditching the grid does make AoO's trickier but not impossible. If people want to curve around someone to avoid AoOs it reduces their movement. It's not a precise science but then our guestimates on the gridless system are probably as accurate as the grid is in simulating movement. Most people who pan the idea talk about AoOs but they rarely actually try it out to see how much of an issue it is.

-- Dennis

Well when you play a character with a 20' reach and 5 AoO's that's a LOT of ground for enemies to skirt!

Or after the 1st time a caster Casts Defensively you Ready an Action to attack if they do it again!

This is why the DM get's to vet any material used in their game.

Stop counting in feet and count in squares. It's easier to do the math of 1-3-4-6, than 5'-15'-20'-30'. Ditching the grid makes AoO's a little trickier. Counting is something you should've mastered before gradeschool people.

And in regards to the Grey Maidens... "She has wonderful muscles."

I'm of the school that you choose one at the beginning and that's it, like Turning and spontaneous Cure/Inflict spells.

SUBCREATURES! GOZER THE GOZERIAN, GOZER THE DESTRUCTOR, VOLGUUS ZILDROHAR, THE TRAVELLER HAS COME. CHOOSE AND PERISH.

primemover003 wrote:

Mistwalker wrote:

Trackless Step

Does this mean that there is no mundane way to track the Druid in a natural setting? That is, the druid leaves no scent trail?
If so, perhaps change part of the phrase to "and cannot be tracked by mundane means."

You couldn't track a Druid by scent in 3.5 either (in natural surroundings). It wasn't specifically spelled out but the "cannot be tracked" clause of Trackless Step pretty much rules it out as Scent has a provision to Track (as the feat).

To avoid any possible misinterpretation, I would like it spelled out in the rules. Makes life easier for everyone.

No problem. Firstly there are only a few means of tracking a creature without magic in the game, the Track feat, the Survival skill, and the Scent special ability. After looking at those mechanics you compare to Trackless Step. Because Scent references the Track feat and Trackless step says you cannot be tracked, you cannot track a druid by scent unless he/she wants you to.

It was Dragon #235: Planar Heroes. But, planetouched in 2nd Ed. were more like half-fiends/half-celestials in terms of raw power. Although I'm using the tiefling as a template in my campaign (PC's base creature is dark elf), I must say that I like the randomness and individuality of 2nd. Ed. planetouched much better.

I don't know what 2nd edition you're remembering nightflier, but planetouched weren't anywhere near the power level of the Half-Celestial/Fiendish templates. Not even close. In Planescape both tiefers and aasimar weren't anymore powerful than they are now.

There were some interesting tables in the Planewalkers Handbook and Warriors of Heaven to generate random racial traits and appearance for Tieflings and Aasimar respectively.

Fey'ri aren't a good example for elven tielfings in general because they were the product of a selective breeding program initiated by a single Gold Elf house. Tannarukk are just plain cool, but they were far more powerful than the average tiefling, a definite monster more than a playable race as originally designed.

Now I am most likely in the minority in my view, but I'm sticking with Pathfinder because it does respect the traditions and history of past edition canon. I will be quite interested in seeing how and where the planetouched fall in Golarion.

The precedence is the fiendish and celestial templates in Monster Manual. Which are basically turning anything into any creature into a planetouched race. Planetouched races are simply versions of these templates refined into a specific race derived from humans instead of being a template applied to any race.

-Weylin Stormcrowe

Actually that isn't the precedence. Aasimar, tieflings and genasi were established races well before 3rd edition rolled out the doors and came up with the Template mechanics. The Celestial and Fiendish templates represent otherwise normal creatures that have lived long enough on a Good or Evil aligned Outer plane that they've taken on traits of said plane. They have nothing to do with having an Outsider's bloodline.

Now it's very easy to show why the Planetouched were humanocentric historically. Demihumans in D&D history have racial gods who created the races, while humans do not. This translates into a racial purity taboo. Just look at the prejudice inherent in the Half-elf throughout the editions. Elves traditionally didn't favor breeding with other races (or in some settings other subraces). Likewise you don't see many Half-dwarves running around. Humans however have always been the adaptive and curious sort, as well as outnumbering the demihumans.

In Golarion this might be different, but we have yet to see the planetouched developed beyond the one in Burnt Offerings or the tiefling guardsman of the Acadamae.

primemover003 wrote:

I'm not a fan of Planetouched as templates because it gives everything that the base races has plus the abilities of the template. That's not what Aasimar, Genasi, and tieflings are. They are races unto themselves. A planetouched born into a race they should be different than that race both physically and metaphysically.

As the edit of my above post mentions, planetouched are underpowered as is, Prime. This is even more the case with the changes to Pathfinder core races.

-Weylin Stormcrowe

Underpowered as LA +1 races, I agree. That's why I've always played them as LA 0 races. They were just fine in 2nd edition compared to the core races and they'll stack up to the PRPG races with a minimum of tweaking, especially the genasi.

I guess my beef is that mechanically the planetouched aren't half-creatures, they're not even 1/4. They're generations removed from their Outsider source, but they have enough of the potency of that bloodline to be different from the rest of their race. For example, an aasimar born to an elf or to a human shouldn't be as drastically different as adding a template to either base races would make them. Being able to call forth light, being resistant to several energies, being able to see in the dark and being more perceptive than average are traits that set aasimar apart from either humans or elves.

I'm not a fan of Planetouched as templates because it gives everything that the base races has plus the abilities of the template. That's not what Aasimar, Genasi, and tieflings are. They are races unto themselves. A planetouched born into a race they should be different than that race both physically and metaphysically.

The only difference between magic and psionics in movies, literature, etc is what genre the story is trying to be told in. If you're writing sci-fi you call any supernatural powers exhibited by a person or alien as psionic. If you writing for fantasy magic covers it. They're pretty much the same thing.

Now if you really want to differentiate between the tone, feel, and flavor of magic vs. psionics it's as easy as differentiating eastern vs. western practice in the real world. I could easily lump psionics into any manner of far eastern mythologies. Lamas, yogis, swamis, gurus, etc, etc. could all be psions or psychic warriors. Any culture tha includes meditiation is a perfect model for psionic users.

Yes Bahor is a fabulous piece as is his sister and the darksphinx. We need more of that style and less of Laori... I mean chainmail isn't a lycra skinsuit... it drapes and hangs loosely. I can see if the followers of Zon-kuthon want to inflict pain on themselves those hooks could be turned inward, but as an offensive designed armor it's just not functional.

While some of it's really great there are just some pieces that don't do a thing for me... in Escape from Old Korvosa the illustration of the Forlorn Elf Laori Vaus is just plain bad.

I love all WAR's pieces but the cartoony schlock has got to go.

Take the Weather Domain it's closer to your concept than Water.

Trackless Step

Does this mean that there is no mundane way to track the Druid in a natural setting? That is, the druid leaves no scent trail?
If so, perhaps change part of the phrase to "and cannot be tracked by mundane means."

You couldn't track a Druid by scent in 3.5 either (in natural surroundings). It wasn't specifically spelled out but the "cannot be tracked" clause of Trackless Step pretty much rules it out as Scent has a provision to Track (as the feat).

I'm with ASEO, many of the "slums" I've been through in Mexico are a lot more tightly packed than these maps. If a typical alley in the city is 20ft wide then there should be structures eating up 15 of those feet and a 5ft path wending its way through. I know the guys are trying to make a place where an encounter could feasibly happen but some of those aren't it.

If possible find a aerial or even satellite image of a medieval city (in germany, italy, or any of the former eastern block countries) or even a really tightly packed modern city in south america or the middle east and look at any markets and shanty towns there for examples.

Urban mapping is very tough...

So K, what exactly about the new sorcerer makes them nigh unplayable??? Expound with examples please.

I would stick with the halfling just for the size bonus to Hit and AC. His Dex and Int boosts also make you spells harder to resist and more likely to hit with ranged touch attacks. It also boosts your Initiative!

Swap Backbiter for Ray of Enfeeblement for some ranged capability. You don't have to worry about size for your Grave strike ability (unlike a claw attack)!

Your AC with Mage Armor is 17 (+1 size, +2 dex, +4 armor)! That's not bad for a 1st level wizard.

Don't take Spell Focus so early as none of your spells have saves as of yet anyway! Choose Improved Initiative and act before everyone else or Weapon Focus (Ray) for another +1 to hit, note you'd be +4 to hit with ranged touch attacks! Don't worry about regular touch spells till you can take Spectral Hand.

Get the drop on your foes by hitting the warrior or cleric with Ray of Enfeeblement! Stay back behind your teammates for cover. Once they engage the weakened enemy you can easily finish them with your Grave Touch, ensuring they don't stabalize as your Alles move on to other targets.

Why DO sorcerers get spells later anyways? This is what keeps me from ever playing one, I hate this glaring GLARING problem so so so so so so much.

now not counting the pathfinder I can do a little comparison of wiz/sor strengths and weaknesses.

-Wizards can learn any spell
-Wizards must prepare spells
-Wizards have fewer spells per day that sorcerer, though I am not sure if specializing changes that, because I never done it or understood it.
-Wizards have odd level spell progression
-Wizards Get meta magic feats at certain levels
-Wizards aren't gimed with meta magic like sorcs are

-Sorcs can only learn a smaller number of spells and that is IT
-Sorcs can cast any spell they know without preperation
-Sorcs casts more spells per day, again though unsure of what specialized wizards can do....

Ok the philosophy behind the Sorcerer is dirt simple, behind all spontaneous casters really. You get a few spells, but you can cast ANY one of them more times per day than a wizard. You also can spontaneously add a metamagic feat to your spells whenever you need them. The balancing factor for these two advantages are you access a new spell level one level later than wizard and adding metamagic to your spells takes a wee bit long to cast, or a full-round action.

Being able to choose any spell in your arsenal at any time is powerful. Being able to tweak said spell with metamagic on the fly is powerful.

Wizards have the ability to learn many spells, but are limited to only a few choices from that wide array. They really have to know what they might face in order to select the right spell. On any given day this is unlikely to happen (random encounters can be a pain this way). Given enough time to prep a wizard is a beast, but the the spur of the moment, when circumstances go against his prepared spell set he's on the defensive. A specialist used to gain a single extra spell per level because of his speciality. In no way did that ever give a Wiz more spells than a Sor.

Amiri doesn't have any special feat to wield the Large Bastard sword, she trades off the size penalty with the Rage bonus. Nuff Said.

Not every barbarian is the hulking Norse Berserk swinging an axe like madman. I see the swift running Shoanti auroch hunter with a spear as viable a Barbarian as the Norse Viking or Germanic zweihander.

I think Igor sounds like one helluva interesting character to play! Like Frank states Sorcerers are not the best of Necromancers, but you're playing a caster with a hint of the undead, not necessarily a complete focus on it. Low level Necromancy spells are kind of weak, but it doesn't mean you have to take all of them. Thematically you could take Magic missile and have them be little glowing skulls that scream when you cast them! Or instead of relying totally on Necro spells you could focus on Cold themed spells too, like Ice Knife that does Dex damage as well IIRC...

And to be frank Frank, only a few people laughed at the PF Sorcerer... pretty much just you, K, Viktor_von_doom and CastleMike. It was hardly a sweeping sentiment. Some said there were places it could be improved, but you just brushed it aside with a pretty snide attitude.

I never said they were mutually exclusive. I said once you start optimizing it is a very difficult process to play a class right out of the box without going out of your way to tweak it to peak performance. Not everyone scours through every sourcebook or reads the build handbooks or looks for unbeatable spell/item/class ability/feat combos.

Some of us just like driving our cars.

Is the PF Sorcerer as good a blaster as the Warmage... not likely. But at least they can cast utility spells if they want. Is a PF Sorcerer as sly and coniving as the Beguiler, probably not but they can blow the hell out of something. Warmages, Beguilers, and the Dread Necro are all specialists. They are a niche character that falls short in places, just like a regular Sorcerer can fall short in places.

How is the PF sorcerer "weak as hell" and compared to what? Show me a valid comparison that doesn't rely on a specific build. Show me how no matter HOW I build the PF sorcerer it is too weak a class to compare with the PF Wizard.

I disagree mechanically the PF Sorcerer is not really good.

Is it that much harder to play a sorcerer who knows 3 spells when he levels and that known spells by level increases to half a dozen as he levels comparable to the Favored Soul?

It's actually easier to play a Beguiler than a PF Sorcerer right now unless you ignore your PF Sorcerer Bloodline specials in game since the PC doesn't pick his or her spells in game.

Better than the original Sorcerer? Yes.

Flavorful? Yes very.

Good? No because it doesn't meet the PRC test. For every game that focuses on the flavor and fluff there are games that also place an emphasis on the mechanics. People playing in games that place an emphasis on being effective are not playing wrong.

There is still no real mechanical or fluff reason not to delay PRCing with a PF Sorcerer in any game that requires the PCs to be effective.

See Mike, you and K, and Frank Trollman are all Optimizers. There's a vast difference between the game you play and the game the average Gamer plays. It's the difference between someone who works on their car adding things like turbo chargers, better supsension, tires, etc, etc to the average joe who enjoys their car stock from the dealership.

Once you cross this line it's a very hard choice to play the baseline character. In my group of players there are optimizers/power gamers and there are your basic everyday average gamer. In many games a power gamer makes the game less fun for the average player.

I'm glad you can tear apart the headers... er, the PF sorcerer backward and frontwards at a glance, but many of us enjoy playing them straight out of the box. Having access to all the variant options and specialized classes is nice but not necessary.

I think the PF Sorcerer is made of awesome. I'm also a flavor guy. As always YMMV.

--"Vrock car driver"