Arcane Addict's page

Being slotless makes them more expensive doesn't it.

Yes, slotless items are more expensive than slotted items. The equivalent items I'm proposing would still be slotless, and so have the same prices, they just wouldn't orbit your head.

I dislike the image of tiny baubles orbiting my head too. Honestly I feel all the mechanics available to stop them from doing so are equally ludicrous because I feel I shouldn't have to invest any of my character's resources at all to achieve such a negligable effect. Its a trap I find rather insulting, to be frank. Ioun Stones aren't more or less expensive because of that little visual caveat so I see absolutely no reason not to simply craft an item with identical functions which I can simply keep on my character's person.

VMC Wizard (or Sorceror with the Arcane Bloodline) might be worth considering. Its a whole lot of feats to give up but you also get more back than by going the Familiar Bond route. I consider Conjuration (Teleporttion), Divination, Air and Void as good School choices to get some real value back out of such a large sacrifice.

The Familiar Bond line is pretty steep a cost for just a familiar to be honest, even if I also have an unhealthy love for the little things. If this isn't for PFS you might want to discuss it with your GM, create a mini-archetype of sorts.

I feel the need to straighten something out here. I suppose it is due to the sensitive nature of the topic of sex and promiscuity that causes us to perceive one another's comments to be seen through our own colored lenses. Understandable, sure, but that doesn't mean I'm just going to let it go when my words are given meaning beyond what I said. You see, I haven't mentioned sex or promiscuity in my previous post, at all. I suggested an entity embodying the opposite of temptation, not the opposite of lust or even just sexual appetite. Sure, it could be but it encompasses so many more possibilities.
Really, if you just wanted a celestial copy of the succubus this topic could've been closed off by advising switching out the typical evil outsider traits with their good equivalents and calling it a day.

This may or may not be what is asked for but what about a good outsider that specifically urges patience and honoring ones commitment through the promise of fulfilling some deepseated desire, an embodiment of the phrase 'good things come to those who wait'. Such a being probably doesn't exist to lure anyone back into the fold but rather to help younger folk make the 'right' decision when the time comes. I imagine these beings as individuals with varying methods to accomplish these goals. One could be severe and demanding, others could be enthrallingly innocent while yet another walks more of a grey area, being quite the tease, always leaving you wanting more. Subversion of temptation so it serves a good end is difficult but not impossible. At its most basic level this is the exact idea behind the biblical heaven: don't fall to earthly temptation and you shall be rewarded in the afterlife. I really don't see why such an entity couldn't exist within Pathfinder.

I'm sorry to say it but ALL spells come with some form of a signifier that alerts those around the caster as per decree from on high (i.e. the developers). If you want to remain unnoticed you'll need the Cunning Caster feat.
Personally, I dislike the rule but there you have it. If you're in PFS there's no way to change it but otherwise you might want to talk to your GM. Do note the rule exists to keep casters in check, which I do understand, so please don't try to take egregious advantage of your GM's generosity if he does give you the ok.

Don't ask us, ask your players. As you can tell the opinions on this matter run the width of the spectrum and what you really need to know is where they stand. We are inconsequential.
I believe the idea has some merit but can just as easily understand the opposite point of view so you might suggest running a separate oneshot adventure simply as a testrun. This way it doesn't risk your actual campaign if the idea isn't picked up or has unforeseen consequences. Afterwards, ask your players about the experience and go from there.

Absolutely fantastic thread! To add to the topic, what about words that technically aren't words but we all understand instinctively anyway or only become official (waaaay) later than its adoption in actual used languages (buffyspeak). What happens to inflections? Stretching out syllables or even just sounds? Does it count 'Ummm'? I mean, does the spell register which sounds, and so words, are uttered with the intent of transmission and which are mere static? Sneezing, coughing, hiccups? Can I 'send' a fart during my wizard 101 class? If the words actually need to be spoken out loud shouldn't backgroundnoise interfere, like calling people at a raveparty?

In short, there's too much to consider. Its easier to just use it in the language the table uses to play the game. You can explain it with some typical fantasy nonsense like it uses the 'language' of magic itself, like with verbal components.

Found the inconsistency (how he was able to become AT with only 2 lvls of Rogue). For whatever reason I made a (I'd call it wrong, now, but back then I was a young GM :-) decision back then and allow him to have Street Mage feat from a 3rd party source. I am hoping it is OK to link SRD here? (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/3rd-party-feats/louis-porter-jr-design/gener al-feats---3rd-party---louis-porter-jr/street-mage)

But if I understand you guys, seems there are no codified rules here, but a kind of "do what is logical", correct?

No, no, those are the actual rules, not mere logical extrapolation. I don't know where exactly it is stated though.

Edit for clarification: 'those' refers to what Chess Pwn said.

Arcane Addict wrote:

Like many have said before me, I think its overpowered. You could simply create feats that grant or emulate (single) specific class features, perhaps even scaling, because you can then take the individual class feature's power into account when deciding on the prerequisites (besides taking up a feat or maybe more). Familiar Bond and Eldritch Heritage are good examples of this method.

Interesting. So you'd say that a restriction of only being able to impact class abilities of up to x level could be a potential limitation?

Well, actually, no, I wasn't saying that. Classfeatures aren't created equally either. Bravery and Spellstrike are both normally gained at second level, for example. Bravery isn't really worth a featinvestment, if you ask me. Spellstrike definitely is worth it, but its also too good to give away for just that cost. Its these very disparate powerlevels which make a single general feat for regaining lost classfeatures such a difficult proposition.

Like many have said before me, I think its overpowered. You could simply create feats that grant or emulate (single) specific class features, perhaps even scaling, because you can then take the individual class feature's power into account when deciding on the prerequisites (besides taking up a feat or maybe more). Familiar Bond and Eldritch Heritage are good examples of this method.

Like Lemeres I think you're asking for the (probably) impossible. The various evil outsiders' perspectives and goals don't mesh well. The real problem is then that you want a cohesive philosophy for this individual or group. You're better off with willingly subservient followers who simply seek to do deliberate evil in the name of whoever comes along to guide them purely and solely for its own sake. Like Minions but, you know, actually badass. Mercenary-Cultists, really.

Lorewalker has the right of it, if you ask me. Pathfinder largely operates according to the notion of objective morality, a concept that is hard to grasp for us as most of us believe in relative morality. Even so we largely agree that certain acts are objectively wrong, such as slavery. These are obvious holes in Pathfinder's concepts of morality, according to us realworldsians.
But we didn't always think that way about many of these immoral acts. Slavery has an intensely long history, spanning millennia. Its abolition is relatively recent. If we can even speak of it, as slavery is still very much alive in many parts of the world even if it operates under a different name (child labor, for instance). Now I cannot condone these things but neither can I justify calling millennia's worth of people objectively bad people. For instance, I'm one of those people who used to have a stereotypical 'casually racist' grandma. I hated that part of her, but other than that she was a good person and I loved her. I'm pretty sure almost everyone, myself included, believes, feels or does something wrong without realizing it. I think you should view such practices, as it pertains to the game, in the same light. So normal and pervasive that most people don't even begin to think that it might be wrong. Many Pathfinder cultures still practice slavery and many of them aren't all bad either. Individuals, such as PC's, might have the presence of mind to consider it, but by and large its 'just normal'.
In other words, most mages fail to see that what they're doing is wrong because of its ubiquity within their subculture. And some of these mages will still be CG paragons of freedom.

I understand the desire to say yes to your players but I would urge you to consider simply disallowing this and move on to the usual single PC per player model. I agree with PossibleCabbage that even though the concept is fun it isn't really supported by Pathfinder. Sceptic as I am of these experimental endeavours in roleplaying in this system I must also add that I believe that even at its best it probably still isn't worth the hassle. And I think 'at its best'is unlikely to happen and you'll just end up disappointing yourself and your players...

Now that I've said my piece lets completely ignore it for a moment and indulge anyway! You've mentioned before that your players like the concept in response to the question 'why do this?'. That answer isn't satisfactory for the simple reason that it should be the baseline of every concept anyway. We need to know why this appeals to them. Similarly, you've been asked how you envision this but, even though you are certainly integral to the answer, theirs also carries weight and we know nothing about that either. As is I simply don't see the point. Maybe if we came to an actual understanding we could be far more helpful to you, instead of giving you ideas you don't like or simply advizing against it. I'd like to see my original statement to be false as much for your sake as mine!

Optimization is overrated. As long as your character contributes in a meaningful way its fine, so pick what you think is coolest. For that reason, I'd go with the Wayang too.

Sadly, I'm not aware of anything capable of that currently. I do believe such an ability isn't outside of the scope of Pathfinder so, unless you're playing in PFS, I'd urge you to collaborate with your GM and fellow players to create it.

Back in 3.X there was the Shugenja class, a slightly different kind of wizard, that utilized taboos, odd restrictions to the character's behavior. I don't remember it all that well but I recall examples of 'never cutting your hair' and such things. I realize this isn't exactly the same as what you're asking for but it might help you find some inspiration.

Doesn't the Arcane Bond ability itself specify you cannot ever have both an object and a familiar no matter the source?

You might want to look into VMC Wizard instead of a dip, if you hadn't yet considered that. It would alleviate some of your issues. I do realize you basically want to get a free Craft Magic Weapon/Staff out of this though so it might well not be up your alley at all.

well it's level 18 (20-2) on heritage. Yah I was hoping for more this is why this choice is bad...I see pluss and minus on both...

I misremembered. Honest mistake. That said, no, neither is bad. Though, now that I think about it, you might not want to deal with the CHA requirements for Eldritch Heritage (though I enjoy a little CHA on my Arcanist it is far from necessary, even dumpable if you're so inclined).

Ha! A sneak edit! Well, I can do that too :p I'm aware of the prerequisite for Loremaster, which is exactly why I initially mentioned my assumption you wouldn't want to change your build ;)

Damn! Another one! Though I don't know the reference if you want to go with a gishy sort of Arcanist I hope you didn't select the archetype that gives you a blackblade as it is incompatible with a familiar no matter how you'd obtain it.
I'me assuming you don't want to go in that direction too much though because you optd for Loremaster over Eldritch Knight. If you somehow forgot about that Prestige Class and still want to take it you might want to look into the Eldritch Guardian archetype for the fighter for a dip.

With the limited information you've provided, and assuming you're unwilling to change anything so far, Eldritch Heritage will provide a 16th level Familiar by level 20, as opposed to 15th by taking the Familiar Exploit. That single level doesn't make that much of a difference though so I would base my choice on which limited resource you would rather spend on it. Even so, you might wish to make the other choice because of timing, unless you have access to retraining.

There are some alternatives you might wish to consider though. There's another feat chain that provides a familiar (don't know the names... I'm guessing Familiar Bond?). In terms of feat cost it is inferior to Eldritch Heritage (though the prerequisite Iron Will is better than SF: Arcana) but it'll allow for a full 20 levels worth of familiar.
There's an archetype for the Arcanist that provides a familiar from the get go but it also changes the spelllist from sor/wiz to witch.
Finally, you could opt to take a level of Sorcerer or Wizard and use the corresponding Arcanist exploits to add your Arcanist and 9 of your Evangelist levels for the bloodline or school (in case of sorcerer you might want to look into bloodline familiars so you aren't stuck with Arcane which is an otherwise pretty bad bloodline for an Arcanist).
Finally, if you have access to VMC rules it might merit consideration too.
There are many more but those I've either forgotten or I fail to see the appeal for what I assume will be a 'God-Wizard' version of the Arcanist.

Honestly, I believe you're likely aware of those options and have already discarded them, but just in case you had not...

There's a number of things at work here.

First off, the economy of the game doesn't make much sense in the first place, let alone when magic becomes involved. The simplest solution is simply to accept this flaw and ignore it.

Second, things do seem cheap because adventurers are filthy rich (if they ever decide to retire, that is, because the things they usually want are obnoxiously expensive too). Most other people struggle to attain and/or maintain such living comforts for their entire lives, if incidental expenditures are included.

Finally, the prices proffered and the quality these provide are standardized for ease of use by the GM. It is very reasonable to assume the wider world does offer a wider range, just like we have in our own world.

I always feel these kinds of situations are tricky. On the one hand, creativity should be rewarded, on the other its not always easy to foresee the consequences both of the idea itself in practice and of the precedent it sets to make such allowances.

So, in the end, I've drawn the line erring on the side of caution, disallowing such premeditated creativity, or, more specifically, inventiveness, especially when it should be repeatable, like in your case. Singular instances of spontaneous strokes of genius are still great though!

Really, to me, this issue is solved better with a creative reimagining of the Reach Spell feat or a Spellstoring Crossbow or whatever.

*no longer relevant stuff*

P.S. I cannot believe I forgot 'raise Int'. Good catch there, CBDunkerson

Edit: A post I quoted has vanished. As the post itself didn't contribute to the thread neither does the quote so I've removed it.

Just to clarify, Expanded Preparation doesn't give you additional spells per day. Neither do the Spell Lattice or Page of Spell Knowledge. All these do is add more options to choose from for the limited spells per day you do have. The only way to accomplish that is through Runestones of Power, as far as I'm aware.

Other than the Runestones I would suggest simply using scrolls, wands, staves or any other item that allows for casting specific spells to virtually expand your spells per day.

Maybe the nature angle of the druid and company doesn't fit the bill but a more monk-like austerity and back to basics kind of feel could work. Remove the asceticism aspect though and really go for that salt of the earth, no nonsense kind of a thing.
I realize one could argue that such values aren't intrinsic to neutrality, all alignments on the spectrum have the capacity for this point of view. To me, that might just be it, embracing values that are functional regardless of moral ideals can in itself be a moral ideal. Really, I don't know I'm just spitballin' here.

As for mechanics, Smite is usually used against particular alignments or creaturetypes but what if it hinged on a different condition like the other having more hp than you or something like that? The ability would serve to even out the playing field instead of gaining the upper hand, true, but it fits with the flavor of balance pretty well, if you ask me, so it might still be worth looking into. Maybe the class could share its weaknesses or strengths with others or vice versa, maybe it 'steals from the rich and gives to the poor' or...

... We call a duck a duck and let go of the notion that it could maybe somehow be a chicken too.

Yes, you can. I don't see the appeal though!

As far as I'm aware no such thing exists. Sorry. The only option I can think of is to deliberately choose to have a relatively weak casting attribute and building around this weakness (buffers and gishes sometimes do this, as their spells are mostly beneficial, in order to raise other attributes when using point-buy).

If this isn't for PFS you could just talk to your GM about it and see if you can't just develop a lower-level version creating the effect you want. In fact, I'd try this route before you'd think of building your character with it in mind. Which you weren't going to anyway.

Good luck (or bad... that's how saves are failed after all)!

Have you considered Variant Multiclassing? If its available to you its a good alternative solution to your problem. There are quite some options to choose from (and options within those options!) so that I highly doubt you cannot find something that excites you, even if they're not always relevant to the role you intend to fulfill.

One of the things I really enjoy about casters is that they don't need feats. Sure, it makes them better but truly they're often so powerful already that I don't really feel they're necessary. Yet, they're there so... You can use them for fun stuff! I like feats that improve my familiar, for instance, or oddball stuff to reinforce my character's background. If you're willing and able to adopt that perspective to feats your problem suddenly becomes a luxury.

Your race might also provide options you wouldn't normally consider. I love Breadth of Experience, for example, on Elves, or the featchain that allows Sylphs flight or... etc.

Truly, none of these options directly do what you're asking for, I know that, but I feel they're worth considering anyway. I hope that can still prove helpful. If not, I'm sorry I've wasted your time. Carry on!

Umbridge and Joffrey share some common hate-able traits, which, quite frankly, are so obvious I'm at a loss for how you cannot identify them. First off they're undeniably cruel and take visible pleasure in inflicting harm. Second, they're both despots, they only desire authority to have power over others and to deny those others power. Third, they're very cowardly, they let others take their risks for them, do their dirty work.
The list goes on but I'm not willing to explain it all in detail because I'm too lazy to make that long a post right now. But I'm willing to sum it up. They're both liars, uncompromising, hypocrites, prejudiced, privileged and undeserving. It still goes on. Amazing, really, how they're still obviously different characters when they have so much in common, really... Anyway, they're the villainous versions of a Mary Sue. Take your cues from that.

RAW the two archetypes cannot be taken together because they both change the same things. I'm not so sure from your post whether you're aware of this. That said, its for your homegame, not PFS so you're free to make allowances.
Basically, by allowing this you've created a Sorceror variant of the Magus that is better than the official one. That one sucks though so I see no issue with it. I also agree that it'll likely be worse than most other types of Magus, though I cannot say so with absolute certainty, depending on the Bloodline and how he plans to advance his character.

If, for some reason, you still don't feel comfortable you could suggest to allow it for X sessions or levels during which you can still change your mind. Whatever happens keep an open dialogue going with your player.

None of the above! Its like the Elves' bonus to perception, just a bonus and nothing more.

Btw... What in the evolution's wording makes it look that way!?

Use the Phantom Thief archetype. Trying to get a sneak attack off at 20th level is a lost cause. Even if you could somehow get into range the wizard is bound to have enough protections that your sneak is either negated or useless. Instead we want access to vigilante social talents to max out our non-descript-ness.

Invest in all anti-scrying anti-detection and non-magical disguise abilities, then purchase the speediest transportation mechanic that isn't magical. Take the Rumormonger advanced talent and start spreading the following rumor as your travel the world: "Wizard X is planning to destroy the entire material plane in 1 year". Due to Rumormonger's wording, your rumor is "practically accepted as fact" everywhere you go, creating a global uprising against the wizard.

The more the wizard resists the uprising, the more obviously "evil" he seems, increasing the degree of opposition against him. Eventually a party of intrepid adventurers will be drawn to gather power and destroy the evil wizard in his private demiplane or whatever.

This... This idea seems better than mine.

Scroll of earthquake?

That could work!

Destroying the twoer seems like a great plan, but how do you do this using Pathfinder rules not just GM fiat?

There are a variety of spells that could perform that function in a variety of ways. Bob Bob Bob already mentioned Polymorph Any Object, for instance (though in a different context). Regardless, yes, it probably will require knowledge of some ancillary rules that rarely see use otherwise...

Yeah... I'm not really concrete advice guy, more good suggestion guy...

Have you considered simply destroying the tower while the wizard sleeps, crushing him in the rubble? I'm not being sarcastic, this is a serious suggestion. Your DM's hubris is similar to that of wizards. Defy his assumptions about how you would approach it by attacking from an unexpected angle. I mean, the goal is to beat him right? You're a rogue, embrace the idea and just don't fight fair! Just win!

This isn't a real answer, for that you should probably have this moved to the rules forums, but I think of bluff's vagueness as a feature, not a bug. A lie can serve many purposes and a succesful one can still have all kinds of different outcomes depending on the situation. Not having an exact answer how it works models that pretty well if you ask me. Not having an exact answer also allows you to stimy ruleslawyers who would otherwise try to abuse the skill to ridiculous ends.

Social skills are just tricky to adjudicate, even Diplomacy and Intimidate, because even if the roll goes well sometimes the results are just too implausible, or vice versa. Some DM fiat just seems to be required. Really, all you really need to do, in my opinion that is, is hash it out with your players so you're all at least on the same page in regards to how they'll function.

Some day, hopefully, social skills will make sense and not be such a hot tangled mess of rules conflicting with/sublimating/overruling roleplay and vice versa. Until that day make do by... using your real world social skills to work it out amongst yourselves!

First off, don't hide plotrelevant info behind a check that could potentially fail. Sure, you can use it as one avenue to obtain such info but you should always have a backup method they cannot help but run across if such shortcuts fail them.
Second, the various knowledge skills do have actual value for a character, especially when it comes to identifying monsters, so you aren't robbing your players of anything by following my first rule. I'd urge you to define the DC's and the associated info in advance.
Third, players will ask all kinds of questions and some of them will seem nonsensical to you. I wouldn't necessarily stop them from asking you these questions because, even when they're tedious, they provide information on your players'/characters' interests or thoughtpatterns. Other people's theories can be a source of inspiration, or even a way out of a situation you got yourself stuck in. Plus, players don't want to hear their questions are stupid or pointless.
In addition, consider allowing players' characters to use knowledge proactively, giving them minor narrative control over their chosen fields. My current character has all kinds of stories about a wizard then and there who did x, discovering y at the cost of bodypart z. It has no real impact but its fun and I find I really appreciate the freedom to make stuff like that up without having to rely on the DM's ok. Especially if you can always say... "But it turns out... you were wrong/lied to/etc".

Before I start I have to say that there seems to be something wrong with the Reply function. Because of that I've chosen to omit the parts you (Arcutiys) have quoted from me. I might also accidentally have skipped something. If so, please do call me on it and I'll rectify it asap.
Also, I've chosen to neglect reading most of the rest of the thread. Poor form, I know, but I just don't care to have as involved a discussion yet do feel that you deserve a reply. I also state this upfront simply just to inform you of the situation.

Now to be fair, I did say that I don't actively believe they're doing this either. I do think they're incompetent rather than intentionally doing this. I just pointed out how much of a problem your company has if the question "Are they actively being evil or are they just too incompetent to release books correctly?" has to be asked as often as it does.

True, you did say that. Perhaps I should've been more clear. I think you're overreacting and slightly too paranoid about this because I think most of us just don't ask that question to begin with, its 'just' you. We assume honest mistakes and leave it at that.

You said it

And don't I know it!

Just because you can rule 0 something doesn't mean it wasn't broken in the first place. Oberoni and such. Besides, this is still a large problem in PFS, which is a service I ostensibly paid for by getting the books and the character folios, and just as importantly invested a lot of time in personally running it.

This is a fair point and as such not something I'll debate you on. What I do want to say is that your investments do not have to be a complete waste if you so choose. You can still play and enjoy the game your way.

Complete aside, Oberoni? What's that?

Again, you said it. There's something admirable about straight up admitting that people here are too sunk into fanboyism to be swayed.

Though convincing people not to buy Paizo products wasn't my only goal. I also wanted to voice my disdain in a place where the company members who run the whole thing were more likely to see it. On the very off chance that they would actually change their...behavior.

Umm... Thank you?

Really, we're not blind or stupid. We get pissed off too over the mistakes that get made, hamfisted errata, odd designdecisions and so on. We're vocal about it, too. Insofar, we're the same. The difference seems to be we're willing to accept and forgive it and you don't. Thats fine, I even understand, I just feel you're decision to do so is based on relatively insignificant things and I think you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. True, all of those insignificant things have added up to form the conclusion that Paizo's doing a bad job. I just don't think they are. By and large they've created a great game I truly enjoy. I know you must've enjoyed it too at some point and I'd hate for you to throw it away.

As for your second point, I've failed to see that option! Sorry! I believe your complaints are valid and think you're doing the right thing by voicing them. For what its worth I'm truly sorry I'm undermining your efforts here as I would be very happy if things were to improve too. Maybe I'm not enough of a critical consumer and maybe Paizo just skates by because of that and others like me, and we collectively facilitate that behavior, but as long as the good outweighs the bad, I'm sorry, I'm really not going to change and don't think many others will either.

Good luck though! Besides really wanting to know what this Oberoni stuff is I'll stop posting in this thread, unless prompted to. I do want you to succeed and, well, so far I've been no help whatsoever. Besides, I think I've said all that I have to say on the subject anyway.

Though I believe you certainly have a point I also think you're overreacting. And maybe you're being a bit too paranoid about it too.

Of course Paizo wants our money, just like any other business, but I'm very hesitant to believe they'd try to get our money through deliberate immoral acts such as you make it out to be. Its just not a very good businessmodel for a luxury product, you see. Big pharma and such get away with it, of sorts, because their products are essential to their customers. Paizo gets our money because they exploit (not in a bad way necessarily!) our hunger for more content, not revised content. Hell, it doesn't even have to be very good for most of us on these boards to buy it anyway, funds permitting!

It doesn't apply in PFS but for homegames you can always rely on rule 0. Change the rule if you don't like it, or scrap it alltogether. I'd urge you to do that instead of quitting alltogether.

Finally, and I hate to have to state this, but, I don't think you'll find much common ground here. Sure, everyone wants things to be done better, with more of an eye towards quality and detail, better content etc. but I don't think you'll convince anyone to stop buying books based on your argument. You're much more likely to sway minds and find sympathizers on more general boards (rpg.net, for instance) or through product reviews on, say, amazon. We're likely too invested in our love for the product, you see. Otherwise I wouldn't know why we're all here!

First off, there really isn't anything inherently wrong or bad about optimizing your characters. It doesn't prohibit roleplaying at all, so if you enjoy doing that, just keep doing it!

Now to actually get to the advice portion you're looking for. Its obvious to me that we have different styles of play as I find your concepts rather zany for my tastes. Nothing wrong with that either! Just stating it up front because it might affect the usefulness of my advice.

I'd start off by asking your fellow players to cut you some slack and tone down the comments regarding your roleplaying because you're still trying to get the hang of it and such comments aren't really supportive of that goal. I'm all for a good ribbin' but not when it undermines a genuine effort to improve upon an area you're insecure about.

I like to think of my characters as actual people, albeit in a crazy world, with crazy events, doing crazy things. Don't focus too much on the collection of odd obsessions, behavioral quirks and extreme reactions but rather on the more mundane side of things. I find that gets rather stale pretty fast anyway, but hey, different strokes.
If it helps, try modelling your characters' personalities after people you know at first before trying to create a personality out of whole cloth.
Try formulating a couple of 'yes/no' or 'pick one' questions regarding your characters' reactions in certain common situations. Thinking about such things in advance can really help me to flesh out a character's personality.
I also find that the more you understand a character's motivations, beliefs and history the more likely it is you can stay in character and respond sincerely in a timely fashion.

There's probably a lot more I can say but I'm drawing a blank at the moment. I hope this was helpful so far. Regardless, don't put too much pressure on yourself to perform, be aware that its a learningprocess and allow yourself to be ok making the inevitable mistakes that come along the way.

P.S. Kudos for admitting a weakness and stepping up to improve upon it.

One of the great things about a roleplaying game is that it takes place within your imagination. You are not shackled to the imagery provided by the books. Use the Temple Sword.

But you still can (if your GM is nuts) go beyond lvl 20 by multiclassing as stated by the CRB.

Yes

Ok, fine :p There has been minimal support, but mostly on the level of adventures and npcs and such, little to none for pcs.

I would take the Arcane Archer prestige class, actually...

But, if you're dead set on it, I'd simply replace every instance of the word firearm et all with crossbow and be done with it.

Ok, Thelia, I've seen you post about this here and there so I'll let you in on the way it works. Technically, yes, there's no limit whatsoever to characterlevel. However Paizo has thus far never really supported play beyond 20th level. Consequently most people don't go beyond 20th, if they even reach that point at all. One important benefit, imo, of capping levels is it forces you to make meaningful decisions for your character.

Obviously, mages with sufficient skill have the option to isolate themselves. However I think that most don't make that decision (deliberately). Altruism or social needs aside, people are themselves a useful resource. If you can use a person to perform a function a spell could perform I'd usually rather conserve that spellslot for something else.

You guys have given me some good reasons why the Sorcerer is still a mechanically viable choice compared to the Arcanist. My curiosity is sated! You have my thanks :)

Gimme a sorceror anyday.

I'm curious. Why?

It only does what it says. What it says it does is eliminate physical aging penalties. Dying from max age is not a penalty, so it's not prevented by this.

That said, as written this should be a level 10 discovery. There are all day spells that provide the same effect.

It also says you discover a cure for aging, which to me means you don't age anymore at all. You could argue that is purely flavortext and, consequently, meaningless, I would usually do that too. But... Then I look at the name, and other abilities, like the Druid's and Monk's, which specify you will die whereas this one does not, and finally the level at which it is attainable and then I find it hard to actually stand by such an argument.

That said, if it is like you say, 10th level does seem far more appropriate.

Regardless, this is how my table plays it... Or, well, would, if we'd ever reach that point! We like it our way :)

Snowlilly wrote:

Arcane Addict wrote:

Of course... I play an Arcanist with 1 lvl of Sorcerer with Wizard VMC sooo.... Really?! Don't choose, have it all! Thats what real Gods... I mean... Mages do!

Real gods don't give up access to Immortality.

Real gods play the long game. And by long, I mean eons.

The wizard discovery doesn't actually prevent you from dying of old age tho.

What makes you think that? I actually think thats pretty much all it does... No perpetual youth, no immunity to sickness or disease and of course no immunity to bodily harm. What else is there but not dying from old age to make this worthwhile (and I know that its technically a waste to choose this Discovery anyway. Its purely a flavor thing.)?