Arcane_Guyver's page

I still think non-casters should get more skill points per level, and have spell-like features 'unlock' upon hitting certain ranks. 'True Seeing' on a rounds/day basis with a high Perception rank. 'Freedom of Movement' on a rounds/day basis with a high Escape Artist rank. No doubling of the DC for vertical jump checks with a high Acrobatics rank. Etc.

Ritual casting sounds an awful lot like Use Magic Device & scrolls.

Extra combat options that 'unlock' with higher Base Attack bonus would be cool. You start off with the ability to disarm an enemy or sunder an enemy's weapon as a Standard action, then move onto superior Standard actions like moving & disarming a whole batch of enemies, or sundering magical protections & buffs. Feint as a Free action (once per attack), make Grapple good somehow (render the target Dazed or Stunned perhaps). Trip could be used with ranged attacks, primarily to knock flying people out of the air. Overrun becomes a Free action against enemies with a CR lower than your Base Attack bonus. Bull Rush could actually smash creatures through walls. Etc, etc.

Full Attack as a Standard action still sounds like a good buff as well.

So...I don't think you can do this well in 3e or PF. In 3e you could do the Unarmed Strike business (with the aforementioned Superior Unarmed Strike feat and the overpriced Amulet of Meant-For-Dragons), but going without armor generally requires a PrC (like the Duelist) and magic items.

My suggestion? Wear a mithral shirt under you clothes (nobody knew Frodo was wearing armor!) and pick up a pair of spiked gauntlets (preferably one silver, one cold iron). Two-Weapon Fight it up with an extra Dextrous build, and magic up your gear when you can. You won't be the gear-free martial artist, but you'll still running about unencumbered and punching stuff to death.

As sort of a throw-away idea, what if all armor types gain DR in addition to the AC bonus, equal to half the armor's AC bonus (rounded up).

* Light armor would grant DR/bludgeoning or piercing, DR/bludgeoning or slashing, or DR/piercing or slashing.
* Medium armor would grant DR/bludgeoning, DR/piercing, or DR/slashing.
* Heavy armor would grant DR/-. (And it would stack with Barbarian DR and Adamantine DR).

Seems silly to have these damage types and not use them. On the other hand, I have no idea what specific type of DR to assign to which specific armor types, so don't ask. =p

The feat wouldn't be quite so bad if it targeted "enemies at least one size category bigger than you" rather than Large - that way shorties would get more use out of it.

The bonus to critical confirmation rolls is so ridiculously high for this attack (+8 to +14?) it may as well have just let any critical threats from this attack be auto-confirmed.

On the other hand, the damage bonus seems like an afterthought. +7 damage at 20th is a drop in the bucket.

...I still don't seem my PCs or NPCs taking this feat. Action economy tends to be harshest towards the villains, and if they need an accuracy boost, that's what Aid-Another minions are for. That's not even considering the size limitation; perhaps a really nasty DM would have this combo down, where an NPC would cast 'Enlarge Person' on a well-armored PC, and then a (greater invisible) NPC would use this feat and a high crit range weapon to eliminate the **** out of that character without fear of reprisal. But...it seems to me those NPC turns would be better used on a better spell and a regular Full Attack action.

Meh, splat-crap is crap. 3e was bursting at the seams with filler feats like this. If this is the only such feat you've found in PF, you're not looking very hard.

1 - Do you feel that the spellbook (or equivalent) mechanic--not flavor--is necessary for INT-based casters? If so, why?

The mechanic? Balance-wise, not really. It is a handy feature to help keep track of what spells you have accumulated, since you can learn new ones between levels. Also, without books full of spells lying around, that would change the face of treasure drops, especially for wizards who could get practical use out of such things.

2 - Do you feel that the flavor and themes surrounding an INT-based caster require them to draw their power from a book or pet? Could you cite examples (books, film, etc.) as to why?

Not especially. It seems to me that Cha-based characters just will stuff to happen, Wis-based characters ask nicely for stuff, and Int-based characters are able to utilize collegiate-level crap to do their stuff.

3 - What would be your response to removing spellbooks (and equivalents) as a requirement for INT-based casters? This would not mean witches would have to give up their familiars, but rather that they could prepare spells without chatting up their pet each morning. The casters would still have to pay the necessary gold to learn new spells (outside of leveling up) and prepare them each day as usual.

Mechanically, it wouldn't change much (aside from the treasure drops thing, as stated in question #1). The option for DMs to screw with such a character's available power is there, but most wisely choose not to wake that particular dragon (it seems unfair when other equally-powerful spellcasters don't have such an Achilles Heel). Flavor-wise, I would not be happy with the change - spellbooks are neat.

4 - Have you (or has your GM/DM) made any house-rules regarding this? If so, what changes were made?

Nope. It's a bit of flavor that I feel helps define the wizard. There are far too many other (and more important, IMO) things to muck with in 3e.

After a few years of 3e, I defined 'appearance' in my game as an extension of self-confidence, reflecting the amount of energy one would put into augmenting and improving one's appearance. Good posture and looking like you not only fit in but "belong" is also high Charisma. You could have a very attractive character with a Cha 7, but they probably put less stock in personal appearance than a fugly Cha 10 commoner.

High-Charisma monsters tend to be terrifyingly impressive (at least in appearance).

I always figured there were five combat roles in 3e.

* Archer - Ranged characters that tend to rely on lots of precise attacks.
* Blaster - Squishy ranged characters that use magic to nuke enemy clumps or screws over individuals.
* Healer - Characters that can use magic to restore HP, buff allies, or attempt to fill in for any other role.
* Tank - Melee characters that tend to rely on heavy-damage attacks, high AC & lots of HP.
* Pippin - Characters who haven't been built with combat in mind, or just don't know what they're doing.

Arcane_Guyver wrote:

As for "Monks can't fly or see invisible people," well neither can most characters.

Alchemist, bard, cleric, druid, inquisitor, magus, oracle, sorcerer, summoner, witch and wizard can. That's 11 classes out of 19: the majority of the classes can.

I meant to say non-casters, and don't care about splat. Monks may be weak, but I am never going to advocate giving them wings or the ability to walk on air just so they can charge a flying mage.

Eh, I'd limit the monk's PROs to the following.
- Good saves.
- Decent 'Full Attack' action. Shuriken proficiency is useful here.
- Fast movement. This means superior balancing, climbing, swimming, sneaking, and tumbling.
- Corner-case gear denial. No armor, no weapons, not much of a problem.
- Superior grappling damage.

As per usual, the usage problem stems mostly from lack of synergy between Flurry and Fast Movement. Their attack bonus and Flurry limitations combine to make it difficult to deal comparable damage to other melee types. Fast Movement would also make Monks better at certain skills than others...if they actually had the skill points to train them proper. The AC Bonus feature isn't a good enough patch for no armor at low levels. The Unarmed Strike feature is neat in concept, but can't compete with actual weapons due to silly price gouging. And d8 Hit Dice is frankly absurd for a melee character with no spellcasting ability, let alone one striving for 'self perfection.'

As for "Monks can't fly or see invisible people," well neither can most characters - that's a problem with spellcasting and christmas trees.

I'm having a hard time imagining anyone telling their kid "No, you can't watch Star Wars because it is now rated PG-13." If the crazy old man really changed his mind or whatever, I assume he fixed the scene in the Blu-Ray release.

Other than TPKs spurred on by poor planning or dumb actions on the part of a player or two, no character has ever 'ruined' one of my campaigns.

I find it's easiest to go into a campaign with general ideas rather than specific ones. Work your way backward for all the key events in the game, starting with the desired 'final boss' and his ultimate goal. The further away from that, the looser the metaplot should be. Quite often my campaign outlines start with 'PCs do their own thing for a few levels, and after they've managed to do something truly notable, they catch the interest of [Important NPC #1].'

Adaptability and flexibility are key. Also, false choices (PCs run into the same **** regardless of where they go) may seem attractive - and are fine for some encounters - but you don't want to use that device too much.

An attractive woman (shapechanger? or just too rare for a reliable description?) who is actually a monster that eats people, usually children. They give me a fay vibe due to their trickery and child-eating ways.

I've never actually used them in D&D or Pathfinder, though.

To my eyes, if a DM said "You see an orc. Roll initiative." I'd assume he got lazy or sloppy and just didn't describe the orc moving to draw his weapon. My response would depend on how much of a 'good guy' I'm playing at the time.

* Subdue (with a vocal warning if I win inish).
* Kill (with a vocal warning only if I win inish and the orc looks like fodder).

Love/Hate? Hmm...

Love...
1. Simplified skill ranks, and none of that synergy crap.
2. Some feat fixes. Power Attack's number crunching always annoyed me.
3. The rate of feat gain. I had houseruled 3e this way for a few years, nice to see it being used.
4. Some of the skill mergers. Notably 'Linguistics.'
5. Allowing precision damage against more creatures just makes sense.
6. The polymorph spell school seems both functional and balanced. WotC's polymorph 'fix' was pretty terrible.
7. All the rules to play are in one book. No need to look into another book for companion stats or item creation rules.
8. Bards are legit spellcasters right from 1st level.
9. Decent amount of feats for Fighters right in core.
10. Paladin spellcasting is finally Cha-based. Another one of my houserules surfaces.

Hate...
1. Retained 3e layout. I think the information could be sorted out much better than it is.
2. Item creation feats grant too big of a boost for too little investment.
3. Some of the skill mergers. Notably 'Acrobatics,' as jumping really should be Strength-based.
4. All the player race mechanics. 4/7 races have a +2 to Perception! 3/7 get a +2 ability bonus of their choice just because! Ugh...
5. Favored Class. Used to be a class members of your race could dip into or out of easily, now it's just another bonus to track.
6. Grappling is nerfed...?! Surreal.
7. Paladin 'Smite Evil' is both too good and feels too much like a curse instead of a proper smite.
8. Due to various rules changes, Rogues are even more unimpressive than they were in 3e.
9. At-will cantrips/orisons.
10. The large swath of unaltered 3e problems. Didn't expect PF to be a silver bullet, but...

Oh yeah, I like Sunder, on both sides of the screen.

As a DM, I love how the players instantly go on red alert the instant their gear is in any way threatened.

As a player, I often employ it on a Charge against archers because it rarely provokes an Attack of Opportunity, projectile weapons are pathetically easy to break, and such NPCs are typically boned once their big gun is in pieces. None of this Tumble/5-ft. step away and shooting me business.

Do you roll your characters?

For some RPGs, sure. Next D&D campaign (probably E6 3.5, an older edition of D&D, or a C&C type clone) will be 100% randomly rolled, even starting HP (abilities will be rolled in order, too). Unless someone else wants to DM, of course. >=)

Is your answer the default of your gaming group?

Uh...maybe? We don't make new characters often enough to have a default.

How long have you been gaming?

One month before 3.5 came out. I know this because a friend knew '.5' was coming out, yet still sold me the 3e core rules. Ah well.

What system did you first game in?

3e. I tried running the d6 Star Wars game when I was much younger, though.

I'd put the Monk in the same category as the Rogue - they can be handy to have around as a 5th party member. Bards and Rangers are the better choices for the primary party scout/skill-monkey. (If we were talking 3e D&D, the Rogue and Bard would be switched.)

Dunno about Ultimate Combat, but there's a "class defense bonus" variant from the Unearthed Arcana supplement for 3e D&D (as well as a "armor as DR" variant). Something about it didn't work so well I believe, because it didn't see much use.

Anyway, D&D players are used to AC = good armor + 'dodgey-ness,' while weapons and combat experience are used entirely offensively. (Feats can patch this up, Combat Expertise being the main suspect.)

Arcane_Guyver wrote:

A non-magical item that would let such creatures climb solo would be ideal.

Its called rope and block and tackle.

I'm having a hard time imagining a block and tackle as a 'solo use' sort of thing...

My players sometimes wish I'd roll behind a screen, so I might fudge some rolls occasionally. One actually bought be the Pathfinder DM screen because of this, I think. I still don't fudge rolls, though. =p

I do roll some dice secretly, usually stuff like Fort saves against diseases and other things that might cause players to metagame around a low roll.

I've come to dislike DM screens as a divide between the DM and players, one of the reasons I don't like laptops at my table. It may be 'classic' to have your section of the table walled off, but I also feel it to be very impersonal.

If you're going to allow a centaur PC (or a bauriar PC), or even include such creatures in your campaign, there should be some way for them get around as stupid an obstacle as a ladder.

Right now, they can swig expensive potions of levitate or alter self (300 gp). Spellcasters could make horseshoes of levitation, but those are pretty expensive (7,500 gp); even a 1/day set of shoes would cost 1,500 gp. A non-magical item that would let such creatures climb solo would be ideal.

And why is it an Immediate action? As you're doing it on your turn, shouldn't it be a Swift action?

I'm guessing that the feat was originally intended to let you Unarmed Strike-stomp your Overrun target in the face after knocking it [Prone] (sort of like Trample), but that seemed a little too good and got a last-minute 'fix.'

Yeah, even if Rhino Charge only allowed a 'partial Charge,' I know some of my players would give it a serious look (I'm not sure it's a must-have, though). They're always trying to do this, and I have to keep telling them 'Not in Pathfinder.'

Jaguar Pounce looks like a serious contender for crappiest feat, though.

Oh, yeah, the list would be extensive. Those proficiency feats were just some of the most pathetic feats that I could think of off the top of my head.

All this talk brings me to the conclusion that some feats should be considered "minor feats" and be taken as bonus feats every even level or each 4 levels or something. This way, people would be able to get some feats they want to, but are not worth taking.

What would be your list for those feats?

I imagine you'd want to put Light and Medium Armor Proficiency feats in that 'minor' list. Also Simple and Martial Weapon Proficiency. Nobody takes those feats. I don't remember the last time I considered even giving an NPC one of them.

Point Blank Shot should give a Dodge bonus to AC against Opportunity Attacks provoked from ranged attacks, and not be a prereq for anything.

Most of those Teamwork feats shouldn't be feats at all. If you want to grant an ally a better bonus for flanking or Aid Another, that should just be a regular Combat feat.

General backup weapons:
Dagger - Obvious versatility, in and out of combat. If a non-caster, get two (silver & cold iron)
Sap - A good way to deal nonlethal damage without sucking.

More specific backup weapons:
Light Crossbow / Shortbow - So melee attackers can attack that pesky flying enemy, or to let low level casters save their spell slots for later.

Spiked Gauntlets - So spellcasters & ranged attackers always threaten and provide flank.

Armor Spikes - So Melee guys with Reach weapons aren't too boned when an enemy bases with them.

Super-useful, thanks.

I think there is some power creep going on, but not nearly on the same pace or level as 3e D&D. There have been no 'Persistent Spell' feats or 'Night Stick' items that I know of that devastate what game balance exists for PF.

If the creep is system-wide (all PCs gain [something] for [this reason]), it's fine. Creep to fix specific previously published crap options isn't bad, but it is frustrating that you *need* stuff from another book to be viable. (I'd rather just have a functional Monk without optional patches, thank you.) Creep purely for the sake of selling books is a deep, dark pit that you really don't want your game falling into.

An alignment change won't do much to this character, unless you decide he's being too chaotic as well as evil.

On the other hand, you determine what the effect of spells, abilities, and magic items are in your game. You also dictate how Outsiders and other alignment-sensitive creatures in the world react to PCs. He can swear he's stabbing innocents to death in the name of good all he wants; you control how many damage dice get tossed when he takes an 'Unholy Blight' spell to the face. Just be glad you don't have any Paladins in the party.

If his antics are upsetting any of the other players - I'm guessing the Bard player isn't okay with how things are going - you might need a more direct intervention. Firm, but friendly.

I don't see why you couldn't. I am guessing it wasn't included due to low use of slings.

I'm willing to bet that's a cyclical thing. Slings are crappy because they take too long to load, so nobody bothers with them. A feat exists to shorten reload time of crossbows, but not for slings because nobody bothers with them.

I remember making a Druid back in 3e and realizing they're limited to sling usage for long-range weapons. Between the heavy ammo and long load times, I instead prepped 'Produce Flame' in case I actually needed a ranged attack (and at 3rd level took 'Extend Spell' so I could throw long distance balls of fire for an entire combat if need be).

4) When the morale of some troglodytes breaks and two surrender, he proceeds to attack...

Here's where the definable evil is. Racist slurs and eagerness for an impending battle is nothing. Good-aligned characters just don't attack creatures who surrender. At least, that was the definition in 3e D&D (and spelled out explicitly in the 'Book of Exalted Deeds' supplement).

I'd recommend telling the player that any more actions like this and you're going to change his alignment to True Neutral, or Neutral Evil if he persists further. He may not change what's on his character sheet (since he's not a divine character) but you can keep a note on the GM screen for when he's targeted with alignment-dependent effects.

Guess I don't get how a campaign can be built to make a Rogue particularly useful without also making a Bard or a Ranger (or an Expert, for that matter) equally useful. Fill it with high CR non-magical traps that are so difficult to find that only a Rogue can hope to find them?

I've used the 'Giant' template on younger dragons before to do this, it works pretty well. Whatever you end up using, make sure that the monster's AC, saves & SR aren't too high for your PCs to handle.

From what I've witnessed at the table...

- Rogues have low HP & AC for a predominantly melee class.
- Rogues have a harder time hitting due to legacy-based to-hit bonus.
- Sneak Attack doesn't do as much damage as you'd think it would.
- Ranged Sneak Attacks are hard enough to perform without considering the miniscule max range limit.
- Rogues don't have any particularly interesting signature ability besides SA. Others are just as skillful (see the Bard) and can find traps just as easily.

Better HD & BAB would help the first two points (see the Ranger). Making Rogue SA do more damage would be an easy enough houserule (I'd be tempted to really amp SA up, but limit the weapons you can use for it). Ranged SAs that do both more damage and have a max range that improves with level would make sniping less of a joke.

For the last point, I'm kicking the idea around for an Action Point-style ability called 'Luck of Thieves.' Before you roll 1d20, announce using the ability; roll 1d6 (2d6 and take the best roll at 8th, 3d6 and take the best roll at 16th) and add it as a Luck bonus to the roll. Get one use per day at 1st, 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th levels. If you really need your next attack to hit, or your next skill check to succeed, a few times a day you can rely on a bit of luck...

So...if you actually did this, would the encounter/dungeon grant only XP for the guy with the Leadership feat? That seems the only reason to do this...

Well...in this week's Tuesday game, our party was stuck in a trapped flooding room. While everyone was scrambling to disable the mechanism, bust holes in the doors, or help other party members hold their breath, the paladin decided to remove his plate armor so he wouldn't drown so easily. It was an odd choice, but we got through that trap without anyone dying.

Then, the 'dungeon' cleared, the party checked out the remaining room, which turned out to be a treasure room. The rogue bricked on his Perception check (as per usual) and missed the magic trap, so most of us were hit by a drowning effect. Only one of us died - the paladin, who had thus far been the most paranoid about drowning of us all.

Basically, after we overcame multiple tough combats, topped off by a difficult trap the entire party had to cooperate to overcome...one of us died to a simple trap. (-_-')

A few others...
* It was our first D&D campaign, 3e, and the DM presented the BBEG to the party when we were...level 7 I think? My Rage Mage cast 'Scorching Ray' on him, and managed to roll two crits...and then rolled almost max damage (at least 90 points). The DM announced the bad guy's death, closed the book, and that was the last time he DMed. Not real proud of that one, but it was kinda epic at the time.

* One of my players more or less committed suicide for comedic effect. The rest of the players weren't too okay with this style of play, so I told him he should put a bit more effort into making his next character so he fits into the party better. He makes a rapier-wielding Swashbuckler with a long, involved back-story for the next game. I introduce him quickly into the group, and they set off to kill a nest of monsters...the alien-looking guys from the back of the Book of Vile Darkness. The Swashbuckler wins initiative...then Power Attack charges into the midst of the monsters and misses. I did not have a DM shield at this point in my gaming career, and I rolled pretty well for the monster attacks. Thus I managed to kill a PC who had rolled only one d20 in his entire career. Not real proud of that one either, but the other players loved retelling the tale to others.

* I was pretty proud of the one epic-level Planeshifter I played, at least during one combat. It's a pretty complex scenario, but there was a large room, an epic-level lich on the other end, and an invisible wall of force separating us (we didn't know it at the time). I also didn't know that the DM had set up the pile of treasure just so in this room so there was a Helm of Brilliance filled with many Necklaces of Fireballs inside it, as a sort of nasty trick to play on us or something. My mage uses a Greater MM Rod of Maximize to cast 'Rock to Lava' on the floor beneath the lich. This deals 240(?) damage to it and disrupts its spellcasting pretty badly that round. Next round I did the same thing, casting on the roof this time. Lava drips down, 'splodes the magical treasure and the lich, encounters done. I got a smile and a handshake from the DM for that one. =)

The high-level book would be invaluable to the game, since quite a few DMs have difficulty at that stage of the campaign.

If Paizo does a 'treasure' book, I really hope they sort items out a bit more like the 'Magic Item Compendium' did. At least separate the wearable and non-wearable Wondrous Items somehow; listing the wearable items by slot would be optimal.

I'm well-acquainted with the fear rules after a specific 3.5 PrC revealed how crazy they really are. (It granted a 'fear aura,' let you deal massive damage to scared enemies, and the aura's power increased with each successful kill. Most encounters it either ended things outright or had absolutely no effect.)

Fear effects stack by the core rules (as shown above). Most fear effects will explicitly state that they will not escalate fear beyond a certain point. Other effects do not. One of these is the Demoralize usage of Intimidate.

So, yes, if you can coordinate three PCs to successfully Demoralize an enemy before its next turn, it becomes Panicked. It drops its weapon(s) and probably provoking Opportunity Attacks from all three PCs when it mindlessly flees. Demoralize is a more worthwhile Standard action to take when used against a Shaken or Frightened enemy.

I'm not a fan of aasimar, never have been. Kind of bland, both in appearance and abilities. If I wanted to play a celestial-blooded, I'd rather play a Sorcerer or a flavored-up good-aligned Cleric or Paladin.

Off the top of my head:

Potions for Everyone

Pretty sweet. I like the formula book idea. I'd go a step further and just eliminate the feat requirement for this, and make all liquid and dust Wondrous Items into alchemical items.

Non-casters deserve good things. But this is certainly more powerful than most feats I've seen with such lean prerequisites.

Improve the defenses against it (why isn't Intimidate contested against a modified Will save again?) and change the text so the target must somehow attack you on the following round with it's best offensive options (be it spell, projectile, or mace-to-the-face).

Edit: Why not swap out Intimidate for Wild Empathy (if you have it) to affect creatures with 1-2 Int?

Arcane_Guyver wrote:

these spells provide plenty of options for good-aligned creatures of similar power and ability.

Yeah, check out all the good outsiders you can summon with summon monster VI, VII and VII!

Plenty, if you don't blindly adhere to the provided lists of monsters. VI = CR 7, VII = CR 9, VIII = CR 11.

Look at me, poking at yer example fluff!

Obviously, this was not just an example but the only real effect such spells have on the environment. Good farmers summon devas to pee on their crops, and their evil competitors send hezrous to roll around on those fields and make crop circles. Obviously.

I make it so summoning a fiend or a celestial has an impact on the world. Vegetation recoils and dies from the presence of a fiend, and the earth itself becomes black and sickly for as long as the creature's "evil aura" lingers. The opposite happens with celestials. Basically, you are directly increasing the amount of good or evil (and possibly law or chaos) in the mortal world.

Say what you will about using evil to do good, these spells provide plenty of options for good-aligned creatures of similar power and ability. Good guys don't blight the earth to save it when they don't need to.

DreamAtelier has some really good advice. I'd say it basically boils down to, "Give the NPC/monster abilities it can use for up to 5 rounds, and nothing more." PCs invariably kill things quick, so the expected lifespan of an NPC is way too short to determine what Crafts & Knowledge skills it has, let alone low-level attack spells it will never use. Also, stat NPCs & monsters up with all buffs pre-cast; just don't tell your players.

Generating NPC gear will still take time. If there's a Pathfinder resource like the one found in the back of the v3.5 Player's Handbook 2 (which gives example gear for NPCs of various classes & levels), I'd recommend using it as a starting point.

Dump XP and have characters gain a level upon completing a big adventure (or a couple minor adventures). A table of numbers shouldn't dictate the flow of your campaign. XP hasn't been meaningful since all characters began advancing at the same rate, anyways.

People who try to wrestle bears deserve what they get.

Aw...so while the casters are chucking blasts of energy and doing other cool things, the warrior can't pummel & wrestle a bear into submission and then chuck it into space? ;o)

And after 11 years of playing 3rd/PF, I've yet to see a caster with Freedom of Movement cast when a grapple is attempted on them.

I've only seen it used as a Cleric domain power, personally. Sorcerers & Wizards tend to go for 'Dimension Door.' Very few characters bothered with Escape Artist, which seems like a sure-fire way to slip out of most grappling situations that would otherwise end them.

The other side of that is you can't expect to be Gandalf (sub other high level game / literary character as needed) at 1st level. Flavor is fine, incredible powers / abilities come later...

Gandalf was obviously a pretty potent caster. I'm talking more about some classes who don't get iconic features until about the time other classes are thinking of prestige classes. Paladins are prime suspects, along with Rangers & even Druids.

Yikes. Yet another PF change to 3e I wasn't aware of. In 3e, you could perform a Full Attack's worth of grapple checks to deal damage/pin/what-have-you, making big tentacle monsters beastly and scary.

This sounds kinda fantastic. I prefer going without a grid for 3e/PF, but using terrain like this as a visual reference would be nifty (albeit a tad expensive).