Ben Adler's page

If I was designing a new fantasy RPG system, I would have a total of FOUR classes: Warrior, Priest, Mage, and Thief. A fifth would be introduced in supplementary material: Psionic. That would be it. No others needed. Within those five archtypes any character concept can be created. They would be very customizable, with "points" to buy various different options. That's how the Warrior could be customized as being a savage barbarian or a courtly knight.

At a much higher price in the "points" you could buy options from one of the other classes, effectively multiclassing, although limits would be put on just how far in another classes powers you could advance.

You're just talking about a point buy system, where there generally aren't classes to begin with, nor levels.

I'm honestly fine with the way it is now, the problem with 3.0 and 3.5 were that some of the DR amounts were so ridiculous that it was impossible to kill things without the special required weapon, which led to either the critter being undefeatable by the party, or the DR being irrelevant because the party could defeat it. Which is sloppy design IMHO.

If you're throwing something at the players that they can't hurt due to DR, then the monster's CR or other stats are pretty irrelevant, since either the PCs run or die. (My GM did this to us, only 1 person in the whole party could hurt it, was pretty frustrating from a player's perspective)

Nobody has any love for Craft Wondrous Item?
Half-price (and the ability to boost the effectiveness of) stat boosting items, save boosting items, alternate movement modes on clothing, and if your GM allows it, custom made magic items.
It's the most multi-purpose crafting feat there is.

Gauntlets of ogre power and belt of giants str both increase your str.

To put this ability in a weapon I'd probably start at the usual price on a wondrous item of str:

Ability bonus (enhancement) = Bonus squared x 1,000 gp

...but icreasing it a 50% for using a different body slot.

If the weapon has any other property like a magic enhancement then it also should cost a 50% more for adding a property to an already magical item.

full price for market half for construction, as usual.

He means what would be the price of an item that allows a character wearing a belt of giant's strength and gauntlets of ogre power to stack their bonuses.

I have no clue on the cost myself, quite a few of those specific weapons are a bit hard to decompose into costs for the various abilities.

Nope as the book points out the spike must be enhanced by it's self. The shield and spike are not the same item. As the spike my be enhanced as a weapon, without doing so to the shield.

Your spike replaces the shield bash damage. Your spike may be enhanced,BUT the bashing enhancement is an armor enhancement, it can not be placed on the spike as is is not a weapon enhancement.

So you enhance the shield, which now is better then the spike, so it does damage,not the spike. If they stack then so does adding a short sword to my long sword should as well.

I think you're misinterpreting or mixing up some of the vocabulary used.

Enhancement: a type of bonus, the numerical bonus of a magic weapon is an enhancement bonus. A +3 bashing shield has a +3 enhancement bonus, the bashing is not an enhancement bonus, it is a "special Ability", thus the text "An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it" is referring to the numerical bonus on to-hit and damage, not to any other properties of the item.
The spikes do not replace the shield bash damage of the shield, as the book states they "increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you". This is quite clearly a modification, not a replacement.

All the book states is that a shield's enhancement bonus is a bonus to your AC only unless you enchant the shield as a weapon. It's to clarify that though you can enchant a shield as a +3 shield, and/or a +3 weapon, both magical enhancement bonuses are tracked separately, do not stack, and do not apply to the same things.

So you spike now does bludgeon damage? Not buying it, the bash enhancement does not improve the spike, as the spike entry states it must be enhanced on it's on

Also it's says "like" making a shield bash, meaning you attack the same way. Not like say a dagger, also under shield bash again it says it may be enchanted as a weapon. The spike and shield are two different items, it covers that under spikes. You can enhance one without doing the other

So until the books says they stack, no they do not stack. Unless bashing does piercing damage now.

Bludgeoning damage =/= bash attack, the two are separate terms and are largely unrelated.

The Bashing enchantment improved the Bash Damage of the shield by 2 sizes.
The Spikes add-on improves the Bash Damage of the shield by 1 size.

Note the similarity?

Btw the text you keep referencing:

An enhancement bonus on a spiked shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

If it prevented bashing from affecting a spiked shield's damage, then this text from the shield entry would similarly prevent bashing from working on a non-spiked shield:

An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

That same text is found on the descriptions of heavy and light shields, so your assumption that it singles out spiked shields is fallacious.

Until the book says they don't stack, then they do.

I was not aware of this new rule.
Thanks for the heads up.

It might be easier to notice if they hadn't shoe-horned it into the Damage Reduction section, or at least had mentioned it in the magic weapons section.

First off the 3.5 FAQ is meaningless, 2nd. You make the attack like a bash, it never calls it a bash. It states the spike must be enhanced like a weapon, the bashing enhancement is not a weapon enhancement and so does not effect the spike

Bashing is a bludgeoning attack, not a slice , not a stab, it's bashing. You do not bash with a dagger, you do not bash with a longsword. The spike attack is handled like a bash{as it's mounted on a shield" but is not a bash, which is a bludgeoning attack

You're getting confused.

An enhancement bonus on a spiked shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

Note it says enhancement bonus, it says nothing about magical properties not affecting the shield when used as a weapon.

Additionally Shield spikes are an addition (like masterwork, or a special material), so a heavy spiked shield is still a heavy shield.
The text for shield spikes reads:

These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you (see “spiked shields” on Table: Weapons). You can't put spikes on a buckler or a tower shield. Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack.

If you pay close attention to the wording I think it's pretty clear that they do combine, and give you a 3-size increase in damage.

Correction:

You can't apply Bashing to spiked shields.

So it's a much less impressive 1d8 heavy, 1d6 light shield.

That makes very little sense:

Here, I'm going to enchant my shield specifically so that it's a better weapon! Sorry, you can't do that, because it's already been spiked, so it's a more effective weapon.

I'd love to know from where you draw that conclusion.

Strangely the Velociraptor has massive con, much better than just about every single other AC of equal size.

Ben Adler wrote:

Actually, there was a very fun feat that stacked Rogue and Ranger for Favored Enemy and Sneak Attack.

As to having it be 1 feat for two specific classes, I much prefer that. It also paves the way for a combination PrC. It also makes certain combinations actually work, like a Cleric Rogue (who currently gets gypped in spells, sneak attack, domain abilities, rogue abilities, and Channel Energy)

If you had 1 feat for use HD as progression of Sneak Attack, what happens when your Rogue starts taking levels in Assassin? He'll end up with a 15d6 Sneak Attack!

Really, rogue/ranger? Man, what a sweet combination. How did I miss it?

To your other point: combining class abilities via a feat and then getting into a PrC that does the same thing seems redundant to me, actually. A cleric-rogue PrC should be predominantly defined by doing exactly what we're talking about - continuing class features of both in a single progression. Having a feat that partially accomplishes this pollutes the individual values of both options, which is exactly the sort of obnoxious morass that 3.5 fell into. You'd pick a feat, only to learn a month later that there was a different feat in a different expansion that did what you wanted, only better, if you'd invested in a *different* variant core mechanic system class whatever. I'd like it if Pathfinder kept away from that.

As I see it, little feats like these shouldn't do that much for you, just provide a splash of excitement to your core class experience. That's why I favor the especially outlandish combinations - more core ones are better done via prestige classes (which I am anxiously looking forward to, incidentally).

Aside: Obviously, with 3rd party material we'll soon have a PrC for every class combination five times over, but some of us prefer to stick to core books. And I really don't want to see *anyone* waste valuable time, page space, and money on a cleric/summoner PrC. Especially myself

Wait nevermind, it was Ranger/Scout, and it was skirmish and Favored Enemy.

Actually in a previous game the GM allowed me to create an item of Mage's Magnificent Mansion, as it was an item with unlimited use, he ruled that the item created a stable extradimensional space, which could be accessed from various locations.
In game terms the item was constructed as a large mansion and a key, the mansion was sent to the extradimensional space and remained there, and the key allowed access from any flat surface.

I mean, I'm scared to share sneak attack with *anyone*. If I remember correctly, the only class that got hybridized with sneak attack was some bland, underpowered duelist class that nobody wanted to play anyhow. Some stuff is just too potent to share around for a single feat and a touch of class diffusion.

I'd rather have feats for a dozen really wacky class combinations that there aren't prestige classes for, requiring 3 levels in each class but granting potent stuff (like sneak attack).

Actually, there was a very fun feat that stacked Rogue and Ranger for Favored Enemy and Sneak Attack.

As to having it be 1 feat for two specific classes, I much prefer that. It also paves the way for a combination PrC. It also makes certain combinations actually work, like a Cleric Rogue (who currently gets gypped in spells, sneak attack, domain abilities, rogue abilities, and Channel Energy)

If you had 1 feat for use HD as progression of Sneak Attack, what happens when your Rogue starts taking levels in Assassin? He'll end up with a 15d6 Sneak Attack!

well thank you for all the replies and the rules appear to be as i fear, the fighter in my current campaign just approached me on doing this he is level 10 atm so next level he will have shield mastery. I fear as the rules appear to be right now i will have to set a house rule in which doesn't let him have full rain with this combo,

Urm, why not?

I know it might sound a bit crazy and all, but why does everyone seem to be advocating playing the Assassin as a character that runs in guns blazing rather than a little more 'assassiny'? You know, the type that no one recognizes as an assassin until it is too late. The guy who, if he does his job correctly, no one even knows he did his job.

Because if you try and play an assassin the stealthy, sneaky, actual assassin-y way, the rest of the group gets bored of watching you play a solo adventure and busts down the door.

Assassins are simply not any better than rogues in dungeon or outdoor adventures much of the time. The times when assassins are better are pretty much a certain type of adventure that may or may not ever occur in most gaming groups.

I'm actually going to have my halfling cavalier riding a Roc.
One thing to be careful of: they have very low constitution scores, so if you get one have it grab toughness as a feat.
Also for later on when the Roc grows to Large size, I'm going to try and have a saddle of reduce animal (-1 size, +2dex, -2str, lasts hours), which would allow it to remain medium size, but still get most of the bonuses from the 7th level advancement.
Also, if you look in the bonus bestiary (free download!) they also have axebeaks and dragonnes statted up as animal companions.

It's really much better to advance your AC to a larger size, and try to find a way to shrink them down as necessary, than to forgo the gigantic bonuses they get from advancing normally.
If you can't find a way to shrink them, it's still better to change to a different mount that's advanced to the correct size than to retain your old mount.

Btw the velociraptor stands out as the best medium sized (after 7th lvl advancement) mount animal companion. 5 attacks, good str/dex/con, pounce, and etc... It even has good mental stats!

As a sidenote, use your AC's first attribute point to beef their Int up to 3, it means that you don't need to use handle animal checks anymore, and they get to pick feats from the entire list.

Here's a big one that's pretty much necessary for cavaliers, but also very difficult to thematically give them as a class ability:
The ability to have their mount fly, or shrink (so as to not be left at one end of a passageway-type dungeon).
I know you can remedy these with magical items, but those items are pretty much necessary after a certain level for every single cavalier.

Shane LeRose wrote:

What do people think about broadening multi-classes? There must be a way for polar opposite classes to mesh better (fighter/wizard, rogue/cleric, bard/barbarian, monk/paladin). Opinions?

I think this is a great idea. Barbarian/Bard is actually pretty realistic since most barbarian like cultures have a strong oral tradition of storytelling (which by extension is perform Oratory). A feat that says something along the lines of Benifit: Your barbarian and bard levels stack for determining the number of rounds a day you may rage and use bardic music

Paladin/monk could be lay hands and ki pool, Paladin/rogue could be lay hands and sneak attack, rogue cleric could be Channel energy and sneak attack, Druid/cleric could be wildshape and channel energy. Although Im not sure how to combine fighters and wizards/sorcerers but I think the best bet would be fighter levels count as levels to determine when you recieve specilization/bloodline powers and wizard/sorcerer levels count for when you can take fighter specific feats (i.e. weapon specialization)

I'm actually a big fan of those feats, and also Prestiege Classes that mesh two different classes into one (like Eldritch Knight, though I prefer ones that are a little more interesting or thematic).

Ben Adler wrote:

Dilvish the Danged wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

There is such a thing as a "strong whisper." Essentially, you can't mis-speak, have the hiccups, stutter, etc. You are most certainly not required to shout out a verbal component of a spell.

So, if PCs can whisper the verbal components of their spells, whenever they need to be sneaky, then what precisely is the function of the Silent Spell metamagic feat, as you see it? Why would a PC ever need it?

Casting inside a field of magical silence, casting while gagged, casting while being closely observed (still+silent=woah, where'd that spell come from!)

Casting while using silent + still provokes attacks of opportunity so the fact that you casting is not hidden if you are being observed.

Well, I'd say that standing still and concentrating while staring off into the distance would provoke an AoO when someone's swinging a sword at your face (as you're not actively defending yourself), but the same action would not necessarily be obvious spellcasting or provocative.

Ravingdork wrote:

There is such a thing as a "strong whisper." Essentially, you can't mis-speak, have the hiccups, stutter, etc. You are most certainly not required to shout out a verbal component of a spell.

So, if PCs can whisper the verbal components of their spells, whenever they need to be sneaky, then what precisely is the function of the Silent Spell metamagic feat, as you see it? Why would a PC ever need it?

Casting inside a field of magical silence, casting while gagged, casting while being closely observed (still+silent=woah, where'd that spell come from!)

Yeah, the DC is pretty horrendously low, I mean 10+1/2 PrC level+Int mod.
Compare to a spell caster's DCs, of 10+Spell Level (roughly 1/2 character lvl)+highest stat mod.

At lvl 6 a caster can get a DC of 18 pretty easily, whereas the assassin has a DC of probably 11-14.
At lvl 15 a caster has a DC of at least 25, whereas the assassin has a DC of probably around 20 if they're focusing on beefing Int.

An assassin is going to be down by 5-15points (depending on priority of high Int) over the course of the game, plus there's no feats to increase Death Attack DCs, like there are for spells.

You could do a 2nd edition multiclassing method, where you split your experience between advancing different classes.
Big thing I'd say there is to have the players keep both classes within 1 level of eachother, and have the abilities overlap, not stack.

Meaning if you have 5 fighter and 5 cleric, you'd only have a bab of +5, and you'd need 2x the experience of a lvl 5 character to reach this point (roughly halfway between lvl 6 and 7).

The big question is how to deal with hp and skills. Perhaps the second class adds 1/2 hp and 1/2 skill ranks it would normally give?

Or just let higher level characters (who don't have animal companion/cavalier mount/paladin mount) get special mounts from the bestiary.

A Fighter could grab leadership and ride around on a young dragon, or some other feasible intelligent mount. Or he could find a trainer (or do it himself) and get a combat trained griffin or the like.

The big thing you can't do now in pathfinder is use a Horse in high-level combat, and seriously I think that since there's alternative mounts for high-level combat I've got no issues with this.

My favorite character of all time, wasn't in a D&D game, as the concept was nigh impossible to play in D&D.

It was a character for Shadowrun who was unaware of his supernatural abilities and used them subconsciously (adept), and had ridiculously good luck (high edge stat).
The concept was the world's luckiest person, and it was quite entertaining to play him since everyone always assumed he'd die, but he always ended up surviving by the skin of his teeth.

Favorite D&D character would have to be a chaotic-neutral gnomish artificer (played as an absent-minded professor type, without much interest in morality).
He ended up turning himself slowly into a living statue (renegade mastermaker) after an accident in his lab.
He also was the go-to for when nobody else could figure out what to do.

Some more unique spellcaster feats might be cool. Am I the only one who thinks 90% of the feats revolve around melee combat?

Agreed, I made a wizard focusing on utility spells, and I've got just about nothing to spend feats on.

Take a look at the oracle, they're a divine caster that has the option of casting all spells as modified with silent spell (and being deaf).
It should give you something to work from.

From what I recall, at least in 3.5, followers had NPC classes and non-heroic stats. They were also pretty much treated as more loyal hirelings.

Personally if I were the GM I'd modify the character's leadership rating (for followers) every time he does something that the followers might have issues with. Then when his leadership score decreases he looses followers such that he has a number in line with his new score.

Having Followers act against alignment would definitely cause a penalty if it occurred often enough. Being led into a situation where they're over matched would probably "cause the death of a follower" and that one's right on the table.
Abuse is also on the table, and as for bribery that one pretty much amounts to GM fiat, so use it carefully.

I've always seen followers as more a mob of nameless/faceless NPCs than a collection of individuals, and treating them as a mob makes adjudicating things like this easier. YMMV, especially if you have players that want to get into the minutiae of having their own band of lvl 1 warriors and experts.

Ben Adler wrote:

Disciple of Sakura wrote:

There's also the Jade Phoenix Mage from tome of Battle.

Jade phoenix mage makes one of the scariest fighter/caster character builds I've ever seen.

I had a wonderful wizard/crusader jade phoenix mage. The DM nicknamed her "The Cuisinart". Good times.

Try making a Swordsage/Wu-Jen Jade Phoenix Mage.

There's also the Jade Phoenix Mage from tome of Battle.

Jade phoenix mage makes one of the scariest fighter/caster character builds I've ever seen.

KaeYoss wrote:

It's very important to remember that pulling that trigger to shoot a magic missile is a standard action! A ranger 20 with rapid reload and rapid shot and haste would not get to shoot 6 times a round with it.

Actually, I was just about to suggest upping the price for that very reason.

Crank the price up to 3,000 (or perhaps 4,000 if you REALLY want to) as a custom adjustment, and change the magic missile firing rate from standard action to as an attack.

Then the crossbow is basically a magic missile rifle, busting out 1d4+1 as many times as the user can pull the trigger in a round.

1d4+1 isn't great damage, but the range, the auto-hit feature, and the ignore DR aspect of it does make it relatively competitive with a regular crossbow bolt.

Regretably though, Kaeyoss is probably right about needing to make it a +1 crossbow before you do that, so the whole thing would cost 5,000 to craft (but it would indeed be a +1 crossbow for those rare cases when your dealing with something immune to force or immune to magic missle *cough*shield spell*cough*)

And remember that alot of feats/class features would be incompatible with the crossbow.

so fraggin tired of two weapon fighting rogues! we need some more options than two weapon fighting>flank, its SOOOOO been done to a lackluster death. need:

one handed fighting style that makes feinting worth while. (while fighting one handed and in sneak attack position, +1ac per sneak attack die vs that foe)

some reason to actually SNEAK to kill things, why bother try to line up a hidden strike from hiding when you can flip your way to flank in the first round and then double stab them to death. (i advise+1d6 to damage vs flat footed and -1d6 vs flanking< so a 5th level rogue would do +4d6 sneak vs flatfooted and +2d6 sneak when flanking)

better sniping options (feat chain to increase sneak attack range)

I tried putting together a homebrew alternate "sneak attack" that was based off of automatic/improved criticals when sneak attack conditions were fulfilled, and then improved in a way similar to rogue talents (the character could choose how to improve his "sneak attack" with things like better dmg, bleed, stun, silence, slow, etc...)

Apparently, in Pathfinder you can take feats multiple times. However, their benefits don't stack unless they say they do.

The Dodge feat grants a +1 dodge bonus to AC, and according to the Core book dodge bonuses stack with other dodge bonuses. Does that mean I can take the Dodge feat multiple times and have it's effects stack? After all, it heavily implies that it stacks with itself by calling it a dodge bonus to begin with.

Huh? I had not noticed the ability to take feats multiple times.

Ben Adler wrote:

one armed with a longspear (and the 3.5 feat that made it a monk weapon) and spec'd for preventing movement and spellcasting.

How do you intend to make this work?

Trip and Stand Still mainly, for preventing movement.

Now he won't be able to get Disruptive/Spellbreaker, which is a shame, but forcing a mage to cast on the defensive is harmful enough, and with a 10' reach/threatened area mages won't be able to 5' step outside threat range.

I prefer using monks for threatening casters, since they have much better saves, better speed (than fighters), and some nice little add-ond like SR later on, all of which make it harder for mages to take them out.
That aside, it's one of the few areas monks can actually excel in.

This thread and the guide make me tempted to try either a shuriken thrower monk, or one armed with a longspear (and the 3.5 feat that made it a monk weapon) and spec'd for preventing movement and spellcasting.

There's also some exceedingly generic (and quite broken) guidelines for monstrous PCs in the back of the besitary.

It boils down to Effective Character Level=Challenge Rating of base creature+Class Levels (with the caveat, that every 4 class levels only count for a 3 effective level boost, until the extra HD reach some fraction of the creature's original HD)
Which of course means that there's never any reason to not play as a monstrous race, mechanically speaking. (Even casters can find critters with spellcasting ability nearly equivalent to their CR, and you end up bypassing normal casters with the free extra levels).

The big requirement I recall for taking 20 (probably was from 3.5) is that you're only allowed to if:
you take 20x the normal amount of time
there is no penalty for failure

The second one would come into effect here, since there's a penalty for failure.
Though having someone else assisting you by trying to find it would take something like 400x normal amount of time (20 attempts, and 20 attempts to find it for each) and if the players really want to do it, I'd allow.

Ben Adler wrote:

Quandary wrote:

Re: Shuriken, is there anything by RAW preventing Flurrying + Rapid Fire?

Nope, you can also add in Multishot as well.

Actually not for that, since it specifies bows and arrows (also barring X-bows) unlike Rapid Fire which just says "Ranged weapons".

Awww, if they say it works for crossbows, it should work for everything.

The only way to effectively combat a Warlock is to throw stuff at it that has massive amounts of Dex, thus a high touch AC, or things with SR . . .

That or something with a bunch of hitpoints, that's got low AC on all fronts and hurts people badly.

Warlocks are great at avoiding damage, they're also great at doing a little bit of damage every round (4d6 at lvl 7 averages out to a whopping 14 points of damage, I'm pretty sure most fighters/rogues and even a few monks can top that per-round).
They're not that great when compared to real casters, or real damage dealers however.

To put it another way, as a GM I'd just have a giant insect come up and eat him if you really have an issue with players playing defensively.
The only real power warlocks have worth fearing is the unlimited use of Evard's Black Tentacles.

Re: Shuriken, is there anything by RAW preventing Flurrying + Rapid Fire?

Nope, you can also add in Multishot as well.

Ben Adler wrote:

It amazes me how everyone's sidestepping the issue of the gigantic downside to the mounted lance charge:

Being mounted!

The Fighter1/Barbarian 1 in the above example is sitting on a generic warhorse most likely, which has ~20hp, very poor AC, and very poor saves.
Get someone to cast Web or Entangle and that scary 40+dmg hit never happens. If a raging barbarian on a horse manages to surprise the party and get you before you act, then your party deserves whatever happens to them.

Whoever the character is, they're limited much more than a standard character in terms of movement (straight lines, places a L size creature would fit, higher ceiling height required).

So yeah, I think allowing a 3rd level character to 1-shot someone when the opponent has so many ways to make the tactic used non-viable isn't unfair. It's no worse than casting sleep on low will save enemies with a good casting stat and spell focus.

But Ben, in the low level example you won't have web available (although an entangle would be a life saver) and said NPC could easily be set up to surprise the party (hidden, out of sight, etc). And at higher level there would only be more npcs to contend with. Also, you are falling back on magic, which some have argued is already overpowered.

Pretty much any pointed stick type weapon can be readied for a charge, dealing a pretty severe amount of damage right back at either the mounted character or his mount, without any feats either.

The main point I was trying to make is that a mounted character is vulnerable to far more things than a non-mounted character, not that magic trumps melee or the like.
A character that relies on a certain tactic is always going to be in trouble if that tactic fails, and the mounted charge tactic is much easier to disrupt than other tactics. Therefore it's understandable that to be a valid tactic the mounted charge should be effective when specialized in.

It amazes me how everyone's sidestepping the issue of the gigantic downside to the mounted lance charge:
Being mounted!

The Fighter1/Barbarian 1 in the above example is sitting on a generic warhorse most likely, which has ~20hp, very poor AC, and very poor saves.
Get someone to cast Web or Entangle and that scary 40+dmg hit never happens. If a raging barbarian on a horse manages to surprise the party and get you before you act, then your party deserves whatever happens to them.

Whoever the character is, they're limited much more than a standard character in terms of movement (straight lines, places a L size creature would fit, higher ceiling height required).

So yeah, I think allowing a 3rd level character to 1-shot someone when the opponent has so many ways to make the tactic used non-viable isn't unfair. It's no worse than casting sleep on low will save enemies with a good casting stat and spell focus.

Thanks for this guide!

I would like to suggest Martial Weapon Proficiency feat applied to something like a glaive, or Simple Weapon Proficiency then grabbing a cold iron longspear. You get Flurry attacks as normal, and threaten everything out to 10' for AoO's (1d10+STR*1.5). You can get it at level 1, and 1d10 is nice then. Cold iron, silver, ghosttouch, etc. can be had for less then amulet o' mighty fists. Combat Reflexes, Improved Disarm or Trip, and a Ranseur, or Guisarme would also work very well. Being Enlarged doubles you reach and makes you the AoO Master of Flowers!

Thanks again.

Interesting thought, and technically viable since you can kick them for your flurry.

Also would be worth noting that you'd threaten 5'-10' with the reach weapon, and 0'-5' with your unarmed strikes, giving you the advantages of being armed with a spiked chain.

I'm pretty sure Vital Strike only doubles pure weapon damage. Strength and whatnot doesn't get multiplied.

Yep, Vital Strike only multiplies dice.

So say you've got 12 str(+1), 16 str(+3) mount, and a lance (1d8), and spirited charge, mounted mastery, and greater vital strike (assuming your GM lets charges work with vital strike, currently by strict rules interpretation charge does not work with vital strike)

Normal attack: 1d8+1
Charge attack: 3x(3x(1d8))+3x(1+3) or 9d8+12
First you'd add your str modifier and your mount's, giving you 1d8+4 dmg.
Then you would multiply the damage by 3x for lance on a mounted charge with spirited attack, giving 3d8+12.
Then you'd triple the damage dice for the weapon, making it 9d8+12.
Lastly you'd add precision/elemental damage dice, like challenge or a flaming weapon.

What I'd like to see:
Multiclass friendly prestiege classes. (Like Swashbuckler for Rogue/Fighters)
Or Specialization friendly prestiege classes. (Like an archer Prestiege class for fighters, or druid prestiege classes that give up spellcasting for more/better wildshape options)

N. Jolly wrote:

Wow, I really like this, but I'd rather just make the bombs unlimited (That really wouldn't overpower the character)

Sure that's not broken in the slightest . . . I'm sure that's what they were thinking when they introduced the Warlock in 3.5 . . .I've personally had a warlock break a game by breaking out of prison single-handedly killing 26 guards in the process and not taking a single point of damage . . .

That's not much proof either way unless you've got more details.

Compare the damage of a bomb to the damage of a TWF rogue with sneak attack.

Just a thought, but if the alchemist is going to be the rogue replacement, skills+skirmisher+trap character:
should the daily use limitation on bomb use be removed? When compared with the rogue's sneak attack damage bombs share about the same progression, but can't be used on multiple attacks/round.

Situations that aren't explicitly written out in the rules, or for which the rules don't really make sense are why you've got a person sitting across the table behind the screen instead of a computer.

You could always be a small sized critter on a medium sized mount, that'll fit inside dungeons.
Or you could be a normal sized humanoid on a bigger mount, but use reduce animal and reduce person to work indoors.
You could get items for it at higher levels of play.

And if the caster is always managing to be outside of a threatened area, then the GM (or the enemies) are doing something wrong.
When the enemies outnumber the party, our are more maneuverable than the party, sitting in the back does not always work.
Say there's a wizard, an archer, and two melee guys up front. Unless you're in a 10' wide corridor there's the possibility of going around the melee guys and straight for the juicy targets.
That's not even including ambushes, flying critters, teleporting critters, or enemies with tumble (that can go through the fighter without provoking AoOs)

Mounted Mastery (Ex): At 8th level, the cavalier applies 1/2 the normal armor check penalty to the Ride skill. Whenever he makes a charge attack while mounted, he receives a +4 dodge bonus to his AC to avoid attacks set against his charge. When making such an attack, he can add his mount’s Strength modifier to the damage roll, in addition to his own. He also receives a bonus feat, chosen from the following list: Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack, Skill Focus (Ride), Spirited Charge, Trample, or Unseat. He must qualify for the feat selected.

The bolded phrase seems to to suggest you treat it similar to the cavalier's str bonus, which would mean that it is multiplied.