Joynt Jezebel's page

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

"Mercenaries are useless, disunited, unfaithful
They have nothing more to keep them in a battle
Other than a meager wage
Which is just about enough to make them wanna kill for you
But not enough to make them wanna die for you"

John Cale

While I agree that Cale was, musically, very talented, can you shed some light on his credentials as either a tactician or a historian?

I can write a(n admittedly less-good) song that includes whatever words I like. That won't make those words true.

In quoting John Cale I didn't at all mean John Cale is a great expert so what he says on this topic must be true. If I had intended to do that I would have quoted someone like Sun Tzu.

The John Cale quote made a point I wanted to make better than I could myself.

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

NPCs are not robots that will do anything you tell them. If treated as suggested they will normally display as much loyalty to you as you do for them.

I completely agree, and I hope it's understood I was being a bit blasé in my initial post.

Fair enough.

“Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious, and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy.”

Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

John Cale was alluding to Machiavelli I believe.

It is worth googling the song and giving it a listen. I think it is tremendous.

A mercenary warrior costs 3 silver pieces a day. He comes equipped with studded leather armor and a club, shortsword, or shortspear. Order 2-3 of them into combat whether you have spells left or not. Take their silver pieces off their corpses if they die.

"Mercenaries are useless, disunited, unfaithful

John Cale

Especially if you treat them like that.

NPCs are not robots that will do anything you tell them. If treated as suggested they will normally display as much loyalty to you as you do for them. They are probably more likely to defect to the other side during combat, something real world mercenaries were notorious for, and loot your body after helping to kill you than die for you. Hell, I would.

By 4th-5th level, consider Monster Summoning spells for emergency fodder

Monster Summoning is a brilliant flexible strategy.

Every HP lost by a summoned creature is a HP not lost by the party.

It allows you to keep enemies in combat, restricting their options. You can summon creatures behind your opponents or into places where there arcane casters are thrust all unwilling into melee.

Summoned creatures can be selected to deal with particular problems. they can cast spells or SLAs for you.

Sadly, you need to build around it and it takes a fair few levels to become really effective. Which means it is not much of a solution at lower levels where running out of spells is at it's worst.

Angelic Aspect seems to me the least powerful of the effects by far. You would expect this from a level 2 spell compared to level 5 and 6.

Antilife Shell is an immensely powerful effect, great on full casters, especially arcane casters as it negates so much of there trademark squishiness. But it isn't always going to be that relevant.

True Seeing does so much so often that you will always want one party member with it for 24 hours.

You may have noticed this yourself, the spell with Enduring Blessing lasts for 24 hours and can be cast once on each individual. So use it like this-
1 Cast a buff spell on each party member just before you go to sleep. Include animal companions and familiars.
2 Have a 8 hour snooze.
3 Replenish all your spells.
4 Head out for a full days adventuring with the buffs in place until you are ready to sleep the next night.

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

I really like this in principle. But I haven't figured out how to do it efficiently.

Poisonous blood works OK, but other ideas seems to use up resources for something that will not do anything if things go to plan.

You are always going to be using resources for plans that usually don't happen, but you'll be thankful you did if it ever happens. My playstyle makes it more than likely that the enemy will attempt to go after me more than usual, so I get more mileage out of preventative measures than others might.

Play styles seem to be why the experiences differ.

My play style when playing a full arcane caster is to avoid melee combat like the plague absolutely all the time. what measures I take concerning melee are just to be able to survive it when I wind up there anyway, at least until I can get away from it again.

Also just in Pathfinder 1 generally I aim for my character to be very good at what they are best at. Then I want to be good at some things to be well rounded. But you can't get close to be good at everything and PF1 rewards specializing. So I just accept that there are a whole lot of things I am poor at.

Accordingly I don't try to get any good at using weapons when playing a full arcane caster. A lot of people have posted here who do try to get decent with weapons. I know why they do it and am not saying it is mistaken. But I prefer to structure my character figuring there is more value in just using feats etc. to improve my character elsewhere.

And I always, ALWAYS, design my characters so that when (not if) they ever get caught on the front line, the monster immediately regrets it. Whether that is from having poisonous blood, a held charge from a touch spell ready to detonate when I'm struck, or something else... It will cost the enemy much more than I lose when we come into contact.

I really like this in principle. But I haven't figured out how to do it efficiently.

Poisonous blood works OK, but other ideas seems to use up resources for something that will not do anything if things go to plan.

Scrolls good for utility and situational spells. If the caster level of the spell is not important or the minimum caster level is sufficient, they are perfect for a scroll. This allows the caster to memorize more combat spells but still have access to other needed spells.

Lots of good sense from Mysterious Stranger. I have something to add to the quoted passage.

Spontaneous casters have it even better with the use of scrolls if they have one of my favourite magic items, Mnemonic Vestments. Once a day thay can use the niche spell from the scroll... and not expend the scroll.

sometimes this means being pretty useless in combat, unless you want to risk your life giving someone a flanking partner.

I think this has way too much chance of that becoming a dead flanking partner.

Missile weapons or cantrips, which tend not to do a lot but you can do it as often as you like.

Then there are items like a wand of fireballs, but again they tend to show up at higher levels.

If none of this appeals, you can play a witch, which always has a powerful alternative to spells in hexes, many of which can be used once a day on each target.

Hasbro was rattling sabers about finding a way to cancel the Open Game License, so Paizo decided to move to a new system that is less vulnerable to challenges in court.

It is an age-old story, sadly. Game Designers' Workshop (GDW) was killed by a cause from TSR (owned, at the time, by Lorraine Williams). It had no merit, but they had to defend themselves and spend money. At the end, they were forced into an out-of-court settlement. After that, they closed.

I have a law degree and used to practice. It is hard to see any way of cancelling an open use license or even seriously trying to. My legal knowledge is Australian and hardly up to date but it sounds far fetched.

Which is all kind of irrelevant as the financial resources of Paizo and Hasbro are so imbalanced.

@Neriathale

Your comments about the systems I would almost totally agree with. Except regarding PF2 which I have never played, so I can't really say anything beyond it sounds a bit too much like 5th ed, or 4th ed.

Sysryke wrote:

4e is definitely not the best system, but I'll never agree with the hate some folks throw at it.

A lot of the hostility to D&D 4e has little to do with the system itself.

1 - In the minds of many, D&D 4e came out too early - well before D&D 3.5 had run its course. I offer the popularity of Pathfinder 1e as evidence of this.
2 - Some of the actions of WotC to try to force the new system on the community did not engender good will. Hasbro/WotC has a general problem with the way the interact with the RPG Community.

I tried 4th ed after hardly playing D&D for decades and thought it an OK [but no better] system.

I found the degree of hate a lot of players had for 4th ed bizarre. Can't you just play something else, or stay with 3.5?

I would add that 4th ed changed a lot of things players did not want changed. I have heard the complaint that it "just wasn't D&D" often.

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

For me to get the appropriate nostalgia hit it would involve going way back to AD&D which is markedly inferior.

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

I don't recall playing 2nd ed at all. Maybe I played it once or twice but can't recall. So I am only talking about AD&D. I agree with TOZ and Dragonchess Player that version of the game didn't have the merits you found.

Ozreth wrote:

I suppose I wonder if it has been so many decades since trying it, why do yu deem it inferior? At the very least, the quickness, simplicity of rules (in combat, at least),

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

Hell no.

The DMG was so hopelessly disorganised you practically had to know it by heart, which I did incidentally, to find anything.

Ozreth wrote:

Not to mention characters staying within a reasonable power level at all levels

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

Can't say I agree here either.

You can apply exactly what the DMG says you should do and get massive parties that are near impossible to challenge and round take forever.

In AD&D every character automatically had leadership.

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

Arkat wrote:

To move on to PF2e would mean another huge investment. My friends and I are all approaching 60 years old. We're tired of buying new versions of games.

We're happy with PF1e, so that's what we're sticking with.

I have the same sort of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" approach. And PF1 has so many more possibilities than D&D 5th ed.

And I am even older, 64, and should properly be referred to as a "Great Old One". Memory declines with age and learning new systems becomes more difficult. So does sorting between different versions of the same system.

I am still playing the 1st iteration of Vampire and Werewolf. Another of my favourite games is Star Wars d20 saga ed. Sadly, aside from World of Darkness [which is still having new material produced despite there being a newer version] these games are dying as far as players go.

64, nice! Did you move through all the editions? Have you ever gone backwards and tries TSR editions again?

I started way back in 1979 when only a starter version of D&D was available in Australia which only went to 3rd level if my memory serves me well.

I played a huge amount of Advanced D&D that came next. I overdosed in a major way and played mostly other RPGs for a long time. World of Darkness, Shadow Run, Champions others. For a long time I played D&D reluctantly when there were not better alternatives available or so I thought at the time.

Really, I suspect what I saw as faults in D&D were faults in the very early versions which were hopelessly disorganised and encouraged confrontation between players and DM. That and the fact that we were all new to playing and DMing and like beginners in anything made a lot of mistakes.

Just an aside, I have been DMing for 46 years and am still learning.

I really became more of an enthusiast around the time PF1 appeared. My then group wanted to play it and I was rather surprised to find it was really good. I don't want to abandon such a great game just because it is no longer commercially supported but it keeps getting harder to find players.

D&D 5th is OK but PF1 has so many more possibilities.

Given my history it should be no surprise I have done little if any revisiting of older versions. For me to get the appropriate nostalgia hit it would involve going way back to AD&D which is markedly inferior. And I don't play with other Great Old Ones who might be inclined to go that far back in time.

To move on to PF2e would mean another huge investment. My friends and I are all approaching 60 years old. We're tired of buying new versions of games.

We're happy with PF1e, so that's what we're sticking with.

I have the same sort of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" approach. And PF1 has so many more possibilities than D&D 5th ed.

And I am even older, 64, and should properly be referred to as a "Great Old One". Memory declines with age and learning new systems becomes more difficult. So does sorting between different versions of the same system.

I am still playing the 1st iteration of Vampire and Werewolf. Another of my favourite games is Star Wars d20 saga ed. Sadly, aside from World of Darkness [which is still having new material produced despite there being a newer version] these games are dying as far as players go.

Those guides are written from a powergamer/optimizer/rules lawyer perspective. You can find several threads on these boards where Ilzury is trying to come up with a way of reading the rules to do something that a class can't do. Every time one idea got shot down, another one with even more convoluted reading would pop up. Just about every one of the guides includes at least one suggestion that only works if you seriously twist the language of the rules.

Convoluted reading of language isn't limited to power gamers. There are FAQs which involve equally convoluted readings or even would clearly be wrong if they were not from an official source.

It would appear I was mistaken.

You raise a good point.

As far as I know there is no FAQ on this issue either. And the phrase "can select any hex possessed by her spirit or wandering spirit" is, as far as I know, unique to this piece of rules text, so you can't get anywhere by looking for how the phrase is interpreted when used elsewhere in the rules.

Which leaves it a matter for a GM ruling. Unless there is something I am missing, which is quite possible I fear.

I would rule that you can take any hex you could take if you selected either spirit including generic hexes. Since the rules don't explicitly say, I think it seems right to allow the same choice you would have if you were gaining a hex as a result of going up a level.

Male Kasatha Fighter: the four-armed desert dwellers, using dual wield broken back seaxs and two star knives, current feats and weapon/armor tricks/training/exploits unknown.

Your post isn't clear on exactly what this character does.

There is this feat-

"Multiweapon Fighting (Combat)
This multi-armed creature is skilled at making attacks with multiple weapons.

Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.

Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.

Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting.

Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.'

They can quadruple wield their broken back seaxes with only a -2 to hit and take Quick Draw and throw 4 star knives or chakrams a round. That only costs 3 feats, so it is very efficient as well as good.

If you add the Blade Boot feat you can have 6 attacks/ round w/o inconvenience.

JDawg75 wrote:

STR 12 – You’re not a brute; Multiweapon builds rely more on Dex

DEX 18 – More AC, initiative, and attack bonus for light weapons

Deadly Agility (Path of War) – If allowed, lets Dex replace Str for damage with all finesse weapons

I have a lot of feats I need.

If I am going to invest so heavily in dex I will likely need my GM to say yes to Deadly Agility.

My wondrous GM said yes to Deadly Agility. With Weapon Finesse and an eventual double slice I will get +4 to hit and damage on all my attacks except with a composite longbow at extreme range.

My very crowded schedule for feats looks something like this-

Level 1 Multiweapon Fighting
Level 3 Weapon Finesse
Level 4 WP Martial
Level 5 Crafting feat
Level 6 Deadly Agility
Level 7 Improved Familiar
Level 8 Double Slice
Level 9 Quick Draw
Level 10 2 weapon rend
Level 11 Blade boot

I want to see if the groups other 2 spellcasters will agree to take an item creation feat each for the good of all.

@Java Man Fine idea. The Darkleaf Leather Lamellar armor is inferior only in having 1 less max dex mod. And it is slightly cheaper.

STR 12 – You’re not a brute; Multiweapon builds rely more on Dex

DEX 18 – More AC, initiative, and attack bonus for light weapons

Deadly Agility (Path of War) – If allowed, lets Dex replace Str for damage with all finesse weapons

Thanks for the input.

I have a lot of feats I need.

If I am going to invest so heavily in dex I will likely need my GM to say yes to Deadly Agility.

Dervish Dance (if scimitar is your pick)

This feat is good if you want to fight with 1 scimitar. I want 6 attacks in a round...

Accomplished Sneak Attacker – Boosts precision damage

Level 8: Rogue Talent: Finesse Rogue or Combat Trick (Two-Weapon Feint/Deadly Aim

I can't be good at everything. If I take Accomplished Sneak Attacker I will get to a max of 5d6 sneak attack at level 16. Then I need to invest in ways of setting it up. I plan on just sneak attacking when the opportunity arises.

Gear Suggestions:

Mithral Chain Shirt +1 – Max Dex + mobility

No metal armor for a druid. :(

I will need some fairly obvious items to increase my AC. Getting up close and personal with only leather armor is my biggest weakness.

Belt of Dex

Ideally combined with a Blinkback Belt.

A Blinkback Belt costs only 5k. Combine that with the Quick Draw feat, which has other uses too, and I can throw 4 weapons a round.

Ranged weapon combat is my 3rd priority, after melee and spellcasting. Only needing one feat, which is good for melee too, to become a good ranged combatant is very efficient.

A Slayer can take a Ranger combat style which allows you to take feat w/o their usual pre-requisites. You want this one-

Weapon and Shield
Improved Shield Bash, Shield Focus, Shield Slam and Two-Weapon Fighting.
At 6th level, he adds Saving Shield and Shield Master to the list.
At 10th level, he adds Bashing Finish and Greater Shield Focus to the list.

Of these feats you want most of them. You can do w/o shield focus and greater shield focus but likely don't want to. Aside from that Saving Shield isn't really related to anything else though it is an effect that might prove useful.

You want the rest of the feats there and maybe improved 2 weapon fighting and greater 2 weapon fighting eventually.

There is a divine ranger combat style that uses trident though not paired with a shield. You may wish to look at it anyway.

Of course, my ratings are strongly influence by the assumption that you want to play a Rogue, and have the ability scores according to that. If you want to make the most powerful Sylvan Trickster you can, the rating would be much different... but you'd basically play a spell-less Witch.

My character has an int of 14, which is fairly normal for an unchained rogue that wants to be a skill monkey. So saves for hexes are lower than for a witch, but not outrageously so.

Was it you who rated the best class features as-

1 full spell casting
2 eidolon
3 witch hexes?

That seems insightful to me.

So you believe a spell-less witch with a sideline in being an unchained rogue and the ultimate skill monkey is more powerful that an arcane trickster build to be a rogue or just an unchained rogue?

Interesting. I have not got far with my first arcane trickster. But I know all about playing witches. And explaining to people what a well played witch can do just with their hexes. Often they don't accept it.

On the spell-less witch idea, it could be interesting. I am sure a witch would be more powerful overall. But there is this-

"Cutting Edge
Prerequisite(s): Advanced talents, rogue’s edge

Benefit: A rogue with this ability immediately selects two additional skills with her rogue’s edge ability. She can select this advanced talent multiple times."

With your skill points per level, a maxed out int and lots of skill unlocks [which allow you do a lot]you are the ultimate skill monkey. And you mostly use hexes in combat.

After having a think I have decided, at least for now, on the following ranger combat style-

Two-Weapon Combat
Double Slice, Improved Shield Bash, Quick Draw, and Two-Weapon Fighting.
At 6th level, he adds Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and Two-Weapon Defense to the list.
At 10th level, he adds Greater Two-Weapon Fighting and Two-Weapon Rend to the list.

My feat/ slayer talent selections for the near future being-

Two-Weapon Combat
4th level Quick Draw,
6th level Double Slice,
8th level ? Perhaps 2 weapon defence or weapon focus [short sword] or kukri
10th level Two-Weapon Rend

This is added to my regular feats being-

Level 1 Multiweapon Fighting
Level 3 WP Martial
Level 5 Blade Boot (the feat)
Level 7 Improved Familiar

Unusually for PF1 this is a character good at several things, being a full caster and by level 5 is set up to take 6 melee attacks at -2, 4 with a short sword and 2 with a blade boot and is no longer inconvenienced by the blade boots.
Finally, can take 4 ranged combat attacks with only a -2, likely with a chakram.

But then the other question is whether you can use Hex Strike (a Swift Action) on a successful Attack of Opportunity?

"Swift Actions

I think the answer is you can activate Hex Strike as long as you have a swift action available. I.e. Have not used it from your last turn.

I don't know if I am repeating myself but I hate the idea of a 2 level monk dip. You hold up all of your witch progression to set this idea up. Big, big downside. And despite the monk dip you remain profoundly squishy and this strategy takes you close to combat. And it makes your character MAD.

The upside is you can hit people with reach weapons but your BaB is still crap. You can use hex strike with this, probably, but you have to hit with the weapon and then they get a save.

My suggestion- play a witch or play a monk. Trying to do both is... sub-optimal.

Fortune If you already have Soothsayer + Protective Luck, this might be worth grabbing. Powerful effect, but only once per day.

Fortune + cackle in combat is very powerful. Only once/day/ally but it is very good for 1 combat.

@ Derklord Thanks Derklord. Lots of food for thought.

There is one thing I disagree with, which is of course the thing I am going to discuss, sorry.

It is hexes like this-

" Slumber 2 Saving Throw, but could be worth trying to land it on e.g. a lone guard".

As you and others have noted the save will not be as high as it is for a witch and considering that alone it is not as good for a Sylvan Trickster.

But it is a SoD with a 30' range, a scaling saving throw and ignores SR. Taking an enemy out at range like that is something a rogue can't do. So despite the lower save it is still very good as it adds an alternative way to defeat enemies that a rogue normally has nothing like.

A witch will likely want alternative ways of doing the same thing, like Swine once they reach level 8 if they can find space for it, in case an enemy makes it's first save. A Sylvan Trickster probably won't.

Deathless one- Thanks for the input.

Multiweapon fighting is extremely good of course.

And the description ends with-

"Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms"

To me, that means it replaces 2 weapon fighting and I probably can use 2 weapon fighting style. Double slice and Quick Draw, which includes-

"A character who has selected this feat may throw weapons at his full normal rate of attacks (much like a character with a bow)."

Which means I can throw 4 weapons in a full round. Should be excellent. And it helps the melee fighting too, very efficient.

Then there is divine style (Norberger) but I very much doubt a Norberger worshipper will be suitable for other reasons.

I guess it would be useful to some.

But it is going beyond a witch guide. Besides creating work for you, it may not be looked for in a witches guide by persons seeking the information.

VMC witches and maybe stargazers would belong in a witch guide I would think.

As someone who is very familiar with the Nature Fang archetype, I can offer a few pieces of advice.

You familiarity shows in your sage advice.

2) Grab the Crocodile domain rather than an animal companion. The familiar can serve you well, and the scaling sneak attack it offers will stack nicely with the single 1d6 you get from Nature Fang levels. Getting the protector archetype will greatly increase your effective HP totals and survivability. If you want an actual animal companion, there are other ways to attain one.

Brilliant idea. I had never looked at the Crocodile domain. But it is perfect for the nature fang achetype. I kinda love the idea of a allosaurus companion named Mr Nippy but that will have to await another day.

4) Use your slayer talents, at first, to pick up Ranger Fighting Style so you can save your normal feats for other purposes. Especially for filling in your ranged capabilities. You don't want to be stuck on the ground flinging short ranged spells when you can't reach your enemy.

I hadn't thought too much about this but had intended not to go much beyond getting a long composite bow keyed to my strength. Even that is more a side effect of setting myself up to use blade boots to get 5 or 6 attacks in a full round action.

Getting really good at ranged combat requires a lot of feats. The idea is a Kasatha with 5 or 6 attacks. So I invest in melee, then there is magic and... everything else.

@ Melkiador Oh I know, see the last 2 paragraphs above.

I have typically played full casters built to... cast spells. I wanted to try this idea and some new pastures generally. Fortunately my GM is very open to retraining feats.

One of my GMs has just started Iron Gods.

This gives me a chance to try 2 things I wanted to sample, a Kasatha and a nature fang. We have a 25 point buy, and my character currently looks like this.

Attributes

Str 14
Dex 16
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 18
Cha 10

Traits

Transmuter of Korada (I know it is from another path).

Reactionary

Feats

Multiweapon Fighting Level 1

Intending

WP Martial Level 3
Blade Boot (the feat) Level 5

These 3 feats swill set me up to be able to attack 6 times/ round, 4 with either a kukri or short sword, 2 with blade boots. Or 5 times if I am employing a shield.

That should set me up to be dangerous in combat despite having a rather crappy AC. Like a rogue who also manages to be a full prepared caster.

The character, who's name is Kali, has an allosaurus animal companion named Mr. Nippy.

That is about as far as I have got with the character. The rest of the party is a bard, a wizard and a Cavalier with a Marax animal companion. They can't have a Marax by the RAW and the GM has yet to rule on this.

I am not very familiar with druids and less so with slayers, so I would appreciate some advice from those better informed.

Burst of radiance is just too much damage for its level. Yes, it's only against evil creatures but it's AoE, automatic, no-save damage with the possibility of blinding. And most campaigns have a strong component of "fight evil."

Don't complain about one of my favourite clerical spells. And no excuses. Including being right.

I recently advised a friend who is a novice to PF1 to take this and suddenly he was effective. Beforehand he had been mostly a 2nd rate melee combatant.

Chain of Light

A rule question.
It says:
"may attempt a new saving throw each round to end the effect."

OK, when?

Very alert Diego.

I don't disagree with your way of resolving the question. But in principle the spell description should make it clear.

On the spell, it is essentially a save or die for one target. For a 6th level spell that is nowhere near excessive.

Chains of Light also allows a new save each round. Sure it does not allow SR and keeps baddies from running away.

I tell less experienced players that divine casters have good offensive spells, just not so many as arcane casters. They often don't listen so I am going to send them to talk to you. :P

Excellent knowledge of the FAQs Derklord.

However, I am not 100% convinced The FAQ clears up the issue conclusively. It could be contended that to be exactly on point the FAQ would have to address if a wizard necromancer without levels in cleric or a like class could take extra channel feat.

Secondly, if a FAQ addresses an issue in one way does not quite mean another FAQ would follow suite. A true rules lawyer, and that is what I am as I have an honours degree in law, would say it is persuasive but not dispositive.

I would rule as you do as a GM if that counts for anything.

On hexes in regards to sylvan trickster, I would be interested in your material since I am presently playing one.

Bipedal Eidolon

Attributes

The starting value for an Eidolon of this type appears first, then various adjustments and a final figure

Str 16 +4 [2 level increases] +8 size=
Str 28

Dex 12 +4 [2 level increases] -2 size=
Dex 14

Con 13 +1 Att increase lvl 5 +4 size=
Con 18

Int 7 +1 Att increase lvl 10=
Int 8

Wis 10
Cha 11

Skills

"An eidolon receives a number of skill ranks equal to 6 + its Intelligence modifier per HD" less one for archetype= 5 + its Intelligence modifier per HD. Which is-
[5-1]x 8 =32

Evolutions

Free Evolutions

Claws, limbs (arms), limbs (legs).

Evolution Pool

14 [10th level] -1 archetype +2 Half-elf FCB (one of the best in the game)= 15

1 Claws
2 limbs (arms)
2 Energy attacks [electricity]
2 Grab [claws]
2 Rend- counts as an attack
4 Large
1 Skilled- perception
1 Improved NA +2

I am now in a position to play this archetype. I have retired a character in a 10th level modified kingmaker campaign and received GM permission to play a morphic savant.

So here goes. As I will be starting at level 10 you can ignore my last 2 posts.

I will start with the summoner, who is a half elf female by the name of Annacreon of Chaos. She wears the sign of chaos on her shield.

We have a 20 point buy, the 2 level +1 increases go into Cha of course.

Attributes

Str 14
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 10
Cha 18

Traits

Irrepressible Benefit(s): You can use your Charisma modifier in place of your Wisdom modifier when attempting Will saving throws against charm and compulsion effects.

House of Green Mothers Pupil (Magic)
You studied at a center for druidic magic long enough to begin bonding with a familiar.

Feats

Skill Focus (Knowledge [planes]) Race bonus feat
Spell Focus (conjuration) Level 1
Augment Summoning, Level 3
Superior Summoning, Level 5
Familiar Bond Level 7,
Improved Familiar Air Wysp Level 9
[Intended] Versatile Summon Monster [Aerial and Dark templates]Level 11

Notes

Everything is provisional at present.

The thing that stands out to me as likely to be able to be improved upon is the last listed trait and last three listed feats are a big investment to obtain an Air Wysp familiar.

I did that with another character who was a master summoner aiming to obtain this feature of the Wysp-

Resonance (Ex)

A wysp's natural resonance strengthens the power of its element. The wysp grants a +2 competence bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls to all creatures within 30 feet with an elemental subtype that matches the wysp's, and to the DCs of all racial spell-like, supernatural, and extraordinary abilities of such creatures

I can't recommend that too highly for a master summoner. Being able to give your summoned animals +2 to hit and damage and flight from the aerial template is brilliant. But for a morphic savant, for whom the summon monster SLA is one of 4 options I suspect the investment is too great.

That is the sort of thing I was talking about Java Man. And it sounds very sensible. Rather a lot of work for a GM however.

Perhaps yes.

But it is still something the GM has to adjudicate somehow. The actions you suggest would normally be roleplayed and have costs.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is getting access to exactly the spells you want. Beyond the spells your class gives you I mean.

So far as I know there are no rules for it so it's up to the GM.

So if you want a particular spell you need to find a arcane caster who has it and is prepared to share it for a modest sum of money. And there are gazillions of spells on the wizard list.

It seems to me the most commonly used spells will be most readily available, you are not going to have much trouble finding mage armor as everyone wants it. But most spells on the wizard list are used very rarely. And it is going to get progressively harder to find spells of higher levels as casters who can learn them become fewer.

Also, wouldn't it be nice to try and focus rankings made versus expected CRs/DCs for level, rather than versus other classes.

Another perspective which is always a good thing.

You are making the same point about power at different levels as I started with. The more I hear from other people and think about it myself, having one tier system measuring the relative power of classes at high levels is inadequate and misleading.

Measuring power in combat vs expected DCs at a certain level is more specific than just one rating for a class. Which also means its easier to get right, although it is still immensely complicated.

But their a a whole host of other things that make a character effective and fun to play. Diplomacy, crafting mundane and magical items, skill checks, non-combat abilities and magic and so on.

Another matter is how hard they are to play. Arcane casters may dominate the highest tiers, but they are also hardest to play because they die so easily in combat if misplayed or sometimes if they are not.

There is also killing a wizard and taking his spell book. Or is there some reason that does not work?

You find out something every day.

Where do you find those costs Java Man?

I believe the official rule as to this is the character gets the number of spells their class will give them.

For example witch starts with 3 + int mod 1st level spells and all cantrips.

At each level they gain 2 spells of their choice of a level they can cast.
[This means when they gain the level].

Spells from their patron.

So if you start a witch at level 3, they will start with-

3 +int mod level 1 spells.

2 more level 1 spells [level 2]

1 1st level patron spell [gained at level 2]

2 2nd level spells [level 3]. Technically the witch can take 1st or 2nd level spells here. Nobody does.

If the player want access to more spells, they can buy a scroll with the spell on it.

The rules are similar for other arcane casters.

The rules as written don't adjust for a number of spells likely to have been found adventuring unless you count buying scrolls.

This is a good time to point out that small house rules can have meaningful balance repercussions.

Indeed. And this house rule was almost certainly introduced without considering the balance repercussions set out.

That critical fail rules would disturb the balance between martial characters and casters is neither intuitive nor anywhere near obvious.

The lesson is don't mess with the rules unless you know what you are doing. And you must know what you are doing, not merely think you do.

re: Hex Class Feature -- Fair points. I agree too, a Hexcrafter or Sylvan Trickster should each be able to use Hex Strike.

I 100% agree they should.

I am less convinced this is the rules as written.

I'm not convinced that either of them want to go with unarmed strikes.

Going with a race with numerous natural attacks that can be supplemented with Prehensile Hair is a fine option however.

I suspect both of you may know that.

Accuracy, precision, utility, reproduceability, and avoidance of comparative judgements & opinions are cleary my goals. I'm not saying the existing jargon and ratings are wrong, just speculative and not based on game mechanics. Think of it as a 'by the numbers' approach.

Yes but you can't.

Q1= (total Spell Levels{spells, SLAs, SUs, hexes, etc each at RND(SplLvl^0.8, 2)} +Metamagic/Item Creation feats +Cost of (Pearl of power/Class cost for same item){Storing 1 accumulative spell per castable spell level Ratio} ) at above levels.

This sounds like an objective and calculatable measure. Talking of PF1.

Take total spell levels.

A wizard [usually not always, which alone messes up calculating anything] gets an extra spell/level compared to a witch.

Then the witch spell list is much less extensive and powerful than the wizards. How do you objectively measure that? You don't.

Then a witch does not get permanency, which reduces the effectiveness of item creation feats markedly but this plays no role in the calculation.

Many classes get hexes. But only a witch and sylvan trickster rogue can get the major and grand hexes. No part in the calculation that does not account for archetypes either.

A spontaneous caster has access to only a small subset of the spells on their list. A divine prepared caster has access to all, an arcane prepared caster has access to all the spells they can find. Well known and extremely significant but entirely absent from the objective calculation.

I created another thread that goes over some of the ground discussed here which can be found at Alternative-Class-Tier-System..

Their is another thread that goes over some of the ground here which can be found at ClassBuild-Metrics-Part-2.

Sysryke wrote:

I also have already decided that I want the character to be a "my word is my bond type" as part of his personal code, but coming from Devil stock, he'll still have a bit of that "letter of the law" mentality. I'm wondering if I should make him honorable, and if so, what honor divorced from good might look like?

One real world example of a code of honor that is divorced from good is that adopted by Italian organised crime groups, the Cosa Nostra, 'Ndrangheta and Camorra.

These men refer to themselves as 'Men of Honor". Their loyalty is primarily to the criminal organisation they belong to. The Italian public believes they actually are honorable to some extent, or at least they used to.

Sicily is full of mafia widows though I understand it is not as bad as once was. The mafia code of omerta, silence, applies to everyone not just mafia themselves. It means if the mafia killed your husband you will remain silent of the mafia will kill you too.

The effect these murderers and extortionists have on society is immense. Describing anything about their conduct as in any sense honorable or principled is deranged, but they do and many people outside the group take notice of these inane claims.

Outlaw bikers also have a similar code and a hagiography of sacred objects, their "colours", developed very quickly.

One difference is bikers interpret their code as not allowing murder of members of their gang. In the mafia promotion by murder is the norm, where it is much rarer among bikers.

One thing very few people know is that scientific research into human behavior shows a persons moral code is a weak indicator of behavior. Moral codes follow behavior not the other way round. Note also the Catholic Church and it's endless scandals about child abuse.

So a real world answer to your question is a "non-good", or even to the believer good, moral code of system of honor can be any damn thing.

I also have already decided that I want the character to be a "my word is my bond type" as part of his personal code, but coming from Devil stock, he'll still have a bit of that "letter of the law" mentality. I'm wondering if I should make him honorable, and if so, what honor divorced from good might look like?

One real world example of a code of honor that is divorced from good is that adopted by Italian organised crime groups, the Cosa Nostra, 'Ndrangheta and Camorra.

These men refer to themselves as 'Men of Honor". Their loyalty is primarily to the criminal organisation they belong to. The Italian public believes they actually are honorable to some extent, or at least they used to.

Sicily is full of mafia widows though I understand it is not as bad as once was. The mafia code of omerta, silence, applies to everyone not just mafia themselves. It means if the mafia killed your husband you will remain silent of the mafia will kill you too.

The effect these murderers and extortionists have on society is immense. Describing anything about their conduct as in any sense honorable or principled is deranged, but they do and many people outside the group take notice of these inane claims.

Outlaw bikers also have a similar code and a hagiography of sacred objects, their "colours", developed very quickly.

One difference is bikers interpret their code as not allowing murder of members of their gang. In the mafia promotion by murder is the norm, where it is much rarer among bikers.

One thing very few people know is that scientific research into human behavior shows a persons moral code is a weak indicator of behavior.

Dragon Chess Player- You are right of course and also correct that this is known by all knowledgeable players.

I wanted to question the use of a tier system that considers only the power of classes at high levels, especially considering that most campaigns never get close to level 20. Having that as the only way a tier system is done is flawed and misleading.

I was hoping someone would turn up a link to that old survey I was referring to.