Juton's page

The Witch (APG) is prepared spellcaster like a Wizard, except a different spell list and uses a familiar instead of a spellbook (among other differences). I've found that familiars are a little more death prone than a Wizard's spell book, is there a clarification that a Witch may take the feat Spell Mastery? The feat specifically requires one level of Wizard to take, but was written before the APG came out when there was only one arcane prepared caster.

Second question, Barbarians can choose an alternate class feature called 'Totem Warrior', what do is do exactly? The PFSRD says : 'The totem warrior is based entirely upon his totem rage powers. In addition to the totem powers themselves, the following rage powers complement the totem warrior archetype (depending on the totem chosen)'. But I don't see any totems listed, is this referring to the spirit warrior rage power, is this just a label you can use to describe your barbarian or does it have something to do with the Druid's totems?

First off I really like the rules for making an Eidolon, I think their easy but allow a lot of customization. We tested them briefly, and like a few other groups after a little bit of time the player was mainly playing the Eidolon, not the Summoner.

A lot of players like Fighter/Wizards (aka Gish), they can go around a hit things on the head, but occasionally do incredible things like teleportation or shooting balls of fire. If a player had something like an Eidolon class they could pull that off without multi-classing and they'd get spell effects roughly at the same time as casters, they'd just have a lot fewer effects to get.

Eidolons also allow a great amount of customization for people with unusual character concepts. You could get flying Monks from 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' or you could get a demonic my little pony that belched fireballs. Typing that I realize there's a great potential for silliness which is inappropriate for some groups, but the potential for an quasi-standardized set for creating house ruled player classes is just too enamoring (at least for me).

Whether an Eidolon+Summoner is to powerful or an Eidolon itself is stronger than a Fighter should be discussions for other threads, I'm interested in whether you could make interesting and appropriate characters using a similar rule set.

The Inquisitor, Alchemist and Summoner gets spells like a Bard. A Witch gets new spells like a Wizard (minus the specialization spells) and an Oracle like a Sorcerer.

Pathfinder broke the mold in a lot of ways, why doesn't it keep doing so and get creative with spell progressions (or saves or BAB)? For instance the Oracle, since it only gets divine spells, which are generally less flashy than arcane, maybe it could get new spell levels at 3,5,7..., like a Cleric.

I think the Summoner would be better of having 9 levels of spells, but with a very limited spell list. It would get new summoner monster spells at the same rate as a Wizard, and if it made scrolls they'd cost the same as a Wizard. Summoners can craft certain spells cheaper because they are of a lower spell level.

Inquisitors and Alchemists may be fine with maximum 6th level spells, but would they be better (better being more fun but not overpowered) if they had 7th or 8th level spells, or even just 5th level (less book-keeping). Maybe an Alchemist should be able to keep an unlimited number of concoctions in his recipe book like a Wizard. Maybe an Inquisitor should get more spells known then a Bard because it lacks the versatility.

The point is why be married to the 4 basic spell progressions Pathfinder inherited from 3.5? Surely it wouldn't ruin the game if Pathfinder charted its own course and tailor made spell progressions exactly for each casting class.

I'm going to play a Dwarven wizard specializing in Divination. Checking the section on wizards and the section on magic it seems to say all specialists lose two schools and gives no exception for diviners.

I do like the diviner's special powers, but I don't think their's stacks up to the other specialists, especially at lower levels because none of their powers do direct damage. I'm starting at level 1. Should I ask for a house rule that diviners only lose one school?

Shields where a historically popular form of defense but in D&D they aren't as effective as fighting with a Big Weapon. I think shields are fairly iconic in the fantasy genre so I'd like to see them improved to be more competitive.

Things I'd like to see happen with shields.

• Shield AC is counted as touch AC, fantasy has many examples of the warrior deflecting magic with their shields.
  
• Shields giving an extra benefit for a defensive warrior. Maybe provide 2x their AC when fighting defensively or using combat expertise. They provide 3x their AC when using total defense.
  
• Giving sword-and-boarders more options for damage, preferably through power attack or a feat that stacks with power attack. I'd like it if power attack would do 1.5 times the tradeoff in damage.
  
• The warrior's skill (BAB) should have an effect on the size of the AC bonus received from a shield. Not +1 per level but maybe 1 in 4, depending on shield size.
  

There where a few big threads about this in the Alpha 3 play test. Basically there is a big group of people that would like to see using a shield rock a little more, taking the shield slam tree is a nice option but isn't good for low dex characters or one with few feats.

The ideas I liked best where feats that give a shield bonus that scales with level and a feat that lets power attack do 1.5 the BAB traded.