MinstrelintheGallery's page

I posted on an existing thread that my group is planning on playing carrion crown and that a couple members of the group, myself included, want to play castlevania styled characters- castlevania 3 in particular. (it's the one that the most players have tried) One person is playing a daggermaster rogue (His favorite character was Grant Danasty) another player voiced the desire to play a necromancy/undead controller and decided on an oracle of bones and when told about the dhampir race, immediately called dibs. (covering the alucard slot). Another player isn't too familiar with castlevania and is playing a 2h style ranger that hunts undead. The last player (other than myself) hasn't decided yet.

That means I get to play the Belmont! (I'm the biggest castlevania fan in the group by far).

While I am excited by this, there are a few problems- first what class should I use? Ranger is taken, and I like using skills and magic to much to go fighter (I'm playing a fighter in another campaign anyways) so while fighter is an option, I'd really like to consider alternatives. I'm thinking that bard (archaeologist archetype), inquisitor, and magus (bladebound/ kensai-whip focused) are options.

Second, the whip is problematic. It's not really avoidable because a Belmont without a whip isn't much of a Belmont at all. But the whip is still really frustrating. First off, the whole exotic weapon thing- this can be bypassed by being a bard or a kensai magus, and alleviated by fighters, but it really hurts inquisitors. This is made worse by the fact that the whip (scorpion whip is allowable, that solves that problem) isn't really great for offense, at all, and I would like to be able to hold up my end at least. I don't need to be dpr king I just don't want to embarrass myself. Third off, the whip's strength- ranged combat maneuvers, are limiting as CMB is based off BaB- which again hurts most of my options.

So it seems that you can make a character who kick arse with a whip with a fighter, but not be much of a monster hunter. Or I could go with an archaeologist or an inquisitor- both make great hunters (knowledge checks, skills, general tricky flavor) but using a whip would be a serious handicap. A kensai magus gets decent skills and can become a pretty good whip user, but it has a lot of abilities that don't fit a belmont.

So...help? Any advice for taking the whip user and making a vampire killer? Do I need to...dare I say it multiclass? Any build advice is welcome- I know I'm not the first to want to try this concept, and I'd love to see what other people have done.

P.S. I was thinking human for race, but half elf can work well too. Also, we use a really generous rolling method for attributes, so don't worry too much about MAD.

Thanks

One of the things I was looking forward to the most in Ultimate Combat was the fighting styles- which turned out to be several three-feat-chains, which is nice, in fact they're pretty great. Not all of them are as good as each other (dragon is amazing, snapping turtle is meh) but the are a very cool addition and in fact help the monk out a good bit.

As I was looking through the monk archetypes (overall pretty good- the martial artist should be really, really effective, and the sohei has potential) I was pleased there was a master of many styles- after all I like the styles and stances, I should like the archetype right?

Here's the basic idea- you get to take the style feats in lieu of normal monk bonus feats- cool, that's fine. And you get to use more than one stance at a time (each style give several benefits that can only be used or active while the user is in that style's stance- you can't get the crane's defenses at the same time as the dragon's damage bonuses for example) at level one you can be in two stances, at level eight you can have three, at level fifteen you can have four, and at level twenty you can have five. Awesome, that seems to be exactly what you'd want for a master of many styles...but...

But you give up flurry of blows.

I don't think I need to explain how big of a hit that is to a monk-but is it worth it? Can a master of many styles be viable? Or should I stick to a different kind of monk and just take the feats when I can?

A long-standing (but somewhat dormant) threat in my long-running campaign is that of the fey. I always liked the idea of old fashioned fairy tales, not the romantic nonsense of Tinkerbell-style chaotic good Disney stuff, but rather the older folklore born from long winter nights.

You know, what Neil Gaiman writes.

Now, it's not that I'm lacking in inspiration, I mentioned Neil Gaiman, but I'm also drawing from Mike Mignola, Lovecraft, Guillermo del Toro, and Changeling: the Lost. This should be painting a clear picture.

Now recently I started watching Twin Peaks (I watched the whole first season in on sitting- I can't recommend it) and really enjoyed it- the only thing I'd seen of his before was Easerhead, which I like more thinking back, the actual watching of the particular film was rather unpleasant. I realized that Lynch's signature style was a rather good fit for what I wanted out of a fey-themed adventure.

So, can anyone help me bring the Lynch? Not just thematically, are there any mechanics I need to jump on for this any classes villians will need to take to really be able to create that strange feeling of dread needed? I'm thinking sorcerers have a lot of potential- aberrant, protean, starsoul, dreamspun and shadow especially. I might need to use the crossblooded archetype to get what I need.

Thoughts?

So how is it? Now that it's finished, how does it work- I haven't had a chance to buy a copy of the book yet and I'm curious.

So, what does everyone think of it? Is it better or worse than the baseline monk? How does it compare to the other archetypes? Can it be combined with the other archetypes? Any other thoughts?

Both of these feats are keyed off a monk's slow fall ability- but don't require a monk to have them- so what happens to sacred mountain and qigong monks? Is it based off their hypothetical slowfall distance?

Of all the APG classes, cavaliers are the least popular. This isn't too surprising, they specialize in mounted combat, which doesn't always work in every campaign, and the challenge ability does compare it to the paladin.

That said I don't see why it's so dumped on. I haven't had a chance to play one, (I've had to play other roles) so has anyone else? What where people's experiences? Are there any good tricks with them?

PS- I should not that I really like them from a flavor standpoint, and I like playing bards and other backing characters, as well as team faces, so this class really appeals to me.

I'm building a new wold for my wolf shaman (previous one was ogre'd to death) and I've been going over the animal companions. I've noticed weird things.

1. Animal companions don't seem to get the racial skill bonuses to skill checks real animals do. Is this on purpose? Should they get them? It's not a HUGE deal, but it really gimps an animal companion's already sad skills.

2. QUADRUPEDS! All quadrupeds in the Monster Manual get a bonus versus trip attempts- do animal companions get this? Are snake animal companions immune to trips like all other snakes? Can you really trip a snake animal companion?! Also, does being a quadruped affect carrying capacity?

I'm asking not only people's opinions on those things, but the official rulings, because, as a player, it's always easier to follow the official rules than ask the GM for a houserule.

Thanks in Advance!

So in an upcoming plot of a game I'm GMing (homebrew world) I have a character (two handed archetype fighter) who will be embarking on a quest to win a Valkyrie as a bride (he's a mad Scotsmen covered in woad tattoos wielding a claymore- think a human version of the Nac Mac Feegle). In order to prove his worth- and pass through a wall of divine fire (thing Volsung saga) he must slay and eat the hearts of Five dragons (the dragon heart eating thing is from the Volsung saga as well- the Fafnir bit) to gain immunity to fear. I was also planning on it giving other benefits (the eating of dragon hearts that is). Any ideas?

Also, I'm not sure what should represent a Valkyrie mechanically- since I see them as being chaotic good-ish (using the great wheel of planescape for cosmology) I figured an azata would be appropriate. At first I thought I'd just use a Ghaele- but now I'm thinking the Brijidine (only using ice instead of fire) would work too... Thoughts?

I've seen several threads devolve into arguments about the animal shaman archetypes of the APG. Well, here's a thread to discuss the animal shamans' merits and weaknesses.

First off, my opinion- druid's are a fairly powerful class, not the most powerful mind you, probably the weakest of the pure casters. That said, every archetype in the APG contains a nerf- all of them in some way penalize your wildshaping abilities- one of your most powerful traits. In theory however, each one gives you something to make up for it. This is hit and miss.

Here's how the Shaman's do it: They get a boost to wild empathy (this doesn't really effect power really) and a change to their nature bond at level one. (this is mixed, some give great domains, some give terrible animal companions- roughly the same as the core options)

At level two, he gets totem transformation, which is a bonus, you give up nothing for it (except maybe wildshape, but it's really added in an effort to make up for the weakened wildshape...so there)

Then at level 5 you get a boost to summoning, which, while cool, won't be too powerful, but it is a boost to summon up some tough animals as a standard action.

You don't get wildshape until level six, but it will be both buff and weakened, mostly weakened, unless you're playing a lion shaman and are focusing on melee.

After that you trade some abilities for feats, which isn't too bad really.

So here's the thing- it weakens wildshape, that's it's problem. And, in most cases, it doesn't make up for it (lion shaman is kind of a wash in terms of power, eagle shaman isn't all that weakened as a caster).

But here's my thing- I didn't want to play one of those tow, I had a wolf shaman in mind. I've gotten to level 2 at this point, and I'm doing fine. I've befriended an average wolf, who, along with my animal companion, trips every other round. My character doesn't seem to be too weak, I figure if I focus on summoning and tripping, I'll have a niche.

Opinions?

Ah, optimization. The word alone divides people- many tend to think it creates cookie-cutter, overpowered characters; while other's defend it as only natural- if you're building a character whose competent by description, you want him to be competent by mechanics. Me, I just want my characters to survive and contribute to the parties victories, and I do have a love of tweaking a build to get the exact effect I want. It's a way to enjoy the game while waiting for game day.

So here's an idea I've been working around for a while- an exercise in practical optimization. Now, in my opinion at least, the best way to ensure that you are building a character that isn't a char-op monster/ generic bland guy is to start with the character fully fleshed out fluff wise and build from there- optimizing as well as possible as I can while still using the base character idea.

The second reason for this thread is that there is a character I've been trying to adapt for quite some time- Link, the protagonist of the Legend of Zelda series. The Zelda series has given me loads of inspiration over the years(both in gaming and out), in fact Link to The Past was the first video game I personally owned.

So here's what I want to do- Build link. Sounds easy right? Well, not so much. Here's a list of iconic abilities I consider important to the concept:

1. He's primarily a swordsman, longsword or preferably bastard sword (The Master Sword has a two handed grip, and, at least in Wind Waker and Twilight Princess is quite long). His signature move is a pain though, the spin attack. This is perfectly emulated by whirlwind attack- which unfortunately requires 4 other feats to get.

2. He has a bow, it could be long or short, but it's potent, although it tends to get ditched when the enemies get close. This might need a feat investment to be useful.

3. The boomerang. This is a problem, as this is an exotic weapon, and not a very good one- it has no real advantage over a javelin, which is a simple weapon. This is another feat.

4. The bombs. This isn't a problem, the Fuse Grenade of the adventurer's armory fit's this perfectly. It's a little expensive, but it will work.

5. His skills. Well, at least in the 3d games he jumps around a lot in combat, and sometimes tightrope walks, so that's acrobatics. There is always a stealth minigame anymore, so stealth (how much depends on the player's skill). In ocarina of time and twilight princess he has Ride, and especially in twilight princess he has handle animal. And he certainly has perform, probably wind instruments. He could very well have ranks it climb- though not many, if he doesn't have vines, this is a no-go. He likely has ranks in other skills.

6. His Horse. If Epona isn't an animal companion, what is it?

7. His armor- light, going with twilight princess, it's a chain shirt. Going by the rest, it's just a shirt.

8. His race- he's an elf- sure in game everyone looks like that, so in a Zelda campaign he's be human, but if wanted to play Link in a standard campaign and have him be recognizable, he'd be and elf, or at least a half-elf.
So can you build a character who has these things and is playable? I'm not looking for Pun-pun, I'm looking for a character that can contribute and not feel worthless next to better optimized characters.

So how would you build this? would he be a fighter, bard or ranger? What would his attribute priorities be?

Just like it says on the box. I've found the Legend of Zelda series to be the best source of inspiration for my dungeons. It's not a perfect transition- for example, in Zelda, as soon as you open a door, you must enter the room- this is not the case in pathfinder, and if it was, my players would revolt. But there is a lot to learn from dungeon design from those games.

Has anyone else used The legend of Zelda in their games? Does anyone have any other preferred sources of inspiration?

Is there an official ruling on whether fast bombs work with abilities that add extra attacks? This is kind of a big deal, and I haven't seen any official ruling so far, and that means it's up to a DM. And there really is a big differernce between getting three attacks and eight attacks (haste, rapid shot and greater two weapon fighting). I mean it's a difference of 30d6+(intx3) and 80d6-(intx8) at level twenty.

As I look through both the boards and the APG, I find the focus has been taken away from the Prestige Classes. Back in 3.5 every book used them, and in fact was a major draw. However, with the inclusion of archetypes, the focus has moved (perhaps rightly)

But, as excited as I am about the archetypes, I do have some thoughts, optimization ideas and questions about the PRCs.

Battle Herald: I love the concept behind this one, this makes for a really cool flag-bearer unit, the ultimate non-magic buffer. That said, I have some worries to the effectiveness. This class progresses some of the abilities of each class, but it's hard to keep each detail in order, I think I'd have to make a chart on which feature progress (such as the strength of inspire courage) and which don't (like the number of rounds of perform per day). Second, I'm not sure which class to focus on here- should I go bard1/cavelier9/BattleHerald10 or bard9/cavelier1/BattleHerald10 or bard5/cavelier5/BattleHerald10? What should I focus on? Is this PRC a dip? One thing I have noted is that you should ignore your spells and wear your heavy armor. Spells can be used for non-combat-at best you'll have caster level 9 and 3rd level spells. I'd really like some advice.

Holy Vindicator: I love this one too, but unlike the previous class, I know what to use this one for. Be a cleric. Yes you could use a Paladin or Life oracle, but they lose so much while the cleric has so much to gain. A while back people were begging to get heavy armor back for a cleric and more mêlée toys (with the best self-buffs nerfed). They even offered to give up 8th-9th level spells for it. Well, you can have a character with BaB 17 and CL 17 and full weapon and armor proficiencies. Also, for me at least, this replaces the templar- hear me out on this on. People wanted to have a combat heavy holy warrior for they're LG deities- this class does this without taking the Paladin's thunder. One other thing- a 4 level dip is awesome, but I like the features of this class enough to want all of the abilities.

Horizon Walker: Not much to be said here. This is an appropriate update to a class that never excited people, and still won't. It's a good class but not a super exciting one. It's better than the 3.5 version, but then again most things got a bump. That two level dip for barbarians (desert) is cool though, and so is that fact that ANYONE can take this class.

Master Chymist: Now we're talking- this class has lots of flavor and is pretty strong. I'm not sure the argument for mutagen focused alchemists to not take it. (okay, there is one- True mutagen. But that's not big deal- hear me out, most characters never get to level 20 and True Mutagen isn't a huge improvement from grand- it's better, but it improves you side abilities and drops weaknesses rather than focusing on your strengths)

Master Spy: This, like the Assassin, will make a really cool NPC, but has middling uses for a PC. It's probably better than the assassin, more useful traits, but most people won't ever use it. Go Rogue instead of bard. It melds a whole lot better with it's class features.

Nature Warden: Okay, I have no idea what to do with this one. Ranger3/Druid7/Nature Warden10? It boost some things, but you lose six caster levels- not a good trade. How about ranger10/Nature Warden 10- what does this do to make a ranger better or more interesting? This class reminds me of the pathfinder chronicler- lose collection of neat abilities, but not really useful in game. Any info or opinions are welcome. I want to like this.

Rage Prophet: I'd play this. You lose like 5 caster levels, but your spell DC's will be awesome and your powers will rock- the rage mage is finally an option. Divine boost up the medium BaB and there are so many ways to play this- battle oracle for a warchief; nature for a guerrilla naturalist; elementals to embody primal wrath. This is a really cool Gish style class (I know the term isn't popular but it fits the description).

Stalwart Defender: Like the Horizon Walker, this class wasn't to popular in 3.5- not because it was boring, but because it's abilities were counterintuitive to game play- enemies could just avoid you. This class is very much improved, and much more attractive but it may be frustrating to play at times. That fact that anyone can stand still is cool. I suggest using fighter as your build in. Maybe a shield specialist. Opinions?

Well i said I'd include examples and I'm a man of my word, here's the first villainous archetype: The Fiendish Noble

Very few monsters are as well suited to proper villainy than the evil outsider. They are often intelligent foes with multiple modes of attack- they often can cast as well as fight toe to toe. They usually come with their own escape plans and you can use lesser fiends as minions. It’s difficult to find a better “boss”.

Now, if we talk about a final enemy, one to end your campaign with, there are really only two real options out of the fiends: Balors and Pit Fiends. These foes are largely similar in power and tactics, the real deciding factor is alignment.

Simply put, Lawful Evil overlords wish to conquer and Chaotic Evil ones want to destroy. This is not a rule that all must follow, but you must take the ethical element of the fiend’s alignment into account when you determine his methods, goals and in battle tactics. I won’t tell you how to plan you campaign, but I do want to point out something about chaos. Balors have an intelligence of 24- two less than the Pitt Fiend but distinctly greater than most beings. A chaotic creature can wait, plan and delay immediate gratification for greater reward just like everything else. There is no reason that you can’t have a refined, cultured Balor, and the can be vicious warlords; but one thing they can’t be is stupid- don’t every play them stupid, there are brilliant creatures and should be played as such.

But what if your players find these two passé? Well, you have options. At its core, this core is an evil, multi-talented horrifying, brilliant creature from the lower planes. If your party is lower level, the Marilith and the Horned Devil are suitable replacements. In fact, if you advance them further, you could use them at higher levels. Another great option is the half-fiend- you add the template to the proper monster, preferably one that is intelligent and can take class levels- I like to make them into eldritch knights to replicate the abilities of the more powerful fiends or bards to buff their armies (also to reference Charlie Daniels). Efreeti are good low level evil outsider villains and can take class levels to get stronger.

Now when are these beasties appropriate encounters? Both the Pitt Fiend and the Balor are CR20 but by no mean should you fight them at level twenty, unless you have specific plans. In the core rulebook they suggest to have encounters with a CR of character level to character level plus 3. Why three? Because an enemy (or group of enemies for that matter) with a CR of character level+4 is of equal power to the party, and has an equal chance of winning. Keep this in mind. A level 16 party could fight a Pitt Fiend and win, but could just as easily be TPKed. A level 17 party will probably win, but casualties may very well happen. Keep this in mind.

Now the above is assuming that the overlord has no lackeys with him. If said Balor is accompanied by his Marilith consort 5 Nafalshees and a Babau, the encounter will be CR 22-much more exciting than just the Balor. Conversely, you have then option of making the Overlord stronger, adding class levels, and advancing hit dice- in fact, they give you special powers to give more powerful Balors and Pitt Fiends, allowing you to make your villain more personal and unique.

So I've finally gotten the chance to play a character concept I've always wanted to try: A drunken master. I haven't been allowed to play a monk (and in 3.5 didn't want to) nor ToB with our regular DM and someone else is stepping up to the plate.

Now how do I build it?

What I want is a character whose fighting style resembles Zui Quan and if possible gets power from drinking. I'm perfectly willing to play the drinking as a flavor thing and not have a mechanic, and I've given up on that prestige class. I'm not after replicating the abilities of the prestige class, rather the actual fighting style. (the improvised thing is a Jackie Chan hallmark, it has little to do with Drunken boxing itself)

Should I go unarmed swordsage (setting sun counter driven) or is it possible to do with the Monk? I'm not sure a Treant-monk would play right, and I'm not sure I can make a monk that can hold up his end of the battle. On the other hand I'm not sure if I want to bring in the tome of battle if I can avoid it.

Our stat generation method is roll four, drop lowest reroll ones- and I'll be rolling him up Sunday with the rest of the group, as a level 2 character.

Any and all advice is welcome- I can do the build, but if anyone has wisdom to share I'd be happy for it.

When a monk is power attacking while flurrying- which BaB is he using to calculate his penalty and bonus? I assumed it would be his actual BaB- but in treanmonk's guide he uses the flurry's BaB- full. This doesn't seem overpowering in fact, if he does use his normal bab to calculate it...I want to like the monk, I really do, but it seems to get the crap end of the stick every time.

No thoughts? I was hoping there would be some interest. Oh well...

For the first time since my group started Pathfinder I get to play a character! And a friend of mine gets to DM for the first time! So there is excitement all around of course.

That said, being a newbie DM is opted to use a premade module- based on advice I fished on these boards I suggested Crypt of the Everflame, which he felt quite capable of running. We figured that upon it's closing he'll know whether he wishes to continue DMing.

So here's the question: if he does want to keep DMing and wants to continue using paizo's adventures which module is the most appropriate follow-up? Should he switch to a adventure path? If so which one? What would be the most appropriate story-wise and playability-wise.

Thanks in advance!

P.S. I haven't read any paizo adventure yet, with the exception of Stolen Lands- I call dibs on it.

First off, the Newbie DM in the isn't me. I'm currently running two campaigns and I'm feeling a little burnout, so I posed the idea of letting other people DM for a while- and, I'll get to play. One player said he had some ideas, and would like to try it out, but seemed a little unsure on how to go about it. I suggested a premade adventure- specifically from Paizo, as I have heard nothing other than that they are the best in the business, with my experience with their other products supporting that.

So my question is this: What adventure should he use? No one in the group has read any of them, so thats not a problem, but there are some factors I'd like to know first.(in no real order)

1. Is the adventure not too daunting, with too much fiddling to do?- Kingmaker looks like it's mechanics might be too daunting and the design too open ended for a first timer.

2. How much of the campaign setting will he have to learn? So paizo material looks fairly interchangeable, others... let's just say The setting for the council of thieves is fairly unique.

3. Conversion difficulty: If he needs help converting monsters from 3.5 to pathfinder I can help him- so no big deal there. He wants psionics available- I told him that the only necessary conversion needed was to match the hit die with the BaB, update skill list and to match psionic powers to the equivalent spell has been changed- polmorphing etc...

4. Length- How long does it take to get through a module? How long is an Adventure Path installment? How long is the full path?

Any information would be welcome

I spearhead the effort to run the new classes in my regular group, our analysis is far from complete, but as the beta is arriving shortly, I thought I'd post our thoughts right now.

Aside- My group consists of six regular members- two of which can only be present every other week- so I am running two very different campaigns- one urban-styled campaign on the weeks everyone is present and a Zelda-inspired dungeon crawl on the weeks there are only four of us. This puts us in a rather good position to use many PC's (Each campaign consists of 5-6 PCs, eleven total)and to place them in a number of contexts- unfortunately it's all rather low level- between 3-5, so it is by no means thorough.

I'll analyze by class:

Cavalier- I'm the only one whose interest was really pique by the class- I think this may be due to the necessity of the mount. You see, as many know, a mount cannot be used in many circumstances, and my players would not want such an important class feature to be so...situational (non have played one yet, but all agree that they'd prefer the weapon option for Paladins and would use non-mount companions when using a druid or ranger). I should say, however, that none of us are too keen on the idea for a replacement option, as a mount is so tied into the cavalier concept. The fact of the matter is, my players have long since abandons the idea of a mounted knight, and have moved on. But...I have played several cavaliers as enemies, so I can report for them. I rolled up several UN-optimal cavaliers- goblins, who I might add were without their mounts. This didn't stop them from putting the fear into my player's hearts. You see, the three cavaliers won initiative and all chose the same character as their mark, and all charged with their small longswords for 2d6+1 damage. Two hit, one criticaled (not multiplying the challenge of course) and killed the level three character. So, the cavalier does have some tricks and- especially at low levels, that challenge can really boost a unit's damage- especially if the cavalier is small, like a goblins were. One thing everyone noticed- the oddness the oaths, we all thought that consistent rulings and less vague wording would help this really flavorful concept.

Oracle- This is the only class to have a PC as it stands right now. The urban campaign lacked a healer and needed one, so I let who ever agree to play the oracle roll one up as a second character. Well, here's the thing- level one (and to a lesser extent level two) cleric spells are not exciting and it makes matters worse when you have a limited amount of spells known. It's no secret that the cleric has a much more situational spell list than a wizard, and being spontaneous just makes the problem more obvious. Now, that isn't to say that the class isn't any good- it fine as a class, it's just the fact that divine characters don't really get fun until higher levels. This class didn't excite me as much as many of the others (I think that it's due to the fact that it's not as "new" as the others-it's more a a sorcified cleric than a brand new concept), but I really like allot of the class features- if I every play one, I'll just do a "House" impression and take the lameness curse. This class is good as is (it really needs more focuses though.)

Witch- haven't playtested this, but it will be used- I was never happy with the options available for a fairy-tale witch, and this seems perfect. Several of the hexes are too weak though (the flight one's duration is sad, and the charming one is weaker than a diplomacy check) I love this class

Summoner- Everyone loved it as soon as they got the concept to the eidolen, for obvious reasons. We've since come to terms how it is less than balanced by doing some math. One player did a one-off character with this class- it totally overshadowed the rest of the party. We love it and hate to see it nerfed, but in our hearts we now it kinda needs it.

Alchemist- I'll find out what this plays like on Sunday, a player's ditching a monk to play one. Oh man was this class love at first sight for him. I believe the line "The alchemist’s reputation is not softened by his exuberance (some would say dangerous recklessness) in perfecting his magical extracts and potion-like creations" sealed the deal. I mean the glee was palpable. This did not dispel my worries that the class might not really live up to his expectations- I told him he could vital strike with the bombs, So If that colors the play-test, sorry, but this class needs work (in ways that many are already aware of.

Inquisitor- No one's playtested this one yet- which is unfortunate, as I rather like this class.

Welcome to my first Handbook paizo messageboard members. I wrote this noting that many people reading Treantmonk's guide to wizards were in need of Sorcerer specific advice. Being no stranger to optimization; being a longtime lurker an sometimes poster at the Wizards forums; I set about to write a guide, and announced as such. had I known the difficulty in such a task, I might have thought twice, but as it was I wrote it.

And here it is:The (almost) Complete Guide to Sorcerers.

You may note the (almost) in the title. The reasons for this caveat are twofold- First, there are sections that may one day be added- like a guide of equipment or prestige classes- which I deemed less important than other things. And Second I left out a spell guide. Why? -you may ask, and rightly so, as spells are the most important class feature a full caster has, no matter how nice and shiny the bloodlines are. But my reasoning is thus- Treanmonk already wrote the end-all guide to arcane spells(Treantmonk's Guide to Pathfinder Wizards: Being a God. ), and I couldn't so it justice. Yes, some spells have a different level of usefulness for a sorcerer than a wizard, but there is a guide for that here Ogre's guide to Sorcerer Spell Selection.

So there you have it, between our three guides you should have all the information you need to create an amazing sorcerer. And if you disagree with my recommendations- please tell me! Nothing proves a class's usefulness more than playing it, so please send me you opinions, agree or disagree. As long as your comments and criticism are constructive, I welcome them.

Sincerely yours,
The Minstrel in the Gallery

Recently Treantmonk created a couple handbooks to get the most out Bards and Rangers. And this has been, by my reckoning- a success. This is in spite people apprehensions on the the subject, which aren't unfounded. Now, he did this by limiting himself to a practical guide, something far from unheard of; and shy-ed away from exploiting the system, as so many feared.

Now, a few weeks ago I tried to get a discussion on the new pathfinder sorcerer going on gleemax, there were a few people to way in, but not enough for me to come to conclusions. I do want to write a guide on the sorcerer, but I'm not sure I have a complete mastery of the abilities (and I'm sure someone will disagree with what opinions I have anyway). So, I'd like some help. Anyone's opinions on the subject are welcome, I want preferences on races, feats and bloodlines especially. I'm not planing on writing a spell guide but if you have something to say about a spell, go ahead.

BUT if you can point out something less obvious- like a use for the destiny bloodline, than your contributions will be doubly appreciated