Omelite's page

I noticed that it's possible to increase the Base Speed of an Eidolon through the Limbs Evolution (thus growing extra pairs of legs). It's also possible to increase an Eidolon's Climb, Swim and Fly speeds through multiple Evolutions.

My question is this: How does one increase the Base Speed of an Eidolon with the Serpentine form? 20 feet is rather slow... and I don't want my nice, sleek serpent body to suddenly start sprouting legs just so I can move faster. Am I missing something somewhere?

RAW you have yo take limbs(legs) and that gives you actual legs (making you trippable).

If your GM is kind, he may let you take a 2-point evolution that does not give you legs and only increases base speed by 10ft. I would certainly allow my players to do this, since the serpentine form is the least min-maxed of the base forms and thus I don't think I'd be creating a balance issue by allowing this.

is this synthesist supposed to be an unoptimized example? Perhaps you should redo your example then and come back with a properly optimized version.

This is a synthesist with 44 CHA. It's not optimized specifically for melee combat. If it was, it would have multiple 1.5x bites and at least 2 higher STR, and it wouldn't be trying to be a pseudo-full caster. Also, more feats that would help the melee part of the build, like Rhino Charge.

Here, I'll stat one up real quick.

That's about as optimized as a synth build is going to get for pure damage output. Note that I don't use the energy attacks evolution, since so many things just resist the whole packet.

This leads to a melee attack pattern (with power attack) of:

2 Claws +35 (+37 while charging) 1D6+31, 5 Bites +35 2D6+44

That's a DPR against an average CR20 (AC 36) of 323.19. Given that the CR20 enemy has an average HP of 440, that's pretty good.

AC can still be around 52, which is enough that a CR20 enemy only hits on a 20, even after a charge.

Furthermore, your hit chance will be quite a bit lower than even the shield spec'd fighter.

Wow, the shield spec fighter has more than a 95% chance to hit on all attacks? Crazy. And here I thought you couldn't get any better than that.

I hope you caught that. Since all the synthesist's attacks are at full BAB, they all have a 95% chance to hit. You literally can't have a better chance to hit than that. Ah, but I see you'te trying to say the synthesist is ineffective against higher-AC enemies. The Shield spec fighter has a much lower average attack bonus, so against high AC enemies it's in fact his DPR that drops more swiftly (until the AC gets so high that the fighter's last iteratives only hit on a 20).

Average attack bonus matters more than highest attack bonus.

Many fighters can get their hit chance up around 50 to 55 without too much difficulty.

Please, show me that.

Without buffs (which the synthesist could use just as well), here's what a fighter can have:

20 BAB
13 STR (36 STR is max for a fighter)
5 enhancement
1 competence (Ioun stone)
2 focus and greater focus
6 weapon training (+2 from gloves of dueling)
-6 power attack (if we're comparing apples and apples)
= 41

So the Maxed out STR single-weapon fighter (sword and boards and TWF don't start with 20 STR, so we're pretty much talking about Two-handed guys) is attacking at +41/+36/+31/+26. Because he has iteratives, that ends up being lower than the synthesist's attack rolls: 33.5 average vs. 34 or 36 while pouncing for the +8 CHA synthesist. And that's a maxed out single-class fighter. His non-power attack average attack roll is 1.5 higher than the synthesist's, but it also hurts the fighter's damage more than the synthesist's.

Also note that a synthesist has a great many more combat options due to being a spellcaster. He can drop greater invisibility and he'll be attacking at a bonus 2 higher and against FFAC. He does a whole lot of utility stuff the fighter wishes he could. And he has a lot better saves than the fighter. You said that the Synthesist has to worry about being banished - but the synthesist is a whole lot less vulnerable to save or suck spells in general than the fighter. The synthesist probably has at least a +22 on will saves, so he's a lot better off in that department than the other frontliners.

Furthermore, you are already dropping feats and gold on both melee and casting.

Out of 880k, only ~300k is needed to max out melee (+5 AoMF, +6 belt of STR, +5 Book of STR, Cracked Pale Green Ioun Stone). Another ~175k maxes out CHA. Another 29k maxes out saving throws. Another 50k gets a deflection ring. There's still another 330k to work with for general stuff.

Also, I spent 3 feats out of 10 on melee: power attack and two weapon focuses. A lot of summoner spells ignore SR, so you don't even need spell penetration. 7 feats is enough for the summoner's spellcasting.

Of course by level 10, you have 40 AC or you get your face beat in. No one cares about level 10. You have to survive to get there.

This is absolutely false. No one has 40 AC by level 10. 41 AC (what the biped synthesist had) means CR 12 enemies have to roll 20s to hit.

In any case the Synthesist's AC is stellar throughout the levels.

Quote:

So how high is 41 AC at level 10?

The answer is: who cares. If you get hit at level 10, you will be taking at LEAST 30 damage a blow.

That's an absolute non-sequitur. If you're taking 30 damage a blow, that means having high AC is important. High AC stops enemies from hitting at all.

Also, not every weapon should be superior to prior ones. Altough I would have liked for it to be superior in some way to the club, I'm fine with it as is, it has more style than the club.

It's true that weapons don't always have to be improvements, but we're talking about a sword you hide in a cane being worse than just hitting someone with an ordinary cane. Further, the cane costs nothing, while the sword hidden in a cane is a fairly expensive weapon. That's justifiable given the craftmanship that would go into a well-disguised cane sword, but it's just not realistic that the cane sword is going to do the same amount of damage as an ordinary stick someone found out in the wilderness [0gp cost].

It should, at the very least, have a 19-20 crit range like other swords.

What I admit I do not understand is what happens when several confused ones get thrown into the mix.

Orc A (rolls) (attacks next creature, being Orc B)
Orc B (strikes Back)
Now A and B are pretty busy fighting one another.
Orc C (rolls) (attacks next creature, being Orc B as well)

Question is, whom will B attack? The one who attacked it first? The one who attacked it last? The one who actually hit it last? Roll randomly?

"If a confused creature is attacked, it attacks the creature that last attacked it until that creature is dead or out of sight."

A level 8 druid cannot have taken vital strike.

At level 9, though, a Ranger 2/Saurian Shaman 7 can turn into a Stegosaurus and cast Strong Jaw to do 24D6 damage dice on a vital strike, or 36D6 on a crit.

Ranger 2 is for Improved Natural Attack (Tail). This is even legal in PFS, since Improved Natural Attack is allowed when it's specifically granted by another legal source (like the ranger's natural combat style), and since you don't need to meet the prereqs for ranger bonus feats.

In non-PFS, it's even better: you can be a half-orc with a natural bite and take Improved Natural Attack (Bite) without ranger, and you'll benefit from it in Giant Hippo form. Druid 8/Barb1 and you're doing the same 24D6 damage. Keep going in Barb (Brutal Pugilist) at least up to level 6, take Powerful Shape and the grappling feats and you'll also hitting with a very nice grapple check every time you bite. (and of course, keep taking the vital strike chain - Improved VS @lvl 13 for 36D6 damage and Greater VS @lvl18 for 48D6).

And since you'll have Greater Grapple, you'll not only do that first hit for up to 48D6+addons, but you can use a move action to do another 12D6+addons by maintaining the grapple (or just pin the enemy to make it easier for your allies to kill).

The player would control what the Animal Companion's is trained in. It is all there under the Druid class which other classes that get an animal companion would refer to. As long as the animal companion meets requirements, it can be selected by the player. The player has a LINK to the animal companion. It is like an extention of the Druid (or other class) just like a familiar is to a Wizard. There are limits though if the character cannot directly speak to the animal (for example combat flanking). Look at Bonus Tricks and Handle Animal skill.

For bonus tricks, it specifically states that "The druid selects these bonus tricks." Handle animal also allows the trainer to teach the animal tricks of the trainer's choice, not of the animal's choice.

However, for feats and skills it says that the animal companion gets to choose what it takes, not the druid. Certainly it could be argued that the animal companion's bond with its master is strong enough that it will choose to take whatever feats and skills the druid wants it to. However, that is not laid out in the rules - it could just as well be that they will take whatever skills and feats they fancy, which is up to the GM and not the player.

HAVING an animal companion is a class feature. Getting to make its decisions for it is not. You can control its actions via tricks just like you could with any animal you've trained, but other than that you don't make any decisions for it.

It seems there are two consistent ways to decide which squares a creature threatens:

1. A creature threatens any squares that are within its reach. For instance, a large humanoid would threaten any square that is either 5 or 10 feet away from him, and a medium humanoid with a reach weapon would threaten only those squares which are 10 feet away from him.

2. A creature threatens squares within its reach value, but he also threatens a square that is 5 feet further than his reach if that square is diagonal to a square that is 5 feet less than his reach, because his actual reach should end somewhere between those two squares. This would result in a medium humanoid wielding a reach weapon, for instance, being able to attack the square 15 feet away from him on the diagonal, since that square is adjacent to a square that's only 5ft away.

Each of these interpretations creates some problems.

The first interpretation causes a problem where creatures with lesser reach can approach and attack without provoking an attack of opportunity. For instance, a creature with 5ft reach could approach creature with 10ft reach via the diagonal without provoking an attack of opportunity. This effect is also present at other reach values (except 0 reach, which will always provoke on approach even against 5ft reach).

The second interpretation, on the other hand, creates squares where a creature can attack with both a reach weapon and a normal weapon, which is not intended afaik. It also makes it harder to figure out which squares are actually threatened by a creature, as you can't just look at how far you are from it anymore - with huge creatures it does become troublesome to determine.

The way I run it is with the first interpretation, and to correct the problem I do essentially what Jason suggested to MillerHero - if a creature approaches (with something other than a 5ft step) from outside a opponent's reach to a distance closer than that opponent's maximum reach, then he provoked an attack whether he left a threatened square or not (for instance, moving from 50ft away to 25ft away from a 30ft reach creature provokes an AoO, even if you never left a threatened square).

For comparison, here's a spreadsheet with the threatened areas of creatures up to size huge under each interpretation.

Here are the arguments I've seen so far for why summoning demons (or casting other [evil] spells) should be an evil act. I'm going to respond to each of them.

1. People frown on demon summoning. Let them frown! Just because people don't like what you're doing doesn't mean what you're doing is evil.

2. (from the devs) It says evil right there in the descriptor, how could it possibly not be an evil act!?! Because it's just a spell descriptor, and nowhere in the rules does it say that the spell descriptor makes the act evil. It says that a good cleric isn't going to be allowed by his God to summon demons, but it doesn't say that a paladin is going to lose his class features if he does the same.

3. Well in my home games I make evil spells have negative consequences. Good for you. They don't have inherent negative consequences in the actual game.

4. The means are evil so it doesn't matter if the ends are evil or not. I just want to clear something up. "Ends justify means" is not about whether consequences are more important than the actual actions. It's about whether certain consequences trump other consequences. For instance, if I pull a lever, and the consequences of that are that a train gets diverted from its original path (which would have killed hundreds) and instead barrels over a small child, we would have to have an ends justify means discussion to figure out the morality of the situation.

The ends justify means conversation would not be about whether the inherent evilness of lever-pulling is outweighed by the total consequences. It's about whether the negative, unwanted consequences (killing the small child) outweigh the positive, wanted consequences (saving the group of people). Ends justify means is about whether the good consequences override the evil consequences. In the rules, there are no evil consequences for summoning a demon to have tea with. Nothing bad happens as a result of your summoning, so ends justify means is not even relevant - there's no evil consequence to justify.

5. It's like the dark side of the force, and it corrupts you. That's not in the rules.

6. Demons are a quick and easy method for power. There's nothing evil about power, quickness, or easyness. In fact, if I'm fighting off a madman with hostages and it's a close fight, I might want to use the quickest, easiest, and most powerful combat option I have to stop him from harming them, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. A good person would not use the slower, harder, and less powerful option out of some twisted sense of duty to avoid quick and easy power. Unless of course you have some houserules in place that make quick and easy power have a corrupting effect ala the dark side, in which case see #3 and #5.

I'm going to submit a sneak attack build. The one is not defensively amazing, and relies primarily on stealthing and using his party. Still, once he's in the fray he has 31 AC, which is not terrible.

I'm going to use my own stat array, though it is not a minmaxed array. This is because there's no practical reason to have 12 in every stat, and it's unrealistic. The array I'm using will be 7,12,12,14,14,16. This is a PFS legal array, and not an unreasonable one. I suggest others also use actual point buys rather than the static array, as the point buy is the system PFS uses. It won't have an impact on my DPR calculation anyway, as my physical stats are based on the eidolon and not my actual stats.

The Small Pouncing Touch Sneaker: Halfling Synthesist 1/Ninja 11

Animal Companion: Roc

So on to the challenge.

First, I'd like to say that this build will almost always not be surprised, and when there is a surprise round he is able to charge and full attack. Also, with +33 stealth and fast stealth, he's likely to get some surprise

Precast buffs: Mage armor. Lasts 3 hours, I can cast it

Full prep round: If I can, I'll send the Roc (fly speed 80, +17 fly) over to the other side of the enemy to flank for my charge, taking an AoO against AC38 (mobility) if I have to. If my companion can accomplish this on this round, then I'll say screw preparation and use Fleeting Glance (10/day), Boots of Haste (10/day), and a Ki Point (10/day) for an additional attack, and make a charge from up to 140feet away, triggering a full attack with 3 +24 bites and 2 +24 claws against the opponent's flat-footed AC of 23. Even if it has combat reflexes, it won't get an AoO on me since I'm invisible this round.

The bites will each do 1D4+7D6+1 (28) and 3 strength damage, and the claws will do 1D3+7D6+1 (27.5) and 3 strength damage. Crits will only add 1D4+1 (3.5) for the bites and 1D3+1 (3) for the claws.

Damage output against this opponent, forgoing the preparation round, is 132.83375 damage and 14.25 strength damage per round. Despite not getting the +2 attack from the charge, my damage output would remain the same next round if I used another round of invisibility and haste and another ki point, as a +22 attack roll is still 95% accurate against 23 flat-footed. Since I sneak attacked and charged this round, my AC is now 29 and the enemy has 14 less strength (-7 attack). Next round, my AC should go up to 31 if I get another sneak attack off.

Against certain other foes (foes with not-so-low flat-footed AC) it would be more worthwhile to use chill touch in a prep round to get 11 charges of chill touch, and do a full attack of touch attacks the next round with my natural limbs instead of normal attacks. I will be 95% accurate against most foes when targeting touch AC. Also, damage increases slightly to ~141 since they're now D6's instead of D3's and D4's. Slightly more strength damage too, especially for enemies who have more than a 5% chance of failing a DC16 fort save.

Against enemies I cannot reach physically, I will use stealth (+27 while sniping) or invisibility to sneak attack foes with acid splashes for 1D3+6D6 (24) and 3 STR damage. These will have 95% chance to hit against pretty much any foe, thanks to targeting flat-footed touch AC.

If I am unable to get sneak attack (foe is immune to sneak attacks), then my DPR is terrible and my combat role is to sit in the corner and cry and/or climb onto my Roc and soar away from battle.

This will end badly and with neither of us changing our minds, but I'm bored, so here goes: spells have names for ease of play issues. Those names aren't necessarily used in the game, unless the spell is famous, like the various spells with WotC intellectual property in their names that got bastardized to 'mage's ...' Players use the spell names among themselves, but their characters don't.

I would really love to hear how you think people locate and purchase wands and scrolls, or what they might possibly call the spells when discussing them with someone.

It can't just be by a description of the effects of casting the spell, because there's no descriptive difference between any of the inflict line, for instance. I mean, if they're going to have to say "the third most powerful spell that lets you touch a living creature to hurt them, and which heals undead" then they really would benefit greatly from the introduction of a naming system for these spells, you know, similar to the naming system we're already provided with as players.

Are a babau's unholy powers over darkness the same as a sixth level wizard's darkness spell? Not really, but the SLA system makes it seem that way, though the seeming similarity is due to not wanting to write the same effect twice.

They are not exactly the same, but they are identical in effect. The Babau need not provide verbal or material components when he manifests his darkness effect. However, the effect he creates is exactly identical to that of a level 7 caster's.

Both can counter or dispel light spells of level 2 or lower. Both do nothing except cause a certain area to fall into darkness. To dispel either one, you'd need to get an 18 on a dispel check with a light spell of level 2 or higher. In fact, if the Babau and the Wizard cast their darkness spell in a different part of the same room before you walked in, you wouldn't know which is which. You could use Knowledge (Arcana) to determine what spell effect each was, but you would identify both as exactly the same thing - the darkness spell effect. If you want to rule that there's some recognizable difference between how they look, then that is a house ruling. There's certainly a difference in how they are cast, since one is a SLA, but no difference in the effect.

I was going to post in the rules section, but then I realized that pretty much all the answers to my question would have been "GM discretion," since there are no solid rules for what's evil, what's dishonorable, etc.

So here I am asking for some sort of consensus, or perhaps even an official ruling, on what is and isn't permissible for a paladin to do in PFS. In a normal game I'd just ask my GM for his opinion, but that's not something I can do in PFS as there isn't a single GM.

1. A paladin cannot commit an evil act. But who's definition of evil? The GMs? That may be different every time. Often the very missions pathfinders are sent on could be interpreted as evil by morally stringent GMs. Do ends justify means? What values are more important than others? For instance, if freeing a village from an oppressive ruler would also result in economic instability, is it really good? Is it evil? Neutral?

On this point I think players should be able to use their own character's moral code. As long as there is a reasonable moral framework by which they could consider an action to be non-evil, and they consistently follow that same moral framework, I think they should be in the green as far as this first clause is concerned.

2. A paladin must act with honor (i.e. cannot act dishonorably). Poison use, lying, and cheating are called out as dishonorable, but then we're left with a GM-fiat-providing "and so on" clause. Is setting an ambush dishonorable? Hiring an assassin to take out a dangerous villain who for practical reasons you can't reach? Using a ranged weapon (attacking enemies from a location where they can't attack you)? Attacking a flat-footed foe? Sneaking past guards? Stealing good from someone who has obtained them through legitimate (see #3) legal means? Through illegitimate means?

On this point, I try not to put the paladin into too much of a straight jacket. I've seen some very restrictive definitions of honor applied in games, and frankly it just makes the paladins look like they have no brains, and it makes them an absolute bore to play: with a restrictive definition of honor, instead of role-playing, your code of conduct essentially role plays for you. You're told to infiltrate a hideout? Better let the guards know you'll be entering, offer them the chance to surrender, and challenge them to a fight if they refuse, knocking them out nonlethally and bringing no further harm to them if they do not surrender. I personally prefer a much looser definition of honor. Of the things I listed in the previous paragraph, I would only necessarily consider stealing legitimately-gained goods to be dishonorable (again, see #3 for clarification on "legitimate"). I think this loose definition is the best way to do it for PFS, because it prevents the specifics of the code from changing from GM to GM while also making paladin an actually viable class that doesn't screw over the rest of the party (unless the player wants to play him with a restrictive code of honor).

3. The paladin must respect legitimate authorities. What does that mean? If a governor was elected, does that make his authority legitimate, even if he is abusing his power? What about if a paladin has reason to suspect that he's collaborating with an evil force, but doesn't know for sure? Is the paladin required to stupidly question him about it upfront, or can he subvert the governor's authority while he investigates? What if the paladin simply has deep philosophical disagreements with how a certain political system works (let's say, a monarchy that passes on kingship by blood), or with its practices (say, forcing farmers to provide food for an army for no compensation)? Can I consider it illegitimate?

I think the answer is that the paladin should be able to consider any authority to be either legitimate or illegitimate based on his own moral and philosophical code. What the paladin can't do is consider an authority to be illegitimate just because it's inconveniencing him. If according to his views the authority is a legitimate one, then he must respect it. If a player can give a convincing argument for considering an authority to be illegitimate, then he can go ahead and ignore that authority.

It's even possible to consider all authorities illegitimate. Lawful good does not necessarily mean you agree that some people have authority over other people. You can instead simply believe that there are certain moral imperatives that people ought to follow, and that's what the "lawful" is dedicated to, the adherence to the moral authority of a moral code. In any case, I once again think the loosest plausible interpretation should be PFS canon here, that way as long as a character can justify to his GM that he's being consistent with his character's values, he doesn't arbitrarily lose class features because he differs in philosophy with the GM.

So what do you guys think? Should paladins be as straightjacketed as most people seem to want them? Should the tightness of their straightjacket change with the GM's views? Or should we allow for reasonably justified actions as long as the player can explain why he thinks it's justified and doesn't violate his code?

The Pouncing Synthesist
On this one, I'll use the Elite array, not that it matters at all. I won't be using any elemental damage as some things resist it and some things [golems] even get healed/hasted by a particular brand of energy.

Material Used: Core, APG, UM

Half-Elf Synthesist 10 (while fused)

Attack Roll Calculation

Animal Attack Roll Calculation

Average Damage Calculation

Animal Damage Calculations

DPR per swing vs. AC24
Synthesist:
28.8225 x 3 / 19.18875 x 2 = 124.845

Or when buffed with haste (Has the spell, and also has boots for 10r/day):

30.42375 x 4 / 20.3175 x 2 = 162.33

------

Animal Companion:
9.1875 / 8.4525 x 4 = 42.9975

or when animal companion is hasted via the spell:

9.84375 x 2 / 9.05625 x 4 = 55.9125

Total, no haste: ~166
Total, synthesist hasted via boots: ~205
Total, both hasted via spell: ~218

The numbers are significantly lower in difficult terrain, but the Synthesist can fly for 10 minutes with a level 2 spell (Lesser Evolution Surge), which lets him get around difficult terrain.

Defenses are pretty good. AC is about 26, 24 when charging - which kind of sucks, but lots of HP due to 18 effective HD, and a great will save. Other saves are mediocre. And while most of these builds need at least one round to get into full-attack position, this one can full attack when he starts 160ft away from an enemy, as long as there's a charging line (with flight, there often is). The animal companion isn't very survivable, since I didn't buy it barding or give it proficiency.

Resubmitting my barbarian to be a more realistic character. I play a character very similar to this in PFS. In fact, for this submission, I will be using the a 20-point point buy, as that's what there is in PFS. Such a build is less useful in an elite array.

Material Used: Core, APG, AA, Gods and Magic, Cheliax

Human Barb 2/Two-Handed Fighter 8

Skills
Intimidate while raging +24

Attack Roll Calculation

Average Damage Calculation

Attacks with Damages

Sunder CMB's with damage

DPR per swing vs. AC24
38.40375 / 43.39125 = 81.795

Or when buffed with haste (Robe gives 1 round/day for when allies do not provide it):

38.40375 / 43.39125 / 43.39125 = 125.1863

Also, when only a single attack is available, that's 43.39125 DPR.

24AC is not the strong point of a build like this though. Vs. 29 AC, there's not too much falloff, especially with haste:

DPR per swing vs. AC30
With haste:
38.40375 / 43.39125 / 31.9725 = 113.7675 vs. 30AC

And that's not counting Cornugon Smash/Shatter Defenses, which in most cases will make the AC lower on that third swing.

Also note that one level after this, the DPR increases considerably as a third iterative is gained.

As far as defenses, this character has a decent amount of HP, a nice fort save, and a decent will save, and 20% miss chance. As I brought up in an earlier post, it's too costly to get barbarian AC up high enough to be worthwhile, which is why I'm going with miss chance instead on this build. In a campaign where one often encounters large groups of lower-CR enemies, they will be more of a nuisance to this character than most others, as they'll still hit ~80% of the time where they will be ineffectual against most others. Against CR equivalent or near-equivalent enemies though, esepcially with natural attacks, the 20% miss chance isn't too much worse than other non-AC tanks will do. This character is not for tanking and he prefers other melee characters engage closer (hence the reach weapon). Not caring about AC also lets him be a more appealing target for enlarge person, which puts reach at 15-20ft instead of 10ft, letting him stay further away from enemies.

bugleyman wrote:

this feat is just bad.

Bad like Michael Jackson's Bad?

An adventuring party (level 10) ventures into the sanctum of a powerful wizard (lvl 16, 14 wis). Collecting several of his (low level) minions to the main hall, the Wizard confronts the party, and just as he is about to rain down death and destruction on the party, the barbarian throws an insult his way. "I bet you're too chicken to come fight us like a man." Luckily, the barbarian rolled a 2 on the die, narrowly beating the DC to provoke the wizard by a mere 12 points. Rather than inflicting mass hold person on the party as he had originally planned, which would have allowed his minions to deliver coups de grace that might end some of the party's lives swiftly, he pulls out his quarterstaff and sets his sights on the hulking brute. "Nobody," he says, "nobody calls me chicken!" He makes a flying charge against the barbarian, and strikes a solid blow dealing 3 damage, which gets reduced to 1 thanks to the barbarian's thick skin. Snapping out of his madness, he realizes how poorly he has reacted. Within the next six seconds, the wizard who is now in direct melee combat with an adventuring party six levels lower than him learns several new definitions of the word "pain," regret overtaking him as swiftly as the hemorrhaging wounds.

The party then breaks out in a well-choreographed song and dance routine, with the barbarian repeatedly proclaiming his high level of badassery, and the minions of the former wizard join in as their first show of loyalty to their new masters.

I think it will be a viable tactic but it won't work every time since you won't be getting any bonuses to the trip attempt over what a normal unspecialized fighter would get with the exception of the lack of AoO. Additionally, I am not sure what the RAW is on it but I believe that RAI points to 1 target per casting as it is not pluralized.

You can certainly get bonuses. Especially by level 15.

+1 Precocious Spellcaster [trait, not a magic trait]
+1 Varisian Tattoo, evocation [feat, requires SF evoc]
+2 Spell Specialization [feat]
+1 Bloatmage Initiate
+1D4-1 Orange Prism Ioun Stone in a wayfinder
+4 Spell Perfection [doubles bonuses from Varisian Tattoo, Spell Spec, and Bloatmage Init]

MM Caster Level = Caster Level + 1D4+8

Also, improved trip and greater trip provide their bonuses, as a "+2 bonus on checks made to trip a foe" still applies to the trip check caused by toppling spell. Greater trip would also make the targets provoke AoOs as normal.

So at level 15, with 28 INT the Wizard is tripping at an average of +38.5, arguably against multiple opponents in the same round and from hundreds of feet away. A level 15 fighter specializing in tripping to the same extent is going to have a +39, assuming a +5 heirloom weapon with the trip quality, weapon focus and greater weapon focus, a dusty rose Ioun stone in a wayfinder, a cracked pale green ioun stone, and improved and greater trip.

Limited spells isn't a huge problem, as 1st level pearls of power are extremely cheap for a level 15, especially if he makes them himself.

I forgot to mention also that spell perfection also allows him to automatically apply any metamagic to it as well. If he takes both quicken and dazing spell, he could shoot off a quickened volley and a dazing volley in the same round, not only causing two trips against possibly each of five targets, but also making them save or be dazed for a round. If he takes greater spell focus as well (I hope I'm not giving him too many feats), his DC will be 24 even though it's a 1st level spell, since spell perfection doubles the effect of SF and GSF. And he's still only using his first-level slots.

In my home game, I would allow story-based acquisition (that is, not through a direct combat) - but not all the time and not with a perfect success rate.

I'd love to see the face on the insane GM who decides that players can find whatever corpses they want - when I make a skeleton using the corpse of an Advanced Giant Half-Celestial Half-Fiend Half-Dragon Half-Janni Two-Headed Ogrekin Wereboar at level 1.

4 hit points like any other level 1 corpse companion, but he's got STR 53, 10ft reach, he can fly, and he can attack with two bites as a standard action, each one doing 1D8+31 damage. 20AC, too, and you could even throw armor on him.