This problem gets easier if you're the DM. Encourage *everyone* to build around concept. That way, no one is looking around at all their friends being more effective in combat, because all their friends are just as unoptimized as they are themselves.
As a player, maybe talk your DM into fudging some mechanical advantages for you to help keep your off-the-wall build viable?
Edit: In the specific case of the improvised-weapon fighter, for example - maybe instead of enchanted weapons, you might come across a magical amulet or ring or set of gloves that would lend magical power to whatever random object you grabbed? Or better yet, get your wizard friend to enchant something just for you.
If you want to do this, I think the simplest way to implement it would be to shift the target by at most a single place on the chart to reflect particularly heinous evil vs. mostly passive evil.
The argument against doing things this way goes like this: "The spell doesn't detect a subject's past actions or current ethical code; it detects their connection to unholy forces. That's why evil clerics and undead are so much easier to detect - they're not necessarily any more cruel than the evil fighter overlord, or responsible for more murders than he; they have more readily noticeable evil auras due to their unholy natures."
For me, if you allow angels and demons into your campaign, a great deal of their storytelling power stems from the fact that (in your world) good and evil are real. They are not abstracts, they are not philosophies (or not merely philosophies) - they are actual cosmic forces with the power to heal and hurt.
That may not be true in our own world; I personally believe it isn't. But then again, there is no magic in our world, either.
Clearly, I wouldn't ignore good and evil for mortal characters in my game. My advice for you, if you go this route, is to leave out demons and angels also. They would introduce an internal inconsistency in your world by their simple existence.
Doesn't the attacker normally have to travel with the target on a bullrush? At most, the target falls a distance equal to the elemental's height (or the elemental's height + reach if you're generous) and lands prone in an adjacent square (random or chosen by the target).
There is still great overlap between Greed's opposing virtue (Generosity) and Envy's (Charity). Might I suggest replacing Generosity with Self-Sacrifice?
Self-Sacrifice: Willingness to give of oneself to satisfy the needs of others; a disregard for one's own well-being in the pursuit of righteous ends.
In this way, Greed's self-advancement is opposed by martyrdom in service toward the greater good. I perceive much less overlap with Charity that way.
To my surprise when I looked at it this very evening chatting with my DM, the size evolutions have nothing in them about reach. Per RAW, you still need to buy the reach evolutions.
Indeed its not a guarantee. For instnace there are some large animals without reach. It depends on the creature, and the attacks.
Does it not depend on whether the creature is Large(long) or Large(tall) anymore? I converted directly from 3.0, and recently at that, so I'm not up on some of the details.
Would you mind explaining explicitly what the difference you see is? I know there are differences beyond the one I've pointed out, but I'm unclear on which particular difference you think is relevant (and for that, you have my apologies).
Not at all.
[cogent explanation elided]
Hmm. I am also fatigued and possibly not thinking clearly, but how is this for a compromise?
(3a)"The Summoner may, of course, learn spells not on this spell list through original spell research, in a manner similar to that available to the Sorcerer (see Core Rulebook pg. whatever).
(3b) "Additionally, your GM may allow that certain arcane spells from compatible supplementary game products be added to the Summoner's list of spells knowable, just as with the wizard and sorcerer; X and Y spells of the Z and W subschools are particularly likely to be appropriate, but as always, your GM has the final say on imported material."
That's almost uncomfortably close to a pure rule-zero approach, but I don't think it is identical. Rule (3), in each part, explicitly mentions the addition of non-"Summoner lvl X" spells to the Summoner list (which is the advantage of (1) as I perceive it), while the whole of rule (3) avoids specifying a particular number of spells, or a level-framework for their addition, or any other such thing that would imply a restriction of the GM's ability to port spells in (which is the advantage of (2)).
What downsides do you see? (Or is this acceptable as it stands?)
1) At 3rd level, and every three levels thereafter, you may add one spell to your spells known that meets XYZ restrictions. Any added spell must meet with DM approval.
2) <this space intentionally left blank>
The difference is that (1) could drastically limit the Summoner's (knowable) spell list, depending on how it's interpreted.
And 2 can't? I'm sorry, I reject that "difference". There's a difference there, but that ain't it.
I agree that (2) CAN restrict the Summoner's spell list if the GM decides, "no, you can't have non-Core spells on your list." However, the GM can also decide that under (1): "Hey GM, can I learn Summon Pokemon? It fits XYZ restrictions!" "No, it's non-Core, I don't play that way."
Since that's a similarity, I ignored it. (Is there something you see here that I don't - another way that (2) restricts the Summoner's list?)
However, (1) differs from (2) in that it implies that a maximum of seven non-Core spells can ever make it on to any Summoner's list. I hope that makes my point more clear.
__
Would you mind explaining explicitly what the difference you see is? I know there are differences beyond the one I've pointed out, but I'm unclear on which particular difference you think is relevant (and for that, you have my apologies).
1) At 3rd level, and every three levels thereafter, you may add one spell to your spells known that meets XYZ restrictions. Any added spell must meet with DM approval.
2) <this space intentionally left blank>
The difference is that (1) could drastically limit the Summoner's (knowable) spell list, depending on how it's interpreted.
1) I just picked up a new Paizo sourcebook with oodles and oodles of spells. About sixteen of them would obviously be very appropriate to add to the Summoner spell list. Hey, DM - can I just add these to my list of learnable spells right now? Or can I only learn non-Core spells on levels divisible by three, like this rule sort of implies?
2) I just picked up a new Paizo sourcebook with oodles and oodles of spells. Hey, DM - I just advanced to 7th level, can I learn Summon Pokemon II?
Scenario (1) has confusion over the rule. Scenario (2) does not.
Note the size. I'm picturing this one as being all golden and shimmery, with pearls in his forehead a la the old-school limbless luck dragons. Maybe one pearl loses its luster every time he uses one of his special abilities . . .
Lucky snake, lvl 20:
Small Serpentine Eidolon
Init +8; Senses darkvision 60ft.; Perception +20
Defense
AC 37, touch 19, flat-footed 29; (+8 Dex, +18 natural, +1 size)
hp 110 (17d10+17)
Fort +6, Ref +18, Will +10
Defensive Abilities: Improved Evasion
SR 31
I left the feats unassigned (the Dodge tree looks promising, and Improved Initiative might be useful, but they're not crucial to the concept), and I didn't bother with the melee attack calculations (so crass!).
Not a combat monster by any stretch of the imagination, nor even a particularly exceptional scout, but the Lucky Snake still manages to be awfully nice to have around.
If you notice on your links there, it calls a warlock a "a man practicing the black art" not a male witch. Although 1 definition of a witch is a a female practicer of the black art
So while all warlock are users of the blackarts not all witches are as such. So a male witch is not a warlock.
Or, more precisely: not all male witches are warlocks, and not all warlocks are male witches. The overlap between the set of male witches and the set of warlocks consists only and entirely of those men who BOTH (1) practice dark arts, AND (2) are witches.
Which is another way of saying they're not the same thing, as you say.
I think the Edicts of each Order already restrict the Cavalier's behavior sufficiently. Adding alignment restrictions by Order would be redundant at best and stifling at worst.
Y'all have convinced me to allow lawful barbarians in my games. Congratulations. (As for the original topic: of course cavaliers could be of any alignment. Don Quixote!)
I would like to officially thank TheJew for bringing actual play-test data to the table:
Hey, thanks, TheJew! That's some really useful info.
Personally, I like the Challenge mechanic as it stands, but support a name-change to Harry (to forestall exactly the sort of befuddlement at my game table as we've seen in this thread).
I'll even accept the Demanding Challenge*, for the reasons given - the foe has to visually keep track of the Incredibly Dangerous Cavalier, so his attention is divided (read: AC is penalized) until the cavalier is in melee range - but I wouldn't cry if it were replaced with something that didn't reach out and apply to entities beyond the cavalier.
__
*Incidentally, this will need a name change, too. Distracting Harry? Unsettling Harry? Those sound more like mobsters than abilities. Help, anyone?
I don't think any special prophetic power needs to be added to the Oracle for any reason, least of all to justify the name. Aside from the clairsentient and communicative Revelations in each focus (e.g. Voice of the Dead, the five sight-based Revelations in the other foci), the cleric spell list is replete with divinations* should the player want to go that route.
BronzeSparrow wrote:
Though I can see that the combat capabilities of the class are not high, to me the class should be more of a spell caster, perhaps a cleric version of the wizard or sorcerer and to do that it would need far more spells and less armor.
BronzeSparrow, I'm not sure I understand your objection. How is the Oracle not a divine version of the sorcerer? And how could you justify giving the class more spells per day when it already has six per spell level per day at 20th level? (Or did you mean more spells known? My response is the same either way, I suppose, but I'm not sure which you meant.)
__
* I once ran an all-cleric adventure where the divinations were by far the most commonly cast spells on my players' lists. Consider how much more freely the Oracle could use his Augury than the Cleric, given that he never need worry about using up valuable spell slots preparing potentially unneeded divinations!
