Ah man, I love JamesTheBard's sheet too.
His site went away, and the new one is misprogrammed so its download links don't work. Here's the right one:
You may also want to take a look at Abellius's version.
TL;DR SIMPLIFIED VERSION
Simple example question:
It seems that RAW says yes to my question, and after considering it I honestly can't tell if RAI is yes or no. It depends on if you think the following is a good idea, or abusive:
Why would anyone care?
Going to play in a game tomorrow. I'm going to try a unicorn fighter-mage. So I have a question:
Advanced Horn Magic -- is it intended to allow Unicorn warriors to fight entirely using telekinesis?
As currently written, it both says 'Benefit: While using Mage Hand, you may make any action that would normally require up to two hands. You may even wield weapons or shields, but normal attack limits apply.', but doesn't explicitly supercede 'Concentration for Mage Hand becomes easier, taking only a move action.' from Practiced Horn Magic.
This could mean that unicorns using Advanced Horn Magic have to spend a move action every round to maintain it. While this might have some situational uses, and serve as a more limited Hand of the Apprentice, that seems kind of weak for a two-feat investment. (Additional complication: You still have to spend a /standard action/ to cast mage hand and draw your weapons at the start of a fight. I think swift or free-action casting of a cantrip might make sense given the feat investment)
I read the intent here as being to allow such character concepts, especially since with its bonus feat a unicorn pony can take both feats at first level. If that is the case, the wording here probably could use some errata. (It gets further complicated when we consider unicorn warrior-mages who might want to cast other spells while using telekinesis. Is this allowed?)
On the other hand, if the intent here is to give unicorns a 'hand of the apprentice'-like option to attack (but not full-attack) or grab a shield to defend themselves at the cost of their movement, this should probably also be explicit.
The Advanced Races Guide says that planetouched become adults in their 60s, and live 250-850 years.
So which is correct? I'm playing an Aasimar in Pathfinder Society, and I want to make sure my background is legit.
If that doesn't answer your question, then please re-phrase it briefer and clearer.
That's my reading too.The issue is most people I talk to seem to feel that this is an error, and that Rules As Intended is that #2 should be treated like #3, and you need to take Broad Study with a class to remedy this.
At first I, too, intuitively felt this was how the magus worked, but the more I look at the wording, the more our interpretation seems obvious.
I guess I'm hoping that maybe a designer will happen by and clarify things, because nothing else will resolve an RAI argument (and if the more restrictive interpretation _is_ correct, I don't want to be doing something munchkiny by trying to follow RAW)
Perhaps I should post this here?
Page 10, Spell Combat wrote:
...As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty)...
Page 10, Spellstrike wrote:
Spellstrike (Su): At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack...
As written, this would allow a magus to spell combat/spellstrike spells from wizard (or other class) slots, as long as they are spells on the magus spell list. Curiously, Broad Study uses the same wording:
Page 11, Broad Study wrote:
The magus can use his spellstrike and spell combat abilities while casting or using spells from the spell list of that class.
This is certainly self-consistent and has a clear meaning: A magus/wizard can spell combat with shocking grasp from a wizard slot, but not, for instance, burning arc. But he can if he takes broad study -- potentially useful for, say, a Magus/Wizard/Eldritch Knight that would rather have the wider wizard spell list than magus class features or something (although they'll need to take three levels in Magus and won't see EK until 9th level if they want to cast wizard-only spells while stabbing things.) Likewise, a magus/cleric could spell combat with Obscuring Mist or Infernal Healing from his cleric slots, but not with Cure Light Wounds unless he takes the arcana.
Common interpretation seems to be that all three of these wordings are meant to read '_____ spells' or 'spells recieved from the _____ class' instead of 'spells from the _____ spell list', as in
Page 9, Weapon and Armor Proficiency wrote:
...He can cast magus spells while wearing light armor without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance...A multiclass magus still incurs the normal arcane spell failure chance for arcane spells received from other classes.
Which would make it so that the magus only casts spells from magus spell slots with spell combat, and Broad Study lets him use other classes' slots. (If the wording is changed in Spell Combat/Spellstrike and not in Broad Study, Broad Study becomes useless)
Was the wrong wording used in these three places, or am I misunderstanding the meaning of 'spells from the _____ spell list', or is my reading correct?
Was there an official answer somewhere? My post a couple up wasn't definitive, and I still think the way it reads is probably not the way it was intended.
Yeah I totally misread your post, whoops.
Then there's the exception for when the class ability specifically says it only applies to spells from that class. If "from the magus spell list" is supposed to be specifically saying it only works for magus spells, then it becomes circular.
Everywhere else it's used, "classname spells" means "spells cast from a classname slot" (an important distinction, because other abilities you have might give you access to spells from other spell lists or something). Otherwise a wizard could dip a class that can cast in armor and then get to cast any spells on both lists without ASF, even from wizard slots, which seems weird but I suppose could be RAI.
"spells on the classname spell list" seems to mean exactly what it says -- there is no reason to use this language when "classname spells" is established and available language.
So I guess at the moment it's still up to a DM's interpretation. At least we seem to agree on the RAW though, for what that matters. I'm surprised this unusual use of language hasn't been errataed yet, though.
Grick I just wanted to thank you for _finally_ getting me an answer on this. I'm a little surprised it hasn't come up in a FAQ, but I guess that entry covers it.
Amusingly, I noticed the exact same thing with the duskblade back in 3.5 (channel spell was _not_ limited to duskblade spells) and the Sage later confirmed my interpretation.
Magus/Wizard/Eldritch Knight may be my new favorite PF character, though I'll have to see how well it works in play.
I always saw it this way:
There are probably some corner cases and the details of ethics and morality are quite complex of course, but this always seemed like a good rule of thumb to me and it clearly has space for 'neutral' people.
I noticed Witch Blade listed but with no entry on the wiki. Does that mean someone is working on it now but it just hasn't been finalized, or just that it's a good name for any Fighter/Witch MCA someone comes up with?
If it's in progress and needs testing, I might be able to give it a shot in a campaign starting soon.
I see this has come up before:
StabbittyDoom sees exactly what I see, but didn't get a clarification either :/
And even if you develop Cure Light Wounds as, say, a 3rd level wizard spell, you can still use cheap cleric-crafted wands of it, so that's another balance concern (Although I suppose any GM allowing this in the first place could say that to be cast by an arcane caster it has become a completely different spell with a different name, even if it does the same thing, to prevent this)
Broad Study, again, isn't conclusive proof because it uses the same weird wording, and still provides a benefit under this interpretation -- For example, I've seen talk of a magus mystic theurge build that could benefit from spell combating their cleric spells that do things like healing -- even my hypothetical magus/wizard/eldritch knight would benefit from being able to use spell combat with _all_ his spells instead of just some of them.
I still think it should be clarified, consistent language is important in RPGs, especially D&D. Now, it's not the least convenient interpretation which is a guideline I usually go by -- however, apparently you really can arcane mark spellstrike for a free extra attack, and I thought that was ridiculous, as is being able to abuse big crit ranges to get double damage with spells, but apparently _that_ was actually intended. That said, I certainly wouldn't expect this alternate interpretation to fly with all GMs.
Usually, spells cast from slots gained from a specific class are referred to by the language 'class spells', as in:
"A bard can cast bard spells while wearing light armor and using a shield without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance."
"[A magus] can cast magus spells while wearing light armor without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance."
And yet, in the wording of Spell Combat:
"...he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list..."
This is clearly different wording, which seems to potentially signify different intent: That a multiclass magus who can cast spells on the magus spell list through another class, might be able to do so with spell combat.
Yes, there is the broad study arcana. But once again, the strange wording appears: "The magus can use his spellstrike and spell combat abilities while casting or using spells from the spell list of that class." Even with this interpretation of Spell Combat, Broad Study provides an advantage -- there are spells not on the magus spell list that might be handy to use with that ability, after all.
This interpretation provides for another class of gish between the magus and the eldritch knight -- a magus 1/wizard 5/eldritch knight or similar build would have pros and cons compared to the other two. Yes it gets spell combat, but it never gets the improved version, or arcana to allow using it with wands or other spells. Arcane armor training beyond light is impractical to learn as it lacks medium and heavy armor proficiency, and it lags a feat and 1 BAB behind the eldritch knight who takes a fighter level instead.
So, interpreting the language of spell combat this way is at least sensible, and while I am suspicious enough of it to make a post here, I don't find it blatantly obvious. 3.5's duskblade was able to channel spells from other classes, after all. My question is, what are the rules as intended here? Has a designer ever clarified?
Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:
If a strong component of this product is the ability to create variant races from Golarion, then include a line somewhere that indicates that subtype requirements only apply to variant races in that campaign setting. After all, maybe in the DM's setting, elves aren't magical at all but are known for their speed. This will cut off rules arguments later, and also help assuage the little 'You're houseruling, you shouldn't be houseruling, what would the great god RAW think?!' voice another poster mentioned. We can still have things like Hardy require a +2 Con, as that's more generic.
(Although the specific case of hardy confuses me -- poison and magic resistance in combination is specifically a dwarven thing, but could also make sense for even a frail construct race, or a half-dwarf race that doesn't get the con bonus -- these bonuses should probably be purchased separately and not necessarily tied to con, although maybe they could have a discount if you already have a con bonus)
I could also see, maybe, offering a small discount on certain bundles of abilities (like Elven Immunities for Elves) if you still want to go the 'core races all the same RP cost' route or something similar, it might help numbers match up while also showing that that's because these are established golarion races.
Epic Meepo wrote:
We have a tool for GMs that's built as if it were a player resource.
We do want to keep in mind, in the final version, that it may be used by players, though even in that case the restriction mentioned probably shouldn't be kept except as a 'if you are making a custom Golarion creature guideline'. But I can totally see a GM saying 'This is set in Golarion but I'm allowing monsters or unique variants if you have the story to support it', or even 'This is a planar campaign, make up any bizarre prime material race you want'.
A thought on the 'only X type or subtype can take Y' issue:
I agree that it should be entirely optional, but it might serve well to keep it around as a guideline. While it has absolutely no bearing on campaigns with an entirely new set of races (or a very different interpretation of the old standbys), it might be useful if playing a game where the PCs are variants among the standard races -- ie, 'my elf has a special bloodline, so his abilities are slightly different, but still elven/fey' or 'my half-dwarf has a mix of human and dwarven abilities'
Also, seconded that, while we can assume the core races are close to balanced, making sure the components are as balanced as possible is more important here. While I have yet to closely compare them myself, it sounds like there is a problem from reading others' posts on the subject.
_Balanced_ rules for mixing powerful and less powerful races in a campaign are needed, even if they look like level adjustment.
We also need a way to play templated PCs, even if it's just level adjustment again. (Note:Although if you can come up with a more elegant system that doesn't hurt PCs and especially casters as much, that would be great)
Would it be okay to have ability ideas inspired by old 3.5 races to help people port them over in home campaigns? As long as you don't publish 'this set of abilities makes Shifter' or whatever...
Personally I'd love to see shapeshifter and draconic/outsider heritage abilities. Maybe even rules for having multiple forms you can switch between?
I would certainly be interested in a game, though I am not that familiar with Legacy of Fire... I'm pretty sure the Player's Guide _is_ free, I'm reading it now, I downloaded it long ago.
As for what to play, I am unsure... I tend towards arcane casters, especially those who can fight physically as well -- magus is my favorite class, I think, but I might try other things depending on the idea. For campaign hooks, I am most drawn to finding Heleen or joining the Pathfinders.
That said I am very into the combat side of the game as well as the roleplaying -- the tactical decisions appeal greatly to me, as well as the story decisions. I know this sort of playstyle doesn't appeal to some GMs.
What time are you planning to run this, online? What tools will you use? I recommend Maptool.
That was where I found JameTheBard's sheet (the modified Neceros sheet). I don't think any others listed there were autocalc and intended for printing?
So far I have found JamesTheBard's 1.0.8 sheet, and Zumii's 2.5.2 sheet, but I am wondering, are there any others? (I found reference to at least two others, hosted on mysteriously defunct sites, on these boards). Especially any that are actually maintained?
Note that I am specifically looking for autocalc sheets which are also printable (they don't have to be PDF). I usually have a laptop at the table but would prefer to have the option of playing without one, hence my desire for printable sheets rather than simply tracking the stats on my computer. Not that the above sheets are bad, but I would like to see if there are any other options that I might like better, especially any landscape format sheets there might be. Sheets with room for handwritten annotations are a plus.
I have to say: I LOVE this idea and the options it gives players.
I don't love trying to search through this thread for the most recent version of whichever archetype I want to help analyze or playtest, though. In its current state, unless I've missed something, that makes these rules functionally unusable.
How about putting them up on a website or wiki or something where we can easily find the latest version of the archetypes? That would be great!
This is a great idea, best of luck with getting polished, balanced rules that give players more freedom of choice.
Decided to look over this system tonight, unaware of this thread, here are my results.
Conclusion: Any torso piece that is normally considered an entire armor on its own should probably be considered a category heavier when worn with other armor (and stone coat should not be allowed to combine with any other armor). I am also unclear as to why lamellar cuirass and leather lamellar torso piece are two different pieces of armor, they sound the same. I don't even know what's up with the speed changes -- hide, scale, and chain armor for instance are now 30' even as a full suit. Perhaps this is intentional, to elevate those choices above the breastplate, but it seems this should be noted as official errata somewhere if actually intended.
This system definately had some potential -- finer control over the max dex and check penalty and speed of your armor might encourage wider variety than chainshirt/elvenchain/breastplate/fullplate, and of course it's perfect for a game where the party must scavenge or for combination with called shot/hit location rules (perfect for that gritty campaign where pieces of your armor break), but as written it is extremely breakable. I wonder how much of this book was actually playtested?
Note: Armored skirt +1 AC 0%ASF -0ACP, increase armor category by one
-0 ACP (Wearable with no proficiency)
10% ASF (Cast at no ASF w/feat)
A friend of mine looking to play a Magus in an upcoming game noticed that combining Spellstrike and Spell Combat gets you an extra weapon attack. I didn't notice the potential for this because I started playing a Magus during the beta test, when there was language specifically prohibiting this:
Worse, if you can spellstrike Arcane Mark, this gets you unlimited attempts at extra attacks from level 1! (And if you can't, all you need is the ranged-to-melee arcana and cantrips can give you unlimited attempts later).
The removal of the specific language from the beta seems deliberate, but is this really the intent? Am I missing wording somewhere that prohibits this?
Have you ever seen a shotgun being fired? They don't work that way!
I would like to see shotguns portrayed more realistically in _some_ game, maybe Pathfinder isn't the place for it, but what _is_ the appeal of shotguns firing in 90 degree cones? At least you didn't make it an easy reflex save to avoid the blast -- that would make them useless, rather than just weird. Anyway, just an issue that bugs me, in this game and others.
A few times in places discussing the Magus I have seen people claim that when casting a touch spell you can cast the spell, use your move action to move adjacent to a target, then make the touch attack, to avoid having to cast defensively.
I can't find where in the rules it says this.
The closest I can see is having your familiar deliver the spell (Since it has its own actions, it can move away from you and then make its own touch attack) or, as a magus, beginning spell combat while 10' away, casting the spell into your weapon with spellstrike, and then 5' stepping up to your target and making your weapon attacks. Of course you can also cast one round, hold the charge, and then move into position and attack on subsequent rounds, but this sounds more like a strategy to use when you desperately cannot afford to fail that concentration check rather than something to use regularly.
Is this people getting mixed up, a common houserule, or what?
It doesn't seem right for a Magus to be a source of loads of known spells.
I suggest stipulating that spells obtained temporarily through this feature
Edit: Alternately, if you like the idea that Magi can quickly know every spell on their list, either
Overall, it looks pretty awesome. I wish I were in a pathfinder game so I could play one!
I agree that Dispelling arcana sounds kind of expensive.
Also, I am slightly sad that the one hand free specification precludes a Magus from kicking butt with a staff (Unless it's a staff with spells in it), am I the only one in the world who wants to see a mage that can fight well with his staff as well as spells?
Player: "But what about snipers in Iraq? They shoot people in the head all the time."
The game totally supports this. Snipers have rogue levels (the skill required to accurately aim for a vital point), their targets are unaware of them and thus denied dex bonus to AC (and thus vulnerable to sneak attacks) and their sniper rifles are special equipment that increase the range allowed for ranged sneak attacks tremendously.
If the player wants to play a rogue crossbow sniper (IIRC there's a feat somewhere to double sneak attack distance to 60'?) he totally can -- but he has to invest his character in the idea. You can't just expect your average soldier to pull off shots like that, even if you get them a fancy sniper rifle.
Is it theoretically possible? Yes.
Is it practical? I don't know, but I seriously doubt there are enough DS/DSi owners who don't also have a smartphone or something to make the cost of developing and manufacturing a 'Pathfinder RPG: Character Info' cartridge worthwhile for whoever would undertake it.
That said, there are 'flash carts' that will run homebrew software on the DS. It may be possible that there is an amateur programmer somewhere who also plays Pathfinder and has a DS with flashcart and will think this a good enough idea to write it as a hobby -- I wouldn't count on it though. A goog search for "ds programming" or similar phrases will likely find sites where DS programmers congregate -- If you're going to go looking for one, good luck!
One thing I was delighted to see in the PRD/Bestiary is actual guidelines for custom monsters -- the lack of this in 3.5 always irked me, and the (relatively) simple process for creating basic monster statistics is one of the things I like about 4e.
(I'm referring to this: Monster Creation )
That said, this still involves a lot of checking tables and such. Has anyone made a digital tool where you can plunk in type, CR, and role, and get some baseline statistics to tweak? It seems like such an obvious thing to me, but the 'monster builder' tools I can find just add templates and levels to existing monsters which, while useful, isn't helpful if I'm making a unique monster.
As a DM, I don't use weight unless someone's doing something really egregious (Like carrying an object that's probably a heavy load all on its own). The problem is, tracking the weight of every single fiddly little item is too much work unless you're using excel spreadsheets to track inventory or something -- even then, you have to look up the weight of items when handing out treasure.
As a player, I try to make it a nonissue by purchasing a handy haversack at the first opportunity -- I seriously doubt my carried gear exceeds its capacity -- if it does, I'm probably rich enough to buy a second one. I will sometimes track weight when making a low-level, low-str character, but don't worry about it beyond making sure they can carry their starting gear. I've never had a GM who was a stickler for the weight rules -- again, it's only come up when a particularly heavy object is picked up (usually another character).
While I have yet to get a chance to play a Magus, I HAVE played something similar before, which might give some insight into how to 'fix' the Magus if it's as bad as posters seem to be indicating.
First off, I _love_ the idea of mixing magic and melee. Buffing and running into a fight is okay, I guess, channeling spells is great, being able to fight _and_ cast spells at the same time is _awesome_.
Back in the 3.5 days, I had an idea for a character and, at first, no idea how to implement them: Wizards are often carrying around quarterstaves, but they aren't good with them. I wanted to make a wizard who could kick butt with his quarterstaff while throwing spells in the middle of melee. (I am sad that the Magus can't do his thing with a staff)
For me, a lot of the fun of optimization is making what sounds like a really sub-par (in D&D's mechanics anyway) character idea and making it work. Eventually, I found what looked like a good combo:
I played this character through many dungeons, from 4th-9th level, before the campaign petered out. Once he got Battlecasting, the last piece of his combo, he was awesome. Not only could he attack and cast, he could benefit from it, making himself harder to hit -- and with his investment in staff fighting (TWF was a prereq), he wasn't too shabby at plain old physical combat when trying to conserve his spells (Which was good, because DMs in this campaign weren't shy about throwing a lot of encounters per day at us). He could even combat expertise at full and play tank!
Maybe such a character is overpowered, and I recognize that you can't make the Magus use the same mechanic as the Havoc Mage, but I hope there's an idea in this concept somewhere that's helpful to the Magus concept.
In my own PF game (Concluded early this spring), I allowed
However, we had converted from a 3.5 game (In which I allowed some PF Beta material after it came out).
If I were to run a game now... I would recommend PF material, but if someone has an idea that works better with 3.5 options, fine. DSP stuff is good, and anything else run by me. However, I am someone who is actually familiar with a lot of 3.5 stuff, and I have enough 3.5 min-max experience to know what to expect and throw harder stuff at my party, and I can trust my players not to try to use any charop theoretical-only stuff.
To a GM with less extensive knowledge of 3.5 stuff, I would recommend PF material (look if you're GMing you can take the time to at least glance over most of the player material in the core book and APG), along with Dreamscarred Press PF Beta material if someone wants psionics, and then have players run anything else by you, with the caveat that if you can't understand it or they can't convince you it's not broken it will be disallowed and even then it will only be allowed on a probationary basis. Of course, this should vary somewhat according to how well you can trust your players not to try to slip stuff past you.
Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, Magic of Incarnum, and the Warlock present special problems as they use unique systems to do things. If a player wants to use one of these, see if you can spare the time to read the relevant class entry, and the options (soulmelds, invocations, maneuvers, whatever) that the particular player wants and evaluate those. After all, you don't need to learn what every maneuver in the book does if they're only going to be using a few -- especially if you're starting at a fairly low level so they'll only start with a few and gain options at an easy-to-absorb pace as they level up. And especially if someone wants to use a feat to take like, one soulmeld or maneuver, there's really no reason to not look over the one thing.
If you're at all skeptical about something possibly getting out of control, read the relevant rules in as restrictive a manner as the writing allows and see if it would still be too powerful.
Of course, I'm a very open-minded GM and love the idea of a world where all of these things can coexist in the same setting. I don't like restrictive settings, but if you think that, say, psionics just doesn't fit into your world (sigh, but they're so neat!), then your players will just have to deal. That said, in that case listen to players who just like the mechanics of something and are willing to reflavor it to something that does fit into your world.
So that's my 2 cents.
I like psionics, but like 90% of DMs I talk to do not.
Top 3 reasons given for disallowing psionics:
They don't want to learn a whole new system, even if it's 90% similar to the magic system they already know ('If it's so similar, why not just use magic?' sigh.)
They let someone play a psion once and they were a total munchkin taking advantage of the DM not having mastered the psionics (or perhaps in general) rules -- therefore they want nothing more to do with psionics.
They don't like the fluff of mind-powers and can't see how it would fit into their setting. ('Look, I just like the point system and some of the powers, can I reflavor it as magic?' 'Just play a mage already!' sigh.)
Occasionally I hear 'I don't have the rulebooks' from someone who doesn't know about the SRD, but upon being told about said SRD they fall back to one of the excuses above.
Surprisingly only very rarely do I hear "Well I tried psionics back in 1st/2nd/3.0 and it was broken" or a misconception that psionics-magic transparency isn't the default assumption.
SeanKReynolds's theory is interesting.
The way I tried to handle it:
This would make 1st-level folks those who have just finished their apprenticeship (or wizard school or whatever), 2nd and 3rd level folks those who've gained some experience at their job, 4th level folks are those with significant talent and skill... on Earth they'd be among the best in their fields... and 5th and above they're legends to some degree,
This actually probably works well for converting fictional characters that weren't especially powerful (like in Lord of the Rings), but it broke down when I needed elite troops for the BBEG to throw at the heroes in my own campaign. I couldn't explain where so many near-PC-level folks came from (Like, level 10+) -- fortunately, my players didn't ask.
Okay, now I read over the thread.
Re: Malachi and alignment determining action:
On inadvertent acts:
On intent vs action:
How all this affects a detect alignment spell is up to the GM. I would have it depend on the character's current beliefs and motivations, however, this is not conducive to some plots like 'Character did great evil in the past, and must now do an equal amount of good before he dies to switch which afterlife he goes to and what he detects as'
Law vs Chaos is Complicated
That said, as a general guideline:
'Lawful' people, on the other hand, like rules (not necessarily _all_ rules) and believe law is important in some way. They may follow their own rules, or someone else's rules. They may take rule-following as a personal thing, or believe it is something others should do as well. (A lawful good person may believe that only through a set of laws can a good society be maintained -- After all, a good dictator may do a great job, but what happens when he gets sick or dies? Or when his nation becomes too big for him to manage? There may be some problems with the laws, but they will be carefully examined and changed if needed -- a few people's inconvenience is the price of a stable good-doing society -- On the other hand, they may view it as a personal thing -- others may be happy without a code to follow, but their own rules are comforting and provide them guidance in uncertain times)
On the troublesome corner-case of the character who has a very few rules but is otherwise 'chaotic' in behavior... It's harder to say. The more easily they're willing to break the rule in extenuating circumstances, the more certainly they are 'chaotic'. Beyond that, it's hard to say. If anyone else has insight on this, please share!
Whenever this question comes up, I usually find myself arguing with people who hate alignments either in and of themselves (Largely because of players getting confused and taking the wrong position on the Stupid axis (see http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid for instance), or who hate the idea of mechanics tied to alignments (No non-lawful monks? You're telling me noone can do martial arts unless they're lawful? Also the requirement for paladins does tend to result in some folks playing Lawful Stupid).
Primarily, I think Alignments relate to characters in two ways:
Note that in both respects, each alignment can represent more than one narrow viewpoint. For example:
Alignments in a nutshell:
Lawful people believe rules are very important, and act consistently according to their chosen rules.
I'm male, and I play characters of both genders, although after one attempt at playing a female character in a face-to-face game (It went okay, actually, though it was among friends, one of whom was a girl playing a guy) I decided that it's easier to roleplay a male face to face and so haven't tried that again (With the exception of pregens -- I've been playing the female pregen in Dark Sun Encounters, fortunately the DM stopped cracking jokes about it after a couple sessions). Online it can go either way. Hard to say why I choose... Partly because of anime inspiration, I think.
Saw an interesting variation of this once in a campaign where a straight female friend of mine played a lesbian (It was an Age of Exploration-era game, and the character, a young noble, had grown up identifying with the swashbuckling heroes who always save the girl in bards' tales... and certainly wasn't interested in the typical things expected of a female noble)
I think what stigma crossplaying has is because of the (sometimes true) stereotype of the guy who wants to see this fantasy sex object in the game and uses their character to create it.
I started reading this thread and thought it interesting to see someone with negative views on the APG, as everyone I know who's read it likes it.
And then it just became filled with posts by people yelling YOU'RE A TROLL AND AN IDIOT FOR NOT SHARING MY OPINION AND NOT HAVING A FAIR AND BALANCED STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS RAR and I really couldn't be bothered to read them all so if there were some other thoughtful replies that I missed sorry for not noting that.
Okay, he's being stream-of-consciousness-y and not concerned about polite fairhandedness. Well, he never claimed this was anything more than 'what runs through my head as I read the book'.
I have come away from this thread with these thoughts:
However, I focused on stuff that appealed to me and didn't really think about the rest. I can see where he's coming from on 'fiddly little bonuses'... I'm the kind of person who'll take every fiddly little bonus I can get, but some people want as little bookkeeping as possible, and maybe we could have done with trimmed down fluff and a general rule saying 'You can move little bonuses like this around'. A nicer format for choose-your-class-abilities-from-a-menu _would_ be nice, but didn't strike me as essential. I didn't really look at classes besides the Summoner and Alchemist so I can't speak to them... The complaint about cavalier being a more generic paladin I don't necessarily see as a problem... Maybe some of us want to play a paladin-like class devoted to something other than the paladin's code and lawful goodness? (Although, I would have solved this problem with variant paladins)
So, it's nice to get a fresh viewpoint. What I don't get is everyone yelling at him for not doing what he never promised to do in the first place. I hope you haven't gotten him to quit posting, I'm curious to see what he thinks of the rest of the book.
What's up with losing the spells that made the summoner good (not better than a Conjurer at, but at least able to keep up with a Wizard in what level they get a spell at) at what they would logically be good at, spell-wise?
As for eidolon healing... Well it makes some sense to treat it more as a companion than a summoned monster, and noone complains about having to heal animal companions, however, as others have pointed out, right now it makes sense to intentionally kill an almost-dead eidolon to get it back at half HP and that's not right. (It would help if the summoner had some way to heal his eidolon -- perhaps the ability to spontaneous cure (at competitive levels, IE cure critical wounds if you sacrifice a 3rd level spell -- or maybe at regular levels, but certainly not at worse levels like the Witch as he's already not a full caster) but only on his eidolon? Maybe he's just expected to UMD a wand of cure light wounds (or lesser vigor if you've got 3.5 material allowed))? Giving it natural healing, or perhaps even letting it heal 1/2 its HP with an eight hour rest?
Also, while it makes flavorful sense, the fact that a class can be crippled so horribly by even a 4th level spell (dismissal) seems bad from a balance perspective. (Sure, a wizard is rendered useless by an antimagic field, but that's a 8th level spell and it covers only a small piece of the battlefield! Also it affects whoever cast it as well). I'm not sure what a good alternative that respects the flavor is though... Perhaps it takes damage or suffers a status effect instead?
I love that the summoner's SLA was fixed, though I'm sad to see the 'spells of the summoner's specialty available at comparable character level to full casters' gone. I don't get why the SLA doesn't include gate at the same time the wizard does, either.
Was it stated anywhere that the spell list was changed because PCs could argue that they are buying scrolls from summoners and thus the economy was messed up? Or was it for another reason? I'm just curious what the reason behind this change was.
Summoner still looks very good, I hope I can play one in Pathfinder Society someday if we ever get it here.
Also he should be able to use spell trigger/completion items of all Summon Monster spells. (Actually as currently written, III, VI, and VIII are missing from his spell list, so he can't use items of those without UMD! Hmm.