Sean R's page

The 5th level Adopted Elf and Half-Elf both have speeds of 35 actually (assuming both took Nimble).

However I will concede that Half-Elf pulls ahead of an Elf trying to be exactly like a Half-Elf by 2 HP at 5th level, and remains 2 HP ahead of said Adopted Elf for the rest of their careers.

I don't think that justifies the four levels it took the half-elf to catch-up to the severely suboptimal adopted elf I've presented as our baseline for comparison. Nor does the comparison allow for the half-elf to choose either of the more flavorful options the heritage feat presents: For example, taking the language instead of speed is equivalent to losing a general feat (which could have been 4-20 HP if you'd taken Toughness) for half of a skill feat (Multilingual).

I had a realization.

If the argument FOR the half-elves is that they get a broader selection of feats later on, I'm going to turn it around.

Every other race (except half-orcs) get a broader selection of feats from the get-go. This sort of falls into the fighter-wizard dichotomy of gaining a benefit later at the expense of choice now, and, personally, I see that as bad design.

Players feeling like their characters are 'lesser' or 'less useful' or 'weakened' is something that bleeds into gameplay. Folks root for the underdog, but it should never come at the expense of an enjoyable experience for all.

Sean R wrote:

My first Pathfinder Society character was a half-orc inquisitor of Cayden Cailean. I used some of the unique racial traits and built a character that, though lacking a lot of power, still had some interesting elements and tactics in play. He was still a fun and engaging character in RP.

I understand that the lack of a class can change a character a bit. So I could be a cleric. That isn't a huge loss. I can still play him the way I wanted to.

So I can't be someone who goes around tripping foes left and right, to play up the 'bouncer' angle, but I can choose the Bartender background which I like, so I can still play the same concept.

Yet, when I look at the entry for Half-orc, my heart falters. Without anything aside from regional dialects to work from, ALL humans get are their Ancestry feats for customization. They're pretty powerful, including a free feat or broad skill bonuses to ALL untrained skills. That's very good, or I can trade any of those choices. To be a half-orc.

If I chose a dwarf or elf or gnome, the options are wide and allow a plethora of options. I get an inherent visual sense. I get inherent racial languages. I can get weapon training. I can get extra spells.

Or I can get none of those additional options and play a half-something. I MIGHT be able to eek by with just a racial vision (which is inherent to everyone else but halflings and humans). Maybe get a skill trained. I guess that's nice. Can I pick the skill from a list? Oh. no. I can't. It's the same. No weapon training options. None of that until level 5.

I'm heartbroken over this. Genuinely heartbroken. I stuck around with certain games all the way through the current edition. I have very little room in my heart for hatred in tabletop RPGs. But this, this I genuinely, absolutely hate. I hate it. I think it's a terrible choice. It's novel, sure, but it's short-sighted, under-powered and lacks the signature Paizo care that I expected.

2e is a chance to do better than the previous edition, not

...

Thank you! I'll try my best.. still not a fan of giving up character options to play a Half-orc, and he used a Heavy Flail as a weapon, which was something granted to him via racial weapon option. I know it's splitting hairs, but looking at the viability of old characters in the new system is important, to me, to seeing how robust the new system is. It's more robust.. EXCEPT where Half-races are concerned.

@Sean R: Wow. Thank you for the initial post you made. It was very eloquent and it certainly captures a portion of my own feelings as well.

Regarding your second post, I believe I am following along, but you hit the nail on the head with the concept of "the other." It is why I like playing the half-races as well. Not in order to play the trope of the "special snowflake" per se, but in order for me - as a player - to experience the catharsis that comes with being "the other" that has badass powers and agency and purpose in a high-powered world of swords and sorcery.

I remember at PaizoCon in Seattle some years back ('14? '15?) there was a workshop (panel?) with some of the Paizo brains (I cannot recall the specific people, unfortunately, so I will not attempt to name drop anyone) and it centered around their push for inclusivity within the gaming community, namely LGBT gamers and persons of color gamers. It was really cool, engaging and as someone who feels "other" it was liberating to hear their sincerity.

Now, I do not doubt their...

Why thank you. I don't like to politicize tabletop gaming, to be honest, but when you're a teen and struggling with finding role models in a world that is bereft of them (we're talking the 1990s), you tend to find characters with relate-able traits. For some, it's scoundrels and outcasts. For some it's courtly vampires or the struggles against beings from beyond the stars, or it could be cartoon characters, or any number of options.

I know of the panel you speak of, though I did not attend. I have found a very inclusive community where I live and it's fantastic that I am able to play characters from varied walks of life. But I also come from a time period where that wasn't possible. I know that there are still many places where that remains true. So, personally, I feel the need to protect these races. They're important to both the game, and to the people who play them.

So thank you again.

Haldo, Everyone!

I just downloaded the Playtest PDF and this is the first forum I sought out. I am deeply curious as to others' impressions because the treatment of Half-Elves and Half-Orcs caught me off guard. I feel they are getting the short end of the stick in this current iteration of the rules.

(To preface, these two have always been my favorite core races to play flavor-wise and mechanics-wise.)

** spoiler omitted **...

In regards to the last bit. Orcs and other Monstrous races are often supported and co-opted by LGBT communities due to how 'other' they tend to be. They're generally not belonging to either race exclusively, and thus end up something of their own. This is very much in line with the marginalized LGBT communities where culture tends to be invented, rather than just borrowed.

I remember one tumblr post where folks were discussing the Babadook being a representation of LGBT, and how creepy, unwanted monsters that are merely misunderstood are often 'coded' LGBT (for those who don't know that means they have traits in common with LGBT individuals without being explicitly so).

It's one of the reasons why I tend to play half-elves and half-orcs myself. To see them treated this way.. makes me feel unhappy.

My first Pathfinder Society character was a half-orc inquisitor of Cayden Cailean. I used some of the unique racial traits and built a character that, though lacking a lot of power, still had some interesting elements and tactics in play. He was still a fun and engaging character in RP.

I understand that the lack of a class can change a character a bit. So I could be a cleric. That isn't a huge loss. I can still play him the way I wanted to.

So I can't be someone who goes around tripping foes left and right, to play up the 'bouncer' angle, but I can choose the Bartender background which I like, so I can still play the same concept.

Yet, when I look at the entry for Half-orc, my heart falters. Without anything aside from regional dialects to work from, ALL humans get are their Ancestry feats for customization. They're pretty powerful, including a free feat or broad skill bonuses to ALL untrained skills. That's very good, or I can trade any of those choices. To be a half-orc.

If I chose a dwarf or elf or gnome, the options are wide and allow a plethora of options. I get an inherent visual sense. I get inherent racial languages. I can get weapon training. I can get extra spells.

Or I can get none of those additional options and play a half-something. I MIGHT be able to eek by with just a racial vision (which is inherent to everyone else but halflings and humans). Maybe get a skill trained. I guess that's nice. Can I pick the skill from a list? Oh. no. I can't. It's the same. No weapon training options. None of that until level 5.

I'm heartbroken over this. Genuinely heartbroken. I stuck around with certain games all the way through the current edition. I have very little room in my heart for hatred in tabletop RPGs. But this, this I genuinely, absolutely hate. I hate it. I think it's a terrible choice. It's novel, sure, but it's short-sighted, under-powered and lacks the signature Paizo care that I expected.

2e is a chance to do better than the previous edition, not take a step back and bottom-shelf two VERY popular race choices.

Sean R wrote:

I like the flexibility. Not a fan of the feat-tax. Again, feat-tax to become multiclass. There seems to be a lot of feat tax for wanting to play concepts that are hybrids of others, something you could do in 1e easily without costing you other class or concept abilities.

This has been my biggest concern when everything was "Feat"ed up, was that feat taxes would tacked on for any character that wants to push outside the mold a bit.

Granted these are great abilities, and come in addition to your core class, but I've seen this used in other popular games to their detriment. At least, in this case, it allows for a broader selection that may or may not work.

I think the word "feat tax" is something we've begun to use in such different and varied ways that it's in danger of losing its meaning. I know I'm guilty of using it broader than most (I consider a feat that increases your numbers in your main shtick to be a tax, compared to just giving you better numbers for free, though weirdly I discovered in the Starfinder early playtests that people like those kind of taxes as long as there are very few, rather than having none).

If you spend feats to get great abilities, is it a tax? In many cases, you're getting something beyond what you would receive for spending your feats in other ways (Fighter Dedication would take 5 feats to replicate for a wizard, and an average of around 3 feats for most other characters).

I do think I get what you're saying, which is wondering whether the currency of feats will work for this purpose. I'd contend that the currency of levels is usually more pricey a cost to pay to your overall character progression.

What makes this viable to me, in terms of whether the 'tax' is acceptable is that you don't lose anything from the core class. You're dipping into other classes to a degree, but it also locks those feats for at least 6 levels if you want to triple class. If I want to play a Cleric-Wizard-Fighter for.. whatever reason (my first character was such in another RPG and it's the lithmus test I use for stuff like this). How much synergy could I get? How viable is it? Would it be better if I chose another option instead (such as a paladin of a Magic-domain god)? How can I do this (oddly enough this character was a half-elf).

In other games and editions I could do it, but it may not be ideal. The character would end up weaker at higher levels. The concept is cool, but that's all the character ends up being as many feats are taken up. So the tax would be: would that be unique enough to work, and would the character be playable, as opposed to, say, taking another feat?

That would determine the value of the tax.

Edit: I'd like to add, that I DO sort of like this as a midway point between old and new. Which is odd, because I was vocal about the Half-X posts, and how much I disliked seeing them downgraded to a subrace.

I like the flexibility. Not a fan of the feat-tax. Again, feat-tax to become multiclass. There seems to be a lot of feat tax for wanting to play concepts that are hybrids of others, something you could do in 1e easily without costing you other class or concept abilities.

This has been my biggest concern when everything was "Feat"ed up, was that feat taxes would tacked on for any character that wants to push outside the mold a bit.

Granted these are great abilities, and come in addition to your core class, but I've seen this used in other popular games to their detriment. At least, in this case, it allows for a broader selection that may or may not work.

I guess this is okay. I have actually played a lot of half orcs and half elves myself and always kind of got the feeling that there was maybe not enough to differentiate those "races" culturally when you hold them up again elves and dwarves who have their own unique histories and what-have-you.

Without reading this whole thread: are there perhaps "half human" ancestry feats for half elves that were raised more in elf society? I don't mind "human exceptionalism" to some extent but I could see this kind of half-breed mechanic running as a sort of two-way street.

To me, the solution is not to down-grade them from the pure races, but to fully flesh them out as unique members of society with elements of their own culture. Yes, they don't 'fit in' perfectly. Yes, they may not claim any nations as their own, but they have their own identity due to this struggle. They stand between two worlds, but belong to neither. THIS is what makes them who they are.

I'd like to see that uniqueness properly reflected in the options provided. They have a niche. Give them it.

This makes me sad.

This makes me very, very sad. Instead of working to give both Half-elves and Half-orcs a good, keen natural foothold in the world, instead they've been given a feat tax in order to exist. It'd be different if the 'feat tax' opened up other ancestry feat options at level 1. Instead, it removes those options.

Why not make being a Dwarf an ancestry feat that humans can take, if we're gonna go that route? A human can take Dwarven ancestral feats so that they can kit their human to be as Dwarflike as the game wishes? Why do dwarves get a full work and write up?

If these two important races are getting the not-actually-a-race treatment, can we at least get two full racial write ups for those that do? Perhaps orcs as mentioned in other threads?

I'm genuinely upset from this. Downgrading my two favorite races has practically destroyed my excitement. No WONDER they waited this long to spring this.

You know, I would LOVE to see Rangers get some kind of Environmental ability. Something that makes them shine as true masters of not just the hunt, but also of the land. Rogues get a bit of this with how they play around with hiding and such.

One of the things that I loved to see but never saw hit play much were favored terrain. Could Pathfinder consider giving somethings similar to the Ranger, since they're losing spell casting. Something alongside the Archetypes which allow them to climb better, or have better footing.

Maybe they can get a few 'trick' attacks by using elements of the world around them. A branch swing in the forest or throwing sand in the eye of an opponent in the desert. Something that plays up on that Rangers are lords of the land in which they travel, both a part of it and Masters of it.

I just have a hard time seeing Rangers lose Spellcasting without gaining something in exchange. Realistically, I can't see snares entering play often enough, given how mobile adventuring parties are. They're either moving into trouble, or trouble surprises them. It's rare that there's a 'wait for trouble to come to them' moment.

So unless snares are something that can be used in-combat, they're like rituals: not a replacement for actual spellcasting ability in the fray.

Sean R wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Sean R wrote:

I won't be happy with this change unless there's a way to push outside of the class structure and allow a measure of flexibility. As a cleric (or Paladin), I should NEVER need to choose between Knowledge: Religion and Diplomacy, simply because I have an average INT score. That makes little sense to me, given how churches tend to operate.

As a cleric or paladin with low Int, you can still choose to start out trained in Thievery or even Arcana as a skill. Whichever skills you want, unrestrained by class skills.

Except that I then have to give up Knowledge: Religion and/or Diplomacy. No class who gets it's powers from the gods should be clueless as to how their religion works.

Likewise, no class about studying tomes to cast spells should be clueless as to how spells work (Knowledge: Arcana and Spellcraft).

You -can- do it in the current system, but it begs the question 'how?' How can this character exemplify these concepts without limiting them to JUST these concepts. If this is core to what the class is about, it should be granted, not limiting. It's part of who the class is.

I could see a Paladin without knowledge: religion, in the case of someone suddenly blessed by the gods who just so happen to exemplify their deities ideals, but someone whom needs to know how to worship? A cleric can't go without knowledge: religion without some extraordinary reach.

To me, I'm okay with a bit of tit-for-tat when it comes to skills, but my biggest pain is looking at the skill list and realizing that I cannot create the roleplaying character in my head, simply because of some rules arbitration. Flexibility is one of the core aspects of Pathfinder I like.

And this can be a deal breaker. I LOVED the background system in 5e. I LOVE the trait system in Pathfinder. Don't pull back and say 'no, none of that' for 2e.

I think your examples here are conflating running out of skill points with not having enough class skills,...

Sorry. It's a two prong issue: Not enough skill points for some classes, on top of some class skills feeling intrinsic to the character class. I also have an issue that class skills can be limiting, though I'm fine with some classes being -better- at some skills than others. I understand that distinction may be a personal opinion.

However, it feels that 5e tackled this aspect of the skill selections well, as did 4e, in that some classes get skills as part of that class package, and it made sense. It clicked. You got some skills from your background. You got some skills from your class and that became your skill selection, with some skills being automatic.

Sorry if I seem argumentative on this point. It's a problem I've felt since the skill proficiency system in another games 2nd edition and I've seen systems struggle with where to stand on that line between class skills and being all willy-nilly.

Sean R wrote:

I won't be happy with this change unless there's a way to push outside of the class structure and allow a measure of flexibility. As a cleric (or Paladin), I should NEVER need to choose between Knowledge: Religion and Diplomacy, simply because I have an average INT score. That makes little sense to me, given how churches tend to operate.

As a cleric or paladin with low Int, you can still choose to start out trained in Thievery or even Arcana as a skill. Whichever skills you want, unrestrained by class skills.

Except that I then have to give up Knowledge: Religion and/or Diplomacy. No class who gets it's powers from the gods should be clueless as to how their religion works.

Likewise, no class about studying tomes to cast spells should be clueless as to how spells work (Knowledge: Arcana and Spellcraft).

You -can- do it in the current system, but it begs the question 'how?' How can this character exemplify these concepts without limiting them to JUST these concepts. If this is core to what the class is about, it should be granted, not limiting. It's part of who the class is.

I could see a Paladin without knowledge: religion, in the case of someone suddenly blessed by the gods who just so happen to exemplify their deities ideals, but someone whom needs to know how to worship? A cleric can't go without knowledge: religion without some extraordinary reach.

To me, I'm okay with a bit of tit-for-tat when it comes to skills, but my biggest pain is looking at the skill list and realizing that I cannot create the roleplaying character in my head, simply because of some rules arbitration. Flexibility is one of the core aspects of Pathfinder I like.

And this can be a deal breaker. I LOVED the background system in 5e. I LOVE the trait system in Pathfinder. Don't pull back and say 'no, none of that' for 2e.

Honestly? Not a fan, not at all.

One of my BIGGEST gripes with DnD is how much is tapes skill availability down to class. By limiting it based off class, you're limiting class concepts, and forcing more 'cookie cutter' character types. For a game that claims 'no two characters are alike', this seems counter to that.

All clerics only have access to X skills is a limiter. It's one that was handled, in part, by traits and archetypes in Pathfinder, and it kept characters in the same ballpark as their core counterparts, but gave a bit more flexibility. It sat in a middle ground.

I won't be happy with this change unless there's a way to push outside of the class structure and allow a measure of flexibility. As a cleric (or Paladin), I should NEVER need to choose between Knowledge: Religion and Diplomacy, simply because I have an average INT score. That makes little sense to me, given how churches tend to operate.

5e fixed this in part by making skills background based as well. It 'breaks the mold' of being forced into a skill structure that is severely limited off class. What I do for a job should not be who I am. This should be reflected in the game's modern design, otherwise, it misses the point.

Does this replace all your Favored Terrain choices, or just the first one? It feels very limiting to only have underwater terrain available ever for the character, especially since you're giving up track too for the additional spells.

Just wanting to know before I commit to this character concept.

Does anyone here know if the Aquatic Terrain class feature replace ALL of your Favored Terrain options, or just the first one? This is important to deciding if I go with this or a standard ranger, and just depend on swim and feats/magic for swimming.

You could pull this off with a plain ol' ranger with the right feat selection and gear, but the Abendego diver archetype seems like it'd be a handy thing to go with.

I was looking at this, but losing Track and most of Favored Terrain is a big blow to the Ranger.

What kinds of feats? I was thinking of doing Two weapon. A spear and a sword or something of that nature. I'm.. not very good at underwater combat, but I want this character to feel flavorful and interesting, not just in who he is, but what he does.

So, upon hearing about this AP, I was immediately given a fantastic character idea: A sort of big-game hunter, but one who seeks out Aberrations and their kin, facing off against the monsters of the deep, like those in tales of old.

An aquatic style ranger immediately comes to mind. As much as I enjoy the idea of the Shapeshifter Ranger (swim speed, yay!), I dislike being forced to choose the Natural Weapon combat style. I see him as using either spears/trident or two weapons (kinda wish harpoon guns were a thing).

Given the survivalistic nature of the AP, I was wondering if anyone has any build advice for this big, old hunter of the deeps to make it both fun and interesting, without hindering him later on?

I'd actually like to see an official ruling. Casting time is vital here. The question arises: is it the outcome of the spell with the casting itself being the action (thus not allowing it), or is the casting inclusive of the effect.

Given that even standard action casting times can be interrupted with attacks and caster checks, I'm likely to vote no on the multiple attacks with spells as a full round action, because then you get no action to cast the spells, but if casting the spell, itself, is considered the attack (not just the attack roll effect of the spell), then it may be possible to rules-lawyer into it.

SFS is Rules-as-Written. So, hopefully we can get an official response on this soon.

As the topic says, the rulebook seems to be written in odd text. Does anyone within the explosion radius take the damage? Are they permitted a save, or is the save merely for any additional special effect of the grenade?

Well, at 5th level when' you get hybrid form, your armor stays on, so the natural armor is a bonus at that point.

Also, you'll have access to scent when in bear or hybrid form, so make use of pheromone arrows. Anything shot by one will give you +2 to hit and damage. Give some to an archer, or take rough and ready trait with profession: fletcher to use them as improvised weapons without penalty.

That's very interdependent on having an archer in the party for PFS.

As for the 5th level, the claw damage doesn't increase.

It's sort of like this: Human with hide armor.

Mooncursed. +2 STR, +2 Nat AC, lose armor bonus. So, AC 14. Claws: 1d4+1/1d4+1, Bite: 1d4+1, Spd: 50, Scent. Cannot speak. Magical Weapons/Armor not viable until level 5. Can take another Rage Power aside from Lesser Beast Totem.

Standard Rage. +4 STR, +4 CON, +2 Will, -2 AC. AC 14. Greatsword: 2d6+3. Spd: 40. +2 HP/level. (W/Lesser Beast Totem) Claws: 1d6+2/1d6+2. Magical Weapons and Armor viable

Unchained Rage. +2 att/damage/skill checks, +2 HP/level, +2 Will, -2 AC. As above, but Greatsword is 2d6+2, plus no instadeath.

So, after looking over Horror Adventures and looking over a base Barbarian build, I've decided I want to do a tough Ulfen Barbarian whom has a sort of lycanthropic vibe, specifically in regards to bears. Given the Ulfen respect towards lycanthrope, I played around with a few ideas, but when the Mooncursed Archetype came out, I fell in love with the idea of thus spiritualist whom seeks to emulate the spirit of the bear. Big, strong, tough, but also protective and nurturing.

So, the build I have gives me high physical stats, focusing on STR and CON, with a low INT.

I've been looking over rage powers and I'm at a crossing point.

The Mooncaller Archetype.. just doesn't seem good enough. The other animals all get something great, but due to the way Beast Shape works, I'd be stuck at two d4 claw and a d4 bite until level 11, if I go with natural attacks. The lack of CON bonus hits hard, and the Nat AC doesn't really provide a bonus, just mitigates part of the loss of armor in beast shape.

Looking at Unchained Barbarians, I love the build, but I want to use a two-handed weapon when out of rage, and claws in rage.

So then it comes down to equipment and feats really, as the deciding factor, and how Rage powers can affect the character.

What can I do to get the big, tough Bar-bear-ian I really want?

So far, I ahve to say that I like the idea of focusing more on Hunter and dipping into Barbarian. He's going to use melee weapons, likely two-handed weapons that hit hard.

Mad Dog doesn't get Rage until level 4, however. Hmmm..

Ah, I was going to dip a little into Hunter and do a multiclass Hunter/Barbarian. In terms of level, starting level 1, most definitely for PFS play, and I haven't decided on race, though likely human.

In terms of stats definitely very high CON, secondary Score being Strength, as this would be a melee build. I'd like to focus on being:

Tough character, with Tactics using the Animal Companion, able to dish out damage in a pinch.

I understand that I'm being specific, and I understand that it may not be the most ideal build, but it's more of a concept that I'd like to see.

I could do away with the Barbarian and do a Hunter build, but what would I want to do for the tougher aspect of the character?

So, I have a cool character concept focused around an animalistic Barbarian who uses levels in Hunter to add tactics with an animal companion. I love this idea, but I have some questions.

Will an Animal Companion perform in battle without the need for Handle Animal skill checks? Tables I've played with haven't required these checks for when the animal companions get wounded, and usually don't bring up these rules.

I'd love to play this character concept, as he seems like he'd be a lot of fun. If it won't work out this way, is there any other 'tough combatant' option that would meld well with a melee build Hunter?

I realized why I had a high CHA. UMD. However, I have ranks in that to offset so that works out well.

I've decided to start off with Transmutation and Divination, then pick up Abjuration at level 2, and eventually Necromancy.

I think this fits the character concept as well as provides a combination of useful melee and ranged options.

I've switched my stats around DEX is 14, WIS is 12, CHA is 9. I won't have CLW on my character's spell list, but that's okay. I think I'm gonna have a lot of fun with this character. :D Thank you all for your assistance.

For the record, Gravity Bow and Lead Blades are 1 min/level, which is not a lot to balk at. that's 6 rounds of increased damage. Pretty good.

So I think I've narrowed it down to Transmutation at 1st level, definitely.

Abjuration is something I'd love to have, but I'm divided between Necromancy and Divination. I want to be more than a combat hound with this PC, but it's kind of wonky, so I was looking at Evocation. For spells, I know I'm gonna pick up Shield when I get Abjuration.

For Transmutation, though. Lead Blades? Gravity Bow?

Right now, I'm a human with the following skill set-up

STR 16
DEX 12
CON 12
INT 16
WIS 9
CHA 14

I know it's not ideal, but I wanted someone who would be at least likable. Maybe switch DEX and CHA? Lower CON and remove the WIS penalty?

If I go more dex, I can become less focused and instead choose Evocation for the ray effect. But then what about the implements above? It's always hard when a concept clashes with the class build.

Hi there all!

This is my first post on the Paizo forums. I have a game this coming Sunday and I need some advice on building an Occultist for PFS. The character is a story-telling historian, so I've given him the Talented and Artifact Hunter Traits.

But I'm having a hard time choosing my Implement Schools. Part of me wants to go Abjuration/Transmutation and make him a strong melee-focused build, picking up Divination at level 2, and later one of the other schools. However, this is not necessarily part of the character 'concept'. A warrior-sage sounds nifty, however, and I'm sure I can pull it off.

I sort of want to go Evocation and/or Necromancy for party usefulness. I can validate the flavor of Necromancy with a healthy obsession with the past, but what other schools to go with? Divination? Evocation? This would change the class to more a dex build.

Alternatively, I could make him bard-esque with Enchantment/Illusion and Divination, giving him more a social/skill focus, at the cost of a bit of survivibility. it would fit the story-telling element of the character, to a degree, but I feel the singular focus could make the character uninteresting.

So I ask the folks here, what builds and set-ups have worked for you all. Occultists are a bit wonky. I'd love to see what ideas you all have and see what can be fun at the table, as well as viable.