Sheogorath says this thread makes his teeth itch...
Do not disallow them their plan. Let them kill him and, as has been pointed out, have him decline to acquiesce to their offer of revival. When the reincarnation fails and they try speak with dead have them run a (high) risk of speaking with the wrong personality that knows nothing of the information they need.
Never disallow players their ideas... just don't let them play out the way they think they will. ;)
That is an interesting stance, but I am not the one house ruling.
Sneak attack requires an attack. Making an attack requires an attack roll. A Fireball (or other aoe spell such as burning hands) does not constitute making an "attack" by the general rules as it requires no attack roll (note: I am not implying that hitting someone with a fireball isn't a hostile action, just that it does not fall under the "attack" category as defined in the book).
Such spells are called out via a specific rule in the Invisibility spell as counting as an attack based on the text, "For purposes of this sepll, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe wor whose area or effect includes a foe". This is expressly so that such spells break invisibility.
AOE spells such as fireball do NOT get sneak attack damage via general rules.
If it worked the way you imply then the Arcane Tricksters "Surprise Spell" ability would be useless, which it isn't. This ability specificaly allows what you are implying is general rule and does so via s specific rule. It is, to my knowledge, the ONLY way to apply sneak attack to an aoe type spell that requires no attack roll.
My son, Lord Ulgier aka "Uglier" had a blast at this event. I think it was actually his favorite at the con. It was a blast seeing him make the semi finals!
Just wanted to say thank you to everyone involved for making it a great game.
The class name is irrelevant.
My "Witch" in my RotRL game is a Priest of Nethys to anyone who asks. He no more considers himself a witch than he considers himself a duck. ;)
I also play a "Barbarian" who is a civilized aristocrat whose passion and profession is acting. He can have a bit of a temper at times, but don't most of the aristocracy?
I also have a "ninja" in society play who wouldn't know what a ninja was if you asked him. He is a monster hunter, he hunts monsters. He just happens to be good at hidding himsel and striking from unseen positions. Oh, and he can climb walls like a spider. ;)
Finally, the term "Witch" can either be gender specific or not depending on who you ask. And, as has been pointed out, the term "Warlock" does not neccesarily mean "male witch". It tends to have rather twisted conotations. An archaic meaning of the word was "oathbreaker".
So, take it for what you will and call your character what you will. You can have a female or a male witch or you can have a witch character that calls themselves sorcerer or grand high pubah of the magical dandelion. It does not really matter. People get too hung up on names of classes and try to limit said classes based on their perception of what that name entails.
I love how certain points keep getting glossed over with no answer...
Why do these "Good", and apparently literate, goblins not speak common... none of them... not a one. What language were they learning to read and write in I wonder?
Why did Shelalu not mention this tribe to the adventures? Especialy since she would have to know that they only speak goblin and can't communicate with others which is bound to lead to some misunderstandings and dead goblins.
Goblins are, per the bestiary, evil. Goblins are, per Golarian, evil. You can quote the write up about alignment being not absolute all you want, which is a general rule. But the specific bit (the bit that overrides the general) is that golbins and their kin are a special kind of evil (just read their entry).
Can you have outliers? Of course, there can always be exceptions even whole tribes of them. But unless you set up some precedent to the norm don't be surprised at the outcome.
Could the adventurers have noticed that these particular goblins weren't hostile and were no threat? Only if the DM adequetly set the scene and described as such. Which I am not saying was or was not the case.
Either way players paying any attention should have noticed that there was no attempt to fight back (which boggles my mind... even a tribe of "friendly" goblins would defend themselves... these were some seriously pacifist, turn the other cheek, goblins I guess). This should have led to a moment of, "What in the 9 hells are they doing..." opening up the opportunity for one of the literate but unable to speak a blasted word of common to scribble a note in the sand in, hopefuly a language one of the players knew, saying, "Please don't kill us, we be NICE!"
But I digress...
My arm chair interputation... both sides (DM and players) were at fault. There was a communication/attention to detail break down between the two sides of the GM Screen. GM's have to give information and Players have to ask for information. Otherwise you get what we had here... failure to communicate... which is how he wants it... and he gets it... (sorry, my Guns & Roses came out a bit there).
Yes, becuase I would really be sticking it to the GM when I used my +5 Holy, Keen, Speed spear as an improvised weapon and roll my attack of BAB - 4 + Str and deal 1d6 + Str forefieting my +5 enhancment, my holy, my keen, and my speed attack...
[sarcasam]Yikes, that is over powered I guess.[/sarcasam]
That is absolutely no reason why this cannot be done. Nothing in the rules prevents it. Nor is it even a good option... it's just an option.
Tabletop RPG's are not run by computers parsing binary 1's and 0's. They are adjuticated by (hopefuly) inteligent people. The "rules" are a framework (the book truly should have been called the "Core Guideline Book"), nothing more.
TGMaxMaxer wrote wrote:
The fact that you chose to use a Longspear, knowing in advance that it has the reach property, and that weapons with the reach property can't attack adjacent targets, should be all that has to be said when you try to pull this B*$#@$(*t.
Yes, because it is such a cheat to bash someone in the face with the haft of a spear... you know, the way it has been described/shown in every media outlet to show spear combat ever.
Again, tabletop RPG's are not ran by computers limited to programmed responses. There is nothing hard coded in the game that prevents this. The developers have said time and time again that the "rules" require common sense when reading. If you treat the books like a legal document the game breaks. They are not written to that standard, nor should they be.
What if you Sovereign Glue a spear tip to a Quarterstaff! No, that would be too short to be a long spear...
I know, Sovereign Glue a Short Spear to a Quarterstaff! Now it is a Reach/Close Bludgeoning/Piercing Double Weapon... pretty sure you would have to use the Improvised Weapon Rules to wield it though. ;)
Farael the Fallen wrote:
I voted for two, the eyes of the Dreamer when they are awake.
I only mentioned the multiple suns in reference to Tacticslion's comment:
Tacticslion wrote wrote:
Also, while going beyond the strict question, I'm voting for "eight" suns, though they orbit so tightly (if erratically) and are so individually small that they don't seem to be more than one full sized sun - the net result, however, would be the almost surreal effect of seeing the sun almost randomly expand and contract in strange ways through the atmosphere above. Please note that this is not physically possible. It's just an interesting method of adding the number eight again to the Celestial bodies.
Because I thought it was a cool idea.
If you want to bring "training" into the game my suggestion is to do it organicaly not mechanicaly.
What I mean is simply this. You say that you want to "bring story and fun" to your players. Then do that. Have a master swordsman meet your party aspiring swordsman and have him impart some knowledge to him... just so happens that this encounter takes place when the group levels and the fighter can now choose a feat that he "leanred" from the master swordsman mentor.
Have an NPC wizard take an interest in the young mage who he has been hearing so much about and teach him a sepll or two... or if the wizard happened to just level then you can thematicaly explain how the old wizard taught him a bit of meta magic.
Point is, make it organic and part of the overall narative. Not a mechanic that must be met in order to progress.
Just my two copper bits...
The Saltmarsh 6 wrote:
Let's see... fantasy settings with guns...
Shadowrun (your input)
I could truly keep going for quite a long time from memory and even longer if I started actually looking things up.
You can argue that, "Many of those are Sci-Fi and Sci-Fi isn't fantasy!". But, I don't think I listed anything that could be construed as purely Science Fiction (i.e. no supernatural/mystical elements involved in the story).
So, your assertion that "guns don't belong in fantasy" is rather silly. Guns absolutely belong in fantasy... if the author/story teller/dungeon master feels that they do. If the converse is true (the aurthor/story teller/dungeon master feels that they don't) then they don't.
But to say simply that they do not belong?
Most of the games I pay in and run are Gestalt. The reason is quite simple... most of the games I play are only three people, me and my two sons.
Using Gestalt characters allows us to play a game with small party dynamics and still have a good range of skills and abilities while being a bit more survivable.
Does it make powerful characters? Yes, but it still doesn't help you with action economy. We use Hero Points for that. ;)
So, to answer your question, "Why... are we doing this?" because it works for us and is a fun way for the three of us to play the game.
I will leave off by asking you this.
Why... does it bother you?
You bagged and tagged a white dragon whelp belonging to a Great White Wyrm.
You relieved said Wyrm of its entire horde...
Now after robbing it blind, AND kidnapping its kid... NOW you are worried about compassion?
You don't want to kill the "helpless" dragon that IS going to come hunting you when it awakes (remember that part where you robbed it, and kidnapped its offspring?).
And you want to sell said offspring into slavery (if you remember to let it have some air while it's in the bag of holding), or if it dies (see the part about air) sell it for parts.
And I love how killing the "helpless" dragon is uncool but selling it's offspring is a ok...
You could, at this point...
Put everthing back and walk away and hope it never wakes up or if it does that it doesn't get your scent... (if it wakes up and comes looking for you... not a pleasant throught for a group of level 8 characters)
Run away with your plunder and HOPE it never wakes up (see above)
Put everything back and try to heal it and HOPE that it doesn't eat you for the trouble
Attempt to Coup de Grace it
Edit: Oh, and as someone mentioned above... I would be more worried at the momemnt about who or WHAT put the Great Wyrm down in the first place...
Yes, but it is kind of silly that all animal companion wolves end up as Dire Wolves while bears are relegated to being small black bears.
What if I'm from the Land of the Linorm Kings playing a bear shaman...
Passerby: "Is that an albino "black" bear?"
There is no reason to not allow for larger sized bears.
DM Beckett wrote:
That isn't what Chaotic means at all...
But they are disorderly. It's in their description as demons.
There are instances in the book where rather powerful demons were given orders by "fearsome and powerful" commanders to guard certain objects places... and nearly to the demon they abandoned their posts on a whim to go eat people, run back to the Abyss, or join in other battles going on else were leaving their duties to underlings. Often these derelictions were passed through many levels of demonic power before falling to the poor schlob who got left holding the bag for the PC's to rip apart.
Bottom line, demons are disorderly and chaotic. It's in their very nature. Can they be whipped into shape to form armies under powerful leaders? Absolutely. But imagine, if you will, herding cats... yep, demon army.
Even with a clear purpose chaos will be the rule, not the exception. And we aren't talking wearing two differing colour socks chaos. We are talking CHAOS.
Is there a long play game by the Demons? Of course.
Are the general population aware of this? Nope (says so in the AP).
Do the rank and file demonic chattle give a damn about the aforementioned plan? I'll give you one guess...
DM Beckett wrote:
Except that the AP specificaly states (the belief) that this is not the case.
Irabeth thanks Iomadae daily fo rthe inherent disorganizatin of the enemy, noting that had the demons made as focused an attack on Nerosyan as they did on Kenabres, things would have been dire indeed. (She, along with MANY OTHER CRUSADERS, doesn't realize that the demons are deliberately drawing out the war so as to give the crusaders a more protracted time in which to lose hope and fall into despair and sin.)
The World Wound Incursion repeats this theme throught the book. The Crusaders don't realize how elaborate the enemies plans are.
This is ridiculous.
Bad guys kill people... especialy Chaotic Evil bad guys (which the oringal poster said this was). Kicking an unconcious foe off a cliff? Sounds like good buinsess for the bad guy. If it had been the other way around and the PC had tossed the bad guy off of the cliff it would have been "Awesome! To Waffles!". But since it was the bad guy tossing the hero off the cliff it's unfair and a "dick move"? Come on.
"Most players can tolerate a PC deat if they at least had the opportunity to go down fighting."
He had a will save (Deep Slumber) and a CMB/CMD check... not to mention he was down to 30 health before the plummet to death indicating he had taken some hits before falling to the spell.
How much more "opportunity" does a PC need before it's kosher to let them be killed? I believe, from the description given, that he absolutely got to "go down fighting".
Not to mention the player who died had, according to the OP, absolutely NO problem with his character meeting his fate and feel sit was handled fairly... and longs to be resurected for a little pay back.
If adventures don't want the bad guys to kill them then they should stay at home... and get eaten by wandering Ogres and dragons like normal people.
DM Beckett wrote:
Something to keep in mind about Mendev is that the Worldwound (not to mention the demons and Abyssal energies that come from it) are playing the long game of temptation and corruption. Everyone in the area knows this. They know just how diabolical and twisting the Worldwound is, and just because Mr. Paladin the Cursed-One isn't evil now, one day they are going to give in to their dark sides. And they are right to know that that is what's going to happen (even if Mr PC with their authentic floating PC tag above their head actually isn't), because that's what the Worldwound does. Mr PC might not want to. Might not believe it, even afterwards. Might not even see it. And probably will be very against it when it does happen, but that's not good enough to risk your nearest and dearest for.
Everyone in the area specificaly does NOT know that the demons are "playing the long game of temptation and corruption". The books are very specific that the general consensu is a simple belief the demons are disorganized and without clear leadership... you know, chaos and all.
I have a Tiefling Cleric of Iomadae in the game I am running. We are all enjoying the interactions this is causing as the game unfolds.
When they wake up underground at the start as soon as someone lit a sunrod I described to the group that as the light spreads meagerly through the cavern you see a demonic form in your midst... hilarity, and near murder, ensued. Horgus was actualy trying to pay the rest of the group to "Kill it before it eats me!"
Back on the surface the group came across an overturned wagon with dead bodies strown about. Beneath the wagon they heard weaping, it was a young girl trapped. The group all got together and lifted the wagon when the paladin yelled to the Tiefling cleric, "pull her out". As soon as he went to help her she began screaming "Demon!" and kicking and screaming for all she was worth. It took one heck of an assisted diplomacy to calm that situation.
I was going to say something regarding the original post but everything I typed came out full of vitriol... so instead I will just say, "What James Jacobs said." And leave it at that.
*walks away mumbling something about reading comprehension and failure to undertand the difference between selfish and selfless*
You shouldn't bother pointing out the "Again, these are guidelines..." bit. People will ignore it just like they ignore, "The Most Important Rule" listed in the 1st chapter of the Core Rule Book.
My largest complaint regarding Pathfinder remains that you all named the book the "Core Rule Book". I would have been much happier if it were called the "Core Guideline Book". ;)
Unfortunately, in my opinion, most people view their RPG's through Binary Goggles (1's and 0's for everybody!) and want a rule for everything, no adjudication required.
Stop awarding experience. It's a waste of time and only causes needless book keeping.*
That being said, you award experience when the encounter is overcome/defeated/cleverly avoided/etc.
Defeating the skeletons and moving on could award some experience.
Defeating the skeletons and then utterly destroying them could award full experience.
Defeating the skeletons and moving on to be later ambushed by same said skeletons and THEN figuring out, "Oh, we need to do X to lay them to rest!" and then performing said X could grant full experience.
Basicaly, you award what you feel they earned. Nothing more, nothing less.
"Camping" their corpses and "killing" them over and over again would simply waste resources and time and be boring as all hell. D&D/Pathfinder is not a computer game. They can only "camp" a "spawn" for experience if you give it to them.
And finaly, as I stated above, stop awaring experience. It's a waste of time and only causes needles book keeping.*
* This is, of course, only an opinion that you may heed or ignore as you see fit. Some people like giving experience. Some people think it is the Devil. Personaly, I just find it tedious and a waste.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Honestly I don't think the two character classes are compatible. Hellknights are all about Law above all else. Paladins are about Good above all else. When law and goodness happen to be opposed, such as in Robin Hood kind of situation, what is the Hellknight/Paladin to do?
Yes, but the fact is there are Paladins in the Hellknights.
Hellknights can be any Lawful alignment. Most are Lawful Neutral... many of the upper leadership is Lawful Evil... some are Lawful Good... and yes, some are Paladins. There is even, if I recall correctly, one order in Galarion Cannon that is ran by a female Paladin.
Hellknights do not venerate Hell (well, I am sure some do), they emulate it's structure and its order. To join the order you have to DEFEAT a devil... not make one your ally. The organization, overall, is Lawful Neutral.
James Jacobs on the subject:
James Jacobs wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
For me this exchange would go something like this...
Me: Hey Joe(DM), you know the spirtual weapon sepll?
Or he could say:
Why isn't it this simple for other people?
captain yesterday wrote:
i don't see whats so hard about doing the extra powers yourselves, Tangent101 figured out the pattern in the second post the rest is super easy, why should Paizo have to do it all? considering how much time, effort and thought most people put into CHANGING half a chapter how hard it it to come up with a few extra powers.
Absolutely agree... I've been playing/running games for 25 years and nearly everything I've done has been off the cuff, homebrewed, or heaviily modified. I spent a lot of time in the Forgotten Realms but the stories and adventures belonged to me and my players... rarely have I ran modules.
So, as Captain Yesterday said... just make the extra stuff yourself.
I have five players for my Wrath game... and four scales. When we sat down to play I still hadn't decided how I was going to handle the 5th scale. My Pladins playstyle decided it for me... a Scale with the ability to cast Shield Other.
I just go with whatever is printed in the book I have. I don't scrounge for FAQ's (though I do learn about a few of them in discussions that I vew here on the boards) nor do I rush off to print page after page of Errata and shove into my books or download new versions of the PDF's to make sure they are up to date.
Whats printed in them works just fine for me. I paid good money for them as they were published. I find it irksome to either print errata pages and then have to reference them or to buy a new edition of the book I already have.
For example, my paladins in my games still add double damage from smite to evil outsiders, undead, and dragons because that is how it is printed in my book. My son's copy, however, has the new line that says, "only on the first successful attack" or something like that.
I find it counter intuitive and annoying for changes like that because it breeds confusion. One person references a rule out of their book and someone else references the same (but different!) rule from their book. Now the group has to decide how to move forward. Do we use the original writing? The new? Why did they change it? Do we agree with the change?
If I am running I simply make a decision and we move on. If I am a player, however, I have to now rely on the person behind the screen to do the same... make a ruling and move one. Else it digresses into a debate. I hate digressing into debates while playing.
Hell, it's bad enough that I still remember rules from older editions and try to inject them into the game without realizing it. How many times are you playing and go, "Crap, that was 2nd/3rd/3.5 edition... it doesn't work that way in Pathfinder!" I do it often... but then I go, "Oh well." make a ruling and move on. Errata just breeds the same sort of confusion, "Oh, it doesn't work like that anymore. They changed it." I can't be bothered with such unfun notions.
So, unless Paizo starts sending me a new hard cover edition everytime they do an update (and no, I am not asking them to) then I will continue to use the copy I have with the fine words printed there in.
For others, I understand, this is not the case and they WILL research every bit of Errata and ensure that they are using the most up to date information to play. Absolutely nothing wrong with this. Just not my cup of tea.
I know this is off topic from your question about which is the most accurate and up to date RD, but I found this soapbox just laying here and thought it would be a nice place to stand. Next thing I knew I was rambling on and on and on and on.... ;)
It takes two hands to fire a bow.
It takes two hands to swing a polearm.
Letting go is a free action.
Gripping again after letting go is a free action.
Thus, does one threaten with unarmed strike while using one of the above weapons? Absolutely.
And if you want to argue that it would take to many miliseconds to let go of the bow string (that you've probably already let go of due to releasing an arrow) so I cant punch thats fine... I will simply throw a kick instead. Or does it take a foot on the bow somehow to fire it?
We have a habit of making combat to... ridgid. It is part of the turn based system that we use. Combat is fluid, always in motion and I describe it as such in my games.
I have seen polearm users wear spiked guantlets to punch when their adversary is in close. Nothing wrong with that. Nor is there anything wrong with allowing an AOO to said polearm user (free action to release). Not to mention, as I said above... I can always kick them in the nards. Expecialy if they are a Wolf Man (wonders how many will get that reference?).
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
And everybody needs to stop getting frustrated because their pet question hasn't been answered yet. It's just a game. Make a ruling and move on. And if you're playing PFS... make a ruling and move on. We'll get your question answered; until then, you're still the GM, and you have the authority to make a ruling.
This is, hands down, my favorite statement I have ever seen from a developer.
The general rule is that animals with intelligence higher than 2 are not animals. The specific rule regarding animal companions is that the general rule does not apply.
General Rule, Pg. 307 Bestiary
Specific Rule, Pg. 52 CRB
To those bashing the Gunslinger please bash them because you don't like them based on their mechanics or their smelly feet or something. Not because, "Guns didn't exist in that time period." What time period? Who's time period? Which plant/solar system/universe/dimmension/paralel universers time period?
That arguemnt simply isn't valid. If you don't like them thats fine, but don't dislike them because guns "didn't exist then" because there is no "then" when referencing Pathfinder. Especially if you are playing in Golarion... because then they DO exist "then". It's "canon", if you will.
If guns don't exist in "your" world then they don't exist, much like if Wizards don't exist in a given world then they don't exist but that isn't a reason to hate Wizards.
I'm just tired of the "guns didn't exist then" crap, its pedantic and annoying. I don't care when firearms were invented on Earth, it's irrelevant. All that matters is when (if ever) they were invented in the setting you happen to find yourself playing in.
The only class should be fighter. Everything should be an archtype of the fighter.
Barbarian - Angry Fighter
Of course all of the new classes are just Fighters as well, but you get the point.
Uncanny Dodge doens't need errata.
Uncanny Dodge states that a rogue can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so.
It goes on to specificaly say that they do not lose Dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible. The precedent is set forth in the ability quite plainly that the Rogues Uncanny Dodge protects them from the attacks of adversaries that they aren't aware of.
The Stealth clarification does not change this. If you manage to sneak up behind a rogue and try to sneak attack them it doesn't work because of Uncanny Dodge.
You CAN feint a rogue, but just because both feint and stealth require roles does not make them the same thing.
To clarify I am NOT saying stealth is invisibility, BUT they share qualities (i.e. you are unaware I am there as I go to stab you). Uncanny Dodge protects from both equally. It doens't discriminate.
It is not a "better trick" nor is it "completely within PF rules".
As wraithsrike pointed out earlier with the absurd "commoner railgun" nonsense, "That does not actually work if the GM hold you to a round being 6 seconds. Nobody is moving fast enough to involve 1000 people in 6 seconds. That is when the GM just says "no". :)"
Pathfinder is not a computer program. Pathfinder is adjudicated by, hopefully, thinking people who can look at an absurdity like this and simply say no.
I have said it before... Pathfinder is not broken, the people are. Difference.
It is like a small child getting a new toy and then proceeding to bang said toy with a brick. You tell the child that they are going to break the toy if they don't stop but they persist. Then they have the audacity to look surprised and throw a tantrum when their "new" toy is laying in pieces on the floor.
Stop hitting Pathfinder with a brick.
i.e. if you WANT to break the game you can. Or, you can choose to play the game...
*this has been a public service announcement... disregard it the same as you do all other such announcements... carry on.
From the PRD/Core Rules/Rules about animal companions in general
If the companion's Intelligence score is 2 or lower, it is limited to a small selection of feats. You should decide what feats the animal learns, though the GM should have a say about whether a desired feat is appropriate to the animal's type and training—fortunately, the feats on the list are appropriate for just about any animal. If the animal's Intelligence is 3 or higher (whether from using its ability score increase or a magic item), it can select any feat that it qualifies for. You should decide what feat it learns, subject to GM approval, although the creature's higher intelligence might mean it has its own ideas about what it wants to learn.
Animal companions CAN have Int scores higher than 3. There is no "Probably no with many GM's" involved, unless they are house ruling. Society wise it is perfectly legal. Basic rules wise, it is perfectly legal.
With the constant talk on the boards of "RAW" and "RAI" I have come to a conclusion... had an ephiphany if you will.
We need a new set of rules!
They should be entitled, "The Ginormous, All Inclusive, Answer for Every Situation, End All Be All, Penultamate Rules!". It will even give us a new acronym, the "RFE" (Rule for Everything)!
No more will we have to debate and argue til our fingers fall off on silly things like comprehending meaning!
Of course the first rule would have to be, "The rules put forth in this book cover every concievable situation, conflict, problem, conundrum and quandry that could arrise in a game. By no means should any interputation, altercation, modification, bending, breaking, twisting, discussing, pondering, theiroizing or otherwise adjusting of these, the ultimate rules ever written, be attempted. If at anytime you are in conflict with the afore mentioned statement please burn/delete/explode these rules and never attemtp to play again as you are wrong."
The best part! It will be written in Binary! 1's and 0's for everyone!
Of course said rules would have to be digital as I doubt anyone would have the storage space to house a rules set the size of... well something reall really really big. Wonder if we even have a hard drive big enough to hold the file... I mean it would be a RFE afterall!
Ah well... one can dream, right?
Seriously though I see the answer as thus.
Edit: I had attempted to post this thought process earlier but the fourm ate my post.
Conversation at the beginning of a new campaign...
Player 1: So, what are you playing?
Bottom line, class designations are mostly for the players... not the characters. I can be an Assassin as any class... all I have to do is accept money to kill people. I can be a "Rogue" by playing a Bard, Fighter, hell I can be a Roguish Wizard.
I currently play a "Priest of Nethys" who's character sheet happens to say Witch. I have played a Raging Barbarian Pit Fighter who's character sheet happened to say Monk. I have a Society character who is a leather duster wearing Ulstlavic monster hunters who's character sheet happens to say Ninja and he's never even heard of Tien Xia.
The classes do not have to be pigeon holed.
I will answer by paraphrasing one of my favorite philosophers, "Pathfinder is fine. The PLAYERS are broken. Difference! Difference!"
Honestly, the rules set isn't perfect. How could it be? But, in my experience, it only breaks down when the players cause it to. It's like a little kid playing with a toy and you tell them, "Careful sweety or you will break it." Then they hit it with a brick and have the audacity to cry when their shinny new toy is laying in pieces on the floor.
So, in conclustion, Pathfinder is fine... just stop hitting it with a brick.