Turgan's page

I wasn't attacking rusty Mae, but the night hag; it was Rusty Mae who downed me though. My Recall Knowledge about the night hag was successful. I knew about her weaknesses, but I don't recall them now.

I had a cold iron weapon at my disposal and used it. It is shifting +1 striking cold iron dagger, of which we got three from the elves in the jungle.

I assumed the other party members would take care of the badly injured Annis hag, while the monk and me took care of the night hag (which was my hunted prey).

If the GM ran the book as written, +23 to hit corresponds to Rusty Mae, who is not actually a rust hag but an ANNIS hag, which does also have rust powers. I can totally see why that got confusing.

The biggest red flag for me, Turgan, is your weapons have different to hit bonuses, which indicates you're enchanting the two separately instead of using the cheap doubling rings. Not only is that less cost effective, but it limits your ability to leverage other types of weapons and material.

Didn't know about the doubling rings yet. Thanks for the tip.

We will improve our tactics the next time.

Was there any debuffing of the enemy - Trips and Shoves, Demoralize, spells and the like? In PF2, using all three actions to attack on your turn is generally considered sub-optimal, and the game expects that negating your opponent's advantages is just as important as hitting them.

I am not sure, there was more buffing going on than debuffing, but I thought I already wrote that. The wizard's opening was a lot of damage, which took the rust hag to "badly hurt" and the night hag to "hurt". Maybe that's not optimal but it felt okay at that moment. Debuffs are not a catch-all-solution, at least in my play experience.

You wrote: "It is generally considered". I hope I was able to describe the scene somewhat, so this is a very concrete case. I think 2e edition is not about general but about individual solutions at least that's the way I always read it.

Hope this does not come off as rude, if it does, I apologize (As you will have noticed, I am not a native speaker/thinker).

Thanks everyone for your insight. I learned a lot, but don't get me wrong, I also already knew a lot at that point. I tend to inform myself and play Pathfinder since its inception and I also read a lot in the messageboards. Then again my 2e play experience is rather limited so I really appreciate the insight, especially in this case, where it also comes from experience and not that much from theory-crafting, which I feel was more prevalent in the 1e boards. I appreciate your help.

Turgan wrote:

But that is not really my point. My point is: even when I hit with three crits (I don't roll that good usually) and all my other attacks, the night hag wasn't going down. My problem isn't that I feel bad because my character went down (that happened often enough before), my problem is my damage output feels pitiful (especially compared to the hag).

SuperBidi already mentioned it, but you have to keep in mind that the martial classes are very closely balanced for damage output in PF2. Since the Flurry Ranger can do a lot of attacks, every individual attack is correspondingly weaker. A critical hit with a d6 Agile weapon is about as good as a regular hit with a d12 weapon outside of static bonuses. On the other hand, you have more opportunities to make the static damage count, so there is that.

It is generally not possible to one-shot enemies outside the lowest of levels. In return, most enemies will likewise not be able to drop a PC in just one round of attacks.

However, as far as tactics are concerned:
SOLDIER-1st already hinted at it, but if your enemies' actions are worth more then your own individually, it becomes more important to deny the opponent their actions, rather then bringing your own attacks home.

Think of it as trading a pawn for a rook in chess: If you can inflict 20 damage with a hit, and the enemy 30, if you forgo an attack to deny the enemy theirs, you are basically preventing 10 damage to the party. Tripping, grappling and even shoving enemies can force them to either suck up penalties or spend actions countering them.

Sure, if that only costs them their 3rd action, it will not make their first two attacks a round any less deadly, but many monsters have special abilities that require 2 or 3 actions to perform. And if that 3-action attack can, say, inflict 60 damage to the whole party, then your sacrifice of 20 damage just means the party is 40 damage ahead.

Do you have any martial controllers in the party? Can the Monk do trips, grabs and...

All good points. I guess this our weakness, we don't have an efficient martial debuffer.

Night hags have ac 28, 170 hp, +20 attack, and do 2d8+8 or 2d10+8 damage.

I'm assuming you were also level 9 (since you said that next level was 10), so you should have around ac 26, 120-140 hp, +18 attack, and do ~2d8+6. (I don't know your exact build, but those numbers should be close at least)

The hags average damage would be 16/18 per hit (32/36 on a crit), and you said that she took you down in two rounds. She would have had to land all 6 attacks (or just roll EXCEPTIONALLY high damage/get a few crits) in order to do that, which would also mean she wasn't moving anywhere or attacking anyone else.

It sounds to me like you just got really unlucky. A night hags melee is slightly better than yours, but that's offset by the cold-iron weakness (though admittedly that's useless if you don't have any cold-iron). If you were flanking and hasted and still got wrecked that badly, then luck is pretty much the only thing you can realistically put that down to.

On the other hand, you took up 6 entire actions of an on-level enemy, allowing the other 4 party members to use their ~12 actions in relative safety. That seems both acceptably tactical and heroic to me.

All that being said, I'm contractually obliged to point out that there's no reason to end a turn near an enemy when you're hasted. I know you felt like it was an acceptable risk, but it's just not unless you're an AC focused champion/monk or an hp focused barb.

Okay now I think something is off there and I have to ask my GM. We played on Foundry, and he rolled openly one time and we saw her stats. Her to hit was +23, her damage 2d10+12. I guess he had his reasons, but another thing I did not mention is that he played the monk, because the player was not there, and he did it well, but maybe in this regard not completely to his abilities (the player did not fill out the Foundry character sheet, the GM knew most of his numbers but not all).

Still you are probably right about the fourth action; instead of striking it makes more sense to get a good position. At least this is what I seemed to have learnt from this thread. To my defence: In Foundry/Forge you can see the state of health your opponent is in (at least when you allow that feature). The night hag was "Near death" after my Twin Takedown and the second attack. So I assumed it was super risky to go on hitting, but I thought if I can take her out, it is worth the risk (of course: wrong). But then I hit with the third attack, did average damage but did not bring her down. As I still had a fourth action in the second round (remember: already having scored three crits), I tried again. We had her flanked so her AC was at -2, and I had a to hit of +15 (my main weapon already has a +2 potency rune).And I hit her again (rolling a 17 if I remember correctly) again with average damage.

Your calculation about the ranger is almost accurate: It's +19/17/15 with first weapon and +18/16/14 with the other one, 125 Hit Points, AC 27, +29 with Dodge (rogue dedication feat). Damage in this case was 3d6+6 (flanked/rogue dedication with sneak attack). I don't know if there is a one handed weapon that can be thrown, which is agile (very important for a flurry ranger I believe) that has a d8 damage die.

Another thing: Our wizard even gave me Stone Skin after the night hag's first round which ultimately saved me from dying for real.

Turgan wrote:

But that is not really my point. My point is: even when I hit with three crits (I don't roll that good usually) and all my other attacks, the night hag wasn't going down. My problem isn't that I feel bad because my character went down (that happened often enough before), my problem is my damage output feels pitiful (especially compared to the hag).

I think one issue also comes from your choice of character. The Flurry Ranger makes a lot of attacks. Obviously, the more attacks you do and the less extreme your damage (rolling 2 criticals in a raw is far easier than rolling 4 of them). Your chances to make an astounding round or a useless one are lower compared to a character who makes less attacks.

On top of it, the Flurry Ranger has high accuracy. Obviously, high accuracy means lower damage.
These 2 things mean that even when you are lucky, you don't actually roll that much damage compared to, say, a Barbarian who combines few attacks and no accuracy bonus with a massive damage boost to compensate. Rolling a hit and a crit with a Barbarian is not that rare of an occurrence and the damage in that case it stellar. On the other hand, rolling no hit with a Barbarian is also extremely common (a good third of your rounds) and that can feel disheartening, too.

From my experience, people tend to overvalue spike damage. It's extremely pleasant to see a big damage being rolled and it overcompensates a mediocre average damage.
So maybe the issue comes also from your character that is not a very good fit for you.
It was my 2 cents.

I thought about this and you are right to some extent. I'd say, until now I hit more often than the other martials. But I think I don't overvalue spike damage. I accept that my damage is lower. Problem: My damage against the night hag with three crits and all other attacks hitting (super lucky) was still underwhelming when totalled. Compare it to a Barbarian - some of his attacks would not have hit, because his third attack is at minus 10, mine at -4. The overall damage would have been about the same. Maybe well that I am wrong in this calculation because his crits are so much better on average, I lack experience, we never had a barbarian in our group. But you gave me something to think about.

Recall knowledge would have paid off ( depends whether your DM gives you good hits or trash ones).

In my experiences, there are a couple of dangerous encounters in AoA, but rusty mae is not among those.

Ps: does your dm somehow describe the attacks you make? For example "the fire ray seems not to be that effective", "when you strike with your holy weapon the creature screams" Or *your dagger hardly scratches the monster skin".

In order to get how different weapon and attacks interact.

A) We recalled knowledge, as described above

My ranger recalled knowledge about the hag even beforehand, because we were able to spy on them. Some difficulty arose because of the positioning of our team and the small entrance to the room.

We did not fight the stone tree (started and soon felt it was pointless), the wizard was able to turn it off somehow (with Thievery and the use of a hero point).

The GM probably changed the encounter, it was a night hag and a rust hag and we had information about their weaknesses and their strengths. The wizard player and my ranger both successfully recalled knowledge about them (Monster Hunter did not help, but it will really come online by the next level (10).

But that is not really my point. My point is: even when I hit with three crits (I don't roll that good usually) and all my other attacks, the night hag wasn't going down. My problem isn't that I feel bad because my character went down (that happened often enough before), my problem is my damage output feels pitiful (especially compared to the hag).

The fight started with some good damage by the wizard, as far as I remember the rust hag crit-failed her save and was already badly injured, the night hag was only injured I think. As I could flank the night hag with the monk and was hasted and able to give my hunt prey to them via Warden's Boon I'd say it was not that bad staying in position, because she already was badly injured. Of course, it was risk, but then it should have paid off, because all attacks hit, damage rolls were a little bit above average.

About the GM: I think he is a good GM; he is neither fudging rolls nor is he someone who has fun punishing his players. In the second book my experiences were not that bad. SuperBidi is of course right, I should talk to him. After the session I already told him that I was not too happy about how it played out.

I just got noticed that the first APs are not too well balanced and I play Age of Ashes and would confirm this notion, relating to my experience as a player in it so far. So I'd advise against it as a starting point.

Okay, I am sure you heard it all before and I apologize in advance.
But today was another day of a more or less frustrating experience for my (I think quite optimized, free rogue archetype) ranger. Age of Ashes, fighting against a night hag and a rust hag. I rolled three 20s with my attacks (three critial hits), and 17, 18, 16 (MAP attacks, with -2/-4 all hits, but noc crits) or something like that. It's just not really possible to roll much better. I flanked with my monk buddy (he did not hit a lot). But we could not take her down before she took me down. I was even hasted by our wizard. I think we know Pf 2e quite well and a have a lot of experience and understanding of the mechanics. So this was the setup.
It all did not matter. The hag critted me at least with every second attack (she did not miss with a single strike) and her normal damage was around the double of mine.

Allright, this is probably the way it works in Pf 2e, but when you ambush a NPC party (I think around Cl+1) of two opponents with a PC party of five and set it up at least okay, probably not a 100 percent perfect, go down after two rounds (usually the very efficient cleric keeps me alive and working, but this time, there was (only) one round, where he wasn't able to heal me) it feels odd. To be honest, it feels rather frustrating. My AC does not matter (it is the highest possible for a strength focused ranger at this level).

So yes, this was frustrating. I guess it is just not for me then. But hear me out: I want to like it and I want to make it work for me. It just makes me sad, because there's a lot of very nice things in this system and I don't mind failing (well, I probably do). But this time it was not a BBEG encounter, I rolled perfectly, was buffed, had perfect position, used my class feats (e.g. third action to give monk or the gunslinger buddy my Flurry (= Warden's Boon).

Yes we could have improved the setup to a small extent, if we were system masters de luxe, I guess. But we also could have done a lot worse. In the end we survived, but my character never feels like a hero, even if he crits three times. Makes not much sense to me.

I will not say anything about statistics, because enough has been said about that. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to compare the extremes of PF 1 and 2, because that is not what the OP is about. He never said he wants the PF1-thing, where NPCs only hit with a 20, and PCs only not hit rolling a 1 (besides this is more of a "problem" with optimizers in the 10+ level range. In our Pf1 campaign Iron Gods we don't have these extremes). I think and may be wrong of course, he'd like to experience a slightly higher to-hit-chance for the PCs in general.

I play both games and I can relate to the feeling of the OP. I want to like Pf2, because when I read (and still learn) it, it makes much more sense, seems more solid than Pf2. On the other hand, actual play (AoA campaign) felt ok, when with four players and like a death spiral when with three players. Rolls feel so much more important than in Pf1. I think this is basically a good thing, but I also don't like it when I have average dice rolls and don't hit with my good attack(s) when we're fighting against some stupid birds that have higher ACs and to hit than we do.

I think it makes sense that if you fight the real baddies, everything can go wrong and it is really hard to succeed. But lying in the dirt with the dying condition in the first round of combat against some mooks is not what I find terribly entertaining, because I want to contribute.

I am still undecided on the system (loved it when I read it) in actual play, because I need more experience in the system to judge it. I really hope we will improve (as players but also as our player characters).

Box, page 293: the basic crafter's book only contains the level 0 formulas. The items you list are all level 1+ (p.454f.). The chirurgeon refers to the (blank) formula book (p.290).

I'd rule it that the "unconventional weapon" feat (human ancestry) would give you proficiency with any one uncommon weapon (depending on your proficiencies of course; e.g. you only gain access to an advanced uncommon weapon if your are proficient with all martial weapons)

Turgan wrote:

OP: I am stupid or blind: Can't find a poll in any of your links, it's like a vicious circle.

Follow the link in the initial post (its the one labeled JonBrazer.com I'd repost the link, but I'm on my phone now) and scroll down to a black box with skulls in the background. That's the poll.

There is no black box for me. Using Firefox 62.0.3, Add-Ons: UBlock Origin, HTTPS Everywhere.

More than three years later, but if someone still starts the adventure:
The Player's Guide recommends "construct, humanoid (android) and humanoid (human) as "solid favoured enemy choices".

I think that "humanoid (android)" is not a solid choice, because an android already counts as a construct "for the purposes of effects targeting creatures by type (such as a ranger’s favored enemy and bane weapons)". With the favoured enemy "construct" you would cover robots, androids and all other possible constructs which is clearly a better choice than "humanoid (android)".

@James:
They FELT that way - but they admitted (this is precisely what they did) that the wording was in error. Please don't try to run down the people who argued the other way.

PDT:
"A courageous weapon was meant to help only on saves against fear (either adding its enhancement bonus as a morale bonus on saves against fear, or adding half its enhancement bonus to your existing morale bonus on saves against fear, whichever is best for you). However, the wording is in error. The last sentence should say “on saves against fear” after “any morale bonus.” This change will be reflected in the next errata."

(part bolded by me)

You're going to play Rise if the Runelords with that character, no?

You did not ask, but actually I would not keen my weapon but always go for the enhancement bonus first. Boring, but effective.
Either way, your weapon costs exactly 11.080 GP (by the way adamantine is a very good investment imho).

At least take a cloak of resistance +2. Saves are important in all games, maybe not that much at your current Level in RotRL. But you get a lot for your money.

That is 3.000 GP spent, 7.000 left.

Next boring advice: belt of physical might (dex/con) +2 for Fort saves and hit points. (10k instead of 4.)

This leaves you with 1k + the rest of the weapon money for potions and other stuff. Hm, that seems a little bit low...

Buy some weapon cords (it seems they work with two-handed weapons. Now you are quite save from sunder/disarm).

Ok, those were obvious and boring choices.

As always, your cryptic and rude responses are very helpful. Thanks a lot!

I'd say the Dragon Style line gives enough benefits without the PA ratio going to +3 for each -1.

That would create a new precedent: one-handed attacks with the same benefits as two-handed attacks for a little investment almost every real unarmed melee martial could easily fulfill (and that have very nice "side" effects) And suddenly the unarmed combat style becomes the best melee style in the game.

For me, Ascaphalus has shown why that was not intended by the designers.

I tend to see the Warpriest more as a fighter than a cleric. With the human FCB he almost has the same amount of feats and can take fighter feats. He is down one attack in the Long run and his iteratives come online later, that's true - but he can cast spells and buff with Blessings and has better saves and can get a similar AC.

So he gives up some offensive potential for group buffing, healing and some versatility

I'd say a THF build is totally viable, esp. with the Quickdraw Shield and the Quick Draw Feat.

In my experience there are a lot of battles in tight spaces (typical APs), so when you specialize in a reach weapon you will have a hard time more often than not.

I like Undone's guide, but I would guess he and his players are better at optimizing or just value optimal choices higher than we do. A THF warpriest is a solid choice and will hold his own in most groups. YMMV.

Back to what I wanted to say: The warpriest is an alternative for the (melee) fighter slot in a group. It is by no means a replacement for the divine full caster slot in a group.

Maybe not in the same range as the feats already mentioned, but imho Defiant Luck is a strong feat for humans.

+1 to master marshmallow.
Smite is already good enough as it is.
1st Level: Power Attack, Quick Draw, buy a Quickdraw Shield - attack two handed with a one-handed weapon of your choice and put on the shield as a free action when you are done.

Ideas:

+ Eldritch Heritage Orc or Abyssal (+ mythic Eldritch Heritage and a Robe of Arcane Heritage and you are golden)

Most people would tell you to take Fey Foundling - but I find it... Why are all Paladins suddenly Fey Foundlings?

A good and fitting trait: Fate's Favoured, even if it comes online rather late for paladins.

Keep a bow handy. Might be worth a feat or two (PBS, Precise Shot), but then maybe not, if there are dedicated archers.

Nice feat: Unsanctioned Knowledge, esp. with Int 18.

Just don't be a one-trick pony.

There was sth. else I wanted to say, but it just flew away.

To the OP:

Don't mind the theorycrafters. I am playing PF for some years and until now I have to find a group who lacks a cleric or an oracle.

Healing is not only curing hitpoint damage. Often, even more important is the removal of status effects and there are an awful lot of them in the game. You can cast remove fear, remove blindness, break enchantment,...

You know your enemy before the fight because of good investigation? Cast Communal Resist Energy (Fire) if you are going to face a red dragon. In another case, delay poison might be a good pre-combat buff.

Your top-buff spell comes online somewhat late but it is a no-brainer then: Blessing of Fervour.

With good armor, a shield and the Combat Casting feat you can even stand in the midst of combat (e.g. provide flanking) and cast spells.

After the battle everyone loves you because of Lesser Restoration (prepare more than one per day).

With Mythic Eldritch Heritage you could get the 20th level power at Level 18 by using a robe of arcane heritage for an effective sorcerer level (concerning the bloodline) of character Level +2 (-2+4).

Of course, there is a debate if non-sorcerers may don and profit from a robe of arcane heritage.

You could add a Muleback Cords effect to an existing cloak of resistance +2 for 1.500 gp (for example). Of course, this is subject to GM discretion, but there are rules in the CRB for exactly this kind of item creation. Does not seem unreasonable to me.

Neither is a 10 in strength unreasonable for a character who has no use for strength besides carrying gear.

Noone questioned his observations. May we comment on Tryn's observations, dear Vulcans, to perhaps broaden his perspective?

To clarify: I don't think monks are a bad class. I just don't see them outshining other classes all the time - in this case the party is even helping him, and I think that is a good thing.

Maybe "outshine" just isn't the right word here.

He's more or less the only real martial in your group and the others buff him to do it even better. Where's the problem? Especially if his to hit is rather weak for level 8.

It seems you lack comparison; I currently GM RotRl; in my group they are all level 8 too and last session the gunslinger obliterated the main enemy of the chapter by dealing ca. 130 points of damage - in one round. (I admit it: one hit was a crit). Group Evil did not even have a chance to act.

I see no room for interpretation here - the text clearly states that all morale bonuses are affected.

Besides, I see nothing "uber".

No clarification, please. They tend to result in making things that are perfectly acceptable into non-options.

I too love the idea and would buy such a box.

I am always more a fan of encyclopaedic material than mere crunch. Golarion has so many opportunities. I liked the background information in the original RotRl series a lot but was underwhelmed with "Varisia, Birthplace of Legends".

Compared to the Forgotenn Realms or the German Aventurien, Golarion is still a world hard to imagine; it does not invoke pictures with real depth in my brain.

Morphling's example clearly is not taken from gaming experience, because dragons don't work that way.

They usually have six good attacks (all within three points of each other), not one. And they are intelligent.

Skills would come with a ranger or inquisitor and a bard(arcane duellist).

Jeremias: To ease your decision: If M plays a cleric, I prefer to be the arcane duellist in the game.

I have a nice build worked out already - a very strong half orc version of Mungo Jerry's Ray Dorset (sideburns and all) or Billy Preston, travelling the lands with a small coach, two female background singers and a harpsichord.

Ya know, it's not easy bein' green, but dem poor folks in Kenabres definitely be needin' some entertainment.

Karui Kage wrote:

1. No, it's not legal.

2. It's from 3.5, so depends on the GM.
3. It's on a small list of things I ban, so no. Way too powerful for a +1 bonus.

+1

+2

@Krodjin:
Can't compare the two: guided: wis for attack and damage, agile: dex for damage only

We play PF in the Realms, too. I just see no need for such a lot of work. Decide case by case what traits are appropriate for a character. Likewise with certain feats. E.g. typical region for dervish dancers could be Turmish (among others). Cliff-Master trait for people from the Swordcoast, etc.

First: I read your post; you stated you don't want to take Power Attack and you know you are not going to be a Powerhouse. Indeed, I fear with this build you're going to be more of a depleted shack.

I don't think what you have in mind is going to work: no power attack, no THF or even TWF - in the higher levels combat maneuvers become less viable and you just don't do enough damage to be a threat.

let's take a look at your damage at level 5: d6+4dex+2wsp+1magic weapon (assumed) +1 weapon training. 1d6+8.
That looks good so far, but it will not go up much from here.

At level 12(last level in PFS?), the height of you power, your damage will increase by about 10 points (d6 +7dex +4 greater wsp +3magic weapon +2 weapon training +2gloves of duelling = d6+18) doing 21.5 damage on regular hit.

Maybe I am wrong, but I think that's not enough for a fighter of that level, especially when DR comes into play.

What I like: you at least are going to have two good saves (Ref and Fort)

So my suggestion is to take strength 13 and Power Attack

Edit: Sorry, I forgot to take into account "Know thy enemy" another +2 to damage.

Custom items are at a gm's discretion and that is a good thing. Our GM allows customized items as long as they follow the rules in the book. And if he does not allow one specific item, he will have his reasons.

He usually does not allow us to change slots for specific items

@Gauss: Is your quote from Ultimate Combat or Ultimate Campaign?

I would buy it, but am even more interested in levels 21-30. If both things were in one book together it would be even better.

If you're going on to play the cleric in higher levels you need the high wisdom to be a good caster, because not all situations can be solved by melee. With guided hand you make your top stat your to hit stat.

High Wisdom not only gives high DCs, but bonus spells and a really good will save.

So you have a flexible battle cleric, that will only deal a little bit less damage but be a great caster alongside.

Think about Frightful Aspect and a quickened Divine Power at level 16; will it really matter if you do 3d6+35 or 3d6+32 with one hit?

Because of the maxed out wisdom, you can do such a thing more often.

There are more solutions. Some do it like Erikkerik, but this I see almost never being used (I know only one player who does it this way).
Typically you have one die for the tenners (00,10,20,30,40.50,60,70,80,90) and one die for the "Einser" (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. german, I don't know the english term for that)

You just add the numbers like Erikkerik with one exception

00 + 0 = 100 not 0
-----
00 + 10 will never happen if you use the right dice combination.

A Paladin can kill things and diplomance, that's it.

and cast spells, heal, debuff (mercies are strong), detect Evil, stand his ground far longer than any other class (best saves, swift self healing, immunities). Yeah, you're right it's almost like nothing.

James Jacobs is not a developer.

I respect his opinion, but his answers have no real bearing on RAW.

This does mean someone at Paizo is aware.
Perhaps SKR or another developer will chime in.

I bet James Jacobs will be happy to read such a nice commentary. Developer or not, he is doing the FAQ and everything. Don't wait for another answer; this thing is settled. If you want to play it the other way, do it. I think you are misinformed if you think his answers have no real bearing on RAW.

I'd say it is clearly weapon training, the only question I had, when I read the archetype, was how do gloves of dueling interact with it?

Is it +2 to attack, +4 to damage then?

Gloves of dueling: "If the wearer has the weapon training class feature and is using an appropriate weapon, his weapon training bonus increases by +2."

I'd say, yes, it sounds like it would. At level 9 you'd have a nice +4 to hit, +8 to damage.

That all martial characters are worse than all casters.

+1

But wouldn't it be better to have a "racial divorce" concerning the traits and abilities, as also many users have pointed out?

I'd like to create a character who is similar to Elric, probably living in the Forgotten Realms or Golarion.

To which race/culture could he belong?

Problem in a typical d&d Setting: there is noone comparable to Melniboneans (I don't think drow are a good fit). He could be human/elf whatever, just his attitude should be one of superiority.

What class/es should he take?

Stats?

Level: Every level would be interesting. Elric as a greenhorn, advanced, as a hero.

I think he should be able to brew potions/ fabricate drugs, summon (elemental lords?) and wielding a big sword (but the sword does not have to be like stormbringer although that's part of the original deal).

I am even interested in skills.

"But still Fighters are better Tanks than Paladins." (Alienfreak)

No, just no.

A paladin lays on hands on himself every round with only a swift action.

He has he best saves in the game.

I don't know anything about Kingmaker, but saves were and are, in all the PF/3.0/3.5 games I've played, very important.

A fighter may be the better damage dealer overall (though I doubt it, if there are enough evil enemies), but the paladin will stay in the fight longer, because of lay on hands and his over-the-top saves.

That's the job of the tank, don't you agree?

Strangely enough all the monk hate only seems to come from people who never saw a monk during play, sometimes I think they don't even play at all only excel at mathematical calculations and ranting.

Who tells me that SR is irrelevant with the argument "but the casters all all have spell penetration" that's just, I don't know, weird.

No, they don't have. Maybe in your games every caster, every monster has spell penetration, that's nice for you, for your arguments. Just take an AP and look which casters/monsters have this oh so prevalent feat.

I play this game every week, with different GMs/DMs who really know the rules (all levels) and I just can't follow your argumentation.

But whatever, hate on. Just never play a monk. They are so terrible, and can do nothing, just like commoners. Exactly like commoners who make all their saves all the time.