Wise Old Man's page

...If she hasn't watched any fantasy movies or tv shows...then obviously the reasonable thing to do would be to try and encourage her to watch it, maybe share your Netflix account and start recommending her LOTR, GOT, etc...Maybe also send them some clips from YouTube.

After they've seen a couple of movies and episodes, walk them through a GM's story writing methods, and introduce them to "The Rule of Three."

Guide the two players as you write down 3 role playing events, i.e. a tavern scene, a traveling merchant, and the town drunk. And ask them how would they link those three events together.

Next, give them 3 combat scenes, i.e. a swamp beast, a cyclops, and a vampire sorcerer. Now tell them how they would link those events together, maybe also tie them in with your previous 3 role playing events.

And lastly, give them a reward event, and ask what kind of reward they would find based on those events?
Maybe the traveling merchant left behind a clue that led to the vampire sorcerer's secret tower, that has the "Ring of Invisibility", to pay homage to the LOTR movies they saw, so they can feel cool using it.

And then try running this game with them, with some alterations of your own to surprise them, so they don't expect every action. This gives the new player's an incentive to try and understand how they would want to role play their characters within those scenes. And gives them something memorable to think about.

Now if only you could use something like Convert to trade hp to refill your spells per day and Chainspell to rapidly cast spells like the Red Mage from FFXI, then you'd be all set.

Try Zen-Archer. This archetype everyone with some decent knowledge knows is super powerful, but really underrated in most cases compared to other classes. You can easily pick off minions from across the map, helping all your friends. You look at it at face value and don't see what the big deal is, but when you play it in battle, everyone's eyes widen in it's dramatic power.

You won't run into them forever, unless your GM is looking for a way to spike your Slumber.

My hex list would include, Slumber, Misfortune, Cackle, Evil Eye, and perhaps Flight.

And Invoker...well, good luck!

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Pathfinder Open Reference app you can download on iOS and Android. It's my main tool for Pathfinder.

Try to encourage everyone in your group to download it, and find topics to discuss and reference on your off days about classes, spells, feats, and monsters. There's plenty enough to get you all started for the first few years.

Learning about Feats will make you understand combat and positioning, learning about Spells will make you understand utility and strategy. Constantly reference the Conditions found in spells and feats.

There is a layer around Pathfinder's rules, and it's hidden behind it's precise wording and perspective. Knowing how to interpret the wording logically will separate you from the ambiguous to the obvious. Logic is a very important trait when reading rules and mechanics of Pathfinder, remember.

Bestow Curse is pretty good. I'd say rolling twice and taking the worst result is actually much easier on the opponent than the example it gives you with the "Each turn, the target has a 50% chance to act normally; otherwise, it takes no action."

If you're looking for curse-like abilities, try Hex's from the Witch and Hexcrafter classes, namingly Slumber. Doing a Slumber hex and coup de grace while your opponent is asleep is as OP as it comes.

Anyone play Dungeon World yet?

It says you don't gain *additional* from her mystery. Additional meaning as an extra factor or circumstance.

The ancient lorekeeper replaces bonus skills gained from her mystery.

Oracle with the heavens mystery class skills is replaced by the ancient lorekeeper.

Lol. The writing in this is so ambiguous. This doesn't explain anything, if only just making matters worse.

What constitutes the differentiation of a class feature with a subfeature?

"In general, if a class feature grants multiple subfeatures, it’s OK to take two archetypes that only change two separate subfeatures. "

My rationality says that since Ancient Lorekeeper replaces the skills she gets from her mystery, and Dual-Cursed Oracle adds no additional skills, it doesn't conflict with the skills, unless otherwise stated.

"She selects one spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list that is at least one level lower than the highest-level oracle spell she can cast. The ancient lorekeeper gains this as a bonus spell known. The spell is treated as one level higher than its true level for all purposes."

So, Ancient Lorekeeper gets *one* spell that is one level lower than the highest level as a bonus spell known. At level 4 I get a 1st level wizard spell as a bonus spell known that counts as a 2nd level spell regardless of what I've written bellow.

"The ancient lorekeeper *may* choose an *additional* spell at 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 12th, 14th, 16th, and 18th levels. This ability replaces the bonus spells she would normally gain at these levels from her chosen mystery."

So now it's giving me an option to choose an additional spells, but since the 4th and 6th level spells are taken by the bonus spells of the Dual-Cursed Oracle, I can't replace them. But I still have "ill omen" granted at 2nd level, and I get to choose additional wizard/sorcerer spells at 8th level and so on.

Could you present me that archetype stacking FAQ please.

How could it not though?

"A dual-cursed oracle gains no additional class skills from her mystery."

If she doesn't get additional skills, how could it be considered an alteration of the skills she gets from Ancient Lorekeeper?

It doesn't even say "This replaces the bonus skills the oracle gains from her mystery." at the end.

As the subject states.

If I had the Greater Hat of Disguise, could I not use it on my monkey familiar to turn him into small or medium humanoid?

I always found the Trophy Hunter ranger archetype to be a intriguing beast hunter. Improved Tracking & Hunter's Aim seem like really good class abilities. And that sweet sweet touch AC within the first two range increments, instead of just the first.

Ah!
Thanks for pointing that out, Xenocrat. I didn't know that.

Although I'd still pick the Brazen Deceiver because it would give more of advantage due to Deceptive Tale, cutting the Bluff circumstance penalties in half, and essentially giving a higher bonus to your checks. Taking 10 and 20 on your Bluff, while also hiding spells in your your conversations is just exquisitely beguiling to give up!

That sounds like a great time, and a really fun table to be a part of. Most of my memorable times have been revolved around role playing ludicrous situations, becoming a run-on joke for years to come with my table crowd.

This Brazen Deceiver bard archetype seems pretty amazing though. If you could get your Bluff skill to 20+ by level 7, you could use Deceptive Tale and Blatant Subtlety and cast Glibness to tell the most absurd lies hidden in your conversation, with only a -5 penalty.

I'm slightly more in favor with bard than mesmerist because bards have access to spells such as Prestigitation, Innocence, Undetectable Alignment, Disguise Other, Qualm, Glibness, things of that nature that can compliment lies very smoothly.

As Quoth13 mentioned earlier, writing down forgeries to solidify your claims makes things even more funny.

I can't imagine the mayham one could cause with an allied wizard with the Contingency spell. Trading forged documents hidden with the Imprisonment spell, or Symbol of Insanity...

Perhaps he can take a look at the Ancient Lorekeeper Oracle Elf racial class.

- It's base attack bonus is a step above a traditional 9th level caster (which is unheard of), so he can use a weapon and be good at it.

- It's treated as a divine caster: similar to sorcerer (not worrying about preparing spells)

- Can choose all the important arcane spells, like color spray, invisibility, haste, wish, etc. Or such go offensive mage with magic missle, fireball, etc.

- Can heal and ressurect, and have access to a wide range of useful divine spells.

- And is pretty much the low key all in one caster.

Give a friendly warning to the player and let him know that Wizards and Sorcerers are not at the front lines of battle, they are usually a support type, leaning back, casting fireballs and trying not to get hit because of their low hp. Also, they can run out of spells quickly if the battle continues longer than expected. And because they rely on spells so heavily, their base attack bonus is the lowest, so using any type of weapon after spell depletion might be useless and leave the player frustrated.

My recommendation for a beginning player would be to play a class that has a balanced use of spells and martial stability, such as a Ranger, Magus, Warpriest, or Bloodrager.

I can't believe that feat even exists. Perhaps it would go good with the Sage Counselor from Ultimate Intrigue?

I made this build like a year and a half ago, but didn't post it. It may be pretty normal, but I certainly like it's edge and flavor.

Human: Fighter, Ninja: Scout archetype, Gunslinger: Maverick/Mysterious Stranger archetype

1. Fighter: TWF, Enforcer, Bludgeoner

2. Nin/Scout: Sneak 1d6

3. Mav/Myst: Weapon Focus: Pistol

4. Nin/Scout: Vanishing Trick

5. Mav/Myst: Quick Draw

6. Mav/Myst: 

7. Nin/Scout: Shattered Defenses, Sneak 2d6

8. Fighter: Weapon Finesse 

9. Nin/Scout: Improved Critical, Combat Trick: Improved TWF

10. Nin/Scout: Sneak 3d6

11. Nin/Scout: Critical Focus, Violent Display

12. Nin/Scout: Sneak 4d6

13. Nin/Scout: Disheartening Display, Pressure Points

14. Nin/Scout: Sneak 5d6

15. Nin/Scout: Invisible Blade, Assassinate

16. Mav/Mist: Extra Ninja Trick: Crippling Strike

17. Fighter: Dastardly Finish

18. Fighter: Blinding Critical 

19. Fighter: Staggering Critical

20. Fighter: Stunning Critical

Dexterity first, Charisma second.

Enforcer & Bludgeoner with Shattered Defenses, used with gun pellets.

Quick Draw for Pistols. Class Gunsmithing feat to make 12 pistols with appropriate gold.

Weapon Finesse and all Critical feats with Wakizashi.

And the rest is self explanatory. I suggest you make no changes to level and class order.

-----

I was inspired by the Django Unchained movie gun fight scene, and a lot of gun popping rap music.

In my mind I thought of this masked and robed marauder looking dude with like 12 pistols strapped all over his body, and he just enters a saloon and just unloads all of his guns on everyone, and drops the empty guns (hopefully teleporting back on his holsters somehow). Once out of ammo, he'd rush in his wakizashi's and make a bloodbath of critical hits.

What an astonishing and intriguing class archetype, Isabelle. Thank you. I'm going use the Brazen Deciever as the base class for my Rakshasa heritage Tiefling.

And I will check out the verbal duels as well, thank you ngc.

That's amazing. Rakshasa heritage tiefling it is. And thank you all your contribution.

I want to make a stoic comedian type of character that that makes up these far-fetched stories with Bluff or Diplomacy that people undoubtedly believe.

Now, the Bluff circumstance for far-fetched or impossible lies is a pretty steep price, is there any classes or abilities that can improve these circumstances or that focus on b#+@$!@+ting their way through a conversation?

Could I use a small sized Culverin and support it with my other hand to fire without the -4 penalty? (Given the -2 for inappropriately sized weapons)

Ah, I see. So the Demoralize skill alone can never go above the shaken condition, unless otherwise noted in feats and abilities. Thank you for the clarification.

So just a quick clarification, Enforcer is Demoralize and in the Demoralize check, it says "Using demoralize on the same creature only extends the duration; it does not create a stronger fear condition."

But under the Fear section of Special Abilities, it says "Becoming Even More Fearful: Fear effects are cumulative. A shaken character who is made shaken again becomes Frightened, and a shaken character who is made frightened becomes Panicked instead. A frightened character who is made shaken or frightened becomes Panicked instead."

So which one is it? Can I use Enforcer to cause greater Fear conditions or no?

You know, since Whirlwind Attack says it doesn't add any bonus from other feats, I think I made a mistake in this theory.

A full-attack is an action type of a full-round action.

Actions in Combat

Empty Quiver Style + Leaping Shot Deed + Whirlwind Attack

Notice as Whirlwind Attack says "When you use a full-attack action" and Leaping Shot Deed says "As a full-round action", and of course Empty Quiver Style saying "You can switch between melee and ranged attacks with this weapon without penalty, even during the same round." ...So, does that mean that I can use my firearms as a light mace while moving with Leaping Shot Deed and making Whirlwind Attack?

And another theory I have that extends this is: what if attacking with a rapier while just holding a pistol in the off-hand?

I'm going to ask you one last time, what is your motives behind asking me such questions?

I've given multiple reasons already. I haven't ignored anyone, but I refrain from repeating myself. As I've mentioned multiple times, everything I've wrote is already there. The reason why people are feeling ignored is because they feel it isn't a sufficient reason, and keep asking me for another one. I'm not here to satisfy everyone's ideals.

If people don't want to accept my reasons, then I can't stop them, but I'm not going to change my response to accommodate their search for the right answer.

As I've stated multiple times, I've never had any problems with my GM's and players, because I know when to separate a game from real life to accommodate my groups free time.

Thank you, everyone. I appreciate all of you taking the time give your honest thoughts and opinions. I will try and give you my most helpful answers in your future posts in the most friendliest manner, and I will also defend you with your merits whenever I see that you are being targeted. And I mean it.

Love, power, respect. Peace.

Johnnycat93 wrote:

Wise Old Man wrote:

It's not a personal problem. I'm just venting my ideas. I'm not concerned with the boards disagreeing with me. I'm stating a problem that I think is wrong and debating about it openly.

You should be concerned with peoples opinions, given that you're the one trying to present your case. That's the cornerstone of a debate. Otherwise you're just fishing for people who agree with you and ignoring the ones that don't.

I've also yet to see you address any of the counter arguments made against you. You've acknowledged them, but that's not enough if you're actually interested in participating in a debate.

Can you provide evidence that your problem is not specific to you, and is instead a problem in the community as a whole? Saying so isn't good enough for me. What evidence are you using to support your claim?

Great points.

For someone to say they don't care what people think, but then to call it a debate is strange. In a debate you are supposed to consider the other person's points of view.
Otherwise I don't see the point unless the person is just looking for "yes men".

If don't feel as though I'm not obliging to your trivia, please move along. This isn't a press review. I'm trying to advocate a good cause, and won't comply to depreciation.

This makes me unhappy. I find myself sharing a lot of fundamental sentiments with Wise Old Man. I believe that the GM should be treated the same as any other player, and I believe that sometimes GMs take too many liberties. I believe Pathfinders main attraction is a huge number of options and that restricting those without good reason is silly.

The reason I'm unhappy, then, is that a thread with a premise that I could have generally agreed with has been squandered. I am almost staggered by how minor WOMs problem seems to be, now that it's revealed, in comparison to the nearly 8 pages of discussion that has been generated by it. Putting aside that I loathe reading arguments supported with nothing but anecdotes and blanket assumptions like "everybody does X", I see absolutely no reason whatsoever that this issue should not be resolved by WOM simply sitting down with their GM and speaking with them as if they were both reasonable adults.

WOM wrote:

Like I said before, no one cares unless rules say otherwise. Most of you here will deny it, but also, most you here will continuously try to correct those who think are fundamentally out of line within the rules.

This is almost criminally untrue. I have like a 60 page document of rules changes I made for one of my games. I can probably even link you to a half-dozen ongoing recruitments that are using PF in a way that was probably never intended.

You have a personal problem with your GM

A book cannot resolve a personal problem.

You need to actually talk directly to your GM if you're so broken up about things, not try and start a crusade against them.

You aren't talking about addressing any problems the community has. At this point I suspect that the communities interests are strictly secondary to your goals. You want a book to be created that solves the problem you have in a way that you think is fair. That's not cool. That's why people are giving you a hard time. Not because people here are lying to themselves about how hard...

It's not a personal problem. I'm just venting my ideas. I'm not concerned with the boards disagreeing with me. I'm stating a problem that I think is wrong and debating about it openly.

OVERPOWERED PCS

Characters naturally accumulate power over time. And
in a game that relies on random resolutions of complex
interactions, that power accumulation isn’t always
smooth. If one PC—or all the PCs—at your table makes
a quantum leap in power, it’s worth taking a good, hard
look at whether that power is disruptive to the ongoing
narrative and sense of fun.
Consider the Cooperative Dynamic: The Pathfinder
RPG differs from most games in that it’s fundamentally
cooperative. Because you aren’t playing “against” anyone
in a meaningful sense, it might not matter that the PCs
suddenly became much more powerful. You aren’t likely
to run out of powerful monsters. You might have to alter
encounters to compensate, but once you’ve done so, your
game continues unimpeded.
When You Need to Rein It In: By the same token, the
cooperative nature of the game is why you sometimes need
to “nerf ” a character’s power. Do so when one PC is too
powerful relative to everyone else at the table. Before you
take action, though, consider the following steps:
Provide early warning. Say a player comes up with a
devastating combo—something that takes a monster out of a
fight with a high success rate and no countermeasure. Let it
happen the first few times, but tell the player, “I’ll let you know
when that combo gets tired.” The player can still feel clever,
but you’ve delivered notice and the whole table knows you
take the balance of power seriously. Sometimes the problem
power doesn’t emerge at the table anymore—and you’ve got
time to plan further. And the player might volunteer to be
part of the solution, a “negotiated settlement” you
can work out at the end of the session.
Know what you’re nerfing, and why. After the
session where something overpowered emerges,
it’s time to hit the books. Read everything
relevant, even if you think you know the
rules backward and forward. Think like a
player and explore the problematic power,
then put your Game Master hat back
on and search for countermeasures. A
complex game system has lots of moving
pieces, and it takes effort to isolate which
components and combinations are
actually overpowered.
Nerf it to the ground, but make it a
surgical strike. Once you’ve isolated the
problematic element, bring it back into line with similar
powers available at that level. Do your homework in terms
of rules study and arithmetic; you want to make sure that
the overall technique is no longer overpowered, not just
the specific application you saw at the table. But make sure
the PC still has viable options—and that the player still
has interesting choices to make during an encounter.
51
Explain it outside the game. It’s tempting to solve a balance
issue on the spot, but consider the other players at the
table. They might be bored by a rules discussion about
somebody else’s character. They might leap to the player’s
defense, or recommend a harsher nerf because they’re
tired of being second banana. Talk to that player away from
the table before the next session begins, so that everyone’s
got time to pore over rulebooks and consider alternatives.
It’s also a good time to tell the player that you’re acting
for the good of the table, not to save your monsters. Most
players respond better to a nerf when they realize they’re
diminishing others’ fun and the change isn’t driven by
Game Master competitiveness.
What you break, rebuild. Overpowered situations rarely
emerge overnight. They’re often an intentional or
serendipitous collection of smaller elements acquired
over time. Spell x, magic item y, and feat z are fine by
themselves, but you’ve got a problem once a player has all
three. When you change the rules to make something less
powerful, it’s only fair—and certainly doesn’t hurt anyone
at the table—to let the player retroactively make different
character advancement choices to compensate, so they
haven’t wasted half the game achieving a build that’s no
longer viable.
Overpowered Monsters: Sometimes the proverbial
shoe will be on the other foot, and a monster will be
unexpectedly powerful. At first, let it play out a bit. Once
the power disparity is clear to everyone at the table, take
action—either nerf the monster on the spot and tell the
players (in general terms) what you’ve done and why, or
forego use of that monster, telling the players that “the
dragon turtle has some problems, which I’m going to fix
before our next session.”

All the above I've already implied. This is saying "If things get out of hand, tell them as a GM that you're getting tired of that combo, and if it continues, nerf it."

However, I have already stated that I don't take it out of hand. And player's and GM's don't even trust someone if they mention something that doesn't correlate with their ideas, and immediately think of the worst even when the victim is telling the truth about a certain build. Almost 95% time they jump to conclusions.

That is a quote of a nice and understanding GM, who takes everybody's thoughts and actions into consideration to improve his groups' well being. And not everyone knows or wants or cares to do any of that.
That is a very small example that justifies GM's as a proper host who read and respect the guidelines. The interpretation varies significantly in actuality.

Like I said before, no one cares unless rules say otherwise. Most of you here will deny it, but also, most you here will continuously try to correct those who think are fundamentally out of line within the rules.

I think "rules" is probably the wrong way to look at this issue. I think it's better to look at the social contract that tabletop roleplaying games operate under, that is the implicit agreement that everybody at the table will cooperate after a fashion for mutual enjoyment of all." The specific boundaries of this will vary (some groups benefit from a soupçon intraparty treachery, some groups will wither from it.)

But "how much should I optimize/how should I play" is largely a question of etiquette, and like all questions of etiquette it's a function of "who you're with." Some groups would consider a badly optimized character who is nonetheless flavorful to be a breach of etiquette because "they have to carry you" some are just the opposite and will view a vastly more effective character as a breach of etiquette" because "I don't get to do anything except watch you kick butt."

The basic principle though is just to pay attention to the other people at the table to see if you're helping them have more fun or causing them to have less fun, then adapt to what works and what doesn't. Talk to other people about what they want out of the game, if it comes to that. Sometimes people with less systems mastery simply resent people's characters that display a higher level of systems mastery, and this can easily be solved by "helping them out with their characters." Maybe people are able to optimize their characters, but they'd rather play something that's quirky and unique, and in that case why not take the opportunity to play along and introduce some quirks to your character?

I think it's less that "optimization is bad" and more because "people have a hard time talking to each other sometimes."

Wise words, Cabbage. However, that is a very fine line. If everyone is responsible with their actions, it shouldn't matter what kind of character I make, normal or optimized. If it's about etiquette, than the understanding should be to give chances, not to take away chances. I wish everyone had that kind of idea.

You're right, people don't talk to each other about it, and when you generalize it, everyone has different thoughts and ideas in their head. But one thing is clear, people usually follow the rules of PFS, even if not in PFS, people follow errata, and want to be precise. And if you bring rules to the table, governing party rules, people will with no doubt be indebted to follow these rules as a PFS GM.

It's accurate, wraith.

In no way am I a disruptive player. IRL, I'm a super polite, cooperative, and overall friendly person.

I'm not talking about being disruptive, I think if you have a personality problem, it should be dealt outside of game.

I've seen people play evil characters for the sake of wanting to steal from other players and kill them, or just cause shenanigans and they give me an excuses like "That's my alignment. I'm trying to play in character!"

I've also seen players trying to act the scientist for the campaign rules, like when a GM says "There is no astral plane." and players would say "Well, how does teleportation work then? And it wouldn't make sense because of this, this, and this."

And it's like...why are you trying to start this debacle, when it's very unnecessary. The GM puts in rules at the start, that's that. People don't need to justify in their own minds why it wouldn't work.

Those are disruptive players.

I hold back all the time to give my respected players a chance to have the spot light, so everyone can shine equally. Because it feels good to shine.

But I don't like how people are judged based on what kind of character builds they want to make.
I'm very honest about what kind of character I want in the beginning of the game, and I tell my GM's,
"I want to play an admixture wizard"
"No. Pick something else."
"I want to play a summoner synthesist"
"No. Pick something else."

Even when I'm researching a build and show them the link for my resources and FAQ's. They say "I don't know...Would it be okay with you if you just play a fighter?"

And then other player's jump in "You can't make these characters man! You're being disruptive!"

"How am I being disruptive??"

And the crazy thing is that if one of the guys is a closer friend to the GM, he let's him play like a slumber hexcrafter build. And they're always laughing and giggling about it.

It's frustrating. I'm all honest and nice about it and I get burned for it. It's not cool. And I see that it happens all the time. Favoritism.

I don't want to subjected to polite politics on a gaming table. And it's not easy finding a gaming table near me.
So it's "Too bad so sad for me"?
That's not fair.

Get a party rule set book out there, so people can play their favorite builds on an equal level and have fun.

Step aside, wraithstrike, I got this!...

-----

-He doesn't have any reasonable content to support his ideas.

-He just keeps repeating semantics.

-We really really don't need a book for this.

-We've tried telling him this has more to do with the GM, but he's not listening to anyone.

-He's talking about contracts like a snake oil salesman. I don't even know what that was about???

-It seems like he doesn't know the first thing about PFS rules.

-He lacks the knowledge and understanding of how he should be treated at a gaming table.

-He's saying the people he's dealt with "mistreat" him, like that has anything to do with the game itself.

-Stop pouring your personal problems onto Paizo's lap, begging them to fix something that can easily be solved just by consulting with your GM.
-----
Alright, *panting* I tried to cover tidbits of everything, please continue. Oh, and uhh..I still think we need a book based on party rules.

Wise Old Man, I think you're wrong. Most players don't enjoy having a bunch of limits imposed upon them. Character creation rules are one of the few examples. Everyone knows that any given campaign might have character creation quirks. How much gold you start with, what classes/books are available for use, how many points to spend on attributes (or how many dice to roll and what order to roll them in)...

A campaign specific restriction due to world setting again is acceptable to many players. But when you start tacking on rules specifically to mess with the party, that's when they'll walk. And this is the territory you're entering with your idea.

Let's do it! :)

I think player's are fascinated with rules and regulations. I think everyone will love it, because it will give them new idea's on how to run their group.

It's definitely possible.

I simply don't have the time to do it myself, I have a full time career in something that has nothing to do with rpgs. Just like I don't have the time to Smite Players.

No, I don't think it's hypocritical of me to ask Paizo to make such a book, I think they make books for the fans.

Yes, I want Paizo to contact me. Yes, I can sign a contract. No, I'm not kidding.

This game is all about investment, whether people like it or not, they will always adapt to new rules with each new book.

Knightnday, but what if they actually came out with the book, would you say that you were wrong?

Wise Old Man wrote:

All I want is some party rule sets for characters who take the spot light away from the party.

This isn't a bad idea but let me make a point. This problem isn't actually just about optimization. Have had games where the one player dominated the group not because his character is the most powerful sometimes he wasn't it was who he was. He tended to hog the spotlight because he could.

I have tried and failed to stop him by making another character leader of the group. Most times they don't step up and the other player does and then tends to dominate the game and group. This had nothing to do with his character at all some of them weak as hell for most of his character's life.
I've read posts of people slamming on Clerics, healers specifically saying how useless they are. They talk of having a group so well designed they never need healing. Isn't that optimization people are saying no to yet they are doing exactly that. I'm willing to be those groups would actively discourage any player from playing a cleric to the point of rudeness.
I've said it before I'll say it again. I don't mind optimization since I expected from my old group. As a GM I expected and planned my encounters this way. It's the players who make this characters so totally useless then whine when they do suck so bad. I tell them I'm planning a Pirate campaign they refuse to take a rank of swimming even. I tell them one race is hated above all they pick that race. They are not doing it for RP they are doing it to be whiny jerks.

That's actually kind of funny. Lol. I had a chuckle on that story. :)

All I want is some party rule sets for characters who take the spot light away from the party. I said that not everyone will get along in a group, but if at least some percentage can, that's better than nothing. And yes, I believe that a book like that can help a percentage.

Party rules can't be hard to make, it's whatever a party does is equal to their level. I'm sure you can fit max damage charts in there per level, max attribute bonus per level, max this and that per level.

I know what you're thinking, "There's already third party books like that"
Yes, but if its by Paizo, the PFS can use it as an Optional rule, according to GM specific.

I don't want to start a flame war as someone mentioned previously. But it seems to me that some people like to rearrange words in a way that is more suiting for them to argue. Probably because of something to do with always wanting to sound right. I myself am a character optimizer, I just don't like to be mistreated by others when I'm writing something on the boards or nagged by other players for whatever reason that they're not satisfied with about my character being too powerful. I want everyone to be on the same playing field, so I can make whatever I want without any problems. Is that someone who sounds like a bad, crazy, deranged person?

People sound like I murdered someone.

Imagine if this book already existed and I said we did't need it, I'd get crapped on regardless. Its inhumane.

P.S.
If you are curious about what I said earlier in this thread, you know how to get there.

It's nice to see a character using some tactical advantage!

Yes, you can attack with a reach weapon behind an ally, however both you and your enemy gain the benefit of Partial Cover, which gives a +2 to AC and +1 to Reflex.
Your enemy also benefits from Concealment, in which that if you successfully attack, the defender (meaning your ally) has to roll percentile dice, and has a 20% chance to avoid getting hit. The Concealment would apply to you (again, your ally as the defender) if the enemy also has a ranged attack or is in Reach.

Unfortunately, monkey in the middle doesn't work much for your ally, unless your attack total is lower than your ally's AC, but also equal or higher than your enemy's AC.

Yes, you can Trip without a tripping weapon.

The only difference is,
Without Tripping Weapon: "If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone. If your attack fails by 10 or more, you are knocked prone instead."

With a Tripping weapon:
"If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the weapon to avoid being tripped."

Weapon cords would help you here, as you can drop your Tripping weapon and Quick Draw as part a move action.

I think you should go with neither, and pick a tripping weapon.

Yes, the Extra Challenge feat for the Order of the Seal would be worth it if you have a tripping weapon.

Make the book Paizo, make it!!

*disappears back into a cloud of smoke, laughing maniacally as it fades into a echo*

I mean...if you actually read what I put instead of having the knee jerk reaction you did, alot of things you said were addressed in my first post.

...what kind of beef jerky did you need?

Don't let me stop you from playing what you want. I'm just gonna share some info with you to keep in mind.

Wizards/Sorcerers have the lowest Base Attack Bonus out of all classes. You're gonna have a really tough time trying to hit anything with your War hammer, especially if your attributes are directed more towards Intelligence and Wisdom, instead of Strength or Dexterity.

Wizards also have low Hit Dice, which makes them have low hit points, especially if you have low Constitution. So getting into melee frequently would probably not be so wise.

Wizards/Sorcerers also give up a lot of skills.

But having said all that, Wizards/Sorcerers and any other 9th spell level caster are the most powerful classes in the game if they mostly concentrate in their class.

So if you want a melee mage, you'd probably have a lot more success with a Magus, or a Warpriest. If you want to be even less mage oriented, you'd want a Bloodrager, Paladin or Ranger. You could even go for a Battle Mystery Oracle.

Dipping to Paladin won't really take advantage of the Paladins spells or class features because they revolve around Charisma modifiers. And your Charisma is 10, which gives you a +0 modifier. And it wouldn't even be worth it to raise it when you can stick to your most valued attribute, which is Intelligence, for learning spells, DC of spells, and concentration checks.

You have to find classes that are leaned more towards your central attribute, in your case is Intelligence, because they compliment the class abilities that are associated with that attribute, such as Alchemist, Investigator, Rogue/Ninja, Slayer. But in your case, for a Thor build, that doesn't really fit. It doesn't really make sense to dip out of a Wizard, unless you're trying to reach the minimum level for a prestige class. However, if want to dip two levels into a full BAB class, fighter would be the way to go for those two extra combat feats.
Too bad you're not a Eldritch Scrapper for Martial Flexibility, those fighter combat feats would go into better use.

You could however hang on to the War hammer and use it with the Transformation spell later on.

When I hear Thor build, it brings a Kensai Magus to my mind with Shocking Grasp and Spellstrike.

PS: Wizards don't have Martial Proficiency, so you can't even use a War hammer without a -4 penalty to your attack.

Arguable, yes, but that kind of "OP" is entirely subjective. A 43- point buy character is pretty much guaranteed to be good.

Not really. Sure, you'll have nice attributes, but if you know what you're doing, you'd only need one high attribute. It's more to do with feats, and class features.