karossii's page

I'm not really seeing the question -- that's like asking "what class would be best suited for a redhead?" I think you could get literally any class to fit.

Basically, you're talking about someone who does what he likes and likes what he does, and wants this to apply universally. This could be a paladin, or an anti-paladin, or anything else, depending upon what he liked to so.

A scholarly type who likes to sit in a tower and read -- could be a wizard.
A gym rat who really likes working out and sparring -- could be a fighter.
A mystic who really likes contemplating his navel -- could be a monk. (Of course, this kind of conflicts with the corpulence and gluttony,... but not with the hedonism part.)

To a degree, you're right. Except, I did address that in my post. I don't want to play a redhead who happens to be a given class, I want to play a redhead where having red hair is in some way incorporated into and a part of the class. Thus, there are specific classes which would work better or worse - and thus my question to these forums! :)

The thing about dipping into crossblooded sorcerer; it also means you are sacrificing a full level of casting in your other class; including spells known, spells per day, saving throw DCs, and so on. It also sucks up an extra point of attack bonus. Maybe those are seemingly inconsequential sacrifices, maybe they are not - that depends heavily upon the build used. But just because there is a way to ignore one or more penalties does not mean those penalties do not exist.

karossii wrote:

Archaeik; the initial AoO is triggered on stepping into the 10' threatening zone. The 'enters' aspect. The target could stop there, and prevent any further AoOs; assuming he has reach himself.

If he continues to move, however, on leaving that square, he provokes a second AoO.

These are still two distinct and separate triggers.

Again, that is RAI.

RAW, that AoO is vs an opponent 15ft away.

Let us strip the reach factor then, and look at an opponent moving adjacent to a character with this feat. RAW, they can take an AoO against that doe when it is 10' away, without a reach weapon. And this is exactly how the feat is intended to work.

I think your issue is not with the combined attacks, but with the feat.

Lazar - you continue to confuse lawful with "Law of the Land".

Lawful does not need to be taught. Aside from Eldon's primate example, (and insects, a much better example of orderly creatures)...

A paladin is given a divine charge by an entity. Sometimes this is a martial school. Sometimes it is a church. Sometimes it is an avatar or a deity itself. Or any number of other sources.

Do you really have such poor suspension of disbelief that you cannot fathom an entity capable of handing out these supernatural powers, powers that if any in our reality were to have them, they would easily be able to play themselves off as a god (or son of god)... that an entity capable of handing out that power couldn't also touch a primitive heart, mind, soul, what have you, and in still a code of ethics, a code of honor?

I may be overstepping myself with assumption here; but it seems to me that you have a very rigid viewpoint of what you want a paladin to be. you have illustrated this in your opinions put forth several times - opinions that have nothing to do with the actual rules.

That's okay. If you are not open to seeing things the way other people do... have fun in your very pigeon holed fantasy world(s).

But you really have no justification, from a rules perspective, and no valid reasons (aside from trying to 'be right' or to 'prove someone wrong' - neither of which is valid) to continually argue a flavor issue as if it were a rules issue.

By the book, any character who picks an alignment of lawful good, and maintains a slightly more lawful than neutral, and a slightly more good than neutral, behavior... can take the paladin class and continue to advance in it.

So unless you have a valid rules perspective... let others enjoy the game they want to, and stop trying to tear down what other people might enjoy. If it doesn't mesh with your image of what a paladin should be... that's okay. Unless you are the DM for the OP, you have no business telling him what flavor is right or wrong... only if there were a valid rules argument should you object.

karossii wrote:

LazarX wrote:

karossii wrote:

I detest the opinion that a paladin must be "lawful stupid", and rigidly follow the laws of the land. His lawfulness comes from a code of honor, which may or may not agree with the laws of the land...

Not as much as I detest that being Lawful Good has to mean Lawful Stupid.

That was my point. It does NOT mean you have to be lawful stupid - I detest that many people interpret it that way. So are you just agreeing with me there? Or trying to argue against me with the point I made?

The point that I was making is that a Paladin isn't sufficiently satisfied by being the combination of somewhat lawful and somewhat good. It is meant to be a hard station to obtain and an even harder one to keep. Of those who become Paladins, many will die at a relatively young age. Of those who survive, relatively few will keep thier station, most just becoming relatively good Fighters when they finally realize they can't keep to it's exacting standards. Those who survive and actually retire as Paladins will be rare indeed.

While I don't wholly disagree with you there, you should preface it (or recognize the fact, if you don't) that that is not the rules, but your opinion. By the rules, a paladin must be slightly more lawful than neutral, and slightly more good than neutral. And that is all that is required to sufficiently satisfy the requirements to become a paladin. And that by the rules, there can just as easily be whole battalions of paladins, a gargantuan plethora of paladins, which far outnumbers the generic fighter and cleric types.

So now that we've established that we're just discussing personal preference...

I do personally agree with a portion of your views here. I do see them as being an ideal that is hard to attain. I do not believe they must be martially trained to exacting standards by a specific organization, nor that they must be a paragon of the laws of a particular land, or ruler, or even church. Instead, they must have a rigid personal code by which they abide, and be a paragon for good.

I feel you misunderstood me earlier, so I will restate what I tried to say.

First, Lawful Good should not be Lawful Stupid. I feel Lawful should probably be renamed, as it is more about Order than 'Law' as described in the core books (dating back to basic D&D). Order conflicts with Chaos. But that aside...

Being Lawful means you have a code you follow. Sometimes, this code is the law of the land. Just as often, it is not. A person who has a very strict and rigid code from which they never vary, is lawful. It does not matter if that code matches the laws of the land.

Otherwise, the second a lawful character enters an evil land, they would have to start practicing those laws, even if they conflicted with everything the character had previously done in their life. A traveling character could go nowhere without first researching local laws and customs. Ridiculous.

Thus, a paladin must be lawful. But not necessarily a slave to a king, emperor, or other ruler, and the local laws therein. They must have a code which they adhere to strictly. This code is usually given to them by the same source which provides their powers.

That is the first point I tried to make. I hope I was clearer in this post.

The second point is thus; it is my personal opinion that a paladin should be good first, and lawful second. That does not mean they are not lawful, it should not be an excuse to play them as NG or CG. What it means, is that when they MUST make a choice which conflicts, when they come to a major story point where they are FORCED to choose between good, or law... they should choose good. Even if it means violating their code and losing their powers.

Too often do I see paladins played as LN with good tendencies, where it is all about the law. And that conflicts with my vision of a paladin. I don't stop others from doing as they wish... but I am certainly free to share my opinion, and hope maybe some others will see it and either share in it, or even better have an epiphany and adjust their own thinking.

karossii wrote:

I detest the opinion that a paladin must be "lawful stupid", and rigidly follow the laws of the land. His lawfulness comes from a code of honor, which may or may not agree with the laws of the land...

Not as much as I detest that being Lawful Good has to mean Lawful Stupid.

That was my point. It does NOT mean you have to be lawful stupid - I detest that many people interpret it that way. So are you just agreeing with me there? Or trying to argue against me with the point I made?

The point is the Paladin is an elite character, not just a run of the mill lawful or good type. Nor am I willing to accept the idea that the requirements of being a Paladin are satisfied by being mediocre in law and good. Nor am I willing to accept the idea that a person can be nothing more than a ape who can do no more than occasionally string some syllables together in a sentence and still meet the requirements.

Which is why there is much variation. I dislike your view of what all paladins should be. I agree some few fill the subset that you think all should be. But I believe there are more than just that. Luckily for both of us, we can play it how we choose to. The only wrong answer is in trying to force your view on someone else.

If you want your world to be grey on grey in it's morality, the best thing is to ditch the Paladin classes altogether, and work with the more flexible alternatives, such as Fighters, Clerics, and WarPriests.

Nothing to do with what I was talking about, actually. Either you're going for hyperbole here, or vastly misunderstanding what I said.

Support your position? It has nothing to do with your position.

INA Specifically has no effect on the nonk's unarmed strike damage. Being larger specifically does.

You claim, still without any support of your claims, INA has no effect.

Here is how I see it working.

>basic monk with natural attack; unarmed strike =/= natural attack.
1. INA specifically has no effect on unarmed strike damage.
2. unarmed strike damage has no effect on natural attack

> basic monk with natural attack and FCT; specified natural attack (per FCT) gains all benefits of a natural attack (nothing removes these), AS WELL AS all benefits of unarmed strike.
1. INA has no effect on unarmed strike damage. It does, however, have an effect on the natural attack. The natural attack is specifically treated as one size larger (assume medium becomes large).
2. Natural attack is treated as large (per INA). This is not lost. It is not applying to the "unarmed strike damage", it is modifying the natural attack.
3. FCT applies (large) unarmed strike damage to a (large) natural attack.

Now, using that breakdown, explain to me how/where/why, in your opinion, INA stops applying to the natural attack. INA treats the natural attack as one size category larger. Nothing that I can find stops that from happening.

[EDIT]Another attempt to simplify the explanation for you...

We have two weapons, weapon "a" and weapon "b" both available as medium or large.

we have two feats.
One allows a medium weapon "a" to be treated as a large weapon "a"
One allows weapon "a" to gain any benefit that weapon "b" can gain.

we have one benefit which only applies to weapon "b" - it works equally well if weapon "b" is medium or large.

So we take weapon "a", give it both feats. It is now treated as a large weapon "a", and can receive any benefits of weapon "b".

Why would you think it has to get the benefit of a medium weapon "b", when it is treated as large, and the benefit applies to a medium or a large weapon "b"?

The problem with that is I don't acccept that you can be a Paladin by being somewhat lawful and moderately good. You have to at a MINIMUM, exemplify both alignment traits, and osmeone with barely the intelligence and the socialization of the Hulk or Wolverine doesn't pass in my book.

Not everyone shares your opinion about what makes a paladin, a paladin.

To many, myself included, a paladin is simply a holy champion of a church, a deity, or a cause. One infused by their personal code of ethics and honor (law and good).

I detest the opinion that a paladin must be "lawful stupid", and rigidly follow the laws of the land. His lawfulness comes from a code of honor, which may or may not agree with the laws of the land...

It is to his own self (and his deity, church, or cause) that he must be true. Sometimes that includes the king/other ruler, usually if a church is involved and said church is a politically involved entity. But just as often, or moreso, it has nothing to do with that.

I also believe paladins should be good first, lawful second. There should be an internal struggle at times, to continue to do what is right and good, while not deviating from their personal code... yes. They should not deviate to NG or CG. But when it is a black and white, you must choose "law" or "good" point in the story, my vision of a perfect paladin sacrifices himself (and his code) for the greater good. (And then seeks out atonement...)

Eh, a code of honor does not necessarily need to be taught. And a paladin is a divine warrior of a god; perhaps he was given the code along with a charge to "set forth and right the wrong in the world" or some similar drivel, in a dream.

I thought imagination was required to play in RPGs... ;)

Splitting up would make sense in a lot of situations where it is avoided, simply because of the taboo.Yes it can cause problems, but it can also be beneficial at times. As said repeatedly throughout this thread, splitting up is alright, in the right circumstances (and with the right strategies involved).

It is more taxing on a DM, and it does create downtime for a portion of the players... slowing the game down overall. But honestly, is this a game you're trying to 'complete' in a given time? Do you really have such lack of interest in the setting, the story, and your fellow party members that you can't sit back for a short while and listen to the interactive narrative unfolding?

As to the XP / loot issue; in modern games, it is almost always assumed that all player characters are the same level at all times. In older iterations of D&D and other RPGs, and in some few modern systems, it is almost as certain that few of the player characters will ever be the same level (thieves are always 1-2 or more levels ahead, the wizard is a level or two behind, fighters and clerics fall somewhere in the middle, etc.)... And as to the loot; if that magic item you found works better for a party mate than it does for you, would you really refuse to hand it over just because they weren't with you when you found it? If an item is undesired by all, would you not evenly split the income from its sale, simply because the rogue was down another corridor disarming traps when the patrol stumbled upon you, or the fighter had stayed behind with the barbarian to hold the door (or any other similar circumstance where the party is split)? If you would, then you're not very good at playing a group game, are you?

Side note: Can anyone tell me why some forum posts I make are available to be edited, and others aren't? I wanted to add this to my previous post, but couldn't. I can't seem to find the pattern....

Pretty sure it is a timing thing. I think you get about an hour to edit.

The misunderstanding here is the idea that these axes are segregated. You can say that "Your CG character can be just as Chaotic as a CN character", but you'd be mistaken. Alignment, as most things in life, is reciprocal in nature. For the CG character, his Chaotic nature supports an drives his Good nature and, in turn, the Good nature supports and drives the Chaotic nature. There's less of this reciprocal support in the case of a CN who has a strong Chaotic nature, but no paired drive to temper the excesses nor bolster the strengths.

Lets go back to the LG vs NG example. The principal argument here is that the LG character is "hogtied" by his Lawful nature; there are things he won't do to support Good because Lawful prohibits them. He doesn't want to lie, cheat, and steal "for the greater good" because those are at least Chaotic actions or, at the very least, Neutral. But another way to look at it is that the LG looks at the "big picture". Sure, lying may help one person now, but adhering to discipline and honor and the social code will help far more people than abandoning it will. It's impossible to help 100% of the people and the reasonably intelligent LG will know that. Even the Paladin knows that it's an impossible task. But abandoning that social order in favor of "more effective methods" is favoring the needs of the few over the needs of the many. In the mind of the LG character, acting non-lawful is a lesser good because it helps a small group at the expense of the larger group. In the mind of the NG character, that small group may be more important to the character so, while it's "lesser good" in the grand scheme of things, it's a more important good relative to himself. Going further, the CG is another extreme, thinking that the stringent bindings of Lawfulness hampers Good because people adapt to be too co-dependent and can't provide for their own best interests, instead relying on "authorities" to solve their problems. The CG also is thinking about the...

All you are speaking of is degrees of devotion, and relativity of views (short term vs. long term, good for one vs. good for all, etc.) - nothing (aside from your opinion, presented above) would indicate a NG character is any less likely to be concerned for the good of all over the good of one, than a LG character would be.

Alignments do all vary within themselves. Some LG will be both more lawful than some LN and more good than some NG characters. Some LG will be hardly any more good or lawful than a TN character would be.

Similarly, some of each alignment will be more focused on the 'right now' instead of the long term. Some of each will focus on big picture vs. immediate scenario. None of that has any bearing on the discussion at hand, however; it is anecdotal and can be equally common (or infrequent) among all of the alignments. If you do not believe so, then you are imposing additional constraints/restrictions on the alignments that do not exist as they are defined.

As a whole, the most devoted LG character is still a dichotomy, who will, as TQbbnBB summarized, be forced to act on one or the other half of their alignment and sacrifice the other from time to time. He will never be a purely (or, 'extremely') good as the NG character, nor as purely/extremely lawful as the LN character.

They're the extremes because on a grid they are the four corners.

There. It's an answer you can't argue with.

;)

I can argue with just about everything; to wit -

LN | LG | NG
LE | NN | CG
NE | CE | CN

Now, in this grid, which are the corners?

LG is NOT a hybrid of LN and NG. In the Cartesian Plane, the point at (10,10) is not a hybrid of the points at (10,0) and (0,10), but it IS further away from the origin at (0,0) from either of those. Law-Chaos and Good-Evil are two INDEPENDENT axes where an extreme on one axis has no bearing whatsoever on the position on the other axis.

Again, what if the AXES are running LG to LE, and CG to CE, (or LG to CE, and CG to LE...) and the points LN/NE/NG/CN are the ones at (10,10/-10,10/10,-10/-10,-10)? We are, after all, creating these grids and planes in our imagination. Nothing defines which is the axis and which is not.

Hey, don't you know that it's not a square? It's a rhombus!

From most good to least good, it goes like this:

LG
NG
CG
LN
N
CN
LE
NE
CE

Depending on the angle of the rhombus, some may argue that CG is equally good as LN, and the same for LE and CN.

How is LG more good than NG? By definition it focuses less on 'good' and some on law. Law is not, in and of itself, good or evil; nor is it a pure enhancement of good or evil - if either of these were true, LE would either be the most evil, or not possible.

Because alignment is a colossal cluster-frag of contradictory nonsense.

Possibly the least helpful contribution, yet probably the most accurate so far...

The thing is, for this style character, either as a dancer or an archaeologist, you aren't going to want many levels of bard if you want to be effective in combat. If it is just something cool to do in combat, but you want to focus on being the party's face/skill monkey/etc., cool. But if you want to be an unarmed combatant, you probably won't take 5 levels much less 10 or more in bard.

All other benefits aside, lets compare them at 5th level.

At 5th level, the archaeologist gets +3 luck bonus for all saves, all skill checks, attack and weapon damage rolls. He can do this for 3x(4+CHA) rounds a day, requiring a swift action every third round to activate/maintain.

At 5th level, the dawnflower dervish gets +4 morale bonus for will saves versus charm and fear effects, and a +4 competence bonus on attack and weapon damage rolls. He can do this for 12+CHA rounds/day, requiring a move action to activate each time, and free actions to maintain.

The Archaeologist gets 2xCHA more rounds, has an easier action economy in starting the bonus, but requires a bit more maintenance (swift every 3rd vs. free every round). He also gets a bonus to all saves vs. a specific subset of saves; granted the subset is important, but it is not as good as 'all'. He also gets the bonus to all skill checks. Both give a benefit to any attack but only to weapon damage, so that is a wash. My vote in this would be for the Archaeologist.

But now lets look at another build. Bard 2, then Fighter or Ranger (or even barbarian or monk). The 2nd level is more or less a complete waste for the dervish (you do get versatile performance, which could be a boost to acrobatics; however that is not much for a level). Again, we're not focused on casting, so that is irrelevant. The archaeologist gets clever explorer. A +1 to disable device and perception; and some benefits with disabling traps. This could be irrelevant to your build; if you already have a trapfinder, this is a wasted level as well. In which case, go bard 1 and then multiclass out.

Take Tiefling Maw (one of the only 1d6 primary bite attacks), grab a couple levels of Barbarian to get 1d6 claw attacks, find ways to extend your rage (drunken brute is an easy way), then move into ranger and natural weapon fighting style, or monk (drunken master synergizes with drunken brute - an aasimar race trait (pick it up with adopted) lets you be a N or NG monk).

Now the 1d6 bite + claws is not a huge issue in the long run - 1d6 is only 1 pt. / attack behind, 3 pts. a full attack. This can be made up with other damage bonuses. But it would be slightly better at lower levels before you can pile them on.

As well as the above mentioned archetypes, geisha gives you a free weapon proficiency, and adds back in a form of bardic performance; you can spend 10 minutes to grant the bonus to your allies for a 10 minute duration - and since you are not getting morale or competence bonuses from your archaeologist's luck, it stacks for you. A bit cheesy, but RAW legal.

For barbarian, I would recommend savage barbarian, for the dodge bonus, brutal pugilist if you expect to grapple much, or invulnerable rager for a bit of DR.

And for monk, master of many styles would lose flurrying, but could pile on a couple style feats to make up for the loss; monk of the four winds or monk of the sacred mountain could work as well. If you want, instead of (or as well as) geisha, you could grab sensei to get a bardic performance ability as well as to get WIS to attack (not to damage, though) instead of STR.

If you want to go multiclass crazy (like we haven't yet), add in natural weapon ranger and get rending claws and/or improved natural weapons.

Another option would be cleric or druid (or even inquisitor) and grab the plant domain. Heck, take cleric AND druid, and grab it twice for double the usage.

So we have Bard 1, Barbarian 2, Monk 2, Ranger 2, Cleric 1, Druid 1 so far. you could either toss the remaining 3 levels into monk or barbarian, for extra ki or rages, or ranger; or heck - go with 3 levels of fighter; weapon master (claws) or unarmed fighter (if you want an extra free style feat), or brawler (assuming you have feral combat training, brawler would work)

There would be a lot of work left yet to make the above into a single coherent build... and you could cherry pick a portion of it, but honestly, that would be a very unusual and interesting character, all told.

And I think I got myself very far off track from comparing archaeologist to dervish. Sorry about that.

Archaeologist with Fate's Favored is just as good, or better - better mainly because it does work with lingering performance.

The kitsune form is able to wield weapons; it is a humanoid fox. There is a separate feat which grants a fox shape as well, but it is completely unrelated to the vulpine pounce feat.

Hard to believe anyone would favorite karossii's unhelpful snark. I'm sure LazarX's post was genuine curiousity, and that he was looking for more data to inform his suggestions to the OP.

On topic, Magus looks good if you;re limited to Paizo material. Mike Franke has a great idea if Dreamscarred Press material is allowed. I've played with a couple guys whose PCs were Psychic Warriors and they were huge fun and effective too.

I admit I had not considered that as a potential reason for the question (and given the phrasing, I sincerely doubt that WAS the intent) - but if it was, I would apologize.

On these and many other forums, one all too often sees people judging others' choices because it does not meet with their mental vision of how a game should be played. That is more of what his comment sounded like was happening. And my reply to that was not 'snark' as you put it, but indignation for the OP. If my assumption is correct and that was the intent of the question, then LazarX had no right to ask unless he were the DM or a player, as I stated, and my post was fully appropriate and justified. And in that case, your snark would be baseless and inappropriate.

and how exactly are you fitting this character into the setting?

Unless you're the DM, or to a lesser extent, another player at his table... that is none of your business. And even if it were, it is off topic.

You're asking people not to "call you out as a munchkin" when you're clearly using corner case rules logic to justify your approach? The fact that your approach might be "suboptimal" doesn't change the fact that it doesnt' jibe with rules.

Secondly there's only one person you need to ask for this.... that's your DM. We're neither here to condemm a yes, or be an appeals board for a no.

A) There are DMs who are stickler for RAW over RAI.

In neither case does it make one a munchkin to try to verify the RAW of a corner case or something which can be interpreted in multiple ways.

The very term munchkin means different things to different people, and therefor to use it is to invite misinterpretations and assumed slurs/insults.

Additionally, there have been many times where I join a debate out of curiosity, without vested interests, and will arbitrarily select one side or the other to join - not because I necessarily feel it is more right than the other side, but because it will be more enjoyable to debate from that side. This can be done by a mature individual; yet others who lack said capabilities and insights will automatically make assumptions and cast slurs... so you may wish to reevaluate your standards on such name calling and presumption making. It does not showcase intelligence or superiority - the exact opposite, in fact.

I missed out a day or two and the thread blew up... I won't post a page long response to all of the various pertinent bits, but just jump back in as it is now...

To those arguing against this, please answer the following questions;

1) Improvised Weapon is listed as a weapon in the tables. This means an improvised weapon is a weapon, period. There are traits, feats, and class features which all make it quite evident and obvious that improvised weapons follow all of the standard weapon rules, within the described exceptions. An exception does indeed exist (Unarmed Strike) where there is a weapon that cannot be enhanced by magic as other weapons normally can be. But it is a specific exception, spelled out in the rules as an exception. Is there any such specific exception listed for the weapon, 'improvised weapon'?

2) A shield is not an improvised weapon. It is a weapon of its own right - a shield can bash. A SEPARATE weapon, shield spikes, can be added to a shield, but are not required for the shield to be a weapon. A shield as a weapon does have certain specific rules exceptions listed. One of those is that a shield can never be made into a masterwork weapon, only a masterwork armor component. Another is that it can still be enchanted as a weapon. Nowhere (including 3.5 rules) does it ever call for 300 GP to make a masterwork weaponized shield (the listed example is specific to adding shield spikes, which is not required to attack and deal damage with a shield, nor to enchant a shield as a weapon). I understand and agree with the logic desiring an additional 300GP cost to enhance the shield as a masterwork 'weapon' before enchanting it as a weapon. But can you find any rules text illustrating or supporting this interpretation? Because as far as I can tell, it is a long stretch and calling for 'RAI' over 'RAW' to insert this requirement, no matter how common sensical it may be.

3) Please stop calling out people falsely for arguing for this as munchkin or min/max or whatever. I do have a vested interest in this, but it has nothing to do with min/maxing anything, only as a purely flavorful issue (a drunkard meleer whose primary weapon is an ale stein - even if it were to be optimized, it would be weaker than any standard weapon or unarmed attack I might choose in its place; it is a choice being made purely for flavor). It is quite obvious that you do not know the individuals you are arguing against, or their intents - so please drop the assumptions (which as everyone knows just makes an ass out of you and umption), the pseudo personal attacks, and address this as a rules debate where clarity of the rules is the ultimate goal.

Okay, have had a character concept brewing* for a while now. I've looked into a few ways to flesh it out into a build, but none seem to work satisfactorily.

First, the concept. It is simple, yet hard to make it work.
A Dwarf. (check, simple enough!)
Melee style fighter. (yeah, okay - what is so hard about this?)
Who is never without a mug (stein) of ale in his hand. (sounds like most Dwarfs so far...)
And fights (effectively) primarily with said mug. (Here's the hiccup!)

So the first thing I have looked into is the humble beginnings trait, which essentially grants proficiency with a mug, plus treats unarmed foes as flat footed when I attack them with my mug.

Next, I looked at a drunken master monk. Love the concept. But it conflicts with the other half of the build, master of the empty hand. I can get one or the other. Not both. (either one works with sensei, which I think would be awesome - dump STR, pump WIS and CON, fight as an old drunkard who wins with luck and guile, not brute force)

Okay, so monk kindof works, but I have to make sacrifices and stretch it a bit. I can fill in for the missing archetype with some feats and roleplay. But it isn't that effective!

I then looked into a drunken brawler barbarian. Really, I think the monk is better at it than this. Even adding in some other archetypes and/or feats, it is not the same flavor I was looking for. Sure, there are some rage powers based on drinking during combat. But I got hooked on that old weaker but wise and lucky drunk, sensei.

So I try to see if fitting in a few levels of fighter might work. Not really. The Cad archetype came closest, and that isn't even as good as the barbarian. Which, I am still open to the barbarian. Just thinking I prefer the monk.

Now I come to the Advice forum and post asking for some advice. What would be the best way to build an effective melee skirmisher, who is a total lush and fights with his ale stein?

OH, and keeping it PFS legal (so level 12 max, aside from PFS limited options)

*Pun intended!

The free action reload he is referring to is a misnomer. You do not reload as a free action; instead, you do not have to reload at all. If you roll 3 times and fire a single bullet, no reload was required, and you saved two bullets. If you fire three separate times, two reloads were required, and you used 3 bullets.

For someone who hasn't yet played at any Cons, and doesn't seem to likely get to in the near future, what chances do I have of getting a boon? Mainly hoping for a racial boon, I like to play the more obscure races (though not usually 'monster' races)...

What, aside from other boons, would you be willing to trade for?

okay, from both a versatility standpoint (useful in the most situations outside of combat) and from a DPS standpoint (sheer firepower), which of the following combinations would be best for a PFS character?

Straight Gunslinger (any of the various archetypes)
Gunslinger (Mysterious Stranger) 5 / Paladin 7, focused on smiting
Gunslinger (Pistolero) 5 / Paladin 7, focused on smiting with dual wielding pistols
Gunslinger (Pistolero or Musket Master) 1 / Inquisitor 11, focused on Banes and Inquisitions
Gunslinger (Pistolero or Musket Master) 5(7) / Inquisitor 7(5), utilizing both deeds and inquisitions/banes
Gunslinger (Mysterious Stranger) 5 / Rogue 7, focused on sneak attacks
Gunsliner (Pistolero + Buccaneer) 5 / Rogue 7, focused on both sneak attack and grog fueled 'up close and deadly' dice
Gunslinger (Mysterious Stranger) 1 / Fighter (Lore Warden 3) / Rogue 8, focused on sneak attacks

...or something completely different?

I want to play a gunslinger, I would like to be able to somehow minimize the cost of ammunition; so gaining the bard/cleric/ranger/sorcerer/wizard first level spell 'abundant ammunition' (even in wand form) would be a huge boon. I want to be able to lay down the hurt in combat the majority of the time. Not brokenly so, necessarily, but enough so that I feel I have contributed my share and more at least most of the time.

But I also want to have skills and utility abilities/powers/spells to use outside of combat.

As for RP style; I have a few approaches I am thinking of, and could tailor that to fit the mechanics as needed.

Iterative attacks are not attacks at a penalty, but attacks with a different bonus.

True, but the additional attacks granted by TWF, ITWF, and GTWF are explicitly 'additional attacks' at a 'penalty', and not iterative attacks - removing that penalty means you have 3 attacks off hand at full BAB, plus your main hand routine.

I agree with both you and your player. From your point of view, the NPC was at the point that an intimidate check convinces him they are guilty. Without more info on this specific NPC and his stats, I can't say for sure if I (were I DMing) would think he should have left and come back with help, or immediately attacked as you had him do - but the important part is that as the DM, *you* did feel he would have attacked. So it is right that he did so. I do not think an automatic skill check or warning should be given, this might (hopefully) teach that player to declare such checks themselves, it is often done as a free action to sense motive, etc.; so would cost nothing and have great potential to save the party's bacon.

As a player, I would hate to learn that lesson (or Not!) the hard way. I would want to have any and all successful skill checks yield a beneficial result. But in a roleplaying game, this is not the case, and it is a lesson that needs to be learned.

So I understand his feelings, but think you were right in what you did.

Gun Templar

A gun templar is a militant cleric devoted to serving his deity with the power of blackpowder to back up his words, deeds, and spells. Usually a gun Templar is devoted to a deity with one or more of the following domains; Artifice, Glory, Hunting, Liberation, Protection, or Travel. They rarely spend much time in the temples, and avoid the politics of the clergy; instead they can be found traveling the world, protecting and upholding the members and ideals of their faith.

Class Skills
The gun templar’s class skills are Appraise (Int), Craft (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Heal (Wis), (Int), Knowledge (religion) (Int), Linguistics (Int), Perception (Wis), Profession (Wis), Sense Motive (Wis), and Spellcraft (Int).

Weapon and Armor Proficiency
Gun templars are proficient with light and medium armor and with simple weapons and two-handed firearms. They are proficient with bucklers but not light, heavy, or tower shields.

Domains
A gun templar only gains a single domain.

Gunsmith
A gun templar gains the Gunsmithing feat and a battered gun that is identical to the gun a gunslinger gains at first level, except that he may select any two-handed firearm available in his campaign as his battered gun. Like a gunslinger, a gun templar can use the Gunsmithing feat to restore and improve his battered gun.

Divine Gun (Su)
A gun templar can attune a gun as his divine gun at the start of each day by spending one hour in meditation, prayer, or an appropriate ceremony. That attunement lasts until the gun templar attunes to a new gun, even if a formally attuned gun is destroyed. Divine guns function as normal two-handed firearms in the hands of others. In a gun templar’s hands, they both fire projectiles (bullets and pellets) and cast magic.

A gun templar can cast any ranged touch attack, cone, line, or ray spells through his divine gun. When he casts through the divine gun, the gun’s enhancement bonus (if any) is a bonus to the spell’s attack rolls or to the spell’s saving throw DCs. Spells fired through the divine gun that require an attack roll have the same critical hit multiplier as the gun.

Yet there are dangers inherent to this method. If any of the spells’ attack rolls result in a natural 1 (a misfire), or a natural 20 is rolled on any saving throw made against the spell by a target (an overload), the divine gun gains the broken condition. If the divine gun already has the broken condition, the gun explodes.

When a gun explodes, it lets loose a blast of force, or if the spell has the acid, cold, electricity, sonic descriptor, or positive or negative energy, it deals that type of energy damage instead. In the case of spells with multiple descriptors, roll randomly among the descriptors to determine the type of damage dealt by the blast. The 20’ blast is centered on a single intersection within the gun templar’s space (gun templar’s choice) and deals 1d6 points of the appropriate energy damage or force damage per level of the spell cast. Any creature within the blast other than the gun templar can make a Reflex saving throw to halve the damage. The Reflex save DC is calculated using the spell level of the spell being sacrificed.

Channeled Bullets (Su)
A gun templar is adept at transferring divine energy into his divine gun attacks. As a swift action, he can channel the power of his faith and transform that energy into a bonus. At first level, this bonus is a +1; at each odd level it increases by 1 to a maximum of +10 at 19th level*.

With that bonus the gun templar can apply any of the following to his divine gun: an enhancement bonus (up to +5), or one or more of the dancing, defending, distance, flaming, flaming burst, frost, ghost touch, icy burst, merciful, seeking, shock, shocking burst, spell storing, thundering, vicious, and wounding properties. A divine gun gains no benefit from having two of the same weapon special abilities on the same barrel. The effect lasts for a number of rounds equal to the gun templar’s level, or until this ability is used again to assign the barrel different enhancements. A gun templar may channel bullets a number of times per day equal to 3 + his Wisdom modifier**. This is a swift action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity.

This ability replaces Channel Energy.

* The Improved Channel feat may be taken up to three times, and each time it adds +1 to the total bonus (still to a maximum of +10, just reaching the maximum at an earlier level).
**This number can be increased by two means; taking the Extra Channel feat (+2/day) one or more times, or by a favored class bonus which adds to the number of times per day a cleric could use a domain granted ability (and selecting this ability instead of the granted ability for the gun templar’s chosen domain).

Okay... so any major typos, grammatical errors, or balance issues?

I just found out I will be joining a new campaign next week, playing Rise of the Runelords. I assume the anniversary edition.

I have never actually played it.

Without giving away too much in the way of spoilers, what are some of the best class/race combos to play, either mechanically or flavor wise?

What about some of the worst?

How about Archetypes, and Traits, as well...?

Here is a list of the possible SLAs from the Core races, including their type and level. I will add the Advanced races soon.

Something non-standard to consider - if you want to avoid minmaxing, start all stats at 11 instead of 10, then go with a 15 point buy. Don't allow them to buy down below an 9; -2 for +2 points. Don't allow them to buy down more than 2 stats.

This is in effect, a 21 point buy; but you are forcing them to take at least 1 point in each stat... no 18 (preracial) is available unless a buy down is used... and with the limits on buying down stats, they would still have at most 1 18 and a 14 (both preracial). It will encourage most builds to spread a few points out a little more than they might normally...

I have played 3.0 and 3.5 extensively, but I have not yet dipped my toes into the pathfinder system.

I am creating a character for my first run through, and was initially planning on a catfolk of any sort. Based on descriptions from fellow gamers I play other systems with, I was looking intently at the alchemist and gunslinger classes when I first opened the books.

Sitting with some friends going over concepts, a few combinations melded together to make me think about a ninja/sorcerer/arcane trickster cat, or a barbarian/monk cat, but then jokingly turned to what looks like may be my ultimate choice - a catfolk Oracle, with the Black Cat feat, Haunted curse, and possibly twice cursed archetype and another (tongues, probably?) - the 'eye of the storm' type character.

Part of me still loves the concept of a gunslinger though, and I am thinking a haunted oracle/mysterious stranger gunslinger might work. I know it is far from an optimized character, but that is fine for this game. I am looking for more fluff than crunch.

The question is, then; how do I build this?

We're starting at either first or second level (probably 1st), and with a 20 point buy. The DM and players have mostly played 'society' games, but this is a home game, so those restrictions, whatever they may be, are out the window. Reason should still prevail, though.

Thanks for any thoughts and advice you have on any of the builds (ninja/sorcerer/at, barb/monk, or oracle/gunslinger)...!!!