After further digging, I agree with Cordell. I didn't realize that his wording of a spell being "cast as" a spell of a given tradition, is actually the conventional wording used in other places in the rules that the text in Fey Gift Spells was alluding to when it said "As usual,..."

I'm now convinced that the RAI actually does proscribe learning spells from outside your tradition by e.g. finding someone else who has it, because the magical laws of physics that the rules seem to be describing is one in which a repertoire doesn't convert spells KNOWN to its tradition, only CASTINGS thereof.

That said, 1: Yeah, part of this was fueled by "primal casters should have illusions" (plus the fact that IMO incapacitation tags nerfed enchantments beyond general combat viability), and 2: I really resent the assumption that I already understood all this and was just trying to exploit the wording.

I was looking for confirmation that I hadn't missed anything--or what I had missed, if there was something. And I basically got that--Cordell helped highlight the ambiguity of "all your spells", which in my mind downgrades this build from "RAW legal" to "RAW plausible".

Just because a spell is cast as a "primal" spell

The relevant rules text is more ambiguous than that; it doesn't say spells you cast are cast as primal spells, it says "all your spells are primal spells". The most obvious interpretation to me is "all your spells" = "all spells in your repertoire for this archetype". But it's absolutely subject to interpretation.

it doesn't mean any cleric can ask them to teach them how to cast Fireball without changing their deity

Why not? That very much feels subject to GM approval. WRT divine casters specifically, I can easily imagine an argument like, just because you learn how, doesn't mean your deity will actually GIVE it to you--but again, it really feels like something I'd say you have to spend downtime to make a skill check to ATTEMPT to do, not something I'd say "no" to.

Your Sorcerer spells are locked to the Primal list only, plus any spells you get through your Bloodline.

It doesn't say "list", it says "tradition". If it said "list", I'd agree that it probably meant the explicit list in the book. But if a spell is primal, it is a spell of the primal tradition, tautologically.

Those examples don't seem remotely absurd; they're the same sort of in-game process you'd have to go through to track down an uncommon/rare spell/feat/etc. I totally might allow them if I were GMing, depending on the specifics.

I fully admit that what I'm proposing is stronger, because it side-steps that in-game process, but there's no such thing as side-stepping the GM, so I'm not even sure what I'm being accused of. If my GM said it didn't work, I would simply not do it.

The funny thing is, I think the most OP aspect of this build is the fact that it can cast 2 offensive cantrips every round with maxed out primal spell attack/DC proficiency.

You misunderstand; I'm not trying to use the line "When you add spells to your repertoire..." from the archetype to add to the sorcerer repertoire. Here's what I'm doing.

First, I add invisibility to the archetype repertoire. Since the archetype ability says "All your spells are primal spells", the invisibility I added to the archetype repertoire is a primal spell.

Next, I choose which spells to add to my sorcerer repertoire. Since 1: the invisibility I added to my archetype repertoire is a primal spell, and 2: I feel reasonably confident saying that I "have access" to spells in my own repertoire(s), I conclude that (primal) invisibility is a "spell from that tradition to which I have access". Therefore, it is a valid selection for my sorcerer repertoire.

[EDIT] At worst I might have to use the Learn A Spell action and pay the gold cost, which feels justifiable from a balance perspective, albeit kinda ridiculous from a logical one.

Summary: Add illusions to primal summoner archetype repertoire with fey gift spells, then add to primal main class repertoire because they're primal spells. Legit?

Sorcerer--Spell Repertoire: "At 1st level, you learn two 1st-level spells of your choice and four cantrips of your choice, as well as an additional spell and cantrip from your bloodline. You choose these from the common spells from the tradition corresponding to your bloodline, or from other spells from that tradition to which you have access."

Fey Eidolon--Fey Gift Spells: "When you add spells to your repertoire, you can choose from the primal list as well as from enchantment and illusion spells that appear on the arcane spell list. As usual for when you add spells of a different tradition to your spell list, you're still a primal spellcaster, so all of your spells are primal spells."

So: Make a primal sorcerer. Take summoner archetype dedication, fey eidolon, initial eidolon ability feat and basic summoner spellcasting feat. Add invisibility and illusory object to summoner repertoire. Now, since you know the primal invisibility and illusory object spells, does that make them "spells from that tradition to which you have access"?

Question can apply to any innate spell, but Otherworldly Acumen is the hilarious example, since you can change it by spending a downtime day.

If you have an innate spell, do you count as someone who "knows" the spell for purposes of YOU using the Learn a Spell action? It seems Learn a Spell is supposed to represent the process of converting the information into your storage device (spellbook/familiar) more than simply wrapping your head around it.

Even if the answer's no, you can still craft a scroll of it and learn it from the scroll, just curious if I can skip the absurd middle-man step.

Putting together a summoner today, ran into an exception that would allow this to be useful: Any natural attacks of an eidolon wielding manufactured weapons become secondary, and thus deal only 1/2 str.

edit: although, obviously it does also need to be clarified that you can take bite more than once--like the hydra model *does*.

Related to RasTenira's question: "For the purpose of effects related to number of Hit Dice, use the master's character level or the familiar's normal HD total, whichever is higher."

Does that mean that using Familiar Feat to give Toughness would grant the familiar hp equal to my level?

I came across this thread looking up the tiny/small Fox debate. 9 str on a tiny creature is crazy for polymorph spells.

the basic small elementals give the best statlines-if you want a combat capable familiar, polymorphing an elemental is your best bet. Just need to find a way to get their max HP up; half of a wizards HP isn't gonna last on the frontline.

again, vitriol aside

Tabletop systems are a context, an abstraction into which you pour data. The rules for interaction are the context; the stats for creatures and objects, the data.

As I pointed out, some meandering progress was already made in the direction of this form of character development; I simply think its been underdeveloped in the official products. And let's be honest; a reasonable dm may allow *a* homebrewed feat or two, but if any significant chunk of your character's abilities can't be found in a book he dropped thirty bucks on, he's gonna smell cheese, whether it's there or not.

As for why I don't just play Hero. Or any of a dozen other game systems that offer more of the flexibility I want.

1: Other games are less fleshed out.
2: Fewer people play them.

...I really expected to have to say a lot more on that subject, but, no, actually, that was pretty obvious.

Alright. Jabs at the min-maxing aside, because as I pointed out, this is a build, not a character, and I know the difference.

1: I'll be honest; I do consider him pretty tweaked, but if I claimed that out the gate, the first line in half the posts would have been "What are you talking about? You TOTALLY forgot to...". Though, since I was looking for critique on a build, perhaps that's what I should have gone for anyway.

2: Magic Item dependency. Absolutely true, but not just the int band; his attack bonus really needs every +1 it can get to stay up to par. This is the biggest weakness of the build.

3: @Blueluck, I was hoping someone would say just that.

The real reason for this build is my hatred of the class system. It requires you to start with a package, and then gives you a very limited amount of room for customization. Multiclassing doesn't fix the problem, because not all combinations work at all. Some prc's make certain otherwise bad combos workable, but it just sucks you into a new pre-packaged build.

In Unearthed Arcana (I think that's the one, not Arcana Unearthed...), there was a trio of base classes. One was a fighter. One was...kind of a rogue/expert thing. And one was "The spellcaster". One got max bab and feats. One got 3/4 bab and skills. One got 1/2 bab and spells. That was it. You took the feats, skills or spells that did what you wanted the class to do.

What I'm trying to say is, adding base classes is an inefficient way to add customization. What I'd really like to see are more feats, more spells, more options that anyone can take.

So, my goal here was not to say that the Wizard is a *better* pet class than a druid, a witch or a summoner; rather, to say that they didn't need to add a new class to do that. With a couple better feats and/or spells available (do you think I wanted to focus this guy on mounted combat? I ran out of feats to give him!), this guy *could* be a better summoner than a summoner.

Here follows a build. Its not tweaked with an exact-o-knife, but it remains purely a build exercise. Fair warning.

Human Conjurer9/Fighter1/Eldritch Knight10

str: 14
dex: 13
con: 20
int: 13
wis: 7
cha: 7

Skills:
Max: Spellcraft
Max: Knowledge: Arcana
Max: Ride
Max: Fly

Traits:
Magical Knack
Jaded

Feat Plan:
1: (Wiz BONUS) Scribe Scroll
1: Acadamae Graduate
1: (Human BONUS): Toughness
2: (Ftr BONUS): Arcane Armor Training
3: Arcane Armor Mastery
5: Improved Familiar
6: (Wiz BONUS): Spell Focus: Conjuration
7: Improved Share Spells
9: Augment Summoning
11 (ElK BONUS): Shield Focus: Heavy Shield
11: Arcane Strike
13: Boon Companion
15: Greater Shield Focus: Heavy Shield
15: (ElK BONUS): Mounted Combat
17: Mounted Shield
19: (ElK BONUS) Trick Riding
19: Mounted Skirmisher

Spellbook Neccesities:
Summon Monster spells
Polymorph spells
Buff Spells
-Shield
-Mage Armor
-Haste
-Bull's Strength
-Cat's Grace
-Transformation
-Greater Magic Weapon
-Heroism
-Greater Heroism
-False Life
-Stoneskin
-etc.

Eventual Planned Purchases:
+5 Mithril Breastplate
+5 Heavy Steel Shield
+5 Amulet of Natural Armor
+5 Ring of Protection
+5 Cloak of Resistance
+6 Headband of Intellect
-Knowledge: The Planes
-Knowledge: Dungeoneering
-Knolwedge: History
+6 Belt of Constitution
+1 Holy Gauntlet Spikes
Manual of Constitution +5
Familiar:
+5 Ring of Protection
+5 Amulet of Mighty Fists

Notes:
Put all stat bumps into con.
Familiar should probably be a mephit (small earth ele would be better, if not for -4 atk/dmg while airborne)

Build was inspired by the familiar's "Share Spells" ability.

I'm hesitant to simply gush about what I like about this build, and to some extent I like the feel of leaving the capabilities of a character with this build as a thought exercise to the reader; but of course, if anybody can think of something this guy could use that I haven't (such as a feat, obviously, or a particularly synergistic spell from the APG, which I haven't read), it'd be much appreciated.

Rogues are useful. The problem is, their usefulness is so contrived. Every other class is good at their job for logical reasons.

Fighters are combat experts. They're good at fighting monsters.

Clerics are holy. They can miraculously heal wounds.

Wizards study complicated formuli. They can produce powerful, complex effects, but long hours of study leaves them feeble.

Rogues are sneaky. They are convincing speakers and stealthy movers.

...and also they are biology experts who can can pick out vital spots (on monsters they've never heard of) to hit SO well, they are the peer (if not quite equal) of a damage-oriented warrior at killing monsters.

...and also they are capable of seeing traps that literally aren't physically there. Even if you rule that magic traps have a visible component, then why can't ANYONE with enough perception see them?

The two "and also" paragraphs are the primary purposes of the rogue's existence. Simply put, sneak attack is an interesting battle mechanic-but its stupid to center a class's combat around it. It ties the class to the ability. As for trapfinding, a rule was invented to make the class neccesary: Only classes with Trapfinding can find magical (read: not-made-by-a-kobold) traps.

Get rid of the Trapfinding rule, make Sneak Attack a feat-type effect, and banish the rogue forever-everything else the rogue does, everything else the rogue IS, is handled fine by bards and rangers.

I don't like the alchemist. He has 2 modes of combat, and they don't share stats (str/con and dex/int). So you either eschew one mode of combat completely, or become a CRAPPY switch-hitter.

I want them to flesh out the mutagen abilities more, and make the bombs more "automatic"; more innately powerful, but less potential for specializing to high hell.

I fear, though, that since everyone uses the bombs more (because they deal pretty broken damage), that's the ability set that will get the most attention.

*sigh* and I really liked the feel of the class...

I always thought so-though after it was explained to me that the RAI of Vital Strike was to multiply NOTHING but the base damage die, I don't see the point of the feat.

To answer the question: Could a fighter do it better. Amount of damage as a two-weapon-fighter? Yes.

However, you get more skills, some spells, and a melee assistant-don't forget the animal companion (or ally bond, but I don't reccomend that unless you know you're gonna see your favored enemies constantly). A fighter's always gonna edge you out a little in battle stats, but you're more well-rounded; rub it in his face when the situation calls for stealth.

However, I've yet to see a reason NOT to sword-and-board when TWF. Replace that light pick with a spiked light shield. You lose crit multiplier, gain the ability to drop off-hand attacks for more AC.

Now drop prof/focus bastard sword for improved shield bash and shield focus. You have now taken a -1 to atk and dmg on your main hand, in exchange for a +2 to armor class (+3 for another 1k gp).

Move a couple points into dex (out of...pretty much anything but str) and your AC is at 24 at level 3.

More importantly, that -1 atk/dmg is static; the shield, however, is gonna get enchanted up to +7 (1 base, 1 shield focus, 5 enhancement) by around level 13, give or take.

Compared to a fighter doing the same thing, you're gonna have lower attack/dmg, except against favored enemies, and lower AC by 3, until you can afford mithril full plate. But again. Skills, Spells, AND you have an entire extra combatant counting for you.

"Humanoid" is a keyword in dnd/pf" Yes but what it means is not clear. But acording to James statement in another thread an ape with an int score of 3 or higher would not be an animal but a Humanoid.

/end of threadjack

Oh. Thank you for that. Still, raises as many questions as it answers. Why do apes become humanoids, but not horses? Purely an arbitrary distinction based on real-world common sense, or is there some sort of underlying rule that causes that result?

Primates in nature have been observed using simple spears and clubs. I'd certainly allow a trained primate to do either of those things.

In case anyone was wondering about the real-life details.

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2008/10/chimpanzees_make_spears_to _hunt_bushbabies.php

In a game where there was a "positive energy elemental", it spoke a corresponding language, that I described as "Musical and aesthetically pleasing, but...too loud and too fast. Its nice at first, but eventually listening to it gives you a headache."

AvalonXQ wrote:

Dork Lord wrote:

You could always wildshape into a dire ape and still wield the shield...

Is there an actual rule or ruling somewhere that says apes can use weapons, or have people just assumed that they can because their paws seem closer to human hands than other animals'?

You don't become an ape. You might say you become an ape with the soul / mind of a druid. You still keep your feats, skill ranks, base save bonus, BAB and Class Features such as Weapon and Armor Proficiency unless the Class Features depend upon form. An ape has a humanoid form.

Huh...wow...no! I don't think it does! "Humanoid" is a keyword in dnd/pf. It is a creature type. A humanoid "form", in this case, I think, likely refers to a polymorph that turns you into a humanoid. An ape is an animal. A polymorph to turn you into an ape turns you into an animal form.

Of course, that's ridiculous; apes in real life are using spears to hunt small monkeys. DM-discretion as you see fit. I wouldn't take a stab at the RAI on this-likely, nobody even bothered to think about it-but it doesn't seem particularly game-breaking to *me*.

Pick a ruling, I don't care which, but please curb the retreading of old ground one page later in the same thread-especially when the ground was a threadjack in the first place.

Agree dipping 1 bard would probably sting a lot less. If you gotta get 2nd level bard spells, make sure to focus your bard list on things it does better-HEALING, first of all, then enchantment/illusion/buffing.

Beyond that...worth asking your dm about this.

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Master_Arcanist_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)

He'll say no of course, but he can't blame you for asking.

I consider this thread true, both taken with AND without the sarcasm.

Problem with debating bard power is, their biggest strength is their buffs, but since they buff all, people complain that if you count the buffs for the bard, you actually have to count them on the other guys, too.

For determining individual power, it is a legitimate point. For determining contribution to party power, they're off their rocker(s).

Bards are weak alone, because their abilities take time. But I truly believe they contribute more to a party-whether they're the 5th, 4th, 3rd or even (especially?) 2nd, than any other class.

Items that works with spells of a given level, vs. metamagic spells taking higher slots but not being higher level, is RAW vs. RAI. The url is a thread I started along the same vein.

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/archives/pearlOfMetamagicPower&page=1&source=search#0

obviously, the acid is unsuitable for use as acid flasks, because if it wasn't, it wouldn't be there; someone would have already harvested it, quite possibly the bad guy the PC's are attacking, who then sold the acid for 300k gp, and invested in traps and mercenaries that would kill a PC party twice their level.

This thread is becoming exhaustive. All I think we've done is prove more or less beyond the shadow of a doubt that there are grounds for believing both viewpoints are RAI.

As I've said before, I think the strict RAW is you get your shield, and I think the general RAI is you don't; but there's too much evidence on both sides, and not enough of it decisive, for this to ever be decided.

Can we just agree that TM's guide is written based on an entirely reasonable interpretation of the RAW, thank him for his donated time and effort, and go home? I have no problem with a little bit of nitpicking of his guides, but this is ten kinds of overboard.

for game balance, no-otherwise the rogue buys glass flasks, the wizards casts a cantrip into them, and the rogue gets to make touch attacks to deal sneak attack damage for cheap.

But after about 1st or 2nd level, such costs are negligible anyway. If it were me, I might allow it, just to give the wizard something entertaining to do with his OOC time.

Huh...wow...no! I don't think it does! "Humanoid" is a keyword in dnd/pf. It is a creature type. A humanoid "form", in this case, I think, likely refers to a polymorph that turns you into a humanoid. An ape is an animal. A polymorph to turn you into an ape turns you into an animal form.

Of course, that's ridiculous; apes in real life are using spears to hunt small monkeys. DM-discretion as you see fit. I wouldn't take a stab at the RAI on this-likely, nobody even bothered to think about it-but it doesn't seem particularly game-breaking to *me*.

@Sarrion: Yes, precisely, IF shield don't automatically count in wildshape. That's the point in contention. I'm saying that SHOULD be the case. Others in this thread are saying that you shouldn't need the Wild ability on the shield, at which point the tank and the druid have the same shield (except the druid's is wood-the main drawback of which being flammability, a drawback which is removed when wild shaped).

I was mainly posting in response to TM's statement of being...I forget what he said, something to the effect of "dubious"...when people make claims to know what the RAI is. It was my intent to very simply make such a claim, and do my best to back it up.

@Charender: I ALWAYS forget that. Thank you, my mistake. Point remains, though; its one spell and one turn. Your DM will be more likely to play along if you throw in an extra enchantment or illusion. By the time you're slinging dominates, you've got the 3rd level slots to spare, if you REALLY want this thrull. Actually *playing* an enchanting specialist have given me a lot of perspective on this ;)

I concede I am arrogant to say this, but this is a forum, so here is my opinion. I believe firmly it is RAI that shields not function in wild shape without the wild enchantment. I believe so for simple balance reasons.

Compared with a typical frontline combatant:

-A druid will have a ring of protection.

-Nothing except an eye for "mighty fists" stops him from having an amulet of natural armor-and he's got greater magic fang, he can still get through basic x/magic DR without mighty fists (And in a form with one big attack, GMF keeps him almost caught up).

-A druid will, starting around mid-levels, have wild armor for 16k. We'll assume they don't spring for the heavy armor prof feat, and have +1 wild ironwood breatplate for about 16k. At which point, they are lagging behind an AC tank by about 6 points (-3 full plate to breastplate, -3 Wild).

-A druid in wild shape will have a base natural armor bonus of, starting around mid-levels, typically +6 in heavy combats. The druid is now caught up with a heavy AC tank.

All that's left is the shield. Are you telling me that the wild shaped druid, without sparing any hands from his full attack, AND without spending an extra cent, gets to have dedicated-tank-level armor class?

What's the drawback? What's balancing this, AND the fact that this is just their basic combat options, they can also turn into birds and unicorns and whatever else? And...not to go all "durid R OP!!!1!' on this thread, but...after you balance all that...what's balancing the NINE LEVELS OF SPELLCASTING?

1 thing to bear in mind: no matter how conservative your DM decides to be about the "against their nature" interpretation, they can't take one thing from you: The initial order.

The additional save at +2 is only when you attempt to RE-direct the spell.

Basically, dominate, like every other spell, is built from an epic seed. The epic seed dominate comes from is basically suggestion. Dominate is basically just a suggestion, except more convincing (the order doesn't have to sound "reasonable", just non-suicidal), and you can use the same casting to give them another suggestion (they just get a new saving throw at +2, at the DM's discretion).

So, yes, the problem remains that the spell is as powerful as the DM decides it is. BUT! Remember that you can get creative about this sort of thing. PILE ON those tricks! If you REALLY want your thrulls to be obedient, burn the extra suggestion to convince them of a falsehood that will change their mind, or throw up an illusion that will trick them into attacking the wrong target.

DM's don't like Dominate because it's too much power from 1 spell and 1 standard action. But if you're willing to spend another spell or two, most DM's will grin at your "cleverness" and start getting a LOT more lenient.

If the enchantment you're referring to is the Wild ability, you're misunderstanding the current state of the argument; some are claiming that a mistake was made in the wording of Wild Shape/Polymorph, in that they "forgot" to add that shield bonuses do not apply while in another form. Others are claiming that this was intentional, and that the mistake was in the description of the wild ability itself, that it should not be an ability for shields because shields don't need a special ability to keep their bonus in wild shape.

I think the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing; someone wrote one section thinking shield bonuses applied in wild shape, someone else wrote another section thinking they didn't. I side with those who believe you need the ability, but that's by the by.

Presumably, their *permanent* max hp would be based off of yours. But why wouldn't a temporary bonus to yours result in a temporary boost to the familiars? I'm gonna go ahead and say we've crossed firmly out of RAW and into RAI with the discussion at this point, though.

If thrown weapon builds worked, I'd say:

Drop rapid shot, pick up improved two-weapon fighting. You'll still get to throw the extra dagger.

As it is, instead I'll say:

First, ask your DM if he'll let returning weapons return as soon as the attack resolves, rather than beginning of next round-otherwise, you're going to be throwing around +1 knives at lvl 20-cuz you can't afford half a dozen daggers at 50k+ a pop. Sneak attack will get *some* damage through the DR, but not enough.

If he says yes, see above. Otherwise, trash the character.

How is it different from a belt strapped to my waist? If I somehow made an attack "with my waist", I wouldn't lose the bonus, that's how. If I use the limb with the shield for something as involved as wielding a weapon, your vaunted "constantly functioning" argument *ceases functioning*.

"Doesn't require an action to activate" and "constantly functioning" are two separate things.

bears endurance on the familiar would increase its con score and fort saves. not hit point total. on yourself, would increase its hit points (by half as much). But think of the natural armor bonuses! Throw an ammy of natural armor on your familiar, plus the base natural armor of the polymorph, PLUS the natural armor class "ADJUSTMENT" from being a familiar of a wizard of a given level-you can make your familiar really scary. Just gotta max out your con so his HP are at least half-decent.

(Hint: Improved familiar, small earth elemental-highest familiar strength score)

While I agree with the RAW interpretation, I don't know if I'd call it "guessing" to say its not RAI. When equipment melds into you, its no longer physically there.

Amulets and rings protect purely by magic; they turn your skin hard and force-bubble you, respectively. The magic can be there without the physical ring or amulet.

Armor protects by physically being there. No armor, no bonus.

Shields protect by physically being there.

I've been experimenting a lot with a particular gish build lately, but it always comes off feeling way too wonky, and I worry if it would end up being not worth playing. So by all means, I'd love to hear how other arcane combat builds are working out.

If poison IS particularly torturous, I agree its use is evil. Though I refuse to acknowledge that as even a legitimate interpretation in the case of *sleep* poisons, let alone gospel truth. As for " All other poisons, I can certainly see it-DM discretion, I say.

We came up with a balance I liked-we decided str- and dex- damage poisons are, at most, not MORE painful then being stabbed to death, and lead to incapacitation rather than death anyway, so thumbs up. Con-damage poison we ruled to be, as you said, unnecessarily painful, not to mention its particular leathality, so we ruled its use evil. We didn't go into the mental-stat damage; but since the rules describe being at 0 in those stats as something of a waking nightmare, I'd guess those would have been ruled evil.

I disagree with your other points, Blake. A poisoned blade has the same intentions as an unpoisoned one-I'ma gonna stab you until you stop moving. And cheating is dishonorable-to moral codes which happen to even HAVE a concept of "honor". I have a sneaking suspicion Formians and Modrons and other denizens of heavily-lawful planes have never HEARD of "honor".

EDIT: Didn't read your last paragraph till just now, Blake. Huh. I think I'm gonna do that next time I run. Thank you for that.

I was trying to speak in very general terms. I didn't want to start naming specific cases in which I would be correct (as you did with the tiger above) for fear of being accused of something like, say, "creating a strawman and then defeating it".

HOWEVER. Let me back off a little and apologize. I was trying to ninja this thread, which is why I asked if it belonged elsewhere. Because the fact of the matter is, it does: I wasn't comparing the healer to the wizard, I was commenting on the usefulness of the healer in general, as opposed to ANY other additional character; if you need me to be specific, assume I'm talking about the viability of the healer, in addition to a tank, a striker and a god.

Actually...Let me ask you a question, that I feel may drive straight to the pith of the matter. You despise character types being defended on the grounds of being a good "5th member", a perfectly reasonable stance, but you insist that the stereotypical 4th member, the healer, is a "gimp". So: Tank, Striker, God,...

Who's the ideal FOURTH party member?

Admittedly, I get a lot more out of dedicated healers in mmo's, where you're designed to be able to output a ton of healing in a short time if neccesary; AND in 4th ed, I loved playing a healer, because, well, that combat system IS an mmo, and you CAN bring an entire party back from the brink of death in one rounds actions (and it feels REALLY COOL).

Damage, *in a battle where it matters*, yes, typically outpaces healing 2:1, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that you need it; slowing damage intake by half can and often does make the difference in the outcome of a battle, and there are times when healing will solve problems that additional DPS simply cannot.

Say you're dealing with an opponent who is immune to all of the party's attacks except one guy, have one more DPSer *could*, potentially, give you another guy who could hit him-but more likely, it would have just resulted in one more bored, frightened bystander.

Alternately, if your opponent is a high CR, you can't help the fact that you're going to take more damage than the tank can soak (especially if the tank's a monk *nudge nudge wink wink*), and the additional DPS/control might be enough to slow it down/take the enemy out before the tank drops-and it might not. And the same goes for healing. Again, I'm not championing this role as superior-I just disagree with your derision for it.

I'm starting to wonder what sort of boss encounters you tend to run into, that you recommend a medium AC monk as a tank, and foregoing a dedicated healer-it would make run-of-the-mill encounters laughably easy, but challenging encounters would be far more deadly.

Huh. I read the 3.5 guide, like, a year ago or something. Didn't put 2 and 2 together and realize you were the same person until now. Now I'm sad. I really like your guides, and agree with 90-95% of your wizard evaluation, but your contempt for dedicated healers makes me cry. So...why no love? Or, alternately, is there another thread this belongs in, so as not to jack wizardly discussion?

Running a campaign in a world where the sun hasn't risen in the last couple weeks. Party is fighter, pally, cleric, and fighter-cleric. But no one can cast raise dead yet. Paladin dies-I forget why. I happen to have a few random encounters in a folder, one of which is a lizardfolk druid. Supposed to be a combat encounter, but I run him as a loony hermit, and allow the PC's to negotiate a reincarnation out of him.

Now, we roll randomly for the new race-and get Kobold. The players, after the initial shock and laughs wear off, point out that they are not in a position where they can buy magical equipment-so I'm screwing the pally out of most of his gear by virtue of size class. I offer orc, they start b@#&!ing about how much being...basically, anything but a PC race...screws with his character.

So I come up with a solution. The lizardfolk had taken the character's remains into his tent to cast the spell, then come out with him. I tell him he feels fine, looks down at himself, sees human skin, sees the lizardfolk was kind enough to supply him with clothes-nice clothes too, the lines complimented his bust line well.

It took a full 10 seconds for it to dawn on them.

In a fit of...something...the paladin multiclassed into sorcerer and has been on shaky terms with his god ever since.

Meepo points out an error in my logic, though not explicitly: can't charge because charge is an action containing an attack, just like a full attakc, and deadly stroke is an action, not an attack. So unless you can get into melee with them before the surprise round, its useless.

...I take back everything I said. I can't think of any use for this feat.

EDIT: Oh. You can use it with ranged attacks. Eh, one ranged attack doesn't deal enough for doubling it to be worthwhile in the tactic I described above. It was viable as a 2h weapon tactic. Not with a bow.

It's a badly named category for weapons that are superior to martial weapons, and thus which they think fighters etc. should have to pay an extra feat to use. It's just a balance issue. It's not supposed to be realistic.

Well, it would take a long time to see this *feat*, yes, but the feats leading up to it are not useless without it by any means. The first thing that occurs to me with this is a terrifying 2-hander rogue. Surprise round: Charge, deal double damage normal damage, plus sneak attack, plus con bleed. Then...bluff check, stealth check, repeat!

...that's really scary, actually...you could take out some pretty beefy targets of opportunity while scouting with that...I wanna make this guy now. Thanks for the inspiration!

But Dazzling Display is easily worthwhile in and of itself, and combining it with Shatter Defenses allows a rogue to sneak attack without a flank-very useful in a 3-4 man party; you could even replace the high-str 2-hander with a high-dex TWFighting sword-and-boarder and make a tank out of him; with a little sneak attack and a little weapon training, he can get by without high str for damage.

Re: Team Arcane Research

Me and my friends were discussing a campaign. It never got off the ground. But OH, what I would give to play it. It was inspired by the Thayan Knight PrC. We wanted to play a party of Red Wizards and Thayan Knights-nothing else. Say, 4 Reds and 2 Knights. A circle magic behind a pair of iron wall meatshields-scary stuff.

If you hadn't already put the high score in Str, I might've reccomended tossing TM's guide out the window and going the classic route-pump dex and wis, pick up agile maneuvers, put a 13 into Str (and maybe Int), and focus on hit-and-run combat maneuvers.

Pick up deadly aim and throw shurikens when you get bored of bull-rushing or tripping or whatever. Grapple whenever someone so much as says the WORD "spell", because let's face it, it IS your best option.

And finally, max out stealth/perception and join the rogue on his scouting missions; between the two of you, you could take out targets of opportunity without reporting back. With high dex and wis, and a sorc to hit you with Mage Armor, you've got badass AC. The only thing you don't do is much damage per hit, so run around behind the guy and set up the flank for your roguey buddy. Come to think of it, with healing low, setting up flanks for the rogue so HE doesn't have to strand himself behind enemy lines with his significantly lower AC is going to be EXTREMELY helpful. I recommend fighting defensively a lot.

*turns a little red* I admit, will saves are my red-headed step child. When given the choice, I will always screw over my will save for a +1 atk or dmg or something. My logic is, if I can't get it high enough that I can RELY on it to save me, (and unless I'm a cleric or druid, I can't) its just as easy to sacrifice it to buff my other abilities. I firmly believe that this strategy is only ever a bad idea if my foes KNOW I have a weak will.

Damage w/o Favored vs. AC 20 was 28.75 on the greatsword vs. 31.35 on the sword n board. Obviously, no impressive difference. But he's also got 4 more ac-and both of those gaps are going to widen. And *please*, don't discount the awesomeness of Shield Slam. To build upon the parallels I already pointed out with your monk guide-He's not the fifth party member, he's the Big Stupid Fighter. He doesn't have the monk's saves and combat maneuver expertise, but he does have more skills and some spellcasting, not to mention he comes with a class feature that gives him a built-in off-tank. Between high AC, battlefield control from Shield Slam, and a more mobile animal companion, I submit the POSSIBILITY that a TWF ranger makes a better tank-not for damage soaking, but in terms of defending the weaker party members-than any other class..

Let me clarify my position: I do not actually believe a TWF ranger is quite as good as the two builds you layed out. I simply balk at the 1 star. I say again: It's harsh. This build is viable, at least *moderately* effective, and I think would be a lot of fun.