Isn't the elven curve blade one of those exotic weapons that if you have the proficiency may be used one handed but if you don't it must be used two handed (as a martial weapon)? It's basically the elven version of a bastard sword. So as an elf he could use it one-handed if he is proficient in martial weapons.
Peet
As far as I know, no. It is just a twohanded weapon that can be used with weapon finesse. Which is awesome enough.
Im sorry i dont follow... the magus used an elven curved blade (odd choice considering the 1 handed aspect of spell combat) had keen... got that. did a lot of crits got that.
2 games later what now? The DM targeted him and killed him? and he did it BECAUSE of cheese?
And everyone was happy his character was dead.....erm.Well if my interpretation is right, then, here's what I think:
A Magus with a two handed weapon is hardly an exploit, in fact it's the opposite of that.
And Elf with a curved blade isn't Out of character, it's a racial weapon common to them.
He got Keen on his weapon one way or another, not overly odd.There are no standard restrictions and in one case he took a suboptimal route in favor of, Im assuming Two handed weapon damage.
Effectively focusing on his crit threat, THF and spell strike, ignoring spell combat.That's not cheese.
I bet that they allowed him to use spell combat with a two handed weapon (either by decision, or a failure to properly read the class) Which is, indeed, overpowered. It's not a surprise that everybody felt the character was cheese. Because it was. [/QUOTE
Well it's not cheese thats the DMs fault.... I mean if you screw up something then you dont kill the guys character.
And no elf curved blade is solid in two handed category. The katana is kinda like a bastard sword
|
I bet that they allowed him to use spell combat with a two handed weapon (either by decision, or a failure to properly read the class) Which is, indeed, overpowered. It's not a surprise that everybody felt the character was cheese. Because it was.
So...the DM failed reading 101 and screwed up. Then to make up for that, instead of asking for advice or re-reading the rules to make sure, he just fiat kills the character...thereby failing don't be a jerk 101. The only thing this really proved was the DM was a jerk...nicely done there.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't recall anyone in this thread asserting (or even suggesting) that someone was just supposed to assume the feat was legal and take it automatically.
I don't see the problem with Magi using the Dervish Dancer feat. It's pretty much designed to shore up their weaknesses, and you can just as easily fluff it as how Magi are trained to fight. It's not "Dawnflower Dancer" or "Saranraen Disciple of How To Hit Things With a Scimitar" so the only reason to argue IT'S AGAINST THE FLUFF is if you've got a big ol' stick up your ass about changing fluff. And 3.X/PF is practically DESIGNED to LET you change the fluff as you please. As long as the crunch is the same, who cares if you learned to use speed over brute strength with a scimitar from a tanned guy in a turban or a mage-warrior?
We may disagree, but I read this as an argument that the feat is legal and take it automatically.
If I'm running/playing in Golarion, then you have to learn it from a 'tanned guy in a turban' (or if I introduce someone you can learn it from, he learned it from said turban guy) Just like you're not going to find hunga munga in Irressen, or Katana in Mwangi, except in exceptional cases.
So that means you can never play a character you imagine in your games as long as it contains some "more exotoc" ressources?
and it becomes cheese when everybody and their brother wants to use itIs it cheese when every two-weapon ranger chooses to take Two-Weapon Fighting?
Your cheese isn't very cheesy.
A better one:Is it Cheese if every Cleric uses a Holy Symbol? I mean, every freaking cleric uses one, that has to be cheese.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So that means you can never play a character you imagine in your games as long as it contains some "more exotoc" ressources?
Assuming this was aimed at me, this actually is an example of a strawman. To wit, I don't see the term 'never' anywhere in my comment. Indeed, I allow specifically for 'exceptional cases' in my comment.
"My father was an adventurer and fell in love with the hunga munga. He brought one back to Irresen and taught all of us how to use it. (EWP) He even gave me his original when I was but a kid. (heirloom weapon trait)"
"There was a pathfinder who came to our land. He fought off the minions of the gorilla king, and taught us to fight. While we could not make more of his unique sword, he taught me how to use his sword."
Hmm, what do both of those require? A connection to the original land, and GM approval of the backstory. Strangely enough, those are both mentioned in the feats section as being needed for taking Dervish Dance.
Strangely enough, cultures do influence development of fighting styles and technology. Most (sane) people question the effectiveness of a katana vs 14th century western armor, because the katana wasn't made to counter steel armor. A cow hide shield worked great for the Zulu, well until they encountered firearms.
In Golarion, dervish dance specifically is cultural. Other areas may use curved blades, but there's no 'Curveblade Conga' feat for elves, or "Katana Khon" feat from Tian Xia, or 'Kukuri Kathak'.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The concept of using one's dexterity, speed, and/or precision is hardly campaign-specific, so putting your own flavor to it is rather easy. (The feat may be specifically flavored, but the general concept is not, a generic concept can be applied to anything). The feat need not even be called "Dervish Dance" in your setting, and it need not even be for a scimitar. You could homebrew a feat called "Greater Weapon Finesse" that uses the normal Weapon Finesse as a prereq, and follows all the same rules as Weapon Finesse, save for also now adding DEX to damage instead of STR. I doubt anyone would have a problem with using that instead. Again, though, I'm just tossing suggestions.
If I'm running/playing in Golarion, then you have to learn it from a 'tanned guy in a turban' (or if I introduce someone you can learn it from, he learned it from said turban guy) Just like you're not going to find hunga munga in Irressen, or Katana in Mwangi, except in exceptional cases.If I were...
Personally, I'm all for a 'greater weapon finesse', but I prefer one handed fighters and dex builds. A guy in full plate using a rapier seems silly to my mind, but it's not illegal, and I'd not discourage it.
(Then again, I think the Duelist is the 'Prestige Class voted most likely to be a feat chain').
To use a current character 'build' Talyn is a dex based fighter. His strength is 14, so he normally uses the Aldori dueling sword in two hands, for that extra point of damage. (He's also from that region). At 7th level (at current build rate) he'll have the Aldori fighting style feat. (PFS, so I'm not GM fluff bound, but I personally tie him to the fluff). I need the agile weapon enhancement to 'stay competetive' since I don't plan to bump my strength past 14, and will be fighting one handed once I get that feat. I'd *much* rather get a 'greater weapon finess' than use the enchantment, because I want Talyn to be the source of the damage, not his sword, even though it would take longer to get.
Greater Weapon Finesse (Combat)
Effect Pick one weapon you can apply the weapon finesse feat to. You may now use your dexterity instead of strength modifer to add to weapon damage. You do not do 1.5 times your dex modifier when using the weapon two handed.
Normal sucks to be you, you need a seperate stat to get a damage bump from a finessable weapon
And, again, GM preference, I reward creativity. A player who comes to me with a compelling reason in the backstory why he uses the out of area feat is going to get 'rewarded' by getting the feat. The guy who goes "I want to use it in my build" is going to be (politely) told "no." If the player is smart, he'll try to steer the party to the region the feat is from so he can 'earn' it.
I don't really get this whole "exotic characters are special and rare, and you should only be allowed to play them if the GM allows you to" thing even comes from. Sure, dervish dance builds of Magus are common for people to make for PFS and home play, as they are mechanically solid and make dex based characters less of a feat trap. But to want to restrict your 3-7 player who sit down at your table because something is a common build at other tables but not in the campaign is IMHO metagaming on the GMs part. As far as I'm concerned, those other tables never existed. The party I'm running for is special and gets full access to anything they want as long as they follow the rules.
Oh but it doesn't make sense for a X person to be in Y place because of Z reason ect... Yeah, and it didn't make sense for a french housewife to make a Christmas dinner for a missionary that went to Karakorum, heart of the Mongolian empire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Rubruck for the full story.
What about in fiction: Robinhood Prince of Thieves (terrible or great movie depending on opinion). Random scimitar wielding guy from a far away land taking part in a story that might as well be a low powered PF/D&D campaign (even had a witch).
I'd love to be able to have a feat that lets me use Dexterity for damage with any single light weapon as long as I have nothing in my off hand. I'd probably just use it for a kukri instead a scimitar but it would be great to have the choice >_>
The question I think is whether or not it would be unreasonable to allow such a feat to apply dexterity to damage if you are dual wielding; I personally don't think so as long as the offhand attack did diminished damage like normal (which could then be mitigated by the feat that I can't recall the name of that let's you deal your full str mod in damage for your offhand).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
@Kazejin
And I may overreact. While my characters balance defense and offence, I am more an offense kind of guy IRL. When it's warm enough for me to patrol my neighborhood, I use a cane. Not because I need it, but because if there's something/one that doesn't belong and cause trouble, I have a stick designed to handle 400+ lbs crosswise, with a steel head. :-)
And Paizo has my permission to add that feat. I'll give it for free :-)
@chaoseffect.
I think it is a specialist vs generalist thing. Greater Weapon Finesse (as I wrote) is a hefty feat investment for a non-fighter, and a reward for being 'sub optimal' for a few levels. (in that if you're a dex build, you won't get the damage 'bump' until at least 5th level, maybe a little earlier if you're burining precious rogue talents. Also since it applies to one weapon (I forgot to add the 'you may take multiple times' language) it rewards specilization.
Dex fighter: Crap, I got my kukuri disarmed! It shut down an entire feat tree and all that damage!
'Normal' fighter: Crap, bastard sundered my great sword! *grabs longsword* Good thing I don't lose as much!
Calling clone on someone because of one feat is tiresome. One feat does not make a clone.
As the other poster said, you could be a mechanical copy of another character down to skill points spent, and equipment bought...
And yet still be a very different character.
I often use this example. Time ago, I was GMing Marvel Super Heroes RPG. A friend of mine made a character with exactly the same powers than Johny Storm, the Fantastic Four's Human Torch. He had fire control, fire generation, fly, body armor, etc. But he was a Dragon-man. He had wings, scaly skin, firebreathing. He had exactly zero resemblance of Johny Storm.
Saying that two characters with the same feats are clones, is like saying that two people with the same college careers are clones.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question I think is whether or not it would be unreasonable to allow such a feat to apply dexterity to damage if you are dual wielding; I personally don't think so as long as the offhand attack did diminished damage like normal (which could then be mitigated by the feat that I can't recall the name of that let's you deal your full str mod in damage for your offhand).I'd allow it, personally. The game is too firm against dexterity-based melee characters, (and kind of hard on two-weapon builds for that matter) and there's really no reason for it mechanically. It won't be the end of the world to let the finesse people have nice things too.
Theres's a reason, though. Dex is better than STR in anything but damage. If you add DEX to damage in any circumstance through a feat, then STR is obsolete as a stat. DEX gives you AC, Initiative, REF and a few good skills, plus to hit and damage. STR gives you to hit and damage. Oh, and encumbrance. At least until you use handy haversack, muleback cord, and portable hole.
Dex to damage with a condition (such as single hand weapon) is ok. If you can use it in every situation, then STR is useless. Unless you rebuild the game to allow STR being used in saves (like 4e Fortitude) or AC (Parry, like Conan d20 RPG)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
@Gustavo actually we somewhat agree.
Personally on game design theory (prior to archtypes) the farther your class goes from 'the norm' I believe the more expensive it should be. Even after archtypes, to specialize should cost more, so the generalist isn't completely overwhelmed.
To use the Greater Weapon Finesse example, it provides a way to reward the dex based figher/skirmisher by allowing him to focus on dex with one or a limited number of weapons. If Dastardly Dan, the Dex fighter, master of the kukuri takes the feat, he's focusing on the kukuri. If he loses the kukuri, (disarm, sunder, plot) he's losing access to those abilities, (even temporarily) and can't fall back as easily. Even if he has a short sword (for weapon finess) he suffers a loss in damage, because he's fighting outside his specialization.
Meanwhile Gerry Greatsword, burliest fighter in the west, fights alongside him. If he loses his greatsword, he'll lose some of the exact same feats (they both can have weapon focus, weapon specialization, greater weapon focus, etc) but he can pick up a falchion/bastard sword/katana and still get the 'traditional' 1.5 str to damage. Dan might normally out damage bonus Gerry (Because Dan is pumping dex, where Gerry has to pump Dex and strength to maintain AC parity) but Gerry is rewarded by being a generalist, and gets to really shine in those situations (as opposed to being just one feat 'ahead' of Dan).
Then in my GM theory, a character should occasionally be out of his element. It's part of being a hero. We root for Tony Stark when he's in a cave with a box of scraps, sometimes more than when he's in his brand new Mk VII suit kicking chituri butt. We cheer Thor when he makes the heroic choice without mjolnier, etc.
|
Theres's a reason, though. Dex is better than STR in anything but damage. If you add DEX to damage in any circumstance through a feat, then STR is obsolete as a stat. DEX gives you AC, Initiative, REF and a few good skills, plus to hit and damage. STR gives you to hit and damage. Oh, and encumbrance. At least until you use handy haversack, muleback cord, and portable hole.
Dex to damage with a condition (such as single hand weapon) is ok. If you can use it in every situation, then STR is useless. Unless you rebuild the game to allow STR being used in saves (like 4e Fortitude) or AC (Parry, like Conan d20 RPG)
Strength is never useless in a campaign that follow all of the rules.
A character spending feats to convert dex to damage can be quite a few levels behind everybody else in feat progression compared to characters using strength.
CMB/CMD use strength in their calculations. CMB can replace the strength component, if you spend yet another feat. CMD always includes strength.
Encumberance? a strength dumped character is going to be carrying a medium or heavy load, restricting his dexterity.
Power attack still has a strength prerequisite and scimitars don't qualify for piranha strike. Piranha strike does not have an equivilent to the +3 bonuse received for 2-handing a weapon.
Strength is easier to increase without simultaneously decreasing weapon damage.
Personally: my fighter has a decent strength and a decent dexterity. I get the benefits of both without paying a feat tax.
Theres's a reason, though. Dex is better than STR in anything but damage. If you add DEX to damage in any circumstance through a feat, then STR is obsolete as a stat. DEX gives you AC, Initiative, REF and a few good skills, plus to hit and damage. STR gives you to hit and damage. Oh, and encumbrance. At least until you use handy haversack, muleback cord, and portable hole.
Dex to damage with a condition (such as single hand weapon) is ok. If you can use it in every situation, then STR is useless. Unless you rebuild the game to allow STR being used in saves (like 4e Fortitude) or AC (Parry, like Conan d20 RPG)
Strength is never useless in a campaign that follow all of the rules.
A character spending feats to convert dex to damage can be quite a few levels behind everybody else in feat progression compared to characters using strength.
CMB/CMD use strength in their calculations. CMB can replace the strength component, if you spend yet another feat. CMD always includes strength.
Encumberance? a strength dumped character is going to be carrying a medium or heavy load, restricting his dexterity.
Power attack still has a strength prerequisite and scimitars don't qualify for piranha strike.
I'm talking about the suggested Greater Weapon Finesse, which can be used with a rapier or two short swords, not about Dervish Dance. I'm perfectly OK with DD, I just don't think a feat that make Dex to Damage without restrictions is such a good idea (ie: not requiring a free hand, usable with Piranha strike, etc)
CMD also use dex, so there's no difference between a char using DEX 18 and str 10, or STR 18 and DEX 10 in CMD. The char with higher dex has better initiative and reflex, though. CMB with weapons can use finesse too.
And Encumbrance isn't such a big an issue with muleback cords, handy haversacks, portable holes, etc
While STR has some things going for it, DEX has much more. A feat that allow using DEX as damage, without any restriction (as Dervish Dance has) makes DEX too good for anyone not using a 2h weapon.
In my opinion, a crit based dervish magus isn't too cheesy, it's too ordinary. That's what everybody does.
I frown on players taking their entire character progression straight from a Class Guide.
|
In my opinion, a crit based dervish magus isn't too cheesy, it's too ordinary. That's what everybody does.
I frown on players taking their entire character progression straight from a Class Guide.
Why? Who cares what the mechanical bits of a character look like, so long as he's within the same general area of strength as the rest of the party. If he ain't single-handedly ending every combat before anyone else even gets to have a turn, what's the big deal?
I can make four different characters, all with the same crunch, and they will be four legitimately different people. Surely anyone can.
|
|
In my opinion, a crit based dervish magus isn't too cheesy, it's too ordinary. That's what everybody does.
This is a result of restrictions placed on one of the magus's class defining abilities.
Spellstrike is limited to a x2 multiplier regardless of the weapon used. As a result, higher crit chance is the only path available for increasing damage via weapon selection.
If higher crit multipliers were allowed, I'm sure you would see many magi with keen falcata and at least a few magi swinging keen picks.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If higher crit multipliers were allowed, I'm sure you would see many magi with keen falcata and at least a few magi swinging keen picks.
I think I mentioned this earlier. Right now it seems.
"Hi, I'm a Quadiran magus, I fight with Dervish Dance and a scimitar."
"Really? I'm a Taldoran magus, I fight with Dervish Dance and a scimitar too!"
If the Taldan magus wants to fight with a Falcata and buckler, don't penalize him!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I've actually not looked at the Skirnir magus. I do feel Falcata fear is overrated. Allegedly the design theory was 19-20 X2 = 20 X3 = 18-20 X2 one die smaller. With a couple of exceptions (our friends the picks, the no-dachi) this seems to be the formula.
So a 19-20 X3 should be as exotic as the 18-20 X2.
Falcata d8 19-20 X3
Aldori dueling sword d8 19-20 X2, finessable.
Katana d8 18-20, X2
All rifting on the long sword d8 19-20 X2.
In my opinion, a crit based dervish magus isn't too cheesy, it's too ordinary. That's what everybody does.
I frown on players taking their entire character progression straight from a Class Guide.
Why? Who cares what the mechanical bits of a character look like, so long as he's within the same general area of strength as the rest of the party. If he ain't single-handedly ending every combat before anyone else even gets to have a turn, what's the big deal?
I can make four different characters, all with the same crunch, and they will be four legitimately different people. Surely anyone can.
I do not prohibit someone taking their buildout straight from a class guide. I myself use the class guides to get ideas. But I, and most of my gaming group, view taking 90% or more of your character from a class guide as lazy and uninteresting. If that's all the effort you're going to put into developing your character idea, why not just play a pregenned character?
|
|
The fluff, background and personality of the character is where the real work of building a character comes in.
Anybody can throw some crunch together in a couple hours (or less, I'm told) but it can take days to figure out how to properly build motivation and thought patterns, accents, etc. for that character. Why would you want to worry about the crunch (beyond how they can help the fluff) when it's only a single part of the character?
It's not lazy to use a build from a guide unless you refuse to make the character your own. Which doesn't necessarily have to preclude you from continuing to follow the guide.
skirnir magus is interesting but it "pays" too much for the shield even when you do get spell combat and spell strike and catch up to a regular magus it doesn't work the same... it's really kinda blah.... I wish it had had some tweaking better.
subject: cheesy? no. optimized? yes. overdone? also yes.
doesn't mean its's a bad character. just that every magus and their mother you encounter will likely be decked out the same as you--makes for a good conversation starter: "I see you also favor the scimitar".
to tone it down? i'd say save your big guns for the big battles: don't go nova every time a goblin stumbles into your campsite, assist with utility spells and buffs occasionally--youre right there in melee anyway, give the barbarian a nice pat on the back (enlarge person).
if youve already got another dedicated casty in the party, prep some utility spells he might not have though to prepare that day to help cover any bases (after your 'core' spells you're pretty flexible).
basically, you dont need to tone yourself down or alter your build in any way, you just need to spread out a little and do things other than the standard spinny-blade-o'-shocking-grasp/frigid-touch occasionally to draw attention away from your amazing nova capabilities (you still have that option on-hand anyway).
skirnir magus is interesting but it "pays" too much for the shield even when you do get spell combat and spell strike and catch up to a regular magus it doesn't work the same... it's really kinda blah.... I wish it had had some tweaking better.
In other words: it's a suboptimal choice compared to other magus builds.
subject: cheesy? no. optimized? yes. overdone? also yes.
doesn't mean its's a bad character. just that every magus and their mother you encounter will likely be decked out the same as you--makes for a good conversation starter: "I see you also favor the scimitar".
to tone it down? i'd say save your big guns for the big battles: don't go nova every time a goblin stumbles into your campsite, assist with utility spells and buffs occasionally--youre right there in melee anyway, give the barbarian a nice pat on the back (enlarge person).
if youve already got another dedicated casty in the party, prep some utility spells he might not have though to prepare that day to help cover any bases (after your 'core' spells you're pretty flexible).
basically, you dont need to tone yourself down or alter your build in any way, you just need to spread out a little and do things other than the standard spinny-blade-o'-shocking-grasp/frigid-touch occasionally to draw attention away from your amazing nova capabilities (you still have that option on-hand anyway).
Sorry, I had a flash back to Mulan and Space Balls at the same time!
Mulan: I see you have a sword! I have one too! they are manly, aren't they?
Dark Helmet: I see your Schwartz is as big as mine!
No. Skirnir isn't a sub optimal choice, it just doesn't do what it look like it does at first glance.
If you really like spell combat, the classes main feature, this archetype isnt for you.
No. Skirnir isn't a sub optimal choice, it just doesn't do what it look like it does at first glance
That's the definition of suboptimal. It's like the maneouver monk that can't grapple becouse his BAB sucks, or the swashbuckling fighter that sucks because the rules for dex fighters dont back up the concept. That's why optimizing those cncepts to make them viable helps the game diversity.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I disagree gustavo,
A druid doesn't 'look like an archer' but we've seen an example of a good archer build.
A Lore Warden doesn't look like it is a good JOAT.
But they can be.
Trying to make a class be something is isn't designed to be, can be suboptinal (a core only fighter can make for a poor swashbuckler, especially if you decide to never go duelist). But again, the D-archer we've seen isn't 'designed' to be an archer, and is effective.
I disagree gustavo,
A druid doesn't 'look like an archer' but we've seen an example of a good archer build.
A Lore Warden doesn't look like it is a good JOAT.
But they can be.
Trying to make a class be something is isn't designed to be, can be suboptinal (a core only fighter can make for a poor swashbuckler, especially if you decide to never go duelist). But again, the D-archer we've seen isn't 'designed' to be an archer, and is effective.
That's the opposite of what I said.
What I said is: a suboptimal choice/class is a class that CAN'T DO what it's supposed to do. It does not do what it says in the can when you buy it. I bought the "grappling monk" package because in the can it says it's good at grappling. He's not. Therefore, it's a suboptimal class. Same goes with rogues' scouting, or, allegedly by Pendagast, the Skirnir Magus.
A Class that can do something it's not supposed to be his trope, it's an optimal class. Hence the CharOp motto of "anything you can do, an artificier can do better" in 3.5. The suboptimal class is the class that CAN'T do what it's supposed to be his trope. Like the grappling monk. Or the skirnir, if Pendagast is right (I'm not familiar with the archetype). Those classes are suboptimal. And optimizing them, through system mastery, make them somewhat viable. Thus, improve the number of playable classes and concepts.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." :-)
More seriously, I was looking at the 'at first glance' comment. I was working from the "At first glance, class X does Y, but it sucks at Y and does Z instead." premise.
I'm all for feats, classes (and now archtypes) that make different concepts viable. I don't see it as 'optimization' so much.
Talyn is my fighter/rogue. I'm working towards getting the Aldori style feat, but not the prestige class. Instead he's working towards eldrich heritage/improved familiar to get a sidekick, whether it be a mephit or (if I run <redacted>) a farie dragon. Sure part of it is the fun of sitting at the table and letting everyone hear half a conversation, but it is a concept. I'm able to build the concept better because of the lore warden.
I've sitting in the back of my head (waiting for a boon, because I'm patient) another lore warden/rogue. Until 6th level, they'll look similar mechanically, then they diverge. Both will be 'broad, not deep'. By 6th level, I plan to have linguistics maxed out for both (giving me about 8 lanugages) and one point in knowleges (making for about a +6 in 6 different skills.) Neither is likely to be 'optimized' for anything except general comments and fun. Now come 6th level they'll start to split (Talyn will continue fighter/rogue, while the concept character will go into shadowdancer).
To me, neither are optimized. Or maximized.
My only look at Skirnir magus has been twice:
A conceptual Phalanx fighter/Skirnir. Which REALLY won't do what you are hoping it to do.
and a player who wanted to play a character based on Allevrah Azrinae (saw the pic)
Shield and whip Magus.
In that case it didn't do what she wanted it to do. as she wanted to spell combat/spell strike with the whip and have the shield AC. But it wont work unless you lose the shield AC or use a buckler.... her vision of the character (based on the pic) didnt have a buckler, and she didn't want to wait until 8th level to do it , which can take a while, pretty much the third AP.
She was really keen on spell combat , spell strike and a shield with a whip.
It also wouldnt mesh with hex crafter, and she wanted hexes and I think she wanted a familiar at some point as well...
So again it wouldnt let her do what she wanted it to.
So that's batting 1000 (atm) for not doing what you think it will.
Which prompted me to think about a Skirnir to make on purpose, but havent found a scenario where it would work how Id like it to. (so actually three times)
It's not that it's sub optimal. unless you're speaking strictly from a concept point of view.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." :-)
More seriously, I was looking at the 'at first glance' comment. I was working from the "At first glance, class X does Y, but it sucks at Y and does Z instead." premise.
I'm all for feats, classes (and now archtypes) that make different concepts viable. I don't see it as 'optimization' so much.
Merrian webster tell me that optimization is an act, process, or methodology of making something (as a design, system, or decision) as fully perfect, functional, or effective as possible.
Optimizing an archer druid, for example, is using all the feats, archetypes, magic items, and animal companions that make that concept as fully perfect, funcional or effective as possible. For example, taking a mount companion instead of a "combat" one, taking mounted archery, and using rapid shot and precise shot instead of far shot and proned shot.
Off the bat, a dex fighter based on swashbuckling is quite lackluster. It's one of the basic traps that people without system mastery try to do, because they are cool as a concept, and fail misserably, because it's hard to pull (because of MAD, lack of good options, and often overlooked parts of char design). If you optimize the rapier wielding swashbuckler fighter, though, you get a much better PC. You can go the Crane Wing style, maybe taking 2 levels of master of many styles monk and the rest being free hand fighter. You could go duelist, take a good selection of magic items to improve your AC and reflex, get an Agile weapon, piranha strike. You could be a loremaster, and base your char in flashing disarms and maneouvers. Doing this, and other things, you optimize your swashbuckling fighter (ie: you make it as fully perfect, functional and effective as possible). That's what optimization is for. To allow you to play a character concept that is cool, without sucking big time because your character concept is hard to pull with basic choices due to the rules not suporting it very well.
I think the thing people forget about the Dervish Magus build is that; on an equal point buy, it is far weaker than a Strength build at levels 1 and 2. That can't even be argued. At level 3 there is some leveling off, but arguably the strength build is deadlier even through level 10.
The Magus is a melee class. After years of playing this game, if you go melee class, your best defense is a strong offense. I'll gladly sacrifice a few points of AC to do double the amount of damage.
Except in the first two levels, where you can't use dervish dance... why would you be doing twice as damage with a STR based magus, compared to a DEX based magus?
Also, it's not only a couple more AC, it's the REF save where you see the higher differnence
