Is there ANY concept that can't be done using existing rules?

[thegreenteagamer]

Okay, so in the following thread...

Maybe I should've just linked it but I'm too lazy to look up how to do that:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rf9a?Spell-Lists-Drive-Me-Nuts

...I made a comment. Specifically, I said...

Me and my big mouth:

"A player can go with any concept or thematic idea they want at my table, but they're going to have to flavor the rules that already exist to make it happen. Want to play a psion? Fine. Play a sorcerer and call it a psion, call their existing bloodline powers mind powers, call their spells "manifestations". Want to be a kender? Halfling with fighter levels for bravery bonuses and rogue levels sprinkled in to make them sneakier. There's rules that exist already to do anything you want. Look at the "conversions" thread. People, just for fun, use the rules that already exist to create any outlandish character you can think of. If you can't find a way to make it happen with the rules, and I need to shoehorn them to make your idea work, there's no other way to look at it (desire for house rules) but mechanical manipulation.

I challenge you to come up with an idea that the people on this board can't make happen by the rules as written using nothing more than reflavoring of the language, such as my example of a psion. Heck, the people in this thread ALONE will probably come up with a way to make it happen within 24 hours. And this is just a small percentage of the people on the boards, who are just a small percentage of the people who play the game. If they can find a way to make it work as written so can you, or the OP, or anyone else.

Better yet, come up with the wackiest, craziest, most impossible concept you can think of. Stick it in the "advice" forum, and say you really want to make it happen using the rules as written. If they don't come up with at least half a dozen ways to make it happen in 1 week's time, I will STFU and you'll never see me in this thread again.

But it won't happen. People will look at ANY idea you come up with, any concept, and they WILL find a way to make it happen with the rules as they exist because you don't need to modify the rules to make your character concept happen. It may not be as optimal as you want, but it will be capable of doing what you asked. At worst, as I said, you just need a little reflavoring of the description text."

So yeah, here I am at the advice thread, where people frequently come asking "How do I make (insert concept here) work?" I constantly see people spit out a million ways to do anything asked on here. Its one of the things I enjoy about this subforum.

Is there any character concept that can't be done with Pathfinder as it is, without house-ruling? I'm not talking cross-genre stuff like superheros or high sci-fi hackers etc, but within Pathfinder's existing high fantasy genre.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm pretty sure anything you come up with someone on here will have an answer to within a day or so.

Am I wrong?

[Lord Fyre]

Define "rules that already exist."

For example the Race Creation rules (ARG pp. 212-247) exist. Okay, they are broken, but they do exist.

This specifically reference your "Kender" example above.

[graystone]

thegreenteagamer wrote:

I'm not talking cross-genre stuff like superheros or high sci-fi hackers etc, but within Pathfinder's existing high fantasy genre.

Have you noticed the tech guide? Someone's already mixed sci-fi into your high fantasy. Chainsaws, robots and laser guns all have rules...

[Lord Fyre]

graystone wrote:

thegreenteagamer wrote:

I'm not talking cross-genre stuff like superheros or high sci-fi hackers etc, but within Pathfinder's existing high fantasy genre.

Have you noticed the tech guide? Someone's already mixed sci-fi into your high fantasy. Chainsaws, robots and laser guns all have rules...

+1

When you say "rules that exist" you need to be more clear. Also, since Paizo continues to produce more content, keep in mind that you are talking about a moving target.

[wraithstrike]

I agree that almost any concept can be done, but getting a concept that people agree on is something different. If the player does not like what he gets then it is pointless and while it may not have been stated I am sure "...and that I find acceptable.." was assumed to be part of it.

[Rynjin]

Non-magical guy who overcomes level appropriate challenges without magic of any sort.

[BigDTBone]

Rynjin wrote:

Non-magical guy who overcomes level appropriate challenges without magic of any sort.

Come on, that's just ridiculous. The OP said concept, not pipe dream!

[Broken Zenith]

I would dare say there are a ton of concepts that can't work as a re-flavoring of core rules. But, I welcome others to prove me wrong. Let's try:

Spellcaster who can only cast spells immediately after swallowing a mouthful of soil.

Fighter who's power wanes and waxes with the cycles of the moon.

Mage who can only harm enemies with birthdays in January.

Shapeshifter who gains control of individual's minds if they use him as a hatrack.

A virus.

A planet.

You wanted wacky and outlandish? I would be thrilled if people could re-flavor existing mechanics for these.

[LoneKnave]

You could cover literally every concept with the commoner classes, as long as it's not "access spells that the Adept can't"... except, I guess, with UMD and the right trait selection and magic items you could, so nevermind.

They'll suck, mind you, but it's possible.

[JoeJ]

A knight who rides a dragon, with whom he communicates telepathically.

[wraithstrike]

JoeJ wrote:

A knight who rides a dragon, with whom he communicates telepathically.

A knight can be a multi-classing of a caster/melee type. So he gets the sending spell, and fights with some full BAB class. Getting the dragon to ride a "lesser race" around is the more difficult part, but somewhere there is a GM that would allow it.

[JoeJ]

wraithstrike wrote:

JoeJ wrote:

A knight who rides a dragon, with whom he communicates telepathically.

A knight can be a multi-classing of a caster/melee type. So he gets the sending spell, and fights with some full BAB class. Getting the dragon to ride a "lesser race" around is the more difficult part, but somewhere there is a GM that would allow it.

Is there a caster type that can cast Sending at will (only with dragons) and has no other magic?

What about a character who can shapechange into any animal at will, but has no other magical ability?

[Dryad Knotwood]

This reminds me that I was watching the 9th episode of Happiness Charge Precure when it first got subbed and I realized that other than the flight, everything that Cure Honey had done up to episode 9 could be replicated with a Human Bard 1... and that's a mahoushoujo.

I can believe that you can make any fantasy concept just because of that.

[ElyasRavenwood]

How would one do a Hybrid class of Oracle/Sorcerer?

[Malwing]

Can you make a proper henshining magical girl in Pathfinder?

I tried to go Kamen Rider as a synthesist summoner but it takes so many resources to set up a proper henshin. I think you need 2nd level spells just to do it in less than a minute.

[Glutton]

JoeJ wrote:

A knight who rides a dragon, with whom he communicates telepathically.

Rules for that exact concept are presented inside.

[Renegadeshepherd]

my take is that any concept can be done now. However, not all concepts can be done effectively; or at least as effectively as other concepts. By this point If you cant find someway to make what you envision happen then I respectfully suggest you find another system. I say that not out of disrespect but I am unable to satisfy what you were looking for.

[Dryad Knotwood]

Malwing wrote:

Can you make a proper henshining magical girl in Pathfinder?

I tried to go Kamen Rider as a synthesist summoner but it takes so many resources to set up a proper henshin. I think you need 2nd level spells just to do it in less than a minute.

Technically speaking, if your GM allows it, the henshin could be done with nothing more than prestidigitation as dependant upon the mahoushoujo, it may not change their statistics or cause any discernable differences game-wise which is what Prestidigitation is allowed to do.

Do note that the GM I played with agreed it worked in his opinion.

[Zwordsman]

Most of the issues is the addition of "effective" to various ideas. Yo ucan make most if not everything in some way. But it's not neccecarily usuable in a normal game due to effectiveness.

One that comes to mind is force magic user. In 3.5 they had a prestige class that sure upped the ability and more force spells. In pathfinder there are enough force spells so you can use just them for your offensive spells but a lot of it will be repeats/metamagiced versions. and realistically not that effective; even if your doing the damage type least resisted.

Poison as well .There are several builds and concepts I know of that can be made. but playing them will result in a practice in futility sadly.

So one would need to define the effectiveness for gauging if a concept is correct. and how far "reflavoring" goes. For instance ability to learn a spell but wit hdifferent element? or would you require the elemental metamagic? Lastly would be. 3rd party or no?

that being said.
Poison based dragon man is pretty hard to build effectively.
As is a force dragon ( not that it really exists.. but I wanted to make as faithful a Breath of Fire character as I could. can do it to a nextent pretty good though)

Kuwabara and Kurama from Yu Yu Hakusho are kinda hard to make effectively; though I bet there are way better options these days then last i tried

[JoeJ]

Glutton wrote:

JoeJ wrote:

A knight who rides a dragon, with whom he communicates telepathically.

Rules for that exact concept are presented inside.

Adventure Paths are Golarion specific; not really what I would call part of the rules of the game.

Looking back through this thread, though, nobody did define what counts as "existing rules."

[Zwordsman]

Malwing wrote:

Can you make a proper henshining magical girl in Pathfinder?

I tried to go Kamen Rider as a synthesist summoner but it takes so many resources to set up a proper henshin. I think you need 2nd level spells just to do it in less than a minute.

You can do both very easily with 3pp stuff, Psionics in specific. Aegis and the prestige that combines aegis and the weapon making.

both exactly replicate that.
But in official paizo? hard to make it effective sadly.. I thought about making Pretty Sami from Tenchi before and gave it up due to lack of effectiveness.

[Chengar Qordath]

Renegadeshepherd wrote:

my take is that any concept can be done now. However, not all concepts can be done effectively; or at least as effectively as other concepts.

That is the real stumbling block. Frex, pre ACG you could definitely make a dedicated crossbow user. Making a crossbow-user whose performance was remotely comparable to that of composite longbow archer, on the other hand...

[cheechako]

Wizards (or others) that must attend school for years before they can start their career as a wizard. According to the age chart, this seems to be the case. However, other characters can start out as something easier (fighter, rogue, etc.) and then just multi-class into a wizard after just a few good days or weeks of monster hunting, skipping the years of formal schooling.

[Dryad Knotwood]

cheechako wrote:

Wizards (or others) that must attend school for years before they can start their career as a wizard. According to the age chart, this seems to be the case. However, other characters can start out as something easier (fighter, rogue, etc.) and then just multi-class into a wizard after just a few good days or weeks of monster hunting, skipping the years of formal schooling.

Wouldn't that just be a houserule that a GM would impose on the players? And you could still just multiclass into sorcerer if you want the spellcasting.

[cheechako]

Dryad Knotwood wrote:

Wouldn't that just be a houserule that a GM would impose on the players? And you could still just multiclass into sorcerer if you want the spellcasting.

The OP said no house rules, so restricting multi-classing into a Wizard would be such a rule. The years of schooling is a concept, since there are rules that indicate a wizard that is just starting out in life has to undergo some years of training. Sorcerers get their power from the bloodline (which could suddenly awaken in the non-caster), and not years of schooling.

[Breiti]

1. A PC that uses mainly poisons without blowing huge amounts of gold. Like milking its own pets (familar, animal companion, trained pets, etc.)

2. An alchemist who uses alchemy to temporary enhance items (Weapon oils, Armor polish stuff like that...)

I have concepts for both but there is so much stuff that has to be house ruled or that fits not fluffwise that i am not willing to bring this stuff to most tables.

For example for build 1. i would go with Vishkanya Alchemist (Beastmorph/Vivisectionist) but i would like to have someother way to uses the poison form pets. The the poison user can be done but the sub concept "milking" pets cannot...(with existing rules)

If a player wants to do somethings like this with me as a GM. I would try to do a feat or feat chain that would allow this stuff... like:

Poison milker
Prerequisites: Craft (Alchemy) 5 or poison use

Benefit: You can milk poison from trained poisonous creatures with an handel animal check DC equals poison DC plus creatures HD. If you fail the check no useable poison can be extracted, if you fail the check by 5 or more the creature bites you dealing attack damage plus poison. The procedure takes 1 hour of work and the creature looses is poison attack for 24h. You can get a number of poison doses equal to the creaures constitution modifier. The poison decays after 24h.

[Eltacolibre]

Still having a hard time doing a playable bayonnetta, mostly the hair stuff is the issue because gunslinging wise, got everything that I need. I know it's not impossible, just wish white hair witch wasn't such a bad archetype.

Beside that...yeah, it's very easy to do any kind of concepts nowadays, Sherlock Holmes can be in a party with Bane and Merlin as they take on Cthulhu cultists.

[Blindmage]

Wild Mage.
A caster that doesn't have full control over his magic and sometimes things go wrong, or go super amazing.

[Umbranus]

Breiti wrote:

1. A PC that uses mainly poisons without blowing huge amounts of gold. Like milking its own pets (familar, animal companion, trained pets, etc.)

2. An alchemist who uses alchemy to temporary enhance items (Weapon oils, Armor polish stuff like that...)

I have concepts for both but there is so much stuff that has to be house ruled or that fits not fluffwise that i am not willing to bring this stuff to most tables.

For example for build 1. i would go with Vishkanya Alchemist (Beastmorph/Vivisectionist) but i would like to have someother way to uses the poison form pets. The the poison user can be done but the sub concept "milking" pets cannot...(with existing rules)

If a player wants to do somethings like this with me as a GM. I would try to do a feat or feat chain that would allow this stuff... like:

Poison milker
Prerequisites: Craft (Alchemy) 5 or poison use

Benefit: You can milk poison from trained poisonous creatures with an handel animal check DC equals poison DC plus creatures HD. If you fail the check no useable poison can be extracted, if you fail the check by 5 or more the creature bites you dealing attack damage plus poison. The procedure takes 1 hour of work and the creature looses is poison attack for 24h. You can get a number of poison doses equal to the creaures constitution modifier. The poison decays after 24h.

There is a trait that would help with your concept but it lacks some rules background for extracting poison:

Harvester:

You were trained to harvest all parts of an animal with care and precision.

Benefits: You gain a +1 trait bonus on Profession (tanner) or Profession (trapper) checks, and you may make these checks as if you were trained in the skill even if you have no ranks. Additionally, you do not risk poisoning yourself whenever you handle or apply poison taken from a venomous creature.

It doesn't state that it only works on poison from dead creatures.

[LazarX]

cheechako wrote:

Wizards (or others) that must attend school for years before they can start their career as a wizard.

Or apprenticed to a master. Wizard is a studied class, so it takes the extra time.

At least in Pathfinder it's only a couple of extra years.

In AD+D, all first level magic-users were supposed to look like Ezren, if they weren't elf.

[cheechako]

Umbranus wrote:

There is a trait that would help with your concept but it lacks some rules background for extracting poison:

And it has the added benefit of calling them venomous creatures! :) (Sorry - pet peeve of mine - venomous vs. poisonous.)

LazarX wrote:

Or apprenticed to a master. Wizard is a studied class, so it takes the extra time.

Exactly. The concept is: wizards need specialized training, and that takes time. This is supported by RAW. However, the concept is broken as soon as a dumb level-1 fighter kills enough goblins (perhaps in just one day) and suddenly becomes a Fighter-1/Wizard-1. And thus, because of conflicting rules, I think this is a concept that can't be realized in RAW.

[Ascalaphus]

My idea of psions is people who do magic stuff with their mind alone, not gestures or words. Yeah, you can do that with a sorcerer, but you won't be casting level 1 spells until level 6 when you can cope with the level increase from both Silent and Still Spell metamagic.

Can I play the wizard's familiar? Not by RAW. I might be able to cook up something with ARG that's tiny, but it won't be familiar-bonded to the wizard PC.

[Umbranus]

What I think the rules do not support is something possible in other rpg systems: A nega-psychic which is a person who disrupts magic and psionic effects just by being near.

Common features:
- Immune to magic except for indirect stuff like hurling a mundane boulder using telekinesis.
- antimagic aura that inhibits/disrupts magic in its area.

[Breiti]

Umbranus wrote:

There is a trait that would help with your concept but it lacks some rules background for extracting poison:

yeah, that is exactly the problem. It gives a bonus to a check that to my knowlege has no DC stated anywhere in the rules.

With the current rules most GMs will still make you pay at least 1/3 the listed poison price to preserve the poison... the reason should be clear if you get nearly unlimited poison doses this gets broken as hell....

Rules that are missing:
* How much can u extract from a creature without harming it?
* How long can you store this poison? Does it decay?
* How long does this take?
* What is the DC to extract?
etc.

Without this info it is unuseable and if this has no feat tax and can be used/stored for an infinate times/time it would be to powerfull ;)

I like the approach i have seen in much older rpgs where most monsters had an entry about which parts can be salvaged from the creature and what skill it takes to do so.... (hide for armor, poison, tooth as magic components etc.)

[Eltacolibre]

Blindmage wrote:

Wild Mage.

A caster that doesn't have full control over his magic and sometimes things go wrong, or go super amazing.

Primalist (Wizard), yup.

[LazarX]

cheechako wrote:

Umbranus wrote:

There is a trait that would help with your concept but it lacks some rules background for extracting poison:

And it has the added benefit of calling them venomous creatures! :) (Sorry - pet peeve of mine - venomous vs. poisonous.)

LazarX wrote:

Or apprenticed to a master. Wizard is a studied class, so it takes the extra time.

Exactly. The concept is: wizards need specialized training, and that takes time. This is supported by RAW. However, the concept is broken as soon as a dumb level-1 fighter kills enough goblins (perhaps in just one day) and suddenly becomes a Fighter-1/Wizard-1. And thus, because of conflicting rules, I think this is a concept that can't be realized in RAW.

Concept is broken only if you let it break. But seriously, how many 8-Int Fighter players are going to take on being a level 1 Wizard who doesn't have the Int for spellcasting? Also one of my houserules is that if you are going to switch to a radically different class you have to announce that one level ahead of time.

[Breiti]

cheechako wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Or apprenticed to a master. Wizard is a studied class, so it takes the extra time.

Exactly. The concept is: wizards need specialized training, and that takes time. This is supported by RAW. However, the concept is broken as soon as a dumb level-1 fighter kills enough goblins (perhaps in just one day) and suddenly becomes a Fighter-1/Wizard-1. And thus, because of conflicting rules, I think this is a concept that can't be realized in RAW.

hmmm a fighter that becomes a wizard in one day by killing engouh goblins can be done by RAW. It's just realy bad roleplaying. A player could study his fathers spellbook for year and then suddenly could have a breakthrough ... that at least is ok roleplaying. If the dumb fighter becomes a wizard after 1 day ... i as GM would call down the 100d6 anvil (no save) and that would be bad GMing...

The best rgp that supports any concept does not prevent bad roleplaying...

[Mysterious Stranger]

The biggest problem I have encountered is not that a concept cannot be done, but that it cannot be done in a manner that satisfies the player. This mostly happens when someone it trying to recreate something from a TV show, or movie.

I know a player that is constantly trying to recreate the TV version of Hercules. The biggest problem is that the TV show version has the equivalent of around a 45 point build. He is also a very high level character and the player gets frustrated not being able to do what he thinks his character should do. He also does not want to rely on magic items because the character on TV did not have any magic items. While the mythic rules and the new ACG help they still cannot meet the player’s expectations.

Unless you are running a solo campaign Pathfinder is a group experience. While absolute balance of the characters is almost impossible to achieve, game balance is still important. Most people do not want to play clearly inferior characters just so one person can get what he wants. Some concepts no matter how cool just don’t work well and should be avoided.

[Thelemic_Noun]

"Hey yo, I just stab a b****." For 1d6+1 piercing damage
"You stab her?"
"I stab her. I stab her wit ma d***." For 1d6+1 piercing damage
"God***."
"I stab her wit ma d***, dawg, I stab her wit ma d***" For 2d6+2 piercing damage
"God****."

Support that!

[wraithstrike]

JoeJ wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

JoeJ wrote:

A knight who rides a dragon, with whom he communicates telepathically.

A knight can be a multi-classing of a caster/melee type. So he gets the sending spell, and fights with some full BAB class. Getting the dragon to ride a "lesser race" around is the more difficult part, but somewhere there is a GM that would allow it.

Is there a caster type that can cast Sending at will (only with dragons) and has no other magic?

What about a character who can shapechange into any animal at will, but has no other magical ability?

Not at will.

I did just find out that one of the new alien races has telepathy within 30 feet so that works.

The only thing left is to decide what the player wants as a "knight"

[cheechako]

Sigh. The question posted is "are there concepts that cannot be done in the rules without adding house rules".

Concept: All wizards require years of training before they achieve Wizard-1.

RAW supports this with the minimum starting age of characters. RAW also supports a dumb fighter to change to Wizard after a day of fighting, assuming that nets them enough XP. This has nothing to do with good or bad roleplaying, logic, smart class choices, or anything else.

Personally, I am a big fan of character working towards a training goal instead of sudden (and unlikely) breakthroughs. I agree that the dumb fighter is making a dumb choice and the player is probably doing some poor role-playing. But RAW seems to say the only time someone needs years of training before they achieve Wizard-1 is when they have no other class, and that goes to the question at hand and the concept I proposed.

[LazarX]

Mysterious Stranger wrote:

The biggest problem I have encountered is not that a concept cannot be done, but that it cannot be done in a manner that satisfies the player. This mostly happens when someone it trying to recreate something from a TV show, or movie.

I know a player that is constantly trying to recreate the TV version of Hercules. The biggest problem is that the TV show version has the equivalent of around a 45 point build. He is also a very high level character and the player gets frustrated not being able to do what he thinks his character should do. He also does not want to rely on magic items because the character on TV did not have any magic items. While the mythic rules and the new ACG help they still cannot meet the player’s expectations.

Unless you are running a solo campaign Pathfinder is a group experience. While absolute balance of the characters is almost impossible to achieve, game balance is still important. Most people do not want to play clearly inferior characters just so one person can get what he wants. Some concepts no matter how cool just don’t work well and should be avoided.

The show "Hercules" is in no way the model of a standard campaign, nor a standard character. The problem is to give the player what he wanted, not only did it require a modification to the character, it required a mod to the campaign as well. You need to change things such as recovery. I'm somewhat mystified why he could not have done this through Mystic rules. A Champion Dual-Pathed to Guardian should have pulled it off relatively easily with a bit of development.

[Lemmy]

Rynjin wrote:

Non-magical guy who overcomes level appropriate challenges without magic of any sort.

Hey, that's completely possible! As long as you're playing E3, that is...

[Solidchaos085]

Someone already said knight riding a dragon, but I'll add to that.

Assuming no 3pp, you cannot get a proper dragon as an animal companion, and I mean the full deal (breath weapon that scales to character level, flight WITH the character riding (stupid monstrous mount), and a reasonable growth for said dragon that DOESNT render it useless in endgame dungeons)

[Kazaan]

No.

PRD wrote:

The Most Important Rule

The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.

This is actually a rule in the game; you can change the rules to suit your needs. So, technically, all changes, both potential and actual, "exist" in the rules based on this one.

Xzibit wrote:

Yo dawg, I heard you like rules. So I put rules in yo rules so you can follow yo rules while following yo rules.

So you literally cannot come up with a concept that can't be done using existing rules because the rules for such a concept exist as potential rules due to the rule that says you can change the rules to fit your needs. Of course, that brings up the issue as to whether you can change the rule that states you can change the rules. If I can change the rules to fit my needs, that means I can change the rule that states I can change the rules such that I can't change the rules. But then, if I can't change the rules, I can't change that rule. But then, you have to keep in mind that there is an exception to every rule and the exception, here, is that you can't, logically, change the rule that states you can change any rule to its negation because doing so would result in a paradox (argumentum ad absurdum). So what is the exception to the rule that there is an exception to every rule?

Spoiler:

The exception to the rule that there is an exception to every rule is the rule that there is an exception to every rule... there is no exception for that one. Ruleception.

[BretI]

Mage that builds towards their spells in a spell-tree fashion. There is no build-up towards being able to qualify for spells.

Skilled person that isn't high level. Need the levels for the skills, skill focus and such only go so far. This applies to craftsmen, professionals, rulers of countries, etc.

[Rynjin]

Thelemic_Noun wrote:

"Hey yo, I just stab a b****." For 1d6+1 piercing damage

"You stab her?"
"I stab her. I stab her wit ma d***." For 1d6+1 piercing damage
"God***."
"I stab her wit ma d***, dawg, I stab her wit ma d***" For 2d6+2 piercing damage
"God****."

Support that!

Monk.

Hamatulatsu, Hamatula Strike.

[Jiggy]

Dot.

[LoreKeeper]

Solidchaos085 wrote:

Someone already said knight riding a dragon, but I'll add to that.

Assuming no 3pp, you cannot get a proper dragon as an animal companion, and I mean the full deal (breath weapon that scales to character level, flight WITH the character riding (stupid monstrous mount), and a reasonable growth for said dragon that DOESNT render it useless in endgame dungeons)

Whoa slow down here. The request was for a knight riding a dragon. Not for a dragon animal companion. Provided the GM exposes the party to NPC dragons and a knight(fighter, cavalier, whatever) befriends said dragon and the dragon let's him ride on top. No issue.

...

Somebody mentioned "poisoner". Now given OP's example of a psion, there is no reason why a player cannot play a sorcerer, call it a poisoner, focus on appropriate spells (sleep, daze monster, etc), only applies spells via touch, and calls the spells appropriate poison names. "Narcotic poison" (sleep), "muscle relaxing toxin" (daze monster).

In other words, any "cannot be done" is really saying "cannot be done this way", or "cannot be done and still be as good as the minmaxed synthesist", or even "cannot be done in PFS".

[thejeff]

LoreKeeper wrote:

Somebody mentioned "poisoner". Now given OP's example of a psion, there is no reason why a player cannot play a sorcerer, call it a poisoner, focus on appropriate spells (sleep, daze monster, etc), only applies spells via touch, and calls the spells appropriate poison names. "Narcotic poison" (sleep), "muscle relaxing toxin" (daze monster).

In other words, any "cannot be done" is really saying "cannot be done this way", or "cannot be done and still be as good as the minmaxed synthesist", or even "cannot be done in PFS".

Except for the part where he's actually casting spells and has to follow all those rules. Uses per day. Can be dispelled. Doesn't work in anti-magic. Anyone with a spellcraft roll knows they're really spells. Has to chant & wave his arms.