Nonlethal Force
First Post
Bront said:Devoted Mage
Prerequisites: Smite Evil ability, Ability to spontaniously cast arcane spells.
Benifit:
-As a Swift Action that doesn't provoke an attack of opertunity, you may sacrifice one of your daily spells to add a bonus to your attack and damage rolls for one round.
-Your Paladin and Sorcerer levels stack for determining the extra damage delt by your smite evil ability.
-You may freely multiclass between Paladin and Sorcerer, though you still must maintain your lawful good alignment and deal with all other normal multiclassing rules.
Well, there are two problems I have with this suggetion. First, it really makes Arcane Strike (CW) substandard for a paladin/sorcerer. Granted, any other fighter/mage combo would not be affected by the Devoted Mage suggestion. The other problem is RP based, not game mechanics based. Typically (although certainly not always) sorcerers are seen as more chaotic than lawful - hence why I don't believe the CAdv included a paly/sorc combo. That certainly doesn't mean the combo can't exist, nor does it mean that such a multiclass can't occur! Because obviously with Eonthar's character it can! But part of creating a character like paly/sorc should be the inner struggle of giving up on the paly or the sorc to pursue the other. That is not something that I think can be lost lightly. Did this feat come from a sourcebook or is it a homebrew? Just curious...
As for the rest of the feats ... it depends on where the character is headed, of course. If eventually headed back down the melee path - Power Attack could be nice because it sets up the possibility for Quell the Profane and Resounding Blow feats. If the character is going to focus more on casting, both Consecrate Spell and Purify Spell could be nice - tarnished only by the fact that this is a sorcerer and metamagics are not so clean and easy with a sorcerer than with a wizard. But they are both still useful feats, especially if one maxes out their Concentration ranks.
Any of the listed BoED feats (either in Bront's post or my earlier post) would certainly be acceptable, though.