Dr Sarcasm's page

Seems legit.

Now lets talk about unlockable leveled items. It will appear to be just the zero level item if non magically detected, but detect magic will show what it really is. Legend lore will give you the unlock.

For example, killing or controlling a creature or person with a spell unlocks that spell level in your ring of wizardry. It has to be the spell that puts it over the top. For example, a magic missile that brings them to 0 or less hits either fatal or subdual. If the vendor has any idea there are greater powers, I would add at least 10,000 sale value. What say you?

That would fall under either 'scaling magic items' from Pathfinder Unchained (which scale automatically with level) or 'Weapons of Legacy' from back in 3.5 (which require investing money/feats/spell slots/skill points/hit points/etc. and using rituals to level the item). Pricing something like that gets really tricky on making sure that you can get it at the levels you need, but would be rather straightforward otherwise.

If it is a scaling magic item, then it would probably fall under the 'Wonder' category, which means that it takes up 30% of your WBL. Even if you are meaning that every time you unlock a new level you lose the previous one, then the ring price will quickly outstrip your WBL. The level 1 magic missile would unlock that RoW I, placing the ring at 9000 gp. By scaling magic item rules, you would get that around level 8 normally (30% WBL=9900 gp). Using all of your WBL would place it about 5th level (out of 10500 gp WBL).

Having each level stack scales it quicker than you could keep up with. You can afford a 0-level ring around level 2 or 3, but add on the 1.5x multiplier for multiple abilities and a level 0 and 1 ring would cost 14500 (level 6), a level 0 to 2 ring would cost 40000 (level 9), a level 0 to 3 ring would cost 101500 gp (level 12)...

You could argue that since it is all the same effect, it does not warrant the 1.5x multiplier (which is actually waived in scaling magic item rules when the item grants similar effects). If you add on the restriction that you need to be a wizard to use the ring, that reduces the price by 30%. Requiring the wizard to perform a 'quest' to unlock each feature further reduces the price by 30% by the cursed item rules. Plugging those back in: Level 0 ring 400 gp (level 2/level 1 with the 'Rich Parents' trait), level 0+1 ring 4000 gp (lvl 3 + 1000 gp), level 0-2 ring 14000 gp (level 6), level 0-3 ring 33600 gp (level 8 + 600 gp).

So just by being able to cast those spells would place you several levels ahead of WBL using these prices. If instead you have to cast the next highest spell to unlock a new level of the ring (kill using magic missile = gain 0-level ring, kill using acid arrow = gain 1-level ring, etc.), you are around WBL with the reductions.

The price of the ring itself using scaling magic item rules is whatever the market value of the ring is at that character's level. This keeps a character's WBL normal. Just imagine that the merchant knows that he can get more for it than you are selling it to him, but is trying to maximize his profits by not paying you 'fair' price.

As for appearing to be a non-magical item, check out Dynamic Item Crafting from Pathfinder Unchained. There's a section dealing with perks, quirks, and flaws that don't change the item's market value but grant minor effects. The perk 'unassuming' makes the item appear non-magical. Alternatively, add +500 gp to make it an intelligent item with the unofficial 'secretive' quality.

Weapons of Legacy rules I am not too familiar with though. You'd have to look up the rules yourself for that one.

Question... Where do you find that...they do not help spontaneous casters?

That was a typo when I was writing it that I forgot to correct when I was formatting. There was something in one of the threads mentioning the distinction between a prepared caster's 'spells per day' and a spontaneous spellcaster's 'spell SLOTS per day' that turned out to be an artifact from 3e.

I hear a lot of people complaining about how expensive rings of wizardry are versus pearls of power. I needed to make a version for cantrips, so I played around with a couple formulas until I found one that I think works. I was looking at how expensive getting four pearls of power are versus the rings, how that relationship stays over levels, and when based on the new price could a player afford one.

The Logic and Math:

My final result: (Spell Level + Next Highest Spell Level)/2 squared * 1000 gp * 4.

Using the 'bonus spell' formula from the CRB as a base, increasing the spell level by 1/2 to account for flexibility, then multiplying the result by four to account for the four spells per level, the final result is this:

RoW 0: 1000 gp (100% WBL: Level 2 (*1), 25% WBL: Level 4 (*2))
RoW I: 9000 gp (100% WBL: Level 5 (2), 25% WBL: Level 9 (4))
RoW II: 25000 gp (100% WBL: Level 8 (2), 25% WBL: Level 12 (4))
RoW III: 49000 gp (100% WBL: Level 10 (2), 25% WBL: Level 15 (5))
RoW IV: 81000 gp (100% WBL: Level 11 (2), 25% WBL: Level 17 (5))
RoW V: 121000 gp (100% WBL: Level 13 (2), 25% WBL: Level 18 (4))
RoW VI: 169000 gp (100% WBL: Level 14 (1), 25% WBL: Level 19 (3**))
RoW VII: 225000 gp (100% WBL: Level 15 (1), 25% WBL: Level >20)
RoW VIII: 289000 gp (100% WBL: Level 16 (0), 25% WBL: Level >20)
RoW IX: 361000 gp (100% WBL: Level 17 (0), 25% WBL: Level >20)

Crafted:
RoW 0: 500 gp (100% WBL: Level <2 (*1), 25% WBL: Level 3 (*2))
RoW I: 4500 gp (100% WBL: Level 4 (1), 25% WBL: Level 7 (3))
RoW II: 12500 gp (100% WBL: Level 6 (1), 25% WBL: Level 10 (3))
RoW III: 24500 gp (100% WBL: Level 8 (1), 25% WBL: Level 12 (3))
RoW IV: 40500 gp (100% WBL: Level 9 (1), 25% WBL: Level 14 (3))
RoW V: 60500 gp (100% WBL: Level 10 (0), 25% WBL: Level 15 (3))
RoW VI: 84500 gp (100% WBL: Level 12 (0), 25% WBL: Level 17 (3))
RoW VII: 112500 gp (100% WBL: Level 13 (0), 25% WBL: Level 18 (2))
RoW VIII: 144500 gp (100% WBL: Level 14 (-1***), 25% WBL: Level 19 (1**))
RoW IX: 180500 gp (100% WBL: Level 14 (-2***), 25% WBL: Level 20 (0**))
*Cantrips aren't really 'behind'
**Higher levels make 'spell levels behind' tricky
***At this point, you can make the rings before you can cast the spell. No effect.

(Neat little graph of the prices: Link. Red is Rings of Wizardry, Blue is four Pearls of Power, and Green is one Pearl of Power.)

Now they are still too expensive to be a side item, but if you craft them or have them as your big-budget item, they are affordable. Compared to 4 PoP, a ring of the same level is just slightly behind (ranging from 125% more at spell level 1 to 11% more at spell level 9). Sorcerers and maybe arcanists get a major savings though: after spell level 2 the rings become cheaper and cheaper to get versus pearls of power (-9.3% @ spell level 3 to -25.7% @ spell level 9). I went ahead and did the math on higher and lower levels of Rings of Wizardry because that's why I was doing this in the first place.

So those are my thoughts on repricing the rings. What do you think?

Bit of a necropost, but this is Google's top result for trying to find sooty flame. I found this entry on a Pathfinder-based 3rd party book--I don't know if it is the official definition before sooty flame got cut from Mythic rules or an original creation, but lacking official errata AFAIK this seems like a decent substitute. There's an entry named sooty flame for mythic flame drakes, and a different version for a mythic great wyrm red dragon.

Flame Drake:

Great Wyrm:

Link:

So Yoon, what do you think that black flame that you and your grandmother used is? Where did it come from (other than you)?

Building a Kensai Magus//Inspired Blade Swashbuckler. The Inspired Blade has the following capstone:

Rapier Weapon Mastery (Ex)

At 20th level, when an inspired blade threatens a critical hit with a rapier, that critical hit is automatically confirmed. Furthermore, the critical threat range increases by 1 (this increase to the critical threat range stacks with the increase from rapier training, to a total threat range of 14–20), and the critical modifier of the weapon increases by 1 (×2 becomes ×3, for example).

While the Kensai's capstone is simply the fighter's Weapon Mastery:

Weapon Mastery (Ex)

At 20th level, a fighter chooses one weapon, such as the longsword, greataxe, or longbow. Any attacks made with that weapon automatically confirm all critical threats and have their damage multiplier increased by 1 (×2 becomes ×3, for example). In addition, he cannot be disarmed while wielding a weapon of this type.

Now the confirm critical part is a simple yes/no, and since the Swashbuckler ability is 'greater', if you have to get only one you get that. But the increase in critical damage multiplier does not specify that it does not stack with similar effects. So with having both, will a level 20 swash//magus's rapier attack have a 14-20/x4 crit modifier?

---

Also as an aside, if you have the half-elf's multitalented race ability, can you effectively get two favored class abilities every level with a gestalt character?

Funny thing I just found: If you have Improved Unarmed Strike and Dragon Style, if you get the Martial Versatility feat, you can bypass the need for Feral Combat Training and just apply Dragon Style to the 'natural weapon' group. Shame that you have to be a level 4 human fighter to get this, as a mammoth animal companion neither has levels nor is human.

@Sennje:

1) Having to use up a trait or feat slot to use a class feature in the way it was designed to work doesn't seem right. As not even the Mad Dog archetype, which by class design has you commanding a beast to perform tricks (presumably while raging), has any text mentioning the Handle Animal skill, I am probably going to take it as a design oversight. (For the record: there is a trait called Coherent Rage that can allow you to use HA while raging, but traits and feats should be to enhance your character, not fix design mistakes).

2) More or less what I thought, but the goal here is to be as literal RAW as possible. It doesn't state either way.

3) But what is combat trained?!(/frustration) It never seems to be really defined as to what qualifies it as--the only places that it is stated is a) the Ride skill states the need for a combat trained-mount, specifically calling out the pony, horse, 'or other mount' not trained for combat riding; and b) the Handle Animal skill has Combat Training as a 'general purpose': a pre-selected group of tricks that use up all six tricks you can teach to a 2 intelligence animal (incidentally disallowing the mount from attacking anything other than a humanoid, monstrous humanoid, or animal). Does merely knowing the attack trick count as combat trained? Or do you need to dedicate all six trick slots to those specific tricks mentioned in the general purpose?

5) I know about Feral Combat Training. The problem is that a barbarian's mount under the effects of a Beast Totem and Ferocious Mount has gained 2 claw attacks, potentially a bite as well if Animal Fury is also taken. Add that to the gore, slam, or hoof attacks that they already possess and you've taken up all of its feat slots for this one (albeit very good, especially when combined with Dragon Ferocity) feat line.

-----

@fearcypher: Is that really the case? I re-read the AoMF description and it does say that only effects that could be applied to unarmed strikes can be enchanted onto it, but isn't that implying that things like the 'distance' quality can't be applied? The keen property wouldn't work with a normal unarmed strike true, due to it dealing bludgeoning damage, but there are a number of ways to make an unarmed strike deal piercing or slashing damage.

I've been doing a lot of research for making my own RAGELANCEPOUNCE barbarian type, potentially using the Mammoth Rider prestige class. Unfortunately a LOT of questions have come up regarding how mounted combat works. Going to try tackling a few at a time here.

1) When a barbarian is raging, he is prohibited from using skills based off of Intelligence, Dexterity, or Charisma, with a few exceptions. Ride is one of those noted exceptions, so a barbarian is able to guide the movement of his mount with a DC 5 Ride check. However, neither the Mounted Fury archetype nor the Ferocious Mount rage powers mention the allowance for Handle Animal. As directing an animal companion to use its tricks is a Handle Animal check (albeit a free action), does this mean that a Mounted Fury Barbarian is restricted to merely riding his mount, being unable to direct it to attack?

2) The Ferocious Mount rage power allows the barbarian to 'share the benefits of his rage' with his mount. Does this count as the mount actually raging? Such as being unable to enter a rage when fatigued, or for the effects of the Amplified Rage feat (if shared through an equestrian's saddle)? The last line--"she can elect not to pay [the extra rage round per round] cost, in which case the mount does not rage" seems to indicate that the mount actually rages, but is this the case?

3) What mount types need to be officially combat trained? Is it merely the horse-types that are herbivores that flee when attacked? Or does this include carnivores like dogs, and creatures like a mammoth that would charge potential threats? What really counts as combat trained--the combat training general purpose, or some specific trick(s)?

4) If a creature has multiple attacks per round, but only elects to use one, does that attack get the strength-and-a-half bonus? Or just full strength?

5) The Dragon Style feat is very useful to a Large/Huge charging mount that has had its Intelligence increased to 3. The Improved Unarmed Strike prerequisite on the other hand is not, doing absolutely nothing for them. Is there someway to ignore the prerequisite of IUS? Or to classify natural attacks as unarmed strikes, to get full benefits from the Dragon Style feat?

6) The tusk blade item allows Gore attacks to gain an increased critical threat range and be enhanced as melee weapons. If a creature is wearing these (magically enhanced), does it preclude them benefiting from an AoMF? For example, if a mount has a gore and a slam attack, is wearing a +1 furious tusk blade and a keen AoMF, what effects are present on its gore attack?

So planning a Ragebred Mammoth Rider Barbarian, using a RAGELANCEPOUNCE battle style. I'm currently working on the planning stages, but a question concerning natural attacks and manufactured attacks in tandem has arisen.

I know that Primary Attacks are made at full attack bonus with full strength, and Secondary Attacks made at -5 attack and 1/2 strength, and they don't get iterative attacks. I've heard that when a manufactured weapon is mixed with primary attacks, they become secondary.

For example, at level 12 before all magic item bonuses he would have:

Attack Bonus: +22 (When charging)
-Gore, Base Primary*
-Claw, Base Primary*
-Hoof, Base Secondary*
-Hoof, Base Secondary*
-Possible Bite Attack, -5 When used during Full-Attack
-Lance Attack 1
-Lance Attack 2(-5)
-Lance Attack 3(-10)

(*not explicitly mentioned as Primary/Secondary, but hoof attacks are listed as secondary under Universal Monster Rules)

My questions are:

1)Does a secondary natural attack become further reduced?
2)Which attacks from above are at full, and which are at half Str/Reduced Attack?
3)Do you need to have three+ natural attacks continually in order to qualify for MultiAttack, or can you get the feat if you get them from class/race features under certain circumstances (rage/an unlimited duration racial power, respectively)?

That's not exactly what I'm trying to do. The goal I'm trying to accomplish is expanding the arcane pool of the black blade. It gets 1+Int Bonus points/day, and it's Int score goes up by 1 every odd level. That means that the number of points it contains is minimal--1 at 3rd, 2 at 5th, 3 at 9th, 4 at 13th, etc. It's not until 19th level that you can use the blade's abilities on a regular basis, with the Life Drinker ability restoring some points every time you drop a creature.

Now while the amount of arcane points of the magus+black blade is higher than that of a vanilla magus, as you can't use your own arcane points to fuel the abilities of the blade, only its own, limiting your use of its abilities. For most of the abilities, this is fine. But for the 'keep one in the vault' Unbreakable and the 'last until next turn' Energy Attunement (which can really eat up your points if you need to go force or sonic), it feels like it's too little. And there seems to be no way too boost the amount. If I could feed my points into the sword, use my own points instead, make it out of special materials (permanently ironwooded-wyrroot), equip it with an Intelligence-enhancing magic item, or even cast Fox's Cunning on it (even though it's not on the magus list; not sure how that affects arcane pool) then it would be better. But there isn't any support for intelligent magic items that I can find. Any sourcebooks for those?

Addendum: Can you enchant it as a wondrous item, rather than weapon?

Say I wanted to increase the arcane pool of my black blade. By the FAQ I can't enchant it with effects as Craft Magic Arms and Armor. But is there any way to equip it? Say, slide a Ring of Arcane Mastery over the pommel, or use a Headband of Intellect as a hilt wrap.

By the rules, I can't find anything for or against this. There's a blood reservoir item that needs to be attached to weapons to work, but that's about it. An ioun stone could orbit around it as it has 3+ Int, but it has no limbs to grasp and equip it, and I'm not sure it qualifies as a "creature".

How would you determine what magic item slots it would have? The closest parallel in animal magic item slots is the 'serpentine' body type with belt, eyes, and headband slots (though it doesn't have eyes). Animal Companions and Familiars and Eidolons (with restrictions) and Phantoms can all use magic items. Why not class-gifted intelligent items?

Sweet, thanks.

Thanks.

Been reading up on CMB for a dispelling weapon in regards to spell sunder.

When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.

Ok, so what's an attack roll as defined by the Core Rulebook?

Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is:

Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier

And CMB?

CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier

So my CMB is exactly equal to my normal attack roll. And as mentioned above, it is affected by any bonuses and penalties my normal attack roll is. Which means that when performing a spell sunder with a +2 dispelling weapon, I am making a standard attack action vs the opposing CMD.

Am I getting this right? That my CMB is effectively my regular attack roll when using a weapon-based combat maneuver?

*

*

And while I'm here, a dispelling weapon's description reads

A dispelling weapon functions like a spell storing weapon, but it may only store dispel magic; however, the caster level check to dispel gains an additional bonus equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus. This bonus also applies to a magus's dispelling strike arcana or a barbarian's spell sunder or sunder enchantment combat maneuver check.

Is this bonus an untyped bonus, or an enhancement bonus? I'd say the former, otherwise the two enhancement bonuses would cancel out the other.

I've been on-and-off working on a guide for magic items that work with class abilities, and have come up to a headscratcher.

The barbarian gets a +2 morale bonus to Will saves. A courageous weapon applies its enhancement bonus as a morale bonus against fear saves, and increases morale bonuses from other sources by half the weapon's enhancement bonus.

So assuming that a barbarian is wielding a +2 courageous greatsword, what does his Will save vs fear end up as?

Is it 3 (+2 class bonus plus half enhancement)? Or does the fact that the courageous morale bonus applies only to saves vs fear mean that it stacks with the Will save bonus, ending up with +5 vs fear?

Thought so. It was just something that occurred to me when I was figuring out max iterative attack damage for a monk. I just couldn't find anything that said specifically either way.

I kind of feel like a rube for asking this, but it's one of those things I just never thought about until now.

I know you add your Strength bonus to damage rolls (or half if it's off-hand, or one-and-a-half if it's two handed) as in my great-axe will deal 1d12+6 damage, and I've always approached it that way. However, I just started wondering if it's your strength bonus for each time you roll for damage, or to each die roll. For instance, with a strength modifier of +4, would a great-sword deal 2d6+6 (2d6 + STR*1.5), or 2d6+12 (2*(1d6 + STR*1.5))? I've always used the former method, and I can't seem to find a definitive answer either way (although since nobody mentions it in great-axe vs great-sword debates, it seems more likely the former).

Any chance I could get an answer on this?

Something occurred to me when I was re-working the class for myself: how do the eldritch aura and damage reduction interact? If you get hit with a dagger for 2 points of damage, but the damage reduction negates the damage, does the aura trigger? Or does it only trigger if the damage overpowers the DR? I'd think the former as it's more useful, but the wording as-is is a bit ambiguous.

So why can't the invocations be split up? It would be a simple matter to make three categories of blast shape, eldritch essence, and utility/universal (the familiar would occupy both utility and blast shape categories). Then say that an essence could be modified with only one blast shape and/or eldritch essence. The core warlock could do it, and I don't see any glaring drawbacks in doing so.

Fair enough on the Charisma modifier. Thought so, just wanted to check.

Great! Nice to see something accepted.

And on Critter Form (Beast Shape 0's number 2 working title, to separate it from the Beast Form line)--yes, most familiars are from size Diminutive to Small with most in Tiny, and yes you can't get to Tiny until level 7/8 if a wizard/sorcerer--or level 10 if it was in the warlock list at same level--BUT you have a very limited list of forms compared to the Beast Shape line.

With Beast Shape 2 you could turn into a Tiny cat with 1/4 CR and can have a claw attack that does 1d2-4 damage--OR you could turn into a CR 5 Megaraptor with a 2d6+6 damage talon attack. With Beast Shape 3 you could turn into a Bat with a 1d3-4 bite OR you could turn into a Stegosaurus with a 4d6+12 tail attack with trip OR you could turn into a Magical Beast.

But with Critter Form, all you can do is get smaller and weaker--but more able to hide and sneak. You are not and never will be a credible threat in this form, unlike the Beast Shape forms.

Now one more spell, again a direct translation like Hungry Shadows.

Nightmares Made Real
Illusion (Shadow)
Level: Warlock 4
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Area: Five 10-ft. cubes + one 10-ft. cube/level (S)
Duration: 1 round/level
Saving Throw: Will disbelief (if interacted with)
Spell Resistance: No

You cloak your surroundings with phantasmagoric figures, creating a horrific dreamscape. You make any terrain look, sound, and smell like something out of a nightmare. Writhing vegetation, disembodied limbs, animated corpses, and smoking pits cover every surface. Miasmic vapors fill the air, along with various foul stenches.
The nightmare terrain you create is mostly illusory, but the obstacles are partially real. Creatures within, entering, or viewing the area are entitled to Will saves to discern the illusion. Creatures that fail their saves become entangled. All creatures within the area at the start of your turn take 1d6 points of damage if they do not succeed on Will saves to disbelieve the effect. Regardless of the outcome of the save, creatures within 5 feet have concealment, while those 10 feet or farther away have total concealment.
Furthermore, as long as you are within the area of this spell, you can attempt Hide checks even while being observed. (Other creatures don't gain this benefit.)

The spell level was a bit iffy, since the base spell was listed as <Level: Assassin/bard/hexblade 3, sorcerer/wizard 4>, but the invocation (with the damage at start of your turn effect) was listed as a Greater Invocation, spell level 5. So I just assumed that the damage bumped it up a spell level, so the new levels would be <Assassin/Bard/Hexblade 4, Sorcerer/Wizard 5>, so Warlock Spell Level 4.

I'm also working on trying to come up with some magic items for the warlock, but that'll take a while. Also working on a Pact-based warlock archetype, specifically an 'Infernal Pact' Warlock. That'll probably be sooner, though I'll start it on a new thread to avoid derailing this one. Maybe try to make Pacts for warlocks be like a bloodline for sorcerers, with abilities differing on who your patron type is.

I somewhat disagree with the elemental damage type eldritch blasts. Apart from the cold and fire subtypes, very few critters I can think of have significant enough weaknesses to warrant changing my blast from one that bypasses resistances and damage reduction to one that is subject to them, with an extra damage die or two. Especially since that EB is no longer subject to spell resistance.

I can get that having the effects would detract from the other invocations and their status effects, but honestly...I've never used the others. The mindset I've always had with attacks, from Warlocks to Magic the Gathering to Pokemon has always been thus: BURN, BURN, BURN! Damage first and foremost. Status effects rarely catch my eye, so the likelyhood of me choosing one is slim.

But the beauty of non-Paizo-canon things like this is that it can be tailored to personal tastes, so I could try it out and see how it works for me.

I guess I can get that technically the familiar is an alternate way of firing off eldritch blasts. Kind of stretching it, but oh well. I just thought that having it as an archetype class feature would fit better than trying to fit it in with the invocations--especially since with an archetype you could take the 'devil on the shoulder' thing further than just tossing in the ability to gain a familiar.

Also I was wondering why a class ability to apply both a blast shape and eldritch essence to the same blast didn't show up at higher levels. It doesn't seem too out of sorts to shoot an inferno eldritch doom or a maelstrom eldritch bolt, especially as these are effectively already spells. Also why no add Charisma bonus to attack rolls on eldritch blasts? Seems like it would fit in somewhere since that is their main method of attack (granted touch ACs tend to be small barring rogues and such, but still).

I didn't mean to overwhelm the spell list or anything. Just brainstorming--throwing all the ideas I can against the wall and see what sticks. But I do get what you mean with too many. So I looked over the spell list you had posted to get an idea of what to look for in the spells, so I narrowed it down to fit a few criteria (mostly enchantment, illusion, and necromancy, with a little conjuration; no direct damage, mostly status or ability drain; no hard barriers, mostly fog-type spells). I guess I'll take it a few at a time.

The first one is ironically one of the spells I was the most reluctant to post, given the sort of 'cleaned up' non-evil warlock features that now are in it. This is a mostly direct translation (with a few flavor changes) of the hungry shadows invocation:

Hungry Shadows
School: Conjuration
Level: Warlock 3
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Components: V, S
Range: Close (25 ft + 5 ft/2 levels)
Duration: Concentration + 2 rounds
Saving Throw: none; Spell Resistance no
You create a miniscule breach into the Shadow Plane. The breach results in a small pool of shadowstuff that radiates in a 20-foot radius of the portal, darkening the area as a darkness spell. The breach also trails with it a swarm of Fine-sized creatures from the Plane, who fill the area of the spell. These nameless scavengers from the twisted forests of the Shadow Plane will attempt to eat any non-Shadow Planar denizen who cross their path. Through the casting of this spell however, the caster appears to be a denizen of the plane, and as such is immune to the attacks of the swarm, though not the darkness effect of the breach.
For the purposes of the spell, the swarm counts as a bat swarm (Bestiary 30), except the swarm is Fine-sized and fills the entire spell area. If the swarm receives enough damage to kill it, it ends the spell, dispelling the darkness.

So I tried to take away the 'bat-filled darkness' bit, and keeping with Paizo's habit of throwing pop culture in wherever it can, I modeled the swarm after the Vashta Narada from Doctor Who. The flavor text may be a bit much for a third-level spell--especially since a swarm of Vashta Narada this size would do a LOT more than 1d6 points of damage, but I couldn't figure out how to word that it was more curious nibbling that a coordinated attack.

And the other I was going to suggest for now is a bit more difficult to word out, since I have little to base it off of. I keep on thinking of how a very warlock-y thing is to be able to turn into animals for the purposes of sneaking off or infiltration or the like. The simplest solution would be to give them a Beast Shape spell progression (especially as the last spell is the highest spell level a warlock can cast), but that could be used as a combat spell which doesn't 100% mesh with what they have already. And since the reason I feel it should have it is more to be a utility sneaking spell than a full combat one, the best I could come up with is this:

Beast Shape 0 [name subject to change]
School: Transmutation [polymorph]
Level: Warlock 2
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Components: V, S
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1 minute/level (D)
When you cast this spell, you can assume the form of an animal. This creature can be of any size, but it must be an animal that a 1st-level wizard can select as a familiar. The caster does not gain any of the benefits that an animal selected as a familiar gains. You gain any of the features of the form you assume, but retain your hit points and mental ability scores (Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma).

I'm not sure about this one--specifically the ability gains. I get that the regular polymorphs have a hindrance on what abilities you gain, but that seems more to me to be to stop you from casting a form of the dragon III and gaining free spells as a sorcerer. Here, you are taking the form of an at MOST CR 1/2 animal where you are--at minimum--a 4th-level character, a major step DOWN in strength. Plus it would help separate it from normal polymorph spells (apart from the name, which still needs work).

Alright, brainstorming time.

For the energy-based eldritch essences: The fire (brimstone) and cold (hellrime) both already have their effects. The vitrolic does as well, as not only does it bypass spell resistance (which is no longer needed), the conjured acid also lingers for a few rounds, much like the brimstone blast, but there's no full-round action to put yourself out.

For electricity, all I could really think of was numbing and muscle spasms of some sort, so it's either a disarm check (unlikely, as that may or may not be OP) or the same effect as hellrime, just altered for Strength damage instead of Dexterity, as a result of the numbed fingers and what have you.

Also, suppose you altered the sonic blast to do the same effect as a thundering weapon--Fort save on a critical hit or become permanently deafened. A beam of sonic energy dealing 6d8 at minimum points of damage feels like some sort of deafening effect should be placed on it. Perhaps a general temporary deafening for a round or two in addition to the crit effect?

And on the familiar-topic: I agree on having it would be a cool thing. But you've already got a pattern up with keeping the invocations as blast shapes and eldritch essences. Perhaps separating it into a full-blown archetype? Because isn't setting up alternate takes on the same class what archetypes are all about?

And I'll have to think about the Constitution thing. I thought I read somewhere on one of these threads that it already had a good Fort save that you took off. It's been awhile since I've played the warlock, so I didn't remember it only had a good Will save. If all else fails, I can do what I normally do if I can't fit features into a class progression: make feats.

And now onto the warlock invocations (spells):

Some of the invocations from the three warlock books (Complete Arcane, Complete Mage, Dragon Magic) could almost be copy-pasted, as they just re-create spells from those books, and as non-OGL they won't be showing up in and Paizo work:
• earthen grasp (CArc 104),
• stony grasp (CArc 124),
• wall of gloom (CArc 129),
• caustic mire (CMage 98),
• the slightly altered invocation of nightmare terrain (CMage 111, 124),
• the altered invocation of endless slumber (CMage 103, 124), and
• steal summoning (CMage 118) in particular fits.

• Dark discorporation could be turned into a 10 minutes/level spell that allows you to discorporate and reform as a free action once per round, as the shapechange spell does.

• Wall of perilous flame, having the half-untyped energy from the eldritch blast could replace the wall of fire in the warlock list--considering that the warlock gets it 2-3 levels after the sorcerers and wizards, the spell level slot it occupies on his list needn't be changed.

• Much the same as above, chilling tentacles is received at a later class level than the black tentacles of the sorcerer spell list, so different spell level shouldn't be needed. And for both of them, they could count as their counterparts for the purposes as magic items and counterspelling.

• Flee the scene is not all that different in what it accomplishes compared to mislead, albeit with a short-range teleport rather than invisibility, and a one-round major image rather than concentration plus three. So a second or third-level spell?

• The enthralling voice from Dragon Magic could also fit, as well as the frightful presence.

• The hellspawned grace from Complete Mage wouldn't fit the non-dark feel of the new warlock since it turns you into a hellcat, but the polymorphing self bit fits. Perhaps add the beast form line?

• And a few spells could be added as the regular spells, since they pretty much show up as invocations in some of the other books: speak with animals--although the invocation also gives it wild empathy as well--break enchantment, water walk, pass without trace, and wall of force.

• There's also something I felt fit the class, but was never an invocation: there's a spell called blacklight, that creates an area of darkness as the spell, but while inside it the caster can see just fine. It just fit in my opinion. Of course that's the old warlock, not the new.

Like I said, this is off-the-walls brainstorming. Let me know what you like.

I have to say that I like this conversion. I've been playing NWN2 recently, and with the few Pathfinder games I've got my fingers in, searching for a conversion of one of my absolute favorite classes brought me to this page (actually the initial thread, but from there to here). And for the most part I like it a lot. There are a few things though.

I have to echo the earlier post about Constitution playing some role with the class features. There's just so many class features in this tied into them being resilient and filled with arcane energy--Damage Reduction, Fast Healing, Energy Resistance--that a good Fort save at the least fits. I'm not sure where Constitution would be applied to class features though. I'd imagine if it would apply anywhere, it would be towards the more physically-based features like the aforementioned three, but I can't think of what it would do.

And I have a question about some of the invocations you posted. One of the things I loved about the eldritch essence invocations was the differing effects it could have. You managed to capture some of them really well, like the bewitching and beshadowed blasts, but things life the boreal and inferno blasts are nothing like their hellrime and brimstone counterparts. A simple single die increase in damage and change in damage type (now subject to energy resistances and immunities (as well as weaknesses too, I guess))? It would seem better off having an 'elemental blast' that can be changed to different energy types than three or four that do the same thing with different energies. My question is, why did you drop the catching fire and dex penalty and what-not?

And the last bit is more of a gripe about the spells. Don't get me wrong, I love the spell list and all of them fit perfectly, and having a bard-level spell progression fits as an alternative. But one of the things I loved about the warlock was just how much flavor the invocations had. They weren't simply spells like what others could cast, they were unique. A greater invisibility spell that if dispelled made a shockwave? Awesome. The ability to turn into a swarm of bat-like shadows? Beautiful. Eating magic to heal yourself? Exquisite.

The spell list is awesome, as I said, but it feels a bit...scrubbed down. Clinically clean cookie-cutter spells. I wanted to see some unique warlock-specific spells. Each of the other new classes had something unique to them, spell-wise, and I wanted to see the same. So I kinda went and attempted to convert the invocations into their equivalents in Pathfinder spell terms. The problem is that I've spent far more time as a player than as a DM, so there's an almost-certain chance that they are unbalanced. Some of them were simple conversions, some were altered a bit, some were changed dramatically in an effort to keep them different than the core spells. I was wondering if you'd be willing to look at them, if not to place/replace them in your spell list, then at least to look at them as an archetype alternative.

Of course, then I ran into the problem of the spells (I still call them invocations; I'm having trouble letting the word go, and if an alchemist can call their spells recipes the I can call them invocations) not being compatible with their counterparts for the purposes of spell-trigger, spell-completion, magic item creation and counterspelling. My quick and dirty solution was to put a list at the end of each invocation saying that they are close enough magically that a spell can affect an invocation and vice versa. Not an elegant one but it works.

Not sure you are still subscribed to this thread or whatever, but I would appreciate your input. I got to this a bit late to the punch, and what you've got seems to have been playtested for a few years, so not sure how the changes would fit in.