Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Mother of Beasts

KutuluKultist's page

234 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 234 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

See also:

Given that the moral structure of the outer planes outlasts individual deities, I strongly suggest that deities are subject to an independent moral reality the rules of which bind them as strongly as anyone.

The toughest part is the caster level, but as a wizard, you can stomach that and still be very strong. Yeah, it's a sidegrade but a good one, adding relevant options.

I wonder, can you deliver a touch spell at the same time as you touch inject a poison? Like pernicious poison e.g.?

MoMS2, Brawler (Snakebite Striker) 2 is a great base. You could even go dex, take one of the styles that let your unarmed attacks count as slashing, take slashing grace and from then on go Swashbuckler (or another class that grants precise strike).
Or stick with Brawler until CL8, to get improved unarmed strike flurrying. Alternatively, ignore brawler and go with Sacred Fist / MoMS 2.

The Slayer's choice of talents is pretty weak. In particular since the combat style talents do not continue past the 3rd instance. Once the useful rogue talents (Weapon Training, Combat Trick) have been exhausted, there's not really much to get.

I don't think that the slayer can take the minor/major magic tricks.

Here is the list:

bleeding attack*, camouflage, combat trick, fast stealth, finesse rogue, firearm training, grit, hard to fool, lasting poison, powerful sneak, rogue crawl, slow reactions*, snap shot, sniper's eye, surprise attack, swift poison, terrain mastery, trap spotter, unwitting ally, or weapon training.

The misunderstanding stems from the this line, I believe:

If the rogue talent has a prerequisite (such as the major magic rogue talent requiring the minor magic talent), the slayer must fulfill the prerequisite before taking that rogue talent.

There is no limitation build into the Quick Study Talent. Sure, you cannot use it at 3rd level, but there you can take it and have it once Studied Combat comes online.


Quick Study (Ex): An investigator can use his studied combat ability as swift action instead of a standard action.

Consider putting power attack back to 5th level and getting quick study at 3rd instead.
I for one would rather never have to spend a move action to activate Studied Combat.

Getting sneak to ranged attacks is very hard to do and basically impossible to do reliably.

Fun to think about?

The animal companion & familiar combination can easily be realized without playing a summoner, though.

This is just a rough sketch for a build that you may hopefully help make bloom. The idea is to bring as many figures onto the battlefield as is realistic and effective.

The general approach is a Master Summoner with a Skill Monkey Eidolon. Add to this a Familiar gained via Eldritch Heritage (3 feat) and an Animal Companion gained via Animal Ally (2 feats, 3 to include boon companion). That's 4 sets of actions right there, plus the summoned monsters. The AC can function as a BBF.

A build could look like this:
1st Skill Focus, Nature Soul
3rd Eldritch Heritage
5th Animal Ally
7th Boon Companion
9th Improved Familiar
11th Superior Summons or maybe Leadership.

Precise Strike should be standard and multiplied on a crit. It's their replacement for the Two Handed Power Attack.

The swift actions are a problem and some abilities which use a swift should probably be using a free action.

It requires BAB +6, so level 7.

Compare with a Brawler, who counts his brawler levels as monk levels and can get it at 5th (with a 2 level MoMS dip for dragon and pummeling).

That build is seriously short on swift actions.
Activating a stance is a swift action, fervor buffing is a swift action, using blessings is a swift action. It will be 5 rounds before everything is up and running.

Is there anything stopping you from just activating both stances when you enter the dungeon and just stay "combat ready" all the while? It does not hinder your movement, after all and as long as you don't insist on doing it even during your off-time, most GMs might be OK with it. It's not that different from keeping your sword drawn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The only thing I really hated about the infinity engine games was the hectic and chaotic combat system. I've always felt more at war with my characters, trying to get them to do what I want and not commit horribly stupid acts of self-sabotage on the one hand or getting annoyed with having to give orders all the time with a very simple battle where scripting would have worked easily.

The NWN games certainly improved on this, as did dragon age, by allowing you to have different perspectives, chain commands, better feedback and slower combat, but all in all, real time combat just feels hectic and uncontrolled to me.

Divinity: Original Sin worked very well in that regard and so did, using a very different approach Might & Magic Legacy. And ToEE for all its many, many faults did get the feeling of DnD combat right and was the game which was closest to the tabletop rule set. If anything, this is what I would want from a Pathfinder single player game: to stay very true to the rule set. And that would mean turn based combat imho.

But, to be realistic, we will get real time combat. Because BG and NWN and the whole record of Obsidian/Black Isle doing that kind of thing successfully.


Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action

You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 to AC until the start of your next turn.

It seems very clear to me that this say nothing more than that fighting defensively is a version of the attack action, one which activates to mentioned modifiers.

The entry for fighting defensively as a full-attack is even a sub-heading of the full-attack section.

The attack action and the full-attack action thus come in two flavours each, one simpliciter and one "defensively".

As for the modifiers.
While "most penalties stack", there is the clear precedent that penalties from several instances of the same spell (e.g. "ray of enfeeblement") do not stack with each other. In fact, I cannot think of a single case where a penalty from the same source stacks with itself.

The one remaining problem is that the bonuses provided by fighting defensively are dodge bonuses and those explicitly stack with one another. But it seems to me that we can extend the general implied principle that modifiers from the same source do not stack here too.

Which points to a similar problem: If I am subject to several haste spells, do the dodge bonuses they grant stack? Here the two rulings (dodge bonuses stack & modifiers from the same spell do not stack) are in conflict.

It seems reasonable to me, to assume that even dodge bonuses from the same source do not stack. This not borne out in the letter of the rules anywhere, but seems to me to be the most reasonable interpretation, given the difficulties here under scrutiny.

It says explicitly that you make "a number of rolls equal to the number of attacks with a full attack or flurry of blows", so flurry of blows is definitely in. Bralwler's Flurry seems to be out. As for haste, the question is open, how this deals with changing number of attacks.

Reasoning: If I am hasted, the number of attacks I can make with a full-attack is higher than when I am not. Hence, since I am to roll as often as I can attack with a full-attack, I make the higher number of rolls.

Counterclaim: When the ability reference the number of attacks I can make with a full-attack it means something like "can normally make" or "can make, based on class abilities alone".

I find the option "reasoning" more plausible.

There are two actions:
1) Fighting defensively as a standard action is an attack action and you apply fighting defensively modifiers until the beginning of your next turn.
2) Fighting defensively with a full-attack gives you a full attack and you apply the modifiers.

This ability seems to take 1) and make it a swift action. So by my reading the OP is correct. For 1 panache, you get to apply the fighting defensively modifier and make an attack as a swift action. You can then make a full-attack in addition to this. You could fight defensively with this full-attack, too, but doing so would have no result, since modifiers from the same source do not stack.

While I agree that this is an odd and seemingly unprecedented ability (except for caster, who've always have was to turn swift actions into standard actions...), but that is how it's written.

Kastar wrote:

Dervish Dance for any weapon, with better requirements (Weapon Focus instead of Perform(dance) 2). Human Swashbucklers can get this at level 1. Human or Half-Elven Swashbucklers get Dex-powered Katana's at level 3, if that's your thing :)

Or Dex-powered Battleaxes for that matter ;)

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

The Bloodrager spell list has slow as both 3rd and 4th level spells.

boring7 wrote:

A potential issue is that a robot is many complex mechanical parts instead of one solid mass, ("It is an animated object! Singular" says Derpy the Dick-move DM) but that's getting ridiculously pedantic with flavor text and item descriptions. Not to mention it contradicts example animated objects.

Indeed, by that reasoning, a cupboard would be out...

Also, I disagree that the broken robot needs to be mended first. If the spell can animate a table, which has not moving joints, than it can animate a wrecked, semi-humanoid piece of scrap-metal.

The Robot Golem is in Numeria - Land of Fallen Stars.

And it goes to show that a destroyed robot does not turn to dust, but leaves a robot corpse, which can be turned into a magical construct.
So I see no reason why a robot corpse should be unfit as a target for animate object.

Trekkie90909 wrote:

It would work if you can figure out how to combine it with flurry of blows since you can make all those attacks with a single hand.

That is not very difficult. There are Monk and Close Group weapons which are light/one-handed and piercing. The temple sword would even open up slashing grace. So go dip a level of monk, grab slashing grace and get dex to damage with flurry and precise strike. Ouch.

3.5 made no distinction between channeling to harm and channeling to heal. The only distinction was positive or negative energy.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Obtain Familiar feat? Would be about time.

Fiendish Sorcery already affects Pit-touched. Wildblooded does not replace the bloodline feature, it's an archetype, not a different bloodline. That is the main reason it does not work with Eldritch Heritage.
So a pit-touched sorcerer still has the infernal bloodline, just a few abilities have been changed by the archetype.

Here's how I would stat the martial shape shifter:

  • 3/4 BAB, good fort, d8 HD, 6 skill points, ranger-like skill list, plus more knowledge skills

  • Shape shifting:
    As spells at level:
    beast shape 1(2,3,4) at 1(4,8,12)
    monstrous physique 1(2,3,4) at 3(9,13,16)
    plant shape 1(2,3) at 5(10,15]
    form of the dragon 1(2,3) at 11(14,18)
  • Usable 3/d at first and an additional time per day at every level.
    Duration is 10 minutes per level.
  • At first level and again at 5th, 9th, 13th, 18th gains a +2 bonus on saves vs. transformation spells and SLA and a +1 bonus on saves vs. poison and disease.
  • At level 2, a pool powered ability to
    a) add enhancement bonuses to one natural attack for 1 minute per level,
    b) make it count as this or that for DR purposes as long as 1 point remains in the pool
    c) power a number of shape shifter gifts
  • at level 2 and every two levels after that gains a shape shifter gift, this is stuff like gaining some extra ability that the target form wouldn't have, getting access to some specific abilities usually not available via shape shifting, prolonging the enhancement bonus duration, prolonging shape shifting duration, gaining fortification and so on.
  • at 7th, 13th and 19th level, gains DR 1/-
  • Capstone: Shape shifting ability becomes shape change spell, usable at will. becomes immune to precision damage and criticals, DR 10/-

After level 12, switch to Sentinel.

Since the bloodrager is not a sorcerer, the bloodline is irrelevant for prereqs and it covers the spontaneous casting prereq. So qualifying is not an issue.
What is an issue is whether or not the bloodrager draconic bloodline counts as draconic bloodline for the dragon disciple class abilities.
But these are all options:
Bloodrager 4/Sorcerer 1, giving you sorcerer casting to improve with DD as well as some bloodline powers, bloodrager bloodline must mot be draconic but can be arcane or aberrant e.g.
Bloodrager 5, worse casting but more BAB/HP and since you'll never have high level casting, you can probably get by with a 13 CHA.
Even Bloodrager 1/Sorcerer 4, but if you do that there are probably better options than bloodrager.

I'm a fan of Fighter 1/Sorcerer 1/Eldrich Knight 3 as a set up. Doable with a standard Aasimar.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain K. wrote:

- A Mage/Rogue.

Archetypes cover the subsets of this.

Arcane Trickster
Illusionist/Shadow Rogue.

All of these options (as well as the bard) come with a particular specialisation and their own problems.

The Arcane Trickster is basically a touch spell sniper, which suffers from it's low BAB. I don't know what a Beguiler or a Spellthief is (if not the 3.5 classes) and an Illusionist is just a wizard. Yes, I can force a mage/rogue hybrid using traits to accquire class skills, trap finding, focussing on INT and so on, but having a class that focusses on that, with options to specialise on manipulation, traps, sneak combat would enrich the game.


-SteelDraco and KutuluKultist want a martial Bard/Cavalier leader type, but there already is one. It's the Battle Herald and it is very good. It's a bit complicated though and only uses one weapon (Longspear). I'm not sure about this, I think between Cavalier, Bard, and a Paladin with good Diplomacy, this concept can already be done.

Not strictly. You certainly lose BAB and gain spell casting one way or another. You will also have to deal with the dead weight of the original classes, such as the animal companion. It would be better to have an option that does not come with all that baggage.


- A non-caster shapeshifter.
Archetypes include the big bruiser Bear/Barbarian, the sneaky Assassin/Snake, the scouty Ranger/Eagle etc. can be flavoured as Manimal, Lycanthropes, fey mysteries, Native American spirit animals, plenty of possibilities.

Is that an endorsement? ;)


- I absolutely never want to see a class builder in Pathfinder.

Total agreement.

  • A Warlock-type class, with unlimited evocations and eldritch blasting.
  • A divine-arcane hybrid caster.
  • A rogue-arcane hybrid. 6 level arcane casting, some sneak, some acrobatics, talents and 3/4 BAB.
  • Similarly a rogue-divine hybrid.
  • A non spell casting shapeshifter class.
  • A martial buff/teamwork class.

To be honest, many of the ACG classes just seem redundant to me.

  • The Warpriest, given the possibility of martial Clerics and Inquisitors.
  • The Arcanist. No one needs another, yet more powerful arcane caster.
  • The Brawler. Monks and the brawler Fighter archetype make this redundant concept wise. The fact that it was included seems to hint at the Monk and Fighter classes having been badly designed to begin with.
  • The Swashbuckler. Similarly, that the Fighter chasis was not able to accomodate this kind of fighter is telling. Not redundant, but should have been.
  • Hunter. Oh Joy, it's a druid by another name...
  • Skald. From the playtest document, this just seems horribly thrown together. It's just a bard with a variant performance and the utlimate "I solve this problem with the perfect spell" ability. Both of which seems to speak against it.

I really do like the Investigator, it does fill a niche. The Bloodrager seems a bit overpowered by the playtest document, but a nice idea. The Slayer is a long awaited full BAB - sneak attack class. The Shaman is cool, but I don't see what the hexes add to it. But then again, I really find the great power disparity between hexes (smell children vs. slumber e.g.) kind of annoying anyway.

The problem resides not so much with the casters as with the spells.

Jamie Charlan wrote:

See all my experiences with AD&D player reactions to psionics were of the "cover and cover" variety: No one had actually read the book past the cover, but they knew, they KNEW, without a doubt in their minds that this was the most overpowered, broken stuff in the history of gaming, because if you no longer need to memorize your spells, well you're just plain a god.

Having played AD&D 2nd Edt. psionicist I have to say that there were some really powerful powers and a lot of very weak to basically just fluff powers. The really broken stuff came in the Dark Sun supplement The Will & The Way, which apart from some such excesses was a really cool book.

The real kicker, though, was that it could be combined with a melee class much better than e.g. a wizard and as we all know ;), dual classing was where the soup had its pepper. Or some such saying.
You had access to "casting" in armor and a lot of the buffs where that much better when added to a fighter's frame. By themselves, psionicists were rather tame and couldn't do much that a wizard of similar level couldn't do better.

General caveat: It's been a long time and this is drawn from memory.

Haladir wrote:

Here is why I don't allow summoners at my table...

1) Spell list is really off. Keystone spells are listed at levels that break many assumptions of the game. Before I'd allow summoners, I'd have to re-write their spell list.

That is easy to fix, reset the spells to their original levels.


2) Players of summoners effectively have two characters at the table, and will hog almost twice the spotlight of the other players. That's just not fair to the other players.

This goes for anyone with an animal companion or a familiar.


3) I don't like the "build your own monster" part of the eidolon mechanic. At all. I believe that monster design should be the exclusive purview of the GM. While I like the concept of "a spellcaster that always summons the same extraplanar helper," I would have much preferred that it worked more like a druid's animal companion: A list of outsider types that increase in power in standard ways.

Nothing to be done. It's the central mechanic of the class.


4) The whole "build your own" concept of summoners is too abuseable by players who know either too much or too little. The last thing I want to do as a GM is to constantly double-check my players' math. Because no matter what happens when you check your player's math, someone gets insulted.

This goes for almost anything in Pathfinder. If you know what feats or spells are powerful, which animal companions or familiars are strong, you can pick those. If the summoner's eidolon mechanic is to be singled out, it must be because of some specific option it gets. And the one culprit I can think of is the high number of attacks combined with pounce. Even the strongest animal companion does not go beyond 3 attacks with pounce. If it's really that, there is a simple solution: Never allow more than 3 attacks. If you do this, though, better allow players to buy back the default evolutions of their eidolons, so they can have some options regarding what attacks to use.

Bottom line: the summoner causes far more problems at the table than just about any other class. It's far easier to just say "no summoners" than to try to fix the class.

In addition to those two rulings, I would probably kick the summon monster ability for a slow scaling bonus to hit and damage when near the eidolon, +1/+1 at 5th, 11th and 18th maybe. Something to entice summoner meele and not too powerful for a 3/4 BAB class.

The Veiled Illusionist prestige class is easy to get into and offers a lot of useful stuff without costing a caster level.

It depends whether or not this falls under "other limitation",

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Slavery as such might well be neutral on the good-evil axis of Golarionian moral metaphysics, being instead associated with law on the law-chaos axis.

And let us look at Sarenraes portfolio. She is a goddess of healing, honesty, redemption and the sun. Nowhere does it say "freedom" or "liberty". Healing, whether of the body or the soul, while itself a good act, ceteris paribus, does not suggest an anti-slavery stance. At most one of caring, but healing is not kindness, though it may be a kindness. Honesty is merely the practice and commitment not to lie. At most it might imply a forthright openness that might well be considered inconsiderate and unkind. Redemption is an odd concept that requires further context to make sense of. Just be the meaning of the term, in a world of concrete and equal moral powers, one might well be redeemed of good deeds, back into the fold of evil. At best, redemption resonates with healing and represents a reintegration into community, a healing of the social bonds or a healing of the soul, if one is willing to accept that evil represents a wound of the soul, which the aforementioned Golarionian moral metaphysics make unlikely. Finally the sun, while often a beneficent force, is also a harsh fire that burns crops in droughts and men in the desert.

It might well be that, while Sarenrae is possessed of a kind nature, her portfolio is not one of kindness. And what ultimately connects to Golarion qua her being a goddess is her portfolio. For Golarionians, she is first and foremost a sungoddess, a goddess of healing, honesty and redemption.

2 main problems:
1) You cannot get Dex to hit for a spear.
2) Dodge bonuses to AC are hard to come by and the most likely sources all require you to use a one-handed weapon.

Bit of middle book syndrome, maybe?

I'm aware that pure druid would be more powerful, due to spell casting if nothing else, but I purposefully don't want full casting. Neither do I want an animal companion, but I do want full wildshape.

Regarding Feats: I will need Power Attack, Natural Spell and Shaping Focus. Power Attack can wait a bit, but the available slots, not counting bonus slots, are 3rd and then 9th, if I don't take it at first. In my experience, it is not something I will use before level 5 or 6, but 9 seems rather late.

Extra Rage at least once also seems mandatory if going Barbarian.


1st: Extra Rage
3rd: Power Attack
5th: Shaping Focus
7th: Natural Spell
9th: Shapeshifting Hunter
11th: ? Extra Rage ?
13th: Powerful Shape

Classes: Barb 1, Druid 1-4, Barb 2, Ran 1-2, Dru 5-x


I'm looking to build a wildshape focused, mainly martial character. The obvious way to go is Druid & the Shaping Focus feat, taking up to 4 levels of non-druid, probably full bab classes to lose some spell casting and gain some martiality ;).

The level 5 feat will be Shaping Focus, level 7 almost unavoidably natural spell and around 13th I'd want powerful shape.

The obvious question is, which classes and when to take them?

1-2 levels of Barbarian seem like a good choice. Taking Barbarian as my first level will also give me a strong melee character right when that kind of character is king.

3 levels of the Savage Barbarian archetype will give +1 to all saves and +1 dodge bonus to AC while not wearing armor, e.g. while wildshaped.

4 levels of barbarian brings a second rage power and makes some rage powers a little better. Not very attractive, given that rage powers tend to rely a lot of class level.

2 levels of lore warden fighter give 3 bonus feats, and minimizes skill point loss

3 levels of Lore Warden Fighter gives +2 to combat maneuvers and combat maneuvers are nice for wildshapers.

1 level of unarmed fighter gives Improved Unarmed Strike and a style feat (Dragon Style, most likely). This opens up Dragon Ferocity, but to use this I'd need Weapon Focus and Feral Combat Training and even it works for only one type of natural attack. That's 5 feats on a feat starved build. Not a good option.

1 level of Ranger opens up the Shapeshifting Hunter Feat, which is nice and all, but only fully effective with 4 levels of ranger in the build and that seems excessive. Favored enemy is also highly campaign dependent and I don't like the guesswork

2 levels of Ranger gives a combat style feat, most likely power attack or rending claws.

1-2 levels of Monk, apart from being great for my saves, would give me 1-2 bonus feats, including improved grapple, which I'd like anyway. Make it Tetori Monk and I also get +1 CMB to grapple, though Stunning Pin is not a feat I want, so I'd be only one level of monk then. Also costs me a point of BAB, which is not that bad once Wildshape is my standard combat strategy. Will finally give me WIS to AC when unarmored.

What else is there? What am I missing? Do you agree or disagree with my assessments?

I recommend detaching the crunch from the fluff. Make everyone pick a fluff campaign trait (or work with them to make up their own hooks) and let them pick any traits they want, including the "defluffed" rules parts of the campaign traits.

1) Absalom.
2) Dwarves & Orcs
3) Aboleth, Aboleth, Aboleth

The original question is solved by reference to generally agreed upon norms of reading. Those can be challenged, departed from or disagreed with. However, the fact that they are generally agreed upon is hard to deny. Similarly, that the rules text should be read as generally agreed upon, wherever such a general norm is present, is already implied by it being a norm.

Hence to deny the general principle is to reject a generally agreed upon norm, which simply put is to reject participation in the game for which the rule in question is a rule.

As for my personal addendum, that is concerned with an entirely different issue, namely the explicitly mentioned "unwillingness to consider multiclassing" and the identical names for different abilities.

Your original question is answered in its entirety by reference to the norm of reading class description that I have explicated. This should also answer dragonhunterq's worries.

I am sorry for digressing. Both issues are different and the reason I brought it up is that one might misconstrue the OP's issue with this issue, which I think really is an issue - as opposed to the OP's insisting on not accepting a basic norm of reading rules text.

It's probably been mention already, but perception checks, senses and other ways to counter scouting do tend to go up with CR, making a 1st level scout of any class almost certainly obvious to a 10th level challenge and hence rendering the whole occupation rather suicidal.

What everyone is trying to say, is this:
If a class description contains a paragraph that begins with "at x. level" or a synonymous expression, everything that is part of that paragraph counts as being prefixed by the "at x. level" expression or its equivalent. If such an expression appears in the middle of a paragraph, only the rest of the current sentence is prefixed by it.

Level of course is CLASS LEVEL.

Hence, once a character of any character level acquires the 6th level of Sohei Monk, she can use flurry of blows with any weapon she is has weapon training in. Assuming that different abilities with the same name, count as the same ability as long as their are sufficiently similar as to allow a functional interpretation, if she is a Weapon Master 3/Sohei 6, she could chose a weapon for her Weapon Master weapon training that is not part of the weapon group chosen for the Sohei weapon training and then could flurry with all of those weapons.

Personal addendum:

If anything is at fault here it is the designers' general unwillingness to consider multiclassing and the tendency to use the same name for different abilities.

Both problems can be solved philosophically if one just assumes that what class gives a certain ability is part of its identity conditions. Hence, Sohei weapon training is a numerically different ability from Fighter weapon training and any mention of an ability in a class description refers only to that classes version of the ability. This still allows the Sohei's weapon training to count for weapon training simpliciter for the effects of feats or items

Since there is a version of this here earth, with russians, more particularly a russian orthodox christiahn monk called Rasputin, exist in the golarion universe, I would suppose that there are russian orthodox christians, hence christians in the golarion universe. Yet, the whole, gratuitously elaborate system of morality, outer spheres, gods and demons seems very much incompatible with any kind of monotheism. Also note, that Rasputin is an Oracle with the Occult Mystery, not a Cleric.

If there is a deity corresponding to the "god almighty" of the russian orthodox golario-russians, it is a deity in the sense that i.e. Aroden was, not the way real world (maybe golarion earth) theology supposed. Maybe that deity sealed the world off against other gods' influence and that is the reason why he grants no magic on golarion earth, there's no one else there to claim any souls.

You can also just ignore all this and have that Paladin worship jesus if the player feels very uncomfortable with "pagan gods". How to square this with the Golarion material as presented can be your sisyphos labor, if such you'd like to shoulder.

Zwordsman wrote:

why grab arcane strike anyway? For a cross bow or something?

doesn't that archetype for the witch, which gives you deadly dealer + some other stuff, have the scaling damage from arcane strike already worked in? So there's no need to get arcane strike unless you plan to use it with other weapons as well. ?

The Witch archetype does, the Magus one doesn't. But the Witch's cards deal no damage if used to deliver touch spells, though resolving as touch attacks. If you're after damage, Magus is better, if you really just want to reach your touch spells, Witch is.

1 to 50 of 234 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.