Anachrony's page

I don't think it's a mistake, as if it was any worse there wouldn't be any point in using it at all. The resonant ability is basically +0.5 caster level on average. With the existing bonus that makes it go up to +1.5 in a wayfinder vs the +1 without a wayfinder. If it didn't stack with the +1 static bonus that you already get, the resonant ability would be a penalty rather than a bonus.

I think the idea is that in rare corner cases if you had some OTHER caster level penalty, the static +1 could offset that penalty just enough to let you cast the spell. But the -1 random modifier could then put you back below the level you need.

It's trying to clarify a case that may never come up for you. Don't read too much into it that isn't written.

Prehensile hair gives you a reach attack with +intelligence instead of strength/dex to hit. Reach means someone approaching you for melee is likely going to provoke an attack of opportunity. If you cast a touch spell you can hold on to it indefinitely. You could save up a touch spell in an earlier round and when you get your attack of opportunity with your hair, if the attack is successful the touch delivers the spell. Bestow curse is always a good touch spell, and it will make it harder for them to attack you.

I used the basic assumption it was working off an arcane power source. Indeed that's the hard part to separate. There's a lot of devices that are powered by arcane magic.

The sufficiently advanced technology source wouldn't be arcane magic powered technology, obviously. It would be powered by technology. Science fiction provides plenty of examples of things that would appear magic-like to a primitive society, but are driven by physics and not arcane magic. Cold fusion, nanotechnology, wormholes, quantum entanglement, whatever. There are other game systems out there that have science fiction "magic" systems rather than arcane magic.

The game mechanics would fit into a spell caster type set of abilities, but they wouldn't actually be magic spells, nor would the technology they draw on be built on the foundation of magic. Spell like effects driven by an impossibly advanced grasp of science and technology. A fundamentally different power source, but usable toward similar purposes as arcane/divine/psionic.

Pathfinder game worlds routinely have gods, superhuman races of beings, people achieving transcendent levels of power, and ancient mysteries spanning huge time scales. There are entities with intelligence scores many times higher than the smartest mundane human to ever live in our world. Why shouldn't some of those superhuman, near immortal minds develop enough of a grasp of the physics of their universe to be able to manipulate it using advanced technology?

The PC character would not have a full understanding of such advanced technology, but would have some connection allowing them to manipulate it as if by magic, despite the fact that it is physics and not magic.

Why wouldn't steampunk type technology be as well? If not then what's powering them?

There's plenty of steampunk fiction written in settings that don't have arcane magic. It could be technology powered by technology, rather than magic driven technology. In general steampunk physics is nothing that would actually work properly with real life physics. But it's fiction, so we handwave that away, just like we accept that there is magic. In such settings we allow technology to be more robust and easily attainable than it is in real life because it's simply more fun to do it that way.

This is something I've been thinking about for a long time. We have arcane, divine, and psionic as sources for magic.

"Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

A character with access to some technology from an extremely advanced culture, beyond anything their own culture can replicate, would have potential to work as an alternate magic source within a fantasy setting. Channeling from an ancient and/or alien source as if by magic. You could easily design a class around that concept that fits the role of a pure caster, prepared or spontaneous could both work.

There is also the steampunk type technology, such as the Alchemist and Gunslinger, but that's slightly different. In that situation someone is cobbling together gadgetry to fill the role of magic. There is plenty of room to come up with some sort of Tinker type class that works mechanically differently from the Alchemist yet is still drawing from a similar source (steampunk level technology).

Since getting up from prone is more complex than a 5 foot adjustment, it counts as movement, even if you don't cover any squares of distance. That's why it provokes. You can only make a 5 foot adjustment in a turn where you have taken no movement whatsoever.

Are you even reading this thread? You're ignoring a lot of evidence that you really shouldn't be ignoring and simply posting your own unsupported opinions.

The fact is that you are objectively wrong on this one. The rule on this is well established. You should at this point seek to understand your mistake. It would help if you stopped and read all the other posts in this thread first, before making another statement that is already proven incorrect.

"You can take a move action in place of a standard action. If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move for one or more equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action."

The distance between the square where you started prone and the square after you stood up is 0 feet. You have not moved any actual distance in game terms. You have simply moved around within your own square, which is a move equivalent action.

As long as your move action doesn't involve you leaving your original square it doesn't stop you from taking a 5 foot step that round.

The rules are oriented toward two dimensions. There is no mechanical sense in which prone is a different location than standing. You're in the same space, but with the prone condition or not. Standing up is a move equivalent action that doesn't transport you any distance in any sense that the game simulates distance.

You don't occupy one side of a cube or another. You're either in one cube or in another cube. Since standing up doesn't involve you jumping to the cube above your head, you're still at the same vertical position as when you started.

Saying that standing is moving would be like saying that moving your arm to grab a potion or wield a sword is "moving". You're not expected to be totally motionless when you take a move equivalent action. As long as you don't actually leave your square, you can still do the 5 foot step.

In summary, yes you can stand and take a 5 foot step. Or if you have a belt of the weasel, you can do a 5 foot crawl and then stand.

I think you're firmly in GM discretion territory there, which the Wish spell does accomodate.

By RAW, the closest you could do would be to use Wish to emulate the permanency spell to allow permanent enlarge person (if you did this, I think it'd be fine to throw in the casting of the level 1 enlarge person spell for free). Note that this is not an efficient way to do it, because you'd be spending more on the materials for Wish than for Permanency. It doesn't get you to huge, because enlarge person isn't going to stack with itself. And it can still be dispelled, though slightly harder to dispel than normal since it's a 9th level spell now. So that option kind of sucks, unless maybe you have an NPC granting you a wish for some reason.

If you're going to go the GM discretion route, I can tell you that if I was GM, it would fall into the category of "You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous". You might experience some tragic side effects.

If you want to actually get to huge, a way to go about it might be to try to permanency a spell like giant form. That's definitely within the realm of GM discretion, since permanency doesn't allow for that. But it would have to be a lot of money to permanency, since it's such a high level spell. And that's a lot of money to go down the drain when you get dispelled.

The best option might be to create a custom magic item that grants a permanent effect. It would have to be extremely expensive, but at least it won't be dispelled. And if you ever found being huge to be too much of an obstacle you could always remove it.

Another option is of course synthesist summoner.

You might be thinking of familiars. It says to calculate their attack bonus using strength or dex, whichever is higher. That's almost the same as saying that familiars automatically get weapon finesse. But it doesn't apply to everything tiny in size.

Under the CMB it does actually say that all Tiny and smaller creatures may substitute dex instead of strength toward their CMB. Which somewhat helps to make up for their size penalties to CMB. Regular attack rolls don't say anything about this though.

Also for Climb and Swim skill checks, tiny creatures may use dex instead of strength.

Going by my hazy recollection of some old designer posts, the only things intended to be left out during those first 24 hours are skill ranks and daily resources (such as bonus spells or rage rounds).

Skill ranks are an interesting one. If you had an item that grants an intelligence bonus and doesn't specifically state that it doesn't grant skill ranks. The headband of vast intelligence has a special rule about skill ranks, as does the fox's cunning spell. But the Crimson Sphere Ioun Stone does not. It's just an enhancement bonus to intelligence.

If you could toggle a bonus to intelligence off and on at will, and it granted skill ranks, you could potentially pick and choose new skills to max out with full ranks each time, allowing you to situationally have any skill with max ranks temporarily.

What, specifically, do you mean?

Stuff like have a single +6 headband that you share between casters when they each prepare spells, then cast some high level spell from a bonus spell slot.

And since they dont have a slot can wear them in addition to ahelmet or something else on my head. Also since they have no slot can I have two or more of them? (Doesnt seem right so I am asking...)

They don't have a slot, so you can have more than one. But they would normally be different types of stones, because two bonuses of the same type or from the same source generally won't stack unless otherwise noted.

The balance is that a bonus from an ioun stone is generally more expensive than a similar bonus from equipment that takes up a slot. You won't have infinite ioun stones because you won't have infinite money.

Also is there any good reason why they are All level 12? For the ones that provide a bonus to abilities okay, but for the +1 to AC one?

Just to be clear, the level requirement doesn't mean much. It basically sets the difficulty for crafting it. There are no level requirements for wearing them or crafting them. You could get one and wear one at level 1, or if you somehow had extremely high spellcraft you could craft one as soon as you get the feat. The limiting factor is whether you have the money for it.

Obviously they can get stolen

Or damaged. This is a valid concern. One thing to look at are Wayfinders, which are devices that can hold one (or more for the more expensive varieties) and give you the bonus without it floating around. It may also give you a bonus resonant ability depending on the type of stone. You should ask your DM if they'll allow Wayfinders, because I believe they're setting specific.

And that's all it takes to be in the worst feat ever thread is it? This thread is going to go very, very long as you mention every single feat in the game that you don't find entirely optimal.

Imo, NPC only is one of the worst kinds of feats.

Yet there are a lot like that and none of them are the most useless ever. This thread isn't about feats that are kind of bad. Most of the feats in the game fit the suboptimal category.

But I disagree with you about it being worth taking under any circumstance, especially because it's not like the ranged attack feat line is short.

I never said it was "worth taking", I said it was "not useless". Suboptimal and useless are two different things. The old version was literally without use, while the new version is merely not the best choice for most people.

It's not worth taking in YOUR circumstances. That doesn't mean it could never be worth taking in any circumstances. +2 AC is at least something, if for some reason you were already planning to be prone a lot (which with the existing AC bonus is not a bad idea for a certain type of archer). There's a feat that does nothing but give 1 AC, though most people only take it as a feat tax. Most PCs don't seem to spend much time shooting at people prone, but an NPC whose sole purpose in life is as a sniper might benefit from +2 AC. If you have an entrenched position to fire from with cover, you may as well be prone, and the total bonus of +6 from prone along with cover bonus is a formidable obstacle. PCs aren't going to be fighting in that situation often enough, but an NPC might be fighting in that position for their brief moment in the sun.

Unexpectedly prone shooter now does something.

So it was changed? Thank god, because I was reading through this thread since the original mention of it, trying to figure out why in the heck everyone agreed it was so useless. It's situational and not for everyone, but not useless.

What did the old version say?

By RAW I can't see any way it doesn't have the HD limit. However, I do agree with you that it is basically useless as written at the level you gain access to it, and that does make me wonder whether they didn't intend something different than what they wrote. If so, they should clarify it. Until then, it's just another hex that nobody should take.

This really reads like a discrepancy in the players skill rather than an issue with class balance. The monk doesn't sound particularly overpowered, which calls into question how the other players can be so weak.

Probably if the Monk was playing one of those other classes, you'd be saying how overpowered whatever class that player chose was compared to whatever class the other players in that group chose.

The summoner/rogue and ranger/wizard sound like questionable multiclass choices in terms of combat effectiveness. Maybe some optimizer might have some non-obvious reason for doing that, but if they're getting outshined so badly by a monk that's probably not what's going on. A well played single class summoner or wizard should be fairly impressive by then.

A human witch can do all kinds of stuff that will make your DM cry. If out of all the hex choices Ward was one of their picks, they may not be making very effective choices.

Your DM may be going easy on you because of inexperienced players. If not, then you may be in trouble soon as the encounters start getting harder and enemies start exploiting your group's weaknesses more.

Well this thread answered what I was wondering about exactly. Thanks.

This actually adds significantly more utility than was first apparent when I read about the ability. It's one thing to decide in advance to pump out more damage. It's much better to decide after your attack whether you need more damage or not.

Tripping Strike: "If your confirmation roll exceeds your opponent’s CMD, you may knock your opponent prone as if from the trip combat maneuver."

Trip Combat Maneuver: "You can only trip an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you."

Does the size limitation still apply? You are not using your normal CMB with size modifiers and trip maneuver modifiers. You aren't actually performing the maneuver, you're simply confirming a crit. And there is nothing in the rules against critting an opponent two size categories larger. Tripping Strike isn't an actual trip combat maneuver, but rather the result of the crit confirm roll is that they are "knocked prone as if from the trip combat maneuver".

The combat maneuver also says: "Some creatures—such as oozes, creatures without legs, and flying creatures—cannot be tripped." However, this bit is where it's talking about the effects of trip, whereas the size restriction is in the paragraph about the circumstances of how to initiate the trip. Being knocked prone as if by trip isn't a valid thing that can happen to a flying creature or ooze, but it clearly is a valid thing that can happen to a regular large creature, it's just a matter of the conditions under which you're able to do it or not.

The carpet does not have a language. It is just a magic item that does what it is told.

How does it know what that is without language?

But you're not "making it work within the rules" by saying they simply take their turns in unison, you're making up new rules. There's a difference. If you're the GM, then making up house rules is acceptable, but there is a relatively low probability that other GMs will accept them, so it doesn't do much good. This is the rules subforum and not the homebrew forum.

Your "one potential fix" sounds like an interpretation that leaves only the second ratfolk benefiting from swarming on round 1 and not the first, which is no fix at all. On the second round if they're still attacking the same guy, they both benefit. But two whole rounds of two characters attacking a single enemy can be a very long time. If it's the BBEG that might be tolerable (though you need the flanking bonus in round 1 more than ever in that case), but a lot of times you can't afford to be that slow at taking out individuals in a large group.

Maybe that's how it works, but it's far from obvious in RAW, so worthy of a clarification if so. And it's far from entirely satisfactory for the player, so it's not a situation where you'd say good enough, lets stop there, without looking for alternatives.

There is a reason to make it "ultra complex" by using readied actions, if that's the only alternative, and that's to provide player 1 with the flanking bonus on their first round against a given enemy, which is very important.

Your second "option" might work. Again more clarification would be helpful there. But I don't see that as substantially different from doing much the same thing with a prepared action.

While that would make sense for some game system to do it that way, I don't think that's a thing that you can do under Pathfinder rules. I don't see anything in the rules that discusses a special case where you can take simultaneous turns with an ally just because you have the same initiative. One of you takes your turn first, then the other takes their turn. What you're saying sounds like a house rule.

However the ready an action thing works for most things under RAW.

Is there any ability that would allow you to operate a voice controlled effect stealthily? The carpet of flying is "controlled by spoken directions". I don't believe the DC to overhear whispering is all that high. So presumably if you're trying not to draw attention to yourself, you have to get off your carpet first, which wastes time if things go south and you need to get back on it.

FWIW I already do have the ability to communicate with telepathy. The description of telepathy says "can mentally communicate with any other creature within a certain range that has a language." The carpet has language, apparently, but I don't think it would qualify as a "creature".

The description of the construct subtype is "A construct is an animated object or artificially created creature." A carpet of flying certainly seems like an animated object. It's basically an artificial mount, with its own move speed and actions. But there isn't anything in the item description that specifically calls it a construct or gives it a stat block like a creature.

Really the carpet of flying is incredibly vaguely defined all around. There's inherently a lot of interpretation involved in trying to make it work. But I don't know if it's just wishful thinking or justifiable that I might use telepathy to issue commands to an animated magic item that takes voice commands.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

There are certain things the math can't model, but can only make assumptions about. In real play, some of those assumptions may prove inaccurate, and you learn something important and may need a better model next time. So the answer is it depends on exactly how solid your math is. Someone good at the math should be fully aware of the limitations of their model and possible weaknesses that need to be tested with real data.

If someone is telling you in the real world that dice behave differently than expected, then the problem is likely with their own unreliable perception of reality rather than with reality. Or the fact that the sample size is inevitably too small to outweigh the randomness. People aren't perfect at observing patterns, because they sometimes like to see them where there aren't any. But yes, most people should be aware that there are some things to be learned about what will actually happen during a play session that you can't just calculate in a vacuum.

Aha, "readying an action" may provide the answer. Player 1 can get into position and then ready an action to attack the target when player 2 attacks. Then when player 2 is attacking, player 1 interrupts to attack first. I think this would be a 100% legal way to set it up so that both of them get the flanking bonus. If you're interrupting an attack in progress with an attack, there's no way you aren't "attacking the same foe".

Does "move in step" have any formal meaning? I've seen the turn order rules relaxed in situations where it is not thought to make a difference. But depending on the interpretation of this ability, the official order might make a difference. So I'm not sure it would be technically allowed to just handwave away the difference between one players turn and another and just say they are moving at the same time. What happens if they trigger AoOs, prepared actions, traps, etc, while "in step"?

Can you take a move action, delay, and then take a standard action? I've always assumed you have to delay your whole turn, but I'm not positive. If you could that might be a way to simulate two allies with the same initiative coordinating their turns a bit. If they can both move into flanking position before either attacks that might simplify the interpretation.

Yeah, I was wondering about this same thing, and wish for some clarification.

Since they are taking their turns individually, what exactly does it mean for them to be "attack the same foe"? They won't be taking their actions simultaneously. In some sense everything in the round is happening simultaneously and not actually in order, but that can be simulated in lots of different ways.

It seems like some interpretations will always screw over whoever rolls first in the initiative order.

Another wrinkle is how this interacts with coordinated charge, where they're supposed to be charging in unison (though of course one action is always going to be resolved before or after the other, so it's kind of still the same problem no matter how you deal with it). It really seems like the idea behind that feat should somehow allow them to both get the same benefits for both attacking the same person.

My ratfolk duo partner and I are planning to delay to get the same initiative and hopefully simplify teamwork coordination a bit. But I think whether that helps at all really depends on how you interpret the wording of this.

There are some bonus feat features that mention you can take certain bonus feats without meeting the normal prerequisites. I think it's safe to assume that if they intend for you to be able to bypass prerequisites they'll say so.

For example, Coordinated Defense gives you a +2 CMD, and +4 against a larger enemy, which would work great for the small creatures that qualify for Wall of Flesh.

So is there any possible point to this feat, unless you're somehow size Fine and this would treat you as Diminutive?

So the Wall of Flesh Teamwork Feat says it treats you as one size category larger for "CMD and the way combat maneuvers and abilities affect you".

So presumably this means it doesn't treat you as larger for how your combat maneuvers affect others or CMB?

Basically you need two people to both get the feat and stay adjacent just for a measly +1 CMD and nothing to CMB? There are much easier options for getting +1 CMD than a teamwork feat. That seems extremely weak. Though "abilities" does seem a bit open ended. Does that mean like if someone tries to demoralize you with intimidate this might mean they don't qualify as larger than you and get a +4? Any ability of any kind that is influenced by size?

I'm trying to make a small race (not halfling or gnome) effective at tripping people, and there are just so few options out there for overcoming that limit on not tripping people two size categories larger. When I first saw this feat I was hoping it might provide the means to trip one size larger. But now looking closer I'm afraid it may not provide any useful offense, merely very weak defense.

My question is when you get your unarmed vicious stomp AoO, and your partner gets an AoO from Paired Opportunists, does the partner's AoO also have to be unarmed?

My interpretation is no, they can do a regular AoO of their choice. Because they're not actually getting it from Vicious Stomp themselves, they're getting a generic AoO from Paired Opportunists triggered by another AoO but not subject to the same conditions as that AoO, "even if the situation or an ability would normally deny you the attack of opportunity". I think it works in terms of RAW, and in terms of RAI, my understanding of the concept is that your AoO distracts them and creates an opening.

As a point of comparison, consider Stinking Cloud, available at the same spell level. It nauseates targets over a large area WITHOUT the severe limitations on hit dice imposed by loathsome veil. And the nausea lasts for 1d4 rounds even after they leave the cloud. All for what is clearly just a single save rather than (possibly) multiple saves due to the fact that it's an illusion. Stinking cloud has disadvantages of its own (greater risk of friendly fire, providing cover to enemies), but at least it doesn't become obsolete due to hit dice limits.

Another data point:
Traditional illusion spells like Silent Image say things like this:
"Saving Throw: Will disbelief (if interacted with)"

All Loathsome Veil says is this:
"Saving Throw Will negates"
Nothing about belief or interacting. It looks exactly like the saving throw might look for a regular non-illusory mind affecting spell. Most of the illusion spells have some sort of language about disbelief, but the pattern spells seem like an exception to the rule. Scintillating Pattern, another mind affecting pattern illusion, doesn't even allow any saving throw, it just straight up just applies a harmful status to up to 20 hit dice of creatures in its area of effect.

Everything leads me to believe that Loathsome veil is just a regular single save all or nothing effect. But I'd prefer to hear any other arguments or opinions that people may have on the subject.

I had a similar question (along with some others). Although from the opposite direction. I assume that someone who saves once is safe forever. But if someone fails their save once, are they going to be affected for the normal duration of the spell (or until they divert their eyes), or do they have opportunities to keep making saves?

From the spell:
"School illusion (pattern) [mind-affecting]"
"The creature is nauseated while it can see the veil, nauseated for 1d4 rounds after it last saw the veil"
"A successful saving throw ignores all effects of the veil."

From illusion magic:
"Pattern: Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see, but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it. All patterns are mind-affecting spells."
"Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion."
"A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus."

So is it like other illusion magic where if they have proof it isn't real they automatically save, and if someone else in their group saves and says something, they get a new save with a +4 bonus? What would "proof" even be, since I'm not sure what a "real" loathsome veil is even supposed to be.

I assume they instantly get a save when you cast the spell, to avoid ill effects. But do they keep getting a new save every time they "interact" with it, and what counts as an interaction? Is every round that they see it and are sick a new interaction? How about if they look away and look back, or blink? How about after the pattern is gone, but they're still sick for 1d4 rounds, do they still get new saves or are they done interacting with the illusion?" The fact that they are still sick for a while after the illusion is gone suggests that there is more to it than just "believing" the illusion is real and that passing a subsequent save after initially failing it wouldn't immediately relieve them of the effects.

The whole rules about disbelieving illusions don't sound like a good fit here, when it's a mind affecting pattern rather than just pure trickery like a figment. But I'd like someone to help clarify the interpretation on this. For anyone planning to actually use this spell (like me), these logistical details will make a huge difference. I'd like to have some idea of how it will work before deciding to learn this spell.

The grave walker dose not need to be EVIL.

The gravewalker archetype grants 5 replacement patron spells, 3 of which explicitly have the evil descriptor. A gravewalkers spells derive from communing with their "gristly, inanimate poppet stitched from human skin" containing the "will of evil spirits residing in the poppet". "At first level, a gravewalker can create a 20-foot-radius aura of evil power. This aura increases the DC of channeled negative energy by +1."

Trying to play a non-evil grave walker is either not playing that build to its full potential or just completely ignoring the alignment aspect of the game. Just like playing a jinx evil eye based debuff witch in an undead campaign is always going to be a struggle and isn't a situation that will allow that build to live up to its potential.

although many things in this campaign will be undead and immune to mind affecting the things that are affected will be your play things

So occasionally you'll be as useful as normal and the rest of the time throttled. Better not to design the majority of your build around features that will be so situational and so much less frequent than what the powers were balanced for.

A witch is very good at wearing down a single target rather than area of effect. If you come up against an undead BBEG with a bunch of weak living minions, then you're really not going to be showcasing your witch abilities by debuffing a couple of minions. As a witch you should be doing a good job of helping take down the boss. If you can't even do that you should consider a different class.

if you have the Jinx Trait and associated feats From the Halfling book available if combines to be seriously awesome for a "save or suck" caster my 14th level PFS character with Maxed out intelligence was commonly Evil Eying opponents for -7 to all of their saving throws and second round of combat taking out the big bad. cackle is also a must as well as the sleep hex.

Evil Eye is not going to work on undead, which is an important consideration for this campaign.

If you're willing to go evil, the gravewalker archetype is a consideration.

Failing that, I'd probably say skip the witch idea and go cleric. If melee is crowded, melee isn't the only option for a cleric. Witch is an uphill battle against undead, while cleric is a natural fit.

Undead can be a bit of a weak spot for witches. Witches have a lot of fortitude save and mind affecting will save effects. Undead are generally immune to fortitude save effects, immune to mind affecting, and strong against other will saves. That's shutting down a huge portion of your regular witch abilities. Reflex saves are weaker, and you don't have a lot of options to target that.

You'll need to craft a build specifically to try to shore up the witch's effectiveness against undead. A cookie cutter witch build won't serve you well in an undead campaign.

Slumber is normally a no-brainer, but useless against undead. Evil-eye is mind affecting, so also a problem. Misfortune is still usable, though since undead tend to have good will saves it may be less viable than usual.

Specifically for a low level undead campaign, I might start with healing hex and prehensile hair. Healing is not only useful for your allies, but will be a valuable attack that you can use once per undead foe. Cure moderate at level 5 is good damage and bypasses any DR that a mummy may have.

Prehensile hair is a method that allows you a good way to deliver touch attacks. Trying to actually hit them up close is a bad idea for you as a witch. Hair lets you do it at 10 foot reach (potentially more with lunge, enlarge, etc), so you can protect yourself. You use your int bonus instead of dex or strength, so you'll have a decent chance to actually succeed in your touch attack.

Using your familiar to deliver the hex (at level 3) is another option, but you'll have to carefully choose a familiar that can do this. It's risky because that's your spell book and you're screwed if it dies, and they're usually not that good at getting in and out of melee. You may need to take improved familiar and take other steps to make this viable.

Fortune is a powerful buff that is always a strong option. Somewhat less strong here than normal if you aren't using cackle hexes. But if you do decide to go with misfortune then you'll definitely also want fortune.

I'd recommend not learning cackle but instead crafting the cackling hag's blouse that grants it. Your hex slots are very valuable.

I'm struggling on the cities for Dionysos, Hera and Hermēs. What obvious aspects do they have that can be expressed through a city? :/

Yeah, Dionysus is easy. Las Vegas, with a touch of Florida Spring Break and Napa Valley viticultural sophistication.

Hermes is more Wall Street. It should be a major hub of trade, transportation, and communication. A world class hospital facility. Underbelly of thievery and financial crimes.

Hera's should be a bit more rural than either of those. She has a strong association with cattle, so there should be a ranching industry on the periphery. She's a complicated one. Hard to pin down how her attributes would be reflected in a city.

Hermes' weapon should not be a quarterstaff. It's rod-size, at best, and I imagine it should function as such. There are magical rods that also function as magical weapons, so I imagine they could serve as a good springboard for what a god's weapon might do.

Zeus will require a special at will ability that he (ideally) can perform more than once a round - something like at an at will Lightning Bolt or Chain Lightning, etc.

But you're describing the actual Gods, who are traditionally never actually statted out in Pathfinder, so you don't need the mechanics of how their actual weapons work.

What the OP was about is what the followers of those Gods would use as their preferred weapon. These are normally just a standard category of weapon, not a specific magic artifact. The typical followers of Zeus and Hermes are not going to have actual lightning bolts and magic rods.

For a rank and file low level cleric, javelin seems like a decent approximation for Zeus. While Caduceus is technically described as a "staff" and would functionally be most similar to a "rod" in game terms, I think the closest mundane approximation to a stubby little rod with no special magical powers might be to call it a mace.

Quarterstaff? She seems to be depicted with a staff pretty consistently.

Athena - Spear
Apollo - Bow
Hephaestus - Hammer
Hermes - Mace? (Cadudeus)
Ares - Sword?

It's tricky because a lot of them like spears, bows, and staffs, it's not as diverse as you might like for gameplay purposes.

Good witches are a thing that exists in fiction, fairly commonly. They're not quite as stereotypical as evil witches, but they're not rare.

I play a good aligned witch. I don't take any spells with the evil descriptor or do anything in particular with undead (except maybe use the healing hex to harm them), but that's not much sacrifice. I have no plans to take the grotesquely evil hex options. You get only limited hex choices, so just because something is available on the list doesn't mean you'd ever end up with it.

I don't view misfortune or evil eye (the latter is a figure of speech) as inherently evil. They're just debuffs, and temporary, painless ones at that. You don't go around debuffing everyone you meet, you debuff people you are fighting, which if you are good aligned means almost entirely evil people (or occasionally neutral beasts).

If anything, I have the least blood on my hands out of anyone in my party. The noble good aligned of other classes are all stabbing into flesh and breaking bones and charring people to ash, and nobody ever thinks anything of that. I never actually damage anyone, nor directly kill them.

My core abilities are to just to harmlessly make them less effective at killing me. That's about as self-defensive as an offensive ability can possibly get. In fact one of my signature abilities allows me to non-violently put someone to sleep and end a fight without anyone dying, which most other classes would virtually never do. Now the bloodthirsty warriors are likely to kill that sleeping person, sure, but morally that's on them at least as much as me, if not more.

A hex that painlessly makes them less effective for a few rounds is about as gentle and friendly as you can possibly get in terms of D&D combat, short of being a pure healer. The very worst thing I might do is blind someone who is trying to kill me, but that's better than virtually any other class that would straight up murder that person. And blindness in this world just means you need to visit a cleric.

Thanks for the clarification on that.

My related question about this was how do you determine "once per round"?

Say a player has the fortune effect up and hasn't used it yet. An enemy casts a spell on their turn. The player uses it to roll the saving throw twice. Then on that player's turn, it's already been used for the round, so they can't use it to roll the attack roll twice?

How about in the opposite order? They use it to roll twice on their turn, then on an enemy turn is it available for the saving throw then or already used?

Does initiative matter? i.e. does it matter if the enemies turn happens at the start of the round before the player or at the end of the round after the player?

Basically, I'm wondering precisely when this once per round resource gets replenished. The start of the player's turn, the end of the player's turn, the top of the round before the highest initiative character's turn?

I think the thing this most resembles are immediate actions or attacks of opportunity, which you can only do once per round (or N times per round with combat reflexes), not necessarily on your own turn. These seem to be replenished at some point during your own turn. I believe at the end of your turn at least in the case of immediate actions, since if you use one between turns it consumes your swift action for the NEXT turn.

Has there been any clarification on this? Any other arguments one way or the other?

"The witch can instantly cause her hair (or even her eyebrows) to grow up to 10 feet long or to shrink to its normal length."

This to me implies that whatever type of action switching to using the hair is, switching back to NOT using up the duration of this hex is also the exact same type of action. Both are state changes that the witch can instantly perform. So if you want to use the hair for one minute, does that mean you actually have to blow 2 standard actions? And what if you don't want to use your action to stop, but the maximum duration elapses? Does it automatically use your action for the round? If you have some effect like nauseated that eliminates your ability to take a standard action, does the effect go on indefinitely?

What RAW justification is there that to start using the duration is an action but to stop using the duration isn't? The only text that suggests this state change might be an action (an "instant" one), explicitly refers to changing in both directions in precisely the same manner. In what way do the rules as written here designate that "grow up to 10 feet long" would be an action, but "shrink to its normal length" would not be an action? That's an arbitrary personal interpretation.

I think the simplest interpretation of this is that spending the duration in whatever combination of 1 minute increments you like is not in fact any sort of action, or at most a free one. You simply choose when it's going to apply to you and it does. Literally instantly.

My inclination would be that you can't just do a free action out of the blue on someone else's turn (unless otherwise noted, like speaking), but if the free action has a specific triggering condition (like something that happens on a successful attack, etc), then you can do it when those conditions are triggered.

However, from a RAW perspective, I can see what the rules lawyers are getting at. An attack of opportunity isn't officially one of the listed action types, so you're not officially taking an action when you do that, and you can't do a free action "while taking another action normally". I don't particularly like that interpretation though, and would appreciated it if some FAQ did clarify otherwise.

There is always the common sense modifyer that can be applied by a Gm,

eg the Balor vs Gnome gets a +50 DC

You're trying to "fix" the game system to your own liking because you don't feel the game system as written is an accurate enough simulation of reality. This is not a very PFS-compatible sentiment, and you should probably stick to home games with other like-minded individuals.

A Balor is already going to have a huge intimidate DC by RAW, due to their hit dice, wisdom, size, etc. The game as written, without any external meddling, already would give them a DC of 41. This is already not something that some low level gnome commoner could ever hope to achieve, without any need of "help" from common sense.

Only someone high level and supremely focused on being intimidating is going to have much luck at ever beating that DC. If that gnome happened to be a high level PC, there are various ways that they could be far more intimidating than average, and this is something that would be reflected by their intimidation ability. You don't get to just redesign that whole mechanic to suit yourself, particularly not in a PFS game. You don't need to swing it by 50 just because you feel like arbitrarily changing the rules of the game.

Bilbo is not a high level PC, nor is he trained in intimidation. The game wouldn't give him any shot of intimidating a sufficiently high level enemy, and you don't need to go adding your own penalties on top of that to fix something that isn't broken. If a mid to high level PC does have a very high intimidate skill, then they obviously aren't very Bilbo-like so it's just a flawed comparison.

What's next, are you going to just decide screw HPs, AC, attack rolls, saving throws, etc. You're house ruling that any dragon automatically gets to eat any hobbit, without having to roll anything, because dragons eat hobbits. Level 20 hobbit with decades of intense training, incredible supernatural abilities, and magical equipment? Doesn't matter. Common sense, right? Dragons eat hobbits. +1 million common sense bonus vs. hobbits.

The odds of that roll using that method are approximately 1 in 1000. Are you sure you didn't use the 6 + highest 2 of 5d6, reroll 1s and 2s? :P

This isn't the build for me, but the benefits of one level of monk with that level one ability are tempting.

I know it's debatable, but I say that a successful trip is indeed a prone target, which gains the benefits to having the enemy take their ac penalty to your aoo follow up attack.

If I take one level my bab will be one slower, and my fighter bonus feats will happen at the same time as my odd level general feats, so I need to replan my feats.

It's not really debateable. The greater trip AoO happens before they fall. The attack is really part of the original trip action, not something you do afterwards, even though mechanically you're rolling for it after. Vicious Stomp (which you won't be able to get without Wolf Trip) happens after.

That level 1 ability only lets you do it once per day, and only if they attack you. Which kind of defeats the purpose for a reach build since you won't be threatening adjacent with your weapon unless you go whip (which is expensive in feats and other costs and takes away a big part of the reason for choosing monk), and you don't stop them from attacking and prevent yourself taking damage just by tripping them (that's what Ki Throw would do), though they do take a -4 to attack. The level 4 ability lets you use it to disrupt an attack on an ally, and do it 4 times a day. Also at level 4 this ability is guaranteed to sicken them even if they pass their save, which is not true at level 1. 4 levels of monk is the same BAB cost as 1 level. Monk gets 1 bonus feat (including improved trip) plus unarmed strike, so that gives you the same number of feats as 4 levels of fighter would have assuming you wanted improved unarmed strike (which is an excellent option for a reach fighter to threaten nearby targets, and fewer feats than something like whip).

The point of taking flowing monk with a reach weapon is to ruin enemies turns. It's a very powerful and rare defensive control ability. It sounds like you don't want that, so I don't see much point in flowing monk.

Whirlwind is another awesome option for a reach trip fighter, like galahad mentions. But both whirlwind and wolf style are a lot of investment, so you have to make choices about what to prioritize. You can only have both at very high levels. But if I ever got high enough I would have both for sure. Certain critical feats are also nice with the right weapons.

Anachrony, is your character pfs legal, and would you mind sharing your build with me. I am looking at the archetype right now, and I'm considering what I can do.

I don't know the ins and outs of PFS, I'm afraid. I don't use third party sources, and as far as I know everything is valid by RAW.

Half-Elf, level 9, 5 levels Lore Warden, 4 levels Flowing Monk, future levels Lore Warden. Lawful Good, worships Sarenrae.
25 point buy starting stats: str 15, dex 17 (15+2 racial), con 14, int 14, wis 14, cha 7. +1 dex and +1 str at levels 4 and 8.
Ancestral Arms(Fauchard)
First two weapon trainings in polearms and unarmed (the order is optional).

Traits: Blade of Mercy, Bred For War, others optional
Feats: Combat Reflexes, Enforcer, Improved Trip (Monk Bonus), Ki Throw, Vicious Stomp, Greater Trip, Wolf Style, Wolf Trip, Wolf Savage
Skills: Max Intimidate (for Enforcer), Acrobatics (for Lore Warden's ability), Perception (good for everyone). Max Knowledge(Nature) until level 9 for Wolf Savage. Put at least 1 rank in most of the knowledge skills that a lore warden might use to identify an opponent.

Equipment:
No armor.
+1 keen Horacalcum fauchard. The keen is essential for a fauchard. The material is a bit expensive for now, but it's a forward looking investment since you can easily upgrade the bonus but not change the material.
+4 headband of inspired wisdom. Major investment for this level, but required to qualify for Wolf Savage at level 9. Helps with AC and monk abilities.
+2 belt of giant strength
+2 bracers of armor
Maidens Helm. Affordable +5 intimidate, helps a ton with Enforcer with charisma as dump stat.

Key features here are that Flowing Monk redirection lets you interrupt attacks on you or your allies within reach, with a trip attack. Wolf Trip allows you to reposition them anywhere adjacent to yourself. If someone attacks your ally you can reposition them far enough away from that ally that they can't complete their full attack and it ruins their turn.

Similarly, if you trip someone up close, Ki Throw allows you to reposition them further away (RAW suggests this interacts favorably with your threat from reach, but this part is debatable). Regardless, if you are enlarged (which with a reach heavy build you'll want to be as much as possible), and someone attacks you, you can interrupt that and Ki Throw them at least to at least 10 feet away (if not further), interrupting their attack if they don't have sufficient reach.

When you trip someone with your polearm, you get an attack of opportunity on them with the polearm from greater trip. Then with wolf trip you reposition them adjacent to you before they hit the ground. With vicious stomp you get an unarmed strike attack of opportunity. And with wolf savage each unarmed attack on a prone opponent has a chance of applying bestow curse, which is an awesome debuff with a lot of options. And bestow curse allows you to stack different debuffs on the same target as long as you pick a different one each time.

Another aspect of this is that you can do non-lethal damage at no penalty with either your polearm or your unarmed strike thanks to your trait (actually you even get a +1 damage to non-lethal with the polearm). This allows you to easily take advantage of Enforcer during all your attacks of opportunity. You will have a good chance of shaking them for multiple rounds, which is another helpful debuff. But even better, with your high crit chance build, this will frequently be frightening them.

Frighten is a nice effect for a trip build, because they'll be force to flee and trigger two attacks of opportunity from you (maybe more from allies). One for standing, one for moving. They don't have the option of withdrawing because they are starting out prone from being tripped. Your second attack of opportunity, the one where they have already stood up but are trying to move, can be another trip attack, allowing you to stop them from fleeing and another two attacks of opportunity.

Yes you can threaten people with a fist weapon while wielding a polearm. No FAQ says you can't.

Assuming you can either wield the polearm one-handed or have 3 fists. If you need to switch whats in your hand then you're only wielding one or the other at a time.

My reach trip fighter is Lore Warden with a dip in Flowing Monk (which is pretty awesome for tripping; Flowing Monk redirection with a reach weapon combined with Wolf Style is powerful synergy). One advantage of a dip in monk is that they are effective at attacking and threatening the gaps that their reach weapon doesn't, even with their hands full.