Belafon's page

Whether or not it could be done "RAW" is going to come down to debating one particular phrase in the description of the vestment.

The spell must be on her spell list. . .

A multiclass caster has multiple spell lists (plural), not a single spell list. The most straightforward interpretation is that the spell slot has to be from the same class that has the spell on that spell list. I could argue that since it doesn't mention multiple spell lists in can be on any of them. Or I could argue that since it only says spell list anyone with multiple spell lists is ineligible to use the vestment at all.

If you want to go ahead and allow it, eh... it's probably not too strong if she casts fireball once a day using a 3rd-level bard slot. Think of it as a 5000 gp item that lets a bard cast fireball once a day. That's probably a little low but not too far out of scale. BUT you're going to keep a tighter rein on loot and purchased item than you might otherwise want to. Otherwise the player can accumulate a library of sorcerer scrolls that can be used with the vestment. 5000 gp for a once-a-day fireball is one thing. 5000 gp for once-a-day "bard can choose a sorcerer spell" is far too low, even with the requirement to possess the scroll.

Well, what about mage armor? "An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject." Is that a 1st-level, hour/level spell that makes you immune to sneak attacks?

I mean, it surrounds you. That's just like a kineticist's "You constantly surround yourself with a ward of force."

I can't find the post but years ago someone constructed a logical argument (well, all the steps were logical though the result was illogical) that getting one negative level would, by chaining certain rules steps together, result in automatically getting another, which automatically meant getting another. . .

The full ramifications of negative levels were never spelled out in PF1.

Even trying to say "each negative level is -1 to everything" has caveats about what "everything" is.

But Starfinder society is allowing replays for everyone so what's the logic in that? There's also replayable scenarios in PFS 2E where it can be mixed up so it might actually be different from the one a person played. Maybe that flagstone doesn't have treasure under it in this adventure. Or you fight a different villain, and they are found in a different place. There's one scenario set in Tian Xia in the forest of spirits and it has different outcomes, different villians and different locations.

I can't speak to SFS (haven't played SFS2e). For PFS, the difference is that those scenarios are designed to be replayable by introducing a variable component.

Could all scenarios be designed with variable pieces? Sure. But it's more work. Especially on the social/conversation side of things. And I think if you took a poll people would say that the ones that aren't variable tend to tell a better story. (That's my vote.)

When the rules refer to a “full round”, they usually mean a span of time from a particular initiative count in one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.

If you can do something "once a round" that means you can only do it once in the span of time from when your turn starts until the next time your turn starts.

Copying a post I made back in 1E days.

I have seen Paizo Organized Play staff comment a few times that the biggest issue they have with replay is with character involvement. While it's relatively easy for a replayer to be conscientious in combat (by not preparing the one rarely used spell that ends an encounter, or by not buying the weird weapon the BBEG is weak against), it's a lot harder outside of combat.

The issue (and I have seen and felt it many times myself) is that outside of combat there's very little middle ground between "doing what the scenario writer is looking for" and "keeping your mouth shut and not participating." I know there's treasure under that flagstone and none of my party members found it. Would my character have searched there? Would he really, or am I just trying to justify it? If I don't search now but might have if I was playing for the first time am I hurting everyone else at the table? If one NPC reacts very favorably to a specific line of conversation (and I know this) is it fair for me to bring it up if no one else does? And don't get me started on puzzles.

So it's more about hurting the experience of the other players than about breaking a power curve.

I know I'd need Selective Channeling and strong charisma, Strong charisma is always needed for channeling and I never said anything about not needing Selective Channeling... I was just asking if it was possible.... Can go with a 14 strength and fill it up with buffs and/or magic items, And then pump the rest into charisma and wisdom...

It's doable-ish.

I'm not sure if it's going to be an improvement in your particular campaign, though. If you're already struggling to heal and prevent damage an Envoy of Balance isn't going to improve that much. The closest comparison is "what are you gaining vs. a pure cleric?" In order for the harm portion of your channels to be effective you need a very high Charisma for better DCs. That gets very expensive, very fast. If you were a pure cleric who only channeled to heal, all that a lower charisma costs you is number of channels. Dropping Charisma from +18 to +14 costs two channels but gets you a huge amount of point-buy to put elsewhere. More dex, more strength, more spells.

I did play a channel-focused Envoy of Balance in PFS. In order to keep my Charisma very high, my Wisdom was just high enough to cast my highest-level spells! Started with a Wisdom of 14 and was up to 16 at 11th level, and that was only thanks to an ioun stone boosting it by +2. Definitely couldn't cast attack spells effectively, and didn't have many spell slots.

I wanted to be sure there wouldn't be some unforeseen effect from doing so.

The possible negative effect I see is lowering the amount of party buffs that get passed out to the martials. I love playing characters whose primary (or at least secondary) purpose is buffing. Like Taja I buy tons of Extend rods. I think my last PFS inquisitor had 3 lesser Extend rods by 11th level (and used them up every day).

Second, I greatly dislike the magic mart and will not allow the simple purchase of magic items (except for some low-level potions and scrolls). However, I'm aware how Wealth By Level expects the ability to convert gold into magic items without issue.

Another option besides a curated list of allowed rods might be to allow all rods, but only rods the party crafts themselves that they actually possess the metamagic feat for. That would be essentially trading gold and a feat (Craft Rod) for the ability to use lower-level spell slots sometimes. But it only works if you do ban ways of swapping metamagic feats around. No going wild with retraining, no greater metamagic knowledge for arcanists, etc.

Two things, mainly. First, every build for a caster I see involves a time of "just add metamagic rods," and that regularly suggests to me that they're too important as part of a build, and thus improving diversity in the space involves banning them.

Out of order, I know.

HomeBrew...

∙ only one metamagic rod can affect a cast spell. . .

That's not a house rule, it's in the description of metamagic rods.

A caster may only use one metamagic rod on any given spell, but it is permissible to combine a rod with metamagic feats possessed by the rod’s wielder. In this case, only the feats possessed by the wielder adjust the spell slot of the spell being cast.

Also note the word "wielder" in those sentences. If you are wearing a light shield and want to cast a spell with somatic components, you can't wield a rod. Even if you don't hold a weapon or shield (other than a buckler) you still need actions to retrieve and stow the rod if you plan to do anything else with a hand (including using a different rod).

I could have been clearer. I meant banning certain metamagics in rod form but still allowing the feat to be taken by players. Instead of banning all metamagic rods.

Like others have said, the rods bypass the built-in limitations of the feats. With a metamagic feat you must still have gained the higher-level spell slots. You can't cast Empowered fireball until you have 5th-level slots. (Yes, trait shenanigans exist.) Or you can spend 9,000 gp for a lesser Empower rod, which is easily obtainable by 6th or 7th level. And; without the rod you have to spend one of your precious feats on the metamagic! The only limitation rods don't bypass is the increased casting time.

I mostly stand by my list of spells that you might choose not to be available in rod form. I had some bad GM experiences with Toppling, so I might dislike that one more than it deserves. And I'm torn on Quicken. Normally its impossible to quicken a 6th-level or above spell no matter what your level is (barring some limited class abilities), and even casting a 1st-level spell eats up a 5th-level slot, so the rods are hugely helpful. But the Quicken rods are so expensive.

Also its worth deciding if you want to make any metamagic available in rod form or only those that have explicitly published rods. I think someone mentioned Brisk above. A Brisk rod was never published. And many others.

Maybe just ban certain metamagics instead of blanket ban on metamagic rods.

Persistent, Dazing, Toppling, and maybe Quicken would be top choices for a lot of GMs. Depending on your campaign you might also want to take out the HP damage boosters that blaster casters love as well. Empower, Maximize, and the like.

A lot of the other metamagics either help the entire group or are best for characters that aren't entirely spell-focused. Extend and Encouraging, for example, are often used on buff spells that affect the martials. Furious is mostly a help to bloodragers.

I've always treated it as any other "if you fail the check you must do X" requirement. Mainly those from mounted combat.

-If you fail the check to guide with knees, you only have one hand free for the round.
-If you fail the check to fight with a combat trained mount/control mount in battle you can't take any actions other than controlling the mount.

If you're planning to hover, you need to make that check at some point before a failure would make your turn illegal. Normally that means at the beginning of the turn but you could take a standard action then attempt the hover check.

Like Diego, I allow a 5' step if you make the hover check as "not an action". If you move 5' without making a hover check, that counts as a move action. Skill check, provoking AoO, everything normal.

Hallow

It normally has a casting time 24 hours, so you can't normally use it in battle, but with Contingency, you can have it ready to instant cast (after spending the 24 hours to tie it to Contingency for each time you use it) and have the condition to activate it be some nonsensical word.

The spell to be brought into effect by the contingency must be one that affects your person

Hallow makes a particular site, building, or structure a holy site.

Question 2

Does reloading work the same as, say, an equivalent-weight crossbow? AKA Does Rapid Reload apply?

Realized we didn't fully answer this question. Debated Rapid Reload but didn't state how reloading normally works.

A battery contains 10 charges when full; to charge an item with a battery, one simply slips the disk-shaped device into the proper slot on the item. The battery’s charge instantly fully depletes, and the item’s internal capacitors fill with 10 charges as it does so. If the item had fewer than 10 open slots in its capacity, the excess charges the battery once held are lost. A battery can be kept within an object indefinitely, or it can be ejected from the object for the purposes of recharging it or storing it elsewhere without affecting the item’s charge. Inserting or ejecting a battery is a move action.

Reloading is a move action. Put in the battery as a move and the recharge is instant and automatic. However if you need to recharge again in the same fight it gets a bit trickier. You need to use a move action to eject the old battery and another move to put in a new battery.

-If there is no battery in the slot, Rapid Reload would reduce it to a free action (same as with Advanced Firearms).
-If there is a battery in the slot, then it gets fuzzy. You can normally (without Rapid Reload) fully reload a revolver (advanced firearm) as a move action. Even though reloading requires ejecting the old cartridges that is considered part of the reloading. With technological weapons it is a separate action to eject the old battery. I would say that Rapid Reload would not help with removing old batteries. You would still need a move action for that.

Claxon, I think you experienced what I was cautioning about.

Iron Gods is NOT an adventure for players interested in creating tech-savvy, sci-fi weapon expert, characters. Instead average - for PC adventurers - people find these ancient and barely comprehensible technological relics. Some they can use (poorly), some they can explore (in awe), and some they might have to fight (desperately). It's still assuming the party is made of magic missile slinging wizards, bare-fisted monks, devoted clerics, sword-wielding fighters, and the like.

General advice for setting your players' expectations for technology in Iron Gods while avoiding spoilers:

-The AP assumes the characters are aware of the existence of technology but not the details. In other words, they shouldn't be taking Rapid Reload (Gravity Rifle) at 1st level because they don't have hands-on experience with a Gravity Rifle.

-The power level is geared as if the players will NOT be crafting technological items. All technological items are found items. As mentioned above they may be enchanting found items but not making them from scratch.

-Stressing this again, the characters don't know much about technology at all when the AP starts. Which is why this item might be a tiny bit of a spoiler, you can decide whether or not to tell the players or how much to tell them.

-If you haven't already downloaded it, you probably want to give them the Iron Gods Player's Guide to give them a sense of the setting.

Last Question, Proficiency.

Does Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Firearms) get all the Tech Frearms?

All but the heavy weapons, and you may decide to restrict them further if you wish.

Proficiency: This entry lists whether the weapon is simple, martial, or exotic. If an existing weapon proficiency allows the new weapon's use, that weapon proficiency is listed in parentheses. Note that Exotic Weapon Proficiency (heavy weaponry) works similarly to Exotic Weapon Proficiency (firearms) in that it allows access to a wide range of similar weapons.

Some GMs may wish to replace Weapon Proficiency (firearms) with Weapon Proficiency (technological firearms) to further restrict access to these devices to player characters in their campaigns.

Question 2

Does reloading work the same as, say, an equivalent-weight crossbow? AKA Does Rapid Reload apply?

Pizza Lord wrote:

Probably not from Rapid Reload (there might be a technological variant). Since Rapid Reload says 'Choose a type of crossbow (hand, light, heavy) or a single type of one-handed or two-handed firearm that you are proficient with.' and I believe that the notes don't let it work with Advanced Firearms, I think Technological firearms would fall in that category. Most such items have magazines with multiple shots though and changing one out is normally a move action. I don't see why there couldn't be a version that allows rapid reloads... but I don't see one.

Rapid Reload would work. It does work with Advanced Firearms:

Advanced Firearms: Advanced firearms are chamber-loaded. It is a move action to load a one-handed or two-handed advanced firearm to its full capacity. The Rapid Reload feat reduces this to a free action.

However, be aware of the clarification on page 135:

anytime you take a feat that modifies a single type of weapon (such as Weapon Focus or Rapid Reload), you must still pick one specific type of firearm (such as musket, axe musket, blunderbuss, pistol, or double pistol) for that feat to affect.

Question 3

Can a Magus (Eldritch Archer) spellstrike with them?

Yep, it's a ranged attack. However since they won't be starting with any technological items they would have to use the normal process for bonding with one they find.

I don't have the books with me right now, but has anyone taken a pass through the post-Unchained Adventure Paths to see if there are any summoner NPCs? The stat block should indicate if the Eidolon gets an alignment subtype.

Well, either I am missing something or everyone else is.

A necklace takes up a slot, where a rod does not.

The rod isn't "slotless," it has to be wielded in order to be used. Which takes up a hand.

I would end up pushing everything later and eventually deleting Critical Focus.

When you dig into the math Critical Focus is usually not a great choice unless you are going deep into the feats that rely on it as a prerequisite. Even for a grit user. While it increases your chance to confirm a critical hit by about 20%, it doesn't increase your chance to hit in the first place. Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus each increase the chance to confirm a crit by 5% and the chance to hit at all by 5%.

Having played a TWF Bolt Ace myself, I can tell you that it is more common than you might think to roll a number that would threaten a critical (17 or 18, for example) with one of your iterative attacks but doesn't because it doesn't actually hit.

The other one I might consider losing is Improved Precise Shot, and relying on Shooter's Resolve when you need it. But only if you have a significantly large Grit pool to start with.

My opinions, of course. I think you are trying for a very crit-heavy build. Which is fine. I think the math works out better with lots of non-crit Clustered Shot hits than one or two crits. But those big critical hit numbers are oh so satisfying, so go that route if you want to!

There are a couple of rules interactions you will need to clear with your GM regarding the Pelletbow. Other than that, looks fine and is very powerful.

Feats and special abilities that don’t involve proficiency (that don’t depend on dealing piercing damage or firing bolts) that apply to a heavy crossbow also apply to a dwarven heavy pelletbow, and those that apply to a light crossbow also apply to a dwarven light pelletbow.

Is a pelletbow a crossbow? You might need to spend a feat on Exotic Weapon Proficiency since the last paragraph of the item description says that special abilities that don't involve proficiency apply, so Crossbow Maven wouldn't directly apply. On the other hand the pelletbow is "crossbowlike" and is in the crossbow fighter group. Seems like it would be legal for Crossbow Training. Make sure you and the GM are on the same page.

It falls under the same rule as the base ranger ability

If a specific creature falls into more than one category of favored enemy, the ranger's bonuses do not stack; he simply uses whichever bonus is higher.

If the ranger normally has +4 vs dragons and +2 vs fey, the headband increases those bonuses to +5 vs dragons and +3 vs fey (for attack rolls only, not damage).

If he happens to be fighting a fey dragon, he gets a +5 to attack from favored enemy since that is the higher bonus.

Weirdly it feels like this ought to work, and ought to not work, at the same time.

On the one hand you are casting a spell that - thanks to Healing Grace - is healing hit points. And Safe Curing says that spells that cure HP don't provoke. So if you were casting a spell like haste you could heal some of your allies for a few HP at the same time and not provoke. Which doesn't sound unreasonable for two class abilities working together.

It's the offensive uses that seem unintended. I cast phantasmal killer, but also choose to heal the target. So it doesn't provoke thanks to Safe Curing? I had to heal them a little bit but they are now dead so... win for me. Chuck a CL10 fireball at a crowd and give 3 creatures 1 HP of healing each. Compared to the 10d6 they are taking. And since the healing only applies to "creatures affected by the spell" they don't get the healing unless they are taking the negatives. How about if I assign all the healing from my fireball to this fire elemental that I know is immune instead. Do I still get to cast without provoking?

RAW, I'd say that yes they would work together. As a home game GM, my house rule would probably be that you provoke unless all the creatures affected are your allies.

Yeah, likely those posts were from before Advanced Class Guide. The ruling came about in April 2015.
https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1gw#v5748eaic9t91

The Ragechemist creates a rage mutagen... pretty sure that counts as "a form of rage".

That is quite a thread necro...

The rules reason shadow x and other illusions can affect the caster has to do with how saving throws work.

A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw.

Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.

Even though you don't "need" a saving throw, you choose to make one anyway. And then voluntarily fail the saving throw.

A tangential point:

There have been several news stories lately about the impact of tariffs on individuals importing small-value items directly into the U.S., since the end of the de minimis exemptions. Basically every major carrier (FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc.) seems to be charging a fairly significant fee to the end receiver on top of the tariff amount.

On the one hand - OK, they weren't set up to do this and they needed to spend on the systems to figure out the tariffs and how to collect them. And how to then pay them to the government. Not to mention the carriers have to prepay the tariffs so there is some (very small) lost time value of money. On the other hand, once their systems are set up there is minimal recurring cost. A lot of consumer advocates are concerned that these "tariff handling fees" are rapidly turning into another revenue stream for the carriers rather than simply recouping costs. And that after seeing the potential profits in the US they are adding or increasing similar fees internationally.

What does this mean for Paizo shipping? Just that the companies that have significant business direct-shipping internationally (and have price-sensitive customers) are going to have to spend a lot of effort choosing and/or negotiating with the carriers to get the lowest added fees. Which is to say that there's no fast fix and in the end it comes down to the carriers.

With the Secret of Magic Discopline feat I think Loremaster is plenty fine, power wise.

Kinda funny, loremaster is one of three prestige classes that have been played at my table. Granted it was used by a conjuration wizard, so there's a ton of wiggle room before it's too weak.

Yeah, I haven't really played PF1 much since Chronicle of Legends came out. Those feats made a whole lot prestige classes shinier.

Without that feat, it wasn't that Loremaster was weak, is is that it didn't really have anything special about it. The secrets basically duplicate things you could do with other feats. Should a wizard stop advancing and give up their wizard class bonus metamagic/item creation/arcane discovery feats for Dodge, Iron Will, Great Fortitude, etc.? Most people wouldn't want to. Even the bonus spell secrets aren't super useful given the level limitations. Loremaster was just kinda boring.

I just realized I didn't actually give an opinion about the core question of whether or not "Any one feat" means any feat whether or not you have the prereqs. I actually have 3 answers, depending on the situation.

1) As a PFS player, I would only take a feat I met the pre-reqs for. My rule of thumb as a PFS player was not take any character option that might require me to argue with the GM about which of two or more legitimately possible interpretations was correct. Keep the game civil.

2) As a PFS GM, I would allow a player who had taken a feat using this ability without meeting prereqs to use it. As above, multiple interpretations are possible so keep the game civil.

3) As a home game GM, I would allow a player to take any feat without meeting prereqs. (Subject to a sanity check - if the feat allows you to fly faster using your wings, and you don't have wings, then no.) I mentioned in a recent thread that I've never seen anyone play a Loremaster because it's such a "blah" prestige class. Not so weak it's an automatic no, but it also doesn't really do anything unique. If this is a reason to play something unusual, then go for it!

CRB page 112 wrote:

A character can't use a feat if he loses a prerequisite, but he does not lose the feat itself. If, at a later time, he regains the lost prerequisite, he immediately regains full use of the feat that prerequisite enables.

So unless the source giving you the feat has an exception (say a ranger combat style) it looks to me that you cannot use a feat lacking PQs, even if you were somehow allowed to choose it.

There it is. And actually the ranger ability does not say "you can use this feat" even though you lack the prerequisites it just says that you are allowed to choose it.

He can choose feats from his selected combat style, even if he does not have the normal prerequisites.

The only way I can see to square those two statements, and taking into account the FAQ referenced above

Feat prerequisites are not inclusive, as it is possible for a creature to have a feat without meeting that feat's prerequisites. For example, a ranger can select Precise Shot as a ranger bonus feat without having the Point Blank Shot feat; he does not meet the prerequisites for Far Shot (which has Point Blank Shot as a prerequisite) because he doesn't actually have the Point Blank Shot feat, even though he has a feat that lists Point Blank Shot as a prerequisite.

is to say that if you get a feat in the normal manner (meeting prerequisites) then you lose it if you lose the prerequisites. But if you get the feat without having to meet the prerequisites in the first place you can use it no matter what.

... Which doesn't help resolve the matter of the Loremaster's "Any" feat. If any means "absolutely any" then you are clearly getting it without requiring prerequisites.

Unless what gives you the feat says it ignores prerequisites the rule that if you do not meet the prerequisite means you cannot use the feat still applies.

Can you find this rules text? It seems to contradict the FAQ I quoted above

Feat prerequisites are not inclusive, as it is possible for a creature to have a feat without meeting that feat's prerequisites.

edited order for clarity:

unless specifically called out to not require any requirement anytime you want to take a feat you must meet it's requirement, as this is a general rule for gaining feats and unless you have a specific rule to overcome it (like ranger combat feats etc) you must follow it.

...
but as i said this specific ability doesn't say you may ignore a feat's requirements so you don't get to pick one you are unqualified to take..

The thing is that the Loremaster ability doesn't just say "you gain a feat." It says "Any one feat." It's all about how you interpret the word "Any." It doesn't say "any feat that you qualify for" or "any feat whatsoever." Just "any." There is absolutely nothing else giving more context in the class description.

there is a specific ruling that if you gain a feat with requirement but then lost them (say power attack and lost the minimum str from being sapped) you don't lose the feat, but can't use it (or any feat that require it) until you get back the feat's requirements.

I used to believe a version of this to be true, but now I can't find the text. Do you have that reference?

Applicable Knowledge says you can get any one feat.

I see posts going back and forth about it ignoring prerequisites. Or that you can take the feat, but can't use it unless you have the prerequisites - which seems like some justification for not letting one use a feat they can take; and not found in the rules.

I don't believe there's anything official saying "this means ANY feat" or "this means any feat you meet the prereqs for". However I can give you an answer on the debate about a feat you have but don't meet the pre-reqs for.

Feat prerequisites are not inclusive, as it is possible for a creature to have a feat without meeting that feat's prerequisites. For example, a ranger can select Precise Shot as a ranger bonus feat without having the Point Blank Shot feat; he does not meet the prerequisites for Far Shot (which has Point Blank Shot as a prerequisite) because he doesn't actually have the Point Blank Shot feat, even though he has a feat that lists Point Blank Shot as a prerequisite.

I used to think the opposite until I found this paragraph, which is in a FAQ item that is not explicitly about feats. There are specific rules about retraining that say you can't retrain a feat that serves as a prereq for another you have.

Is DHL not considered a "courier" (as opposed to a postal carrier)? CUSMA set a de minimis threshold for couriers of CAN $150 for duties and $40 for taxes on shipments originating in the US or Mexico. Postal shipments were left with the existing CAN $20 de minimis for both.

Possibly the Canadian rules got changed in the tariff tit-for-tat engulfing the world since "Liberation Day" in the US. Chaos is making things difficult for every importer and exporter.

If he is going to go for a sorcerer focused on doing damage with his spells Orc bloodline is a poor choice. The bloodline gives you the Orc subtype including darkvision, but also gives you light sensitivity. Most of the bloodline power are designed to boost your melee combat, which most sorcerers avoid. The bonus vs fear and latter immunity to fear is not bad, but those are usually will save which is the sorcerer’s good save. Half the bloodline spells also do not do any damage.

The draconic bloodline would be a better choice. They get the same bonus to damage on the spells but are not restricted to fire. . .

I think you may be misremembering how those bloodlines work. Draconic's bloodline arcana isn't restricted to fire but you do have to choose one energy type when you take the bloodline and the bonus damage only applies to that type. The entire reason for choosing the Orc bloodline is for its arcana bonus damage, which applies to every damage type (all energy types and physical damage).

It's explicit in the Maximize feat that if you use both Empowered and Maximize the empowered part is separate.

All variable, numeric effects of a spell modified by this feat are maximized. Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables. A maximized spell uses up a spell slot three levels higher than the spell's actual level.

An empowered, maximized spell gains the separate benefits of each feat: the maximum result plus half the normally rolled result.

Channel power does not have the same exception

You gain the ability to channel raw arcane power into a spell. You can also expend one use of mythic power when casting an arcane spell to increase its damage by 50%. If the spell has a duration greater than 1 round, the duration doubles. Any saves required by the spell take a –4 penalty, although for mythic creatures, this penalty is reduced to –2. This spell ignores any spell resistance the targets have, although targets immune to the spell or to magic still retain that protection.

It just "increases the damage by 50%". Since both Maximize and Empower refer to "variable numeric effects" I would rule that Channel Power affects everything. So for Maximized, Empowered, Channel Power mythic chain lightning:

(200 [Maximized] + 20d10/2 [Empowered]) * 1.5 [Channel Power]
=300 + (20d10*0.75)

Anything that is affected by Caster Level is affected

Range, duration, number of targets, number of damage dice, bonuses from scaling buff spells, SR checks, concentration checks, you name it.

Quote:

Consume Spells (Su): At 1st level, an arcanist can expend an available arcanist spell slot as a move action, making it unavailable for the rest of the day, just as if she had used it to cast a spell. She can use this ability a number of times per day equal to her Charisma modifier (minimum 1).

This is the other reason that charisma is important for an arcanist

There is also an exploit, consume magic items, that has a similar limitation, but that is of limited value, and requires choosing that exploit.

If I had to point at one thing while choosing between arcanist and sorcerer, I would point at the ability score dependencies. And how much your preferred playstyle weights the ability score dependencies.

If you prefer a save-or-lose or blaster caster, the sorcerer is almost always your better choice. Because you only need Charisma and you can focus on that stat with your point-buy, level increases, and equipment. Higher DCs, even with the arcanist's arcane reservoir.

If you like a utility caster or buffer, then DCs aren't as important. So it's OK that you are going to need to invest in both Intelligence and Charisma to really get the most out of the arcanist's potential. And that's on top of the freedom to memorize different spells every day.

The easiest comparison is a sorcerer to a blood arcanist. Sorcerer advantages:

1. Simplicity. You know the spells you know.
2. You can cast two more spells per day per level.
3. Bloodline spells - you have one more spell available each day than the arcanist. (Arcanist prepares max 5 of each level, sorcerer knows max 5 +1 bloodline of each level).
4. Bloodline feats - Extra feat at levels 7, 13, and 19
5. Single Attribute Dependency - as Melkiador said an arcanist can choose not to invest in Charsima. But it's going to limit your useful exploit choices.

You’ve mastered the art of balancing a polearm’s weight against a shield’s stability.

This is the intro text, not the rules text. But it's pretty clear both from that and from the name of the feat - "Shield brace" - that the intended visualization was supporting the two-handed polearm on a part of the shield in order to attack while still wielding the shield.

Your shield hand would still be occupied by wielding the shield so you wouldn't be able to use that to grab your polearm, in order to free the other hand to do something.

From my own viewpoint, I'd eagerly and enthusiastically play probably the most non-optimal combinations of Sorcerer4/Shaman4 with a Mystic Theurge, and I'd still classify it as worth consideration.

...
The conclusion I've reached is that you simply cannot change some people's mind about certain options until you hand walk them through the journey of playing such a character so they get to experience it directly.

I agree with your philosophy on this 100%.

There are plenty of prestige classes (and archetypes, and even base classes) that mechanically focused players reject as too weak. There are only two prestige classes I've never seen anyone seriously consider playing. The Loremaster and the Prophet of Kalistrade. The Loremaster because it doesn't really do anything different. The "Secrets" class ability just gives you a limited choice of basic feats. The Prophet both because it truly is weak - it doesn't mechanically synergize with any class in even a reduced fashion - and because it doesn't have a great flavor fit with any base class. I myself took a long look at playing a Prophet of Kalistrade (despite the acknowledged weakness, I love the lore) but the problem was I couldn't come up with a base class to start with that would make for a fun character and story. Other people had the same problem creating a seamless backstory other than the generic "used to be a Blackjacket."

I don't remember who said the earliest version of this maxim, but the general idea has become a guidepost:

"It is definitely possible to build a bad character. But you don't need to have an optimized character to not be a bad character."

There are plenty of builds that can be effective enough, even if you yourself know of ways to make them mechanically better. Build the character that is fun for the group and for you, and who brings something unusual to the game experience instead of one who ends encounters instantly.

They still exist, but there no longer appears to be even a roundabout link to them from the forum pages. You have to know the url.

bbangerter linked the CRB FAQ, here's the base url:

https://paizo.com/paizo/faq

A monk finishes his sequence of attacks but hasn't quite finished the opponent so he decides to spend a ki point to gain an extra attack. Do you tell the monk no, he had to spend the swift action to gain the attack at the start of the round because now he is making a highest BAB attack after a lowest BAB attack?

Or how about Medusa's Wrath? If you make a full attack and knock your opponent unconscious with the last iterative attack, can you not use the Medusa's Wrath attacks because they are made at your highest BAB?

There are a few edge cases where players could cheese things up if they were allowed to take their -5 or -10 BAB attacks before their normal full BAB attacks. (Two-Weapon Feint requires you to give up your "first" primary hand attack.) But as long as you are requiring them to take their normal attacks in descending BAB order it really doesn't matter where full-BAB bonus attacks are made.

Splitting Mutagen, I can take it, "An alchemist must be at least 12th level before he can select this discovery". I take it at level 14 = 2 MC + 12 Alchemist. So it's OK ? No ?

Yes, that works.

The idea that a mystic theurge gets more spells per day is exaggerated. While they do get more low-level spells per day their total number of spells per day is only slightly higher, and the total spell levels per day is lower. Compare a cleric 3/wizard 3/ mystic theurge 3 to a 9th level cleric. Excluding 0 level spells the mystic theurge can cast 28 spells per day, and his total spell levels per day is 54. The straight 9th level cleric can cast 23 spells per day, with a total spell levels cast of 59.

Like any time you compare two classes in PF1, a lot depends on what level you pick. The pure cleric gets a bigger jump in spell slots and higher spell levels on odd levels, MT gets them at even.

Character level comparison of pure cleric vs. Cleric 3/Wizard 3/MT X, using only base spell slots including domain and school slots (not bonus slots from high casting stat modifier):
9th level - cleric 19, MT 22
10th level - cleric 21, MT 28
11th level - cleric 24, MT 32
12th level - cleric 26, MT 38

Not to mention that at 10th level they are both providing 20 point resist energy. But then the cleric swings back into the lead with resist 30 at 11th level! It's very easy to pick a level that supports a particular side of a discussion.

Am I saying "behold, the buffing Mystic Theurge! The only class anyone should ever play!" No, of course not. As I stated above I chose not to play one myself. You don't really feel "ahead" of a single-class buffer until around 12th level (when you get 5th-level spells and your slot advantage gets really pronounced). Which is very late in most campaigns. I'd personally rather play something that feels on par for the entire campaign. And you need a party that really appreciates the mechanics and plans with you in mind.

There is a niche for it. Of course it would be even better if the GM lets your group have an NPC MT tagging along doing the buffing instead of a PC. But that's true for everything. NPC bard! NPC save-or-suck caster!

There is one particular niche where the Mystic Theurge does shine. And that's being a (mostly) pure buffing cleric/wizard.
-Cleric and Wizard, so earliest possible entry
-You can pull from both the cleric and the wizard spell lists
-You get tons of spell slots
-You don't care about DCs, so it's OK to have two different casting stats

A buff caster is a force multiplier no matter what but is at its peak when the whole party understands the point and the mechanics of what you are doing and plans their builds with your abilities in mind. Should we spend our treasure to upgrade our armors from +1 to +2? Nope, put a special property on instead - the cleric prepares four magic vestments every day.

I played several versions of buffers in PFS. My most extreme buff-focused inquisitor was, at 13th level, spending 60-70% of his spell slots on long duration buffs at the start of the day. Could have been even more if it wasn't PFS. Mostly pickup groups meant a lot of players had - for example - upgraded their armor to +4 or better since they didn't know my character would be in their group. Even so I had to ration my short-duration buffs in combats so I didn't run out of spell slots.

I never did play a Mystic Theurge buffer. Why? As others have said, there's a range where playing the Mystic Theurge "feels bad." In a buff build it's levels 4-7 (where you haven't yet gotten any 3rd-level buff spells) and, slightly less intensely, levels 8-9 (where you have the 3rd-level buffs but not many spell slots). It isn't until level 12 where you really feel ahead of what a single-class buffer could do. Which is near the end of most campaigns.

You absolutely can, by RAW, take an archetype after 1st level. From the archetype retraining rules in UCamp:

That's not exactly what Phoebus was asking.

Let's take the Kintargo Rebel rogue as an example. She gives up Trap Sense and Uncanny Dodge. Nothing else. Which means that she gains Uncanny Dodge at 8th level, when a non-archetyped rogue would get Improved Uncanny Dodge. So the Kintargo Rebel has an ability called Uncanny Dodge at 8th level. Can she take another archetype at 8th level that requires giving up or modifying Uncanny Dodge since she then has it?

Answer is that this is something that I might be willing to work with a player on if they have a great character idea. But it's going to require making so many individualized decisions about effective levels of class/archetype features that it would basically be a custom archetype. Rules-wise it's not allowed, as DeathlessOne pointed out.

By the way, to answer the question in the thread title:

Parchment Swarm spell + False Focus feat = JACKPOT!?

No, not really. You're adding a first level spell that only takes affect if they fail the reflex save and even then is CL1, DC11.

Even with those limitations, are there still spells you might want to add? Sure. Ill omen has no save. But parchment swarm is a 5th level spell. By the time you can cast that, 25 gp each for a bunch of ill omen scrolls is peanuts.

Parchment swarm's best use (other than a cool visual) is with a 2nd level scroll. That can turn the spell into a physical (not energy) damage fireball with a 15d6 cap.

Anyway, it seems like this discussion is at an impasse; what am I to do going forward?

Since you are planning this character for Organized Play, the default answer of "ask your GM" isn't as helpful as usual. However, if you are planning to play with the same Lodge a lot, it wouldn't hurt to go over it with some of the more active GMs before taking the feat.

I'm not sure what the overall vibe of PFS1 games are these days. Back when PFS1 scenarios were being released and I was a very active GM (yes, I'm a 5-star) the large majority of GMs had a similar viewpoint to me: If a player's interpretation of a mechanic was reasonably possible (even if doubtful), we'd allow them to use it. We may not like it, and we may think the player is stretching, but that's not a reason to shut down their character. Your use of False Focus is nowhere near the most dubious reading players try. If you need it for your character idea, go ahead and take the feat.

The only branch I actually don't immediately see a niche for are the CN Pharasmins. (I'm sure someone has put more thought into this than I, and has an idea here!)

You know who put a lot of thought into it? Paizo!

2E tightened down alignment restrictions and some deities eliminated some of the traditional "within one step" alignments from those who can get benefits from worship. For example, Pharasma does not grant benefits to those of CN alignment (or NE, for that matter). Irorans must be lawful (can't be true neutral), Asmodeus requires only LE worshipers, etc. A lot more individualized focus on the deities' portfolios and purposes than the generic one-step solution.

I'm with you, by the way. If it was up to me 2E Pharasma would still grant benefits to NE followers. But not CE.