Corodix's page

You could play an evil cleric of a non-evil neutral god as you can be one step off from your god alignment wise. In that case you don't detect as evil until you're level 5, so the paladin has no way to know that you're evil until then. You can also cast Undetectable Alignment from level 3, so then you're good to go on that front as well and his detect evil shouldn't become an issue. Since neutral clerics can also channel negative energy he will likely assume that you are simply a neutral cleric.

Reduce Person shrinks the weapon and projectile and when the fired projectile leaves it returns to it's normal size, but it still deals damage as if it was smaller. The spell clearly states: projectiles deal damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them
On the other hand with Enlarge Person you fire a large projectile with a large weapon, but the projectile then becomes medium sized and deals damage as if fired by a medium weapon. So the projectile does not deal damage based on the size of the weapon that fired it.

What is the common factor here? The projectile ends up dealing damage as the smallest size category of either itself or the weapon by which it was fired. Thus large bow + medium arrow impacting the target = medium bow damage. Small bow + medium arrow impacting the target = small bow damage.

So looking at how those spells work, ruling it as dealing 1d6 damage instead of 4d6 makes sense. On the other hand he can only do one such attack per round and it eats up a lvl 3 spell (shrink item) for every attack, does it not? All things considered if it's limited to a single attack per round then that doesn't seem that effective, so in that case I'd personally let him have his fun and rule that he can do it for 4d6 damage, as it seems to be rather harmless and ineffective compared to other things he could be doing. And I would also make it clear in that case that if it does ever become disruptive (as in, he mixes it with some other combo to make it completely overpowered) then the ruling could very well change to it dealing only 1d6 damage.

Enlarge person could be quite interesting to use, as you'd get to be Huge with even more reach and strength.

From reading the replies of people who have problems with the alchemist, it seems your problems are more with the 5 minute adventure day than with the alchemist class itself. Replace the alchemist with a wizard whom uses up all his good spells asap and you'd simply arrive at the same problem.

Solution wise, you could work to make time a more important factor in your campaigns, so the players can actually fail quests if they take their time. Or find ways to punish the 5 minute adventure day. For example if they decide to rest in a dungeon then that gives the inhabitants of the dungeon plenty of time to group up and mount a counter offensive.

Thankfully I play with groups (only as a player, I don't DM) where none of the players like the 5 minute adventuring day, and thus it has never been an issue for us.

The Sacred Shield archetype sounds like it offers a lot of what you want: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin/archetypes/paizo---pal adin-archetypes/sacred-shield

It allows you to use two uses of your lay on hands to share your shield bonus with nearby allies (radius depending on level) for 3+cha rounds. This doesn't require a free hand, so it works fine with a towershield. So the higher you can get that shield bonus, the better for the entire party. This way your high AC doesn't discourage enemies from trying to hit you, as your allies also have their AC increased.

The Sacred Shield can also form a divine bond with his shield. The abilities you can add to your shield include Reflecting, which allows you to reflect one spell back to it's caster during the usage of your divine bond, but it's a +5 enhancement bonus ability, so not available until level 17. You can add spell resistance on earlier levels, which allow you to at least resist spells. Of course if your allies tend to use buff spells then you probably don't want to add spell resistance to your shield until they have cast those buff.

The archetype does replace smite evil, which will hurt your damage output, but the replacement ability encourages the target to attack you instead of your allies, which is probably a good thing with your focus on survivability.

The Divine Defender also offers spell resistance, but uses the armor as a divine bond instead of the shield. It also has an alternative usage of lay on hands, allowing you to increase the defenses of yourself and your allies. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin/archetypes/paizo---pal adin-archetypes/divine-defender

In one of the groups I play with we may roll the dice up to three times, and take the last result.

For example for my magus, I roll a d8. If this first roll is a five or higher then I tend to keep it, otherwise I reroll, if the second result is above three then I also tend to keep it, else I reroll one more time.

Overall it works quite well for us, though every now and then, including the last time we went level up, somebody managed to roll: 2, 2, 1, so he only gained 1 extra hp from the dice. That was clearly quite unlucky, but it happens every now and then. There's also been a case where somebody, who played a fighter, rolled 5, 6 and 1. Clearly he should have kept the six.

While it certainly says that you can take the feat multiple times, the feat doesn't stack with itself since it does not include a specific exception for that. If you take the feat twice then you indeed have one feat which gives 2 points, and one feat which gives 4 points, but since they don't stack you end up with 4 extra points, not six.

They should just have copied the wording from the extra arcana feat, but the editing of the ACG has been lacking in other areas too, so I'm hardly surprised they didn't use the same format.

Unsanctioned Knowledge (requires int 13) might be a useful feat once you can cast some spells, you could use that to add some defensive spells to your spell list. Defense wise, to make up for not having heavy armor, you could for example use things like mage armor, mirror image, displacement or haste.

So is the bug that they forgot to also remove Ecclesitheurge’s Vow? Or are you supposed to lose something else, instead of blessing of the faithful, when wearing armor?

Allowing a Hex instead of a feat sounds reasonable. There's also the Extra Hex feat, so by turning it into a Hex the Shaman player now has the option of sacrificing a hex, or a feat, in order to get a bigger spirit animal. So if it's between the feat and hex route then I'd go the hex route as it's less restrictive.

I'd keep an int of 12/13 in mind for Unsanctioned Knowledge. Assuming you can find spells of interest for your character

I'm not sure about how the rules will fall with Magic Missile and Smite Evil. However, for those who think it wouldn't be a big deal if it applied to each missile, since it's hard to make a Paladin who is good at both... please remember that it's not at all hard to make a Paladin who is good at UMD.

9th level magic missile wand would be, what, 6750gp? For 50 charges, each of which does 5d4+5+5xPaladin level in damage?

That caps out at 112.5 average damage (level 20). 67.5 average damage at level 11. I can see the issue since it's auto-hit, but the damage isn't that impressive and several basic spells/items can counter magic missile. With a nice 2-hander and power attack, or a bow with deadly aim/rapid shot/many shot, you should be able to do more damage on average if I'm not mistaken, especially with Divine Bond included.

So I don't think it's a big deal, since there don't seem to be a lot of options to increase the damage of this combination, preventing it from outpacing more standard approaches, and magic missile is easily nullified.

A group I played in once had a similar houserule. It didn't work out well, not equally affecting all characters. The synthesist summoner was for example hardly affected due to the massive amount of temp hp he had.

I have to concur with Threeshaes, the Summon Monster SLA is quite useless with the nerf you gave it, though the amount of uses per day seems fine. Have you considered limiting it in other ways? For example, normally with a summon monster spell you can summon 1d3 monsters from the previous level's list. You could remove that option, so that the SLA can never be used to put more than 1 monster on the field.

As for Pounce, I also agree with Threeshades that I wouldn't change its effect. Instead I would probably increase the cost to 2 evolution points and add a level requirement. A barbarian doesn't get pounce until level 10, I'm not aware of any other class which can get it before 10, so why not give it a level 10 limit?

After your change to Energy attacks it feels somewhat expensive at a cost of 2. Maybe it would be an idea to give it an incremental improvement? Say if you spend one extra point on Energy attacks (so a total of 3) then you can add a second attack form, and if you spend another extra point (4 total) then it applies to all your natural attack forms. You could add an extra level requirement for that four pointer, like level 9.

I see no issues with the spell list so far, moving haste to third level feels like a good move.

Looking over the abilities the class gets in your level list, it looks a bit lacking at levels 16 to 20, it feels incomplete. All classes have a keystone at 20, but your proposed summoner gets nothing special at all. Now I'll admit that I have no experience with that high level play so I really can't give much advice there, but it's probably a good idea to start thinking of something extra for those levels, at least for level 20.

You might also want to put an extra focus on improving your reflex save and possibly get a ring of evasion. AoE damage is likely your biggest threat, without evasion you take half damage even if you save, a couple of AoE spells could take you down.

Blink could also be an interesting spell, while it certainly has some hefty disadvantages (20% chance that your spells fail), it reduces AoE damage by half and reduces the chance of being hit by spells and physical attacks. Being able to go through walls can also be handy when you need to get out of a tough spot. I've used it with great success on a dragon disciple character, combined with mirror image.

1: Yes, this would work just fine, though once Magic weapon's duration comes to and end the enhancements by the arcane pool could become illegal and would thus probably also lose effect.
2: The +5 limit is for the enhancement bonus itself. The enhancement bonus, combined with the special abilities, cannot exceed +10. So +1 Vorpal is fine as that's only +6.
3: If the weapon is for example already +5 and Keen, then that is effectively +6 and you could not add Vorpal to it at that point, as that would push it to effectively +11. You cannot lower the +5 to +4 in that case.
4: It would only stack, the enhancement bonus cannot exceed +5, the effective bonus when also taking into account he special abilities cannot exceed +10.
5: That would create a +5 weapon. The Arcane Pool ability specifically says that the enhancement bonus added by the Arcane Pool stacks with any existing enhancement bonus, to a maximum of +5.

If you are playing in a very low magic campaign, especially equipment wise, then I would advice to talk to your DM about the Arcane Pool as it could very well create a balance problem. Best to address such issues early. There are a couple of archetypes which replace the ability to enhance weapons (Spell Dancer and Greensting Slayer). Though similar issues would likely occur with summoners and monks in such a campaign, as just like the magus they are must less dependent on weapons. So I wouldn't worry much if one of those is already in the party.

Hardness indeed works like DR. The rules on damaging objects are quite clear on how it works. [url]http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/damaging-objects[/url]
Ranged attacks by ranged weapons even have a further 50% damage reduction, unless it's a siege weapon doing the ranged attack.
Energy attacks also have a 50% reduction, though subject to GM discretion as some energy types should not get such a penalty. For example fire damage vs a wooden object, like that crossbow turret, should probably do full damage.

So not every bad guy needs to be specialized in sundering things, a fireball can easily lay waste to most of the turrets, as can other fire based attacks (scorching ray for example). Doing 25 damage in one sunder attempt would also destroy the object. A fighter with Power attack, high strength (16-18) and a 2h weapon could destroy the turret reasonably well in one or two hits depending on what bab he has.

The text also specifies that the turret can be disarmed, disable device can also be used to put it out of action. I'd imagine that grappling the turret could also work to prevent it from targeting somebody, but that's up to GM discretion.

So besides sunder you can also disarm it, use disable device or just blow it up with fire. A sneaky rogue could remove the turret from action without destroying it, allowing the player to salvage the turret and use it again later. Looks like plenty of diversity for countering those turrets.

You could use the phalanx soldier archetype to combine a shield with the bardiche, shield bash at 5ft and the bardiche for enemies at 10ft.

I've played a summoner twice and have had similar problems with one of my DMs. There my eidolon had vastly more AC and did a lot more damage then any of the other characters in the group. That DM couldn't handle it all that well, and made it worse with some of his house rules (we had to roll even for the eidolon's hp, a couple of tens later you can see the problem).

Now the second time I'm playing a summoner is right now (synthesist this time). What I'm doing at the moment is keeping it in line with the other characters in the party on purpose. For example the max hp in the party (level 4) is 21, so I try to keep ~23 as my max. I do the same with damage, trying to keep my average comparable to that of the archer and 2 handed fighter. The remaining evolution points simply go into utility. So if you want to work with your DM then I'd advice doing what I did the second time and try to keep it in line with the other characters in the party. Everybody will have more fun that way.

Unfortunately I didn't have time to read it all right now so I'll have to do that tomorrow, but I'd like to comment on the DC fix you proposed. Why not use the same DC progression as is used for many other abilities like alchemist bombs, witch hexes, etc? DC 10 + 1/2 caster level + casting stat

You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action.

You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally.

So the immediate action shouldn't be a problem, as an immediate action taken during your turn works as a swift action and he can use a swift action between the attacks.

Since he's a large character with a reach weapon, he can attack people at 15 and 20 feet away, but not at five and ten. The way the polearm master's Pole Fighting ability is written, he can then shorten the grip on his spear to attack enemies adjacent to him, so those at 5ft away, but not those at 10ft. This ability does not take his natural reach into account, but since you mentioned adjacent every time, I assume both of you already realized that?

So if you decide to use this ability as written then he can't attack everything with Whirlwind attack, there will be a gap. At large size those at 10ft away can't be hit, while Huge those at 10 and 15 feet away can't be hit, but he can always hit those adjacent to him.

One option he has to get around the adjacent issue is to use the Phalanx Soldier archetype instead of the Polearm master archetype. With Phalanx soldier you can combine a polearm with a shield. The shield threatens at your natural reach, the polearm threatens beyond that. This way you always threathen up to 20 as a large creature, thus there's no hole when using whirlwind attack. He could do some lovely bull rushing with the shield bashes and tripping with the polearm if that's his thing.

The issue here might be more that his race is large than anything else. Enlarge person still has a 1 round casting time, during which you can potentially harm the caster and force him to make concentration checks or fail the spell. It can also be dispelled, countered by reduce person, etc. There might be a reason why there are no large races amongst the Core, Featured and Uncommon races. If you feel the issue of a large race + polearm master + whirlwind attack could be a problem for you then you might want to consider not allowing the race in question.

So Armor and Natural armor work as DR and no longer go on to AC, instead a class based, level dependent bonus is added to AC and touch AC?

If so then casters will probably have quite a hard time getting their touch spells in due to their lower bab, especially if AC scales with level (which is the idea I'm getting based on your description). I don't quite understand why you believe it will become less of a problem as levels grow, you mention natural armor but natural armor was never added to touch AC, so it's not a factor.

Besides touch spells and the gunslinger there are also splash weapons, like the alchemist's bombs.

Maybe a possible solution would to use the class level as a bonus on touch attacks, depending on how the level dependent bonus to AC scales this might have to be 1/2 caster level if full class level is too much. So essentially a level 5 wizard would then do normal melee attacks at str + 2, and melee touch attacks at str + 2 + 5. You'd have to run the numbers to see if this idea can work or not.

Even the version where you can only ignore all TWF penalties is quite powerful as Tels shows, possibly too powerful, just look at how many max bab attacks that allows... So is that really the intent of the feat? I'd reason that RAI it should only nullify the penalties from the Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties Table in the core rulebook instead of negating all two weapon fighting penalties.

I'd love to see a FAQ on this mess of a feat. How does it work in society play?

Still surprising that this hasn't been caught and erratad in all these years, especially considering how blatantly broken this feat is.

Considering how broken the RAW of this feat is, I've always wondered how it works in society play.

Corodix wrote:

Which is exactly why it does work. Heighten spell, as you say, changes the level of the spell, increasing it.

Heighten FAQ wrote:

treating the spell as if it were naturally a higher level spell

They said it was poorly worded and confusing. You are confusing it the same way they have seen others.

When you heighten a spell, you change it from being an orison to a 1st level spell and then your trait can't again lower it to 0th level orison because it looks as if it has always been a 1st level spell using a spell slot.

You left out a part of the quote which is quite important, let me add the full sentence:

treating the spell as if it were naturally a higher level spell than the standard version

When you heighten a spell you change it's level for all effects related to that level, including DCs, etc. This changes the base level of the spell, but it does not change the original level of the spell, that will always remain 0. You say that after heightening it, the spell is treated as if it was always level 1, but nowhere in the feat or faq does it state that the original level of the spell is treated as if it was always at the new increased spell level. The above sentence even says that the spell is treated as if it were naturally a higher level than the standard version, so clearly the original spell's level remains unchanged.

So when Heighten spell is applied, the spell is treated as if it's level is X higher than the spell's original level (X being the amount of levels by which the spell has been heightened), thus it's spell level has been increased by X. if X is more than 0 then a metamagic feat has been used to add at least one level to the spell, thus magical lineage can be used to reduce X by 1, to a minimum of 0.

You seem to be confusing which part of Heighten spell was so confusing that it needed a faq in the first place, it was indeed worded very poorly.
Look at Heighten spell and at the faq (also look at the question stated at the start of the faq, it is about how heighten spell interacts with other metamagic feats. Do you see other metamagic feats in the example with spark? Magical Lineage isn't a metamagic feat, so no, so this faq doesn't even apply here), the part of the feat which was so confusing is the following:
"All effects dependent on spell level (such as saving throw DCs and ability to penetrate a lesser globe of invulnerability) are calculated according to the heightened level."

Add in quicken on a fireball and use heighten spell so it requires a 9th level slot. This can be read as if you have heightened the spell to 9th level, while you actually heightened it by only two levels, to 5th. This is what the faq clarifies, that you can't double dip heighten with other metamagic feats.

Corodix wrote:

Incorrect, magical lineage says:

You are focusing on Magical Lineage. Ignore it. Focus on Heighten. Heighten isn't your normal metamagic. It doesn't have a cost. It actually changes the base level of the spell. Once changed, magical lineage can't reduce below the new base of 1st level.

Which is exactly why it does work. Heighten spell, as you say, changes the level of the spell, increasing it. It modifies the base level of the spell, but the original base level of the spell remains the same (which is why the faq for magical lineage is not violated).

Magical Lineage says:

When you apply metamagic feats to this spell that add at least 1 level to the spell

Since Heighten spell is a metamagic feat which adds levels to the spell, magical lineage can be applied. Magical Lineage doesn't mention a cost even once, the only prerequisite is that the base level of the spell is increased by the metamagic feat.

No, your bolded section does nlt say that. It says to first add heighten spell and then the others, and use that to determie the DC, then add others. So you first add heighten with magical lineage heightening to a level equal to its slot (0th) and then add any other metamagics.

In addition, ross bolding still applies. You MUST pay with a higher spell slot. Did ypu not use an actual igher spell slot? Then ypu broke theules.

Incorrect, magical lineage says:

Pick one spell when you choose this trait. When you apply metamagic feats to this spell that add at least 1 level to the spell, treat its actual level as 1 lower for determining the spell's final adjusted level.

Lets add Tenebrous Spell metamagic as well (adjustment of +0). So first we add heighten, then Tenebrous, then magical lineage reduces the increased spell level by 1. Magical Lineage is not applied to one specific metamagic feat, it is applied to the resulting level adjustment after all metamagic feats have been applied. Otherwise it would say that you can reduce the spell level increase of one specific metamagic feat by one. It clearly states feats, plural.

In addition, ross bolding does not apply, as I mentioned in one of my earlier posts. The bolded part says that you cannot apply heighten spell to a spell at no cost, and then after the colon it specifies what it means with no cost. The meaning of no cost is that you cannot increase the effective spell level of the spell without increasing the required level of the spell slot above and beyond any other spell level increases from the other metamagic feats. Since in this case there are no other spell level increases from other metamagic feats, the entire section does not apply. Also, as I mentioned earlier, that FAQ is related to how heighten spell interacts with other metamagic feats, so it isn't relevant when heighten spell is the only metamagic feat being used.

A cost that is no cost is no cost.

Furthermore, reread heighten spell an magical lineage. They are not compatible for several reasons; to begin with, heighten sets the level, not adds to it. Secondly, lowering the spells level with magical linage means that the effect from heighten goes away due to how it is written.

Heighten spell does not set the level, see the FAQ mentioned by Diego. If heighten spell were to set the level then a maximized fireball, heightened so it uses a level 9 slot would count as a level 9 spell, while it actually only counts as a level 6 spell because it was heightened by only 3 levels, even though it went from a level 3 spell to being a level 9 spell.

A heightened spell has a higher spell level than normal (up to a maximum of 9th level). Unlike other metamagic feats, Heighten Spell actually increases the effective level of the spell that it modifies. All effects dependent on spell level (such as saving throw DCs and ability to penetrate a lesser globe of invulnerability) are calculated according to the heightened level.

lets take the fireball example, if we maximize it and heighten the spell by 3 levels, then the spell's level is increased by 6 while it's effective level is increased by 3. The further 3 spell level increases of maximize do not adjust the effective level of the spell in any way. It does not change the DC, etc. From this we can conclude that the heightened level mentioned in the feat does not refer to the spell slot required for the spell, but to the original level of the spell + the amount of levels by which you have heightened the spell, as 3+3 != 9. It is the FAQ about Heighten spell, mentioned by Diego, which allows us to draw this conclusion.

then add magical lineage:

Pick one spell when you choose this trait. When you apply metamagic feats to this spell that add at least 1 level to the spell, treat its actual level as 1 lower for determining the spell's final adjusted level.

Magical lineage says to treat it's actual level (1 after heightened) as 1 lower for determining the spell's final adjusted level (so 0). As we just concluded thanks to the Heighten metamagic FAQ, the spells adjusted level is separate from the spells effective level.

So they are most certainly compatible. And Heighten spell most certainly has a cost in this case, that another feature then nullifies this cost does not mean that there was no cost. If you take a -1 penalty to attack and another feature gives you a +1 bonus, then this does not remove the penalty. Both the penalty and bonus are still present. It is no different when combining Heighten spell with magical lineage.

Corodix wrote:

Gaberlunzie wrote:

Nope, magical lineage can't reduce slot level beyond spell level. And a heightened spark is a 1st level spell.

This has been clarified several times, and is in the official FAQ.

You might want to reread that FAQ, it doesn't state what you say it states. Here it is:

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fn#v5748eaic9qns

FAQ wrote:

Can I use this trait to adjust a spell's effective level below the unmodified spell's original level?

No. For example, it won't allow you to alter a wizard's fireball into 2nd-level spell.

The unmodified spell's original level for spark, after modifying it with Heighten spell, is still 0, not 1. The modified spell level is 1. It doesn't matter how many metamagic feats you apply to it, the unmodified (so without any metamagic whatsoever) spell's original level remains unchanged.

So it can't reduce the level to below 0 as per the faq, but it can reduce it back to 0 just fine.

Not that FAQ, this FAQ:

FAQ wrote:

Heighten Spell: How does this spell combine with other metamagic feats and using higher-level slots for lower-level spells?

Heighten Spell is worded poorly and can be confusing. It lets you use a higher-level spell slot for a spell, treating the spell as if it were naturally a higher level spell than the standard version. Unlike Still Spell, which always adds +1 to the level of the spell slot used for a spell, Heighten Spell lets you decide increase a spell's level anywhere from +1 to +9, using a spell slot that is that many spell levels higher than the normal spell.

The language implies that the heightened spell uses whatever spell level is used to prepare or cast it, but the rules text was inherited from 3.5 and doesn't take into account (1) the normal rule allowing you to prepare a spell with a higher-level spell slot, and (2) combining it with other metamagic feats.

For (2), you can't apply Heighten Spell to a spell at no cost: any increase to the effective spell level of the spell must be tracked and paid for by using a higher-level spell slot, above and beyond any other spell level increases from the other metamagic feats.

Another way to look at (2) it is to add Heighten Spell first, then other metamagic feats. Continuing the above example, you'd first heighten the fireball to a 4th-level spell, then quicken it, which requires an 8th-level spell slot (fireball 4th level + quicken 4 levels). Or first heighten the fireball to a 5th-level spell, then quicken it, which requires a 9th-level spell slot (fireball 5th level + quicken 4 levels).

I don't see how what I proposed violates this FAQ. The bolded part is (note that I bolded a different section, the section you bolded I will discuss after this), as it says, another way to look at it. Add heighten first, then the other adjustments. So first heighten it to level 1, then reduce the required spell slot back to level 0 by adding magical lineage on top of it. This Faq clarifies that if you for example maximize a fireball and then heighten it so it requires a level 7 slot, then for the purpose of DCs and other effects it counts as a level 4 spell and not as a level 7 spell, as you only heightened it by one extra level, not by four.

now let's look at the part you bolded:
For (2), you can't apply Heighten Spell to a spell at no cost: any increase to the effective spell level of the spell must be tracked and paid for by using a higher-level spell slot, above and beyond any other spell level increases from the other metamagic feats.

Heighten spell is not applied at no cost in the flare example, the cost is that the spell requires a level 1 slot instead of a level 0 slot. Then after heighten spell is applied we apply magical lineage, reducing the cost by 1. Note that the above part clearly says that any increase to the effective level must be paid for using a higher-level spell slot, above and beyond any other spell level increases. There are no other increases here, only a reduction, so this section of the faq is not violated as it does not even apply in the first place. Also, this FAQ is a question about how heighten spell interacts with other metamagic feats, magical lineage is not even a metamagic feat.

Nope, magical lineage can't reduce slot level beyond spell level. And a heightened spark is a 1st level spell.

This has been clarified several times, and is in the official FAQ.

You might want to reread that FAQ, it doesn't state what you say it states. Here it is:

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fn#v5748eaic9qns

Can I use this trait to adjust a spell's effective level below the unmodified spell's original level?

No. For example, it won't allow you to alter a wizard's fireball into 2nd-level spell.

The unmodified spell's original level for spark, after modifying it with Heighten spell, is still 0, not 1. The modified spell level is 1. It doesn't matter how many metamagic feats you apply to it, the unmodified (so without any metamagic whatsoever) spell's original level remains unchanged.

If they make the healing effect depend on the spell level, then what's to stop you from using heighten spell with Magical Lineage?

Pick one spell when you choose this trait. When you apply metamagic feats to this spell that add at least 1 level to the spell, treat its actual level as 1 lower for determining the spell's final adjusted level.

A heightened spell has a higher spell level than normal (up to a maximum of 9th level). Unlike other metamagic feats, Heighten Spell actually increases the effective level of the spell that it modifies. All effects dependent on spell level (such as saving throw DCs and ability to penetrate a lesser globe of invulnerability) are calculated according to the heightened level.

So heighten spell increases the effective level of the cantrip to 1. All effects depending on spell level now work off that, including the healing.

haruhiko88 wrote:

Tendriculos for regen and acid resistance.

Tendriculos has regeneration 10 , isn't the spell limited to Regeneration 5 ?

Yes, so you only get regeneration 5 when becoming a Tendriculos, not 10, as described in the polymorph rules:

If the form you choose grants these benefits, or a greater ability of the same type, you gain the listed benefit.

You also get a couple of reach attacks and acid resistance 20.

An eidolon with 145hp at level 6? That's theoretically possible if he included his own hp using life link. At 18 con for the summoner, having rolled max at every level and having used his favored class bonus on hp, he'd get 78 from there. Then take an eidolon, at level 6 it has 5 HD (d10) and can have 18 con (13 base + two ability increase evolutions + ability increase from 4+ HD), that's max 70hp (note that this assumes the hp was rolled. normally half hp should always be used, maxing it out at 45 instead of 70. I once played a summoner and the DM houseruled it so I had to roll for hp, which went greatly in my favor..). Add in toughness on both for another 6 and 5 hp and we're at 159 hp. Add diehard so they can keep that up for longer. If he's a race with +2 con then that's another 6 hp he could have, 165 hp then.

Still, he'd need to have specialized quite heavily on constitution, rolled incredibly well on hp and possibly needs the Diehard feat. The rolled incredibly well part sounds really fishy, but the two characters I made have two 18s (without racials) which I rolled in front of everybody, so with dice you never know.

34 AC also isn't impossible for the eidolon. Assuming a level 6 quadruped, base AC is 19 with shield ally included. Add two improved natural armor evolutions and we're at 23. Add barkskin and we're at 26, Mage armor gets you to 30, Shield gets you to 32. A ring of deflection +2 and you're at 34. Evolutions for increased dex can also get it up further, as could taking the improved natural armor feat on the eidolon.

So it doesn't have to be cheating, but it's still very suspicious and the fact that the DM doesn't want to audit the characters is even more suspicious.

I think in this case you've only got 3 options.
Find another group.
Or make it absolutely clear to them that you are not enjoying the game, including why you aren't enjoying it (use the difficulty as your main reason, don't accuse them of cheating), then say you are taking a break until they return to playing a game with a more proper difficulty or until you are GM again.
Or join them in cheating as Claxon mentioned, maybe kill off your current character on purpose and then make something completely ridiculous, or say you spotted some errors in your current character and that you have fixed them.

Every level you can pick 1/6th of an arcana, once you have taken this favored class bonus six times you will have 6*1/6=1 Arcana, at that point you can pick your one extra Arcana. So you don't have to pick this favored class bonus six times in a row, you could also alternate it and take hp at uneven levels and 1/6th an arcana at even levels, resulting in your first extra Arcana at level 12. So make sure that you keep track of what you picked so far.

2) The Eldritch Heritage: Arcane Bloodline feat grants the Arcane Bond class feature. You already have that class feature, so you gain nothing (a it specifically states you cannot also select the Bonded Item). You cannot gain the same class feature twice, unless it is specifically stated (which it is not in this case).

So instead of stacking, the one with the highest effective wizard level would be the only one in effect?

Gregory Connolly wrote:

FAQ

They stopped that, you could by the wording of the retraining rules, but you can't anymore.

I don't see where the retraining rules have changed. Can you quote the PRD?

Just check the FAQ he linked, the very last line reads as follows:

Update 10/16/13: New ruling: You cannot use retraining to replace a base class level with a prestige class level.

You can find the same FAQ text on the PRD: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/more-character-options/retrai ning

What do you mean with familiar focused? Do you want to use Polymorph spells on your familiar? If so then you probably want a familiar with reasonable physical stats, or something which is hard to kill. An Inevitable, Arbiter could be nice, as it has regeneration and a nice dex. The regeneration can make it quite hard to kill, allowing you to more safely send it off into melee combat. Of course it does lose the regeneration when you polymorph it into another creature, as all Ex and Su abilities are lost. A small earth elemental could also be nice since it has a reasonable strength score, which you can then increase further by turning it into a larger creature, like a dragon.

I'm also not a native English speaker and after reading it I think that 1 works RAW.

If you first hit the target and then make him shaken, frightened or panicked, then this shaken, frightened, or panicked opponent was hit by you this round, thus he should become flat footed. As long as he becomes shaken, frightened or panicked in the same round in which you hit him, then the condition is met. It doesn't specify that the target must be under one of those conditions when you hit him, it only specifies that he must have been under one of these conditions at some point this round.

If the opponent had to be shaken, frightened or panicked at the moment that you hit him (as proposed in option 2) then why does it specify "this round"? Why doesn't it just say, "any shaken, frightened or panicked opponent hit by you is flat-footed until..."?

RAI on the other hand I think it's clear that it should be 2, the flavor text of the feat says as much. It would be great if they gave this feat some errata by removing "this round" from the text.

I wouldn't be too worried about healing as long as the cure spells are on your spell list. In that case you can use wands of cure light wounds in order to cover the healing part.
A druid or nature oriented oracle sounds like a good fit with the barbarian and ranger, of course you could also aim for something which fits with the wizard, as he/she seems the most out of place in the group so far. An alchemist could be an option which fits well with the wizard.

You get the bonus from Multitude of Talents and Improvisation on skills in which you have 0 ranks. Whether you can use the skill untrained, due to for example bardic knowledge, doesn't change the fact that you have 0 ranks in the skill. So I don't see why you wouldn't get the bonus.

I think it will work as long as you use the first alternative, to allow any sentient creature to supply the point of con. It's usually the mundanes, like fighters, whom need magic items, but they don't meet the prereqs for the craft feats. So they need the items but can't make them. Full casters on the other hand are much less dependent on magic items due to their spells, so they can make them but don't need them all that much. The fighter has a real problem there, what could he possibly offer to the wizard which is as valuable as the wizard's life force? So I'd certainly use the first alternative you mentioned.
As for the ability score, con is probably best as everybody needs that.

But I do see a problem. What if the mundanes sacrifice a lot of con to create magic items and then die due to their low con? If the party manages to salvage the items and the dead characters are replaced by new characters then effectively they haven't lost con while they have gained magic items.
So you might need something extra there. For example, how about making it so that if the one who supplied con to the item, when it was created, is dead, then the item's magic cannot be used until it is linked to somebody else's life force? In the above example this would mean that the new characters would have to sacrifice some of their con before the magic items could be used again. The evil caster might have a dungeon filled with low con slaves, which he used to create the magic items but has to keep alive if he wants to continue using the items. If an item remains unliked for a long enough time then it could lose all it's magic permanently, reverting to a mundane item. That way you can still keep the amount of magic items low. You could also introduce temporary damage to the crafter's casting stat (could take a few weeks/months to recover, spells don't help to recover from it) so they have to think carefully about what they create.

A wand of cure light wounds could be useful, it's 50 charges for 750 gold. But if none of the characters have invested in use magic device, or have cure light wounds on their spell list, then it could be hard to use.

2000 is quite cheap for such a ring. The ring can also be taken off when they don't need to healing, so it doesn't really take up a ring slot and really should be a no slot item, introducing the No Space Limitation cost (doubling the price). Or you'd need to put some limitation in place, for example that the ring only works when it's been worn for at least 24 hours.
You could also make it work along the lines of boots of teleportation, so X charges per day, which is what Remy also proposed. This way they won't have unlimited healing and they will still need to manage their resources. You could make the item upgradeable, so they can increase the charges/caster level/etc in the future.

If I'm not mistaken you'd then use the following to determine the price:
Command Word: Spell level × caster level × 1,800 gp
Charges per day: Divide by (5 divided by charges per day)
No space limitation: Multiply entire cost by 2

Assuming cure light wounds at caster level 5, 10 charges per day, it would come out at: 9000*(5/10)*2 = 36.000
5 charges instead of 10 halves the cost to 18.000.
Caster level 1 instead of five brings the cost down further to 3600 with five charges and 7200 with ten charges.
Making it a ring instead of a no slot item halves these costs.

Gregory Connolly wrote:

Many other posters have good advice, here is mine to add. I generally don't like playing PrCs unless you get early entry, because they are specifically designed not to be more powerful than a base character. Arcane Trickster is one of the worst in this regard because it is balanced against Rogue one of the weakest classes. I would retrain to Rogue 3/ Wizard (Scryer) 1/ Arcane Trickster 1 and get by without the benefits of Admixture school. Admixture is awesome but it works much better for someone who didn't give up 3 levels of casting. Your damage as a AT comes from sneak attack not feats and bloodline arcana. Spells like Acid Arrow and Scorching Ray can carry your sneak attack while Fireball and Burning Hands can't. I also think for a touch attack specialist like an AT Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot are important and Weapon Finesse is less so. Unless you plan on Chill Touch + sneak attack, you aren't going to have any reason to get in melee, and you have no real defense. I think the armor is a mistake as well. Mage Armor lasts 1 hour/level and Pearls of Power for 1st level spells are cheap.

The diviner SLA is a 3rd level SLA. By the ruling you need a 2nd level SLA. Basically, be a tiefling or aasmir variant class. Its more for Bloatmage or Eldritch Knight.

Otherwise, I believe the advice is sound.

The requirement is: Ability to cast mage hand and at least one arcane spell of 2nd level or higher.

The FAQ entry mentioned by Arachnofiend is for the core rule book, it's the following one:

Weapons, Two-Handed in One Hand: When a feat or other special ability says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon, does it get treated as one or two handed weapon for the purposes of how to apply the Strength modifier or the Power Attack feat?

If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on.

I've been in one TPK when we ran into the boss in Kingmaker's third book. The GM pulled a deus ex machina there just before we were all beaten, I could still have dimension doored out myself, but it was pretty much a TPK. We had already been one short by the time we arrived at the boss because the gnome inquisitor was turned into wyvern lunch just before we got to the dungeon. We also hadn't found a certain ring in that dungeon and didn't have anything to counter paralysis or dominate person, so we didn't stand much of a chance at all. These days I always grab dispel magic as a spell whenever I can. Some of the players in that group and the GM recently played RoRL and they had a TPK at the boss in book 2, something to do with half the party being turned into stone. Again nobody in the party had dispel magic.

Hrm. Hold on there a moment.

A 'melee attack' isn't an action.

Actions allow you to make them. So, melee attacks can be the result of an action, but are not themselves an action. They are the result of an action.

So, what does an attack of opportunity result in? A melee attack.

So, why isn't an AoO a type of action? it seemed to be grouped with all the other types of actions which can grant one (or more) melee attacks.

Let's look at the rules behind an AoO:

So you say that a melee attack isn't an action, by that logic a ranged attack also isn't an action, right? So a ranged attack can never provoke an attack of opportunity because, as per the AoO rules, only actions can provoke an attack of opportunity.
Eh, wait, as we all know every ranged attack in a full attack provokes, if you fire 3 arrows then you provoke 3 attack of opportunity. so it's not the full attack which provokes but each separate ranged attack as each action can only provoke once. As, according to the AoO rules, only actions provoke, each ranged attack is an action. So we've got ourselves a contradiction here.
The 'Table: Actions in Combat' table further reinforces this, it mentions what can and can't provoke, but as per the AoO rules, only actions can provoke, thus everything mentioned in this table must be an action. Note that the table clearly says that a full attack cannot provoke, but the full attack where 3 arrows were fired did provoke. That is because the full attack was a composite action, which contains several other actions (3 ranged attack actions in this case).

Thus each melee attack must be a separate action, because the alternative would result in the above contradiction. This means that the attack made as part of an attack of opportunity is also an action.

Depends. Flying creatures can run just fine with their fly speed as the Run action does not contain any restrictions on which types of speed do and don't work (so no legs required, else it would have said land speed instead of just speed), but creatures flying by using the Fly spell cannot use their fly speed to run. Was the fly spell used in the crafting process in order to give the wagon the ability to fly? If so then I'd agree with your GM, as the spell specifically says that you cannot run with the fly speed given by the spell.

A Summoner's Eidolon can spend 4 evolution points to get magical flight, which does not have any restrictions on Running like the Fly spell does, so such an Eidolon can use his fly speed with Run.

Quatar said wrote:

Charging while flying isn't normally possible. why? Because of the Flying rules and how they interact in the game, not because it can be concluded from interpretation of certain abilities that give a bonus when "actually" charging while flying.

And where do these flying rules say that you cannot charge while flying? The charge rules say that you can move up to twice your speed, the charge rules do not have any limitations on which kinds of speeds can and cannot be used so it's either all speeds, or none. If it's none then nobody can charge, obviously not the case, so it works with all speeds.

Now where do the flying rules, or the swimming rules for that matter, counter this, by saying that you cannot charge while flying/swimming?

The charge rules enable you to charge with any speed, not a specific speed type, and the flying rules do not override the charge rules by disallowing the usage of the fly speed for charging.

You also mention fly spell contradictions, but there are no contradictions there. The fly spell says you can charge but not run. This clears up that you can only fly up to 120ft per round (2 move actions or a charge), but no more, unless you are descending. Normally when running you go beyond your usual speed, but with this spell it isn't possible to do that, but you can still charge.

Aerial Charge also isn't a contradiction.
"When airborne, a derhii can dive at twice its normal flying speed. This is the equivalent of a charge, granting a +2 bonus on the attack roll and a -2 penalty to AC."
This ability says that diving down at twice your normal flying speed is equivalent to a charge, and grants you a +2 bonus on attack and -2 to AC. Just because they are equivalent doesn't mean they are the same thing. This dive is the equivalent of a charge, but it missing the restriction that you have to move in a straight line, like with a charge. That is because it isn't equal to a charge, just equivalent. The dive could be a curve where you start going down steep to pick up speed, and in the latter part move more horizontally.

Actually, the Mythic Griffon's Power Dive ability you mentioned doesn't contain an exception saying that the Griffon can charge while flying, it just gives the Griffon a bonus when doing so. So considering that ability only gives a bonus when doing so, one could conclude that you can always charge while flying and that that Griffon is just better at it.
Same with Kongamato's Wailing Dive (Su), it says "When a kongamato makes a charge while flying". It doesn't give that creature the ability to charge while flying, so it must already be possible to charge while flying. Again same with the Snallygaster's Aerial Charge ability.
The death from above feat also says "when you charge an opponent from above while flying".

The fly spell says you can charge but not run while flying. So maybe the point there is to restrict your movement ability by removing the ability to run while flying, while making it clear that charging still works?
As for the Aerial Charge (Ex) ability of the derhii. That ability says you can dive at twice your normal speed and that it's equivalent of a charge in that it grants +2 attack and -2 ac, but it doesn't specify that it also carries the other restrictions of a charge. After all if it was equal to a charge then why mention the +2 attack and -2 ac at all? The fact that they mentioned that makes it clear that the other restrictions, like having to move in a straight line, do not apply. Thus it doesn't work exactly like a charge, but is instead better, and cannot be used to conclude that charging while flying isn't normally possible.

So from all those abilities and feats and the fly spell, I'd conclude that you can charge and run (except when using the fly spell) while flying, otherwise none of those feats would do anything. Those abilities give a bonus when charging while flying, but they don't grant you the ability to charge while flying. There would be no point for those creatures to have those special abilities if charging while flying isn't possible..

You might find this topic interesting: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pga0&page=1?Synthesist-Reborn

There they also rebuild the synthesist summoner and one of the things they did is that it's more like polymorph effects. for example the eidolon gives an enhancement bonus to your physical stats instead of replacing them. Instead of getting temporary hitpoint it simply increases your constitution. They also make some things, like pounce, available from level 4 instead of level 1. I'm using that rebuild synthesist summoner version now and it's working quite well so far and it's very clear how it works, compared to the mess which is the standard synthesist summoner.

I think your own idea goes too far on the armor nerfs as Kolokotroni mentioned. Not to sure about not being able to cast spells either. A druid can do it with a feat, why not add a feat for the synthesist summoner so he can do the same?

I also think your ability stat changes are a bit too severe. I'd advice to look closer at the scaling of Wildshaping and to add scaling like that. Or check how they do it in the topic I linked, there the str/dex bonus scales from +1 at level 2 to +8 at level 20 and they are enhancement bonuses, so they do not scale with items like belts. The chosen base type adds a bit more to it at level 1 and 3 (Biped adds a total of 4 str and 4 con, while Quadruped adds 2 str, 2 dex and 4 con). The constitution enhancement bonus never goes beyond four, which is plenty of extra hp.
For comparison, a druid can, using wildshape to turn into a huge elemental, with elemental body he can get +8 str, or +6 con. For the druid they are all size bonuses, so they stack with the enhancement bonuses from belts. That +8 str can easily become +14, or the +6 con can become +12 con. And the druid can still cast 9th level spells while wildshaped too.