Diminutive Titan's page

Have you considered to make your character middle aged?

A -1 to all your physical ability scores wouldn't decrease their modifiers any further yet a +1 to all your mental scores could help you a great deal.

You could try to build a character that is pretty much built around surviving anything.

High saves, AC and tons of HP. High grapple CMD/CMB and ranks in Skills like Escape Artist.

Have some spells/special abilties that help you avoid danger or easily get out of hazardous situations like teleportation.

If surprise lethal attacks are a GM favourite... make sure you're paranoid enough to cast spells like Alarm or Magic Mouth.

Well you're a wizard, you can cast spells like Secret Chest.

I think it's worth it when you're a human character with an extra feat to spend whom intends to get the best out of the exotic weapon in question. Now obviously a lot of races get access to nice exotic weapons, so always check if you can do it via that route first.

I think the Exotic weapon proficiency is worth it when it's a good weapon (either gives you access to a tactic you otherwise couldn't do, has a high crit or special maneuver bonus) and it's one you can't get via race.

I like the idea of using a throwing shield or bola to trip enemies at range, especially if the weapon is Returning and you have feats like Distance Thrower and/or Far Shot.

Perhaps a cleric with the Knowledge domain or the Thought subdomain.

Clerics have access to plenty of divination spells and the domain gives some standard thought detection powers.

You could pick a domain that complements the Thoughts domain such as Charm or Trickery.

I am wondering why Fighters, Monks, Barbarians, Rogues are not in the list of permitted classes?

Wouldn't a melee focused Dragon Disciple build work brilliantly for you?

Barbarian / Sorcerer... gets all the utility from Sor/Wiz spells and you get to claw away at enemies, a breath weapon... Str bonuses, Con bonuses, Natural armor bonuses.

EDIT: Melee focused Bard going into Dragon Disciple could also be very interesting.

I think it is best to make up your own Homebrew setting but letting it be inspired by the games you mentioned.

Trying to copy an existing setting and plot (especially from a different more linear medium like a video game or movie) might turn out very differently from what you intend it to be. Don't expect your players to follow the intended plot too much, they often want to go on their own adventures, and can be very unpredictable.

It's okay to build a campaign based upon existing games, because it helps in generating a setting quickly, but I would advise you to at the very least change the names of places, creatures and people. If players recognize the games and start drawing the parallel with the Pathfinder world, it invites them to start metagaming.

You might also want to become an item-hoarder, storing any tools, mechanical objects, machinery and all kinds of magic items.

Get a handy haversack and/or portable hole, and eventually create your own demiplane to store stuff safely.

You need to be able to summon these things whenever you need them.
Do a good bookkeeping to keep track of everything you're carrying around.

Wizard (Foresight) with bonded object: Amulet
Cleric (Luck, Travel)

As a divination school specialist you get an incredible school power, and you get a lot of utility spells that provide your party enormous amounts of information. You could choose Evocation and Necromancy as opposition schools, as these school provide few utility spells.
The Sor/Wiz spell list has plenty of utility spells, especially in the Divination and Transmutation schools. I immediately think of spells like Rope Trick, Tiny Hut and Detect Thoughts. It might actually be fun to take Spell Mastery with spells like Minor / Major Creation and Fabricate, since you can simply instantly create any utility object you would need at any given time. Spells like Telekinesis, Wall of Stone and the (Forceful) Hand spells will be major assets to your spell allotment.

As a cleric with the Luck domain you get an amazing domain power at 1st level. The Bit of Luck power will help you and your party members succeed at the most important rolls. It also has plenty of useful spells. The Travel domain gives some extra utility in teleportation spells.
As a cleric you can provide your party with a tremendous amount of debuff-removers, ability healing and protection spells. You might even keep your Wisdom modifier lower than your Int since you should mainly focus on non-offensive cleric spells.

For race I would recommend playing a Human, for extra skill points, a bonus feat and +2 in Intelligence. As a favored class bonus, I would choose the extra skill point at each level.

Put ranks in Spellcraft and Knowledge skills. After all, as a Utility focused spellcaster you'll need to have a lot of understanding of what is going on in the world around you, in order to prepare accordingly.

Taking Craft feats also makes you useful, but I would stick with Craft Wondrous Items and Craft Magic Arms and Armour. You don't really need all of the other craft feats. Just put a lot of ranks in Craft (alchemy) and perhaps even Use Magic Device if you can.

I must say I find the idea very daring and it's surely going to leave a GM and party members baffled.

There are 3 things in this class going for you and those are:

1. a high Will save (full class progression plus having Wis as a primary stat)
2. a familiar
3. Some interesting spells

My two cents:
1. Put all your points into Wis and Con, followed by Int and Dex. Dump Str and Cha.
You will need a high Wisdom to make your spells hard to resist and hit, and you need Con not only to boost your HP and Fort saves, but also the HP of you familiar as well. For race, I would personally pick Dwarf. They get a lot of resistances to make up for having only a Will save, and they got all the stat bonuses in the right places.

2. Put all your ranks in Spellcraft and Use Magic Device, perhaps a Knowledge skill or two if you have the points left.

3. Take Improved Familiar and perhaps a teamwork feat like Improved Spell Sharing or something that enhances your familiar in the best way possible. Get the best familiar available, like an Imp.

Still, you are truly fighting an uphill battle. This class isn't just suboptimal it's really mega underpowered. Mystic Theurge is probably a better idea overall for a similar character.

Instead of making a super tactically appropriate character and casually rolling with that, you could also try to figure out what 'fun' really means to you in a PF game in general, and then build a spellcaster that sort of creates 'fun moments' for you as much as possible. Although that sounds like 'Arcane Clown' to some... that's not necessarily what I mean.

In my personal experience, playing a highly mechanically effective character is only 25% of the fun. So what defines 'fun' the other 75%? Well, it's hard to define. In my mind, the ideal 'fun' position while playing PF is a position where you are actively contributing to the progress of the game and the campaign, and do your best in and out of combat, but still have fun when you fail at it.

If you're just going to play a 'battlefield-control optimized spellcaster' you're going to expect your character to succeed most of the time. But what if you're simply having bad luck and have a session filled with bad rolls? What if your GM has an unfortunate taste in enemy creatures and characters that happen to have a lot of magic resistance? Poop happens sometimes, but you might end up sobbing that your uber optimized character just ain't cutting it.

So I always try to figure out for myself what "kind" of character I'd want to play and what "kind of stuff" it would be cool to have him do and be good at as much as possible. For me, that's step 1. Numbercrunching is step 2.

Not too long ago I made a Dwarven Wizard called 'Rustbeard' who had a Goat Familiar named 'Gertrude Ophelia Ann Theodora". He used the Improved Spell Sharing teamwork feat to make himself and the goat both shoot fire from their eyes (very satanically of course) with the Burning Gaze spell, or send enemies flying with the Force Punch spell. His craft skills were so amazing that he could make rare masterwork goat cheese and cashmere and sell it for stupendous amounts to aristocrats. He'd also take spells like Strangling Hair but instead call it 'Strangling Beard'. Meanwhile, he cast a lot of [earth] descriptor spells, which I thought was flavourful for a dwarven wizard, and even if there aren't many spells in that category, there are enough good choices like Tremor Blast, Shifting Sands, Transmute Rock to Mud / Mud to Rock, to make it fun and worthwhile.

Even if sometimes I failed to strangle a creature to death with my beard, I was definitely having fun trying. Even if the goat sometimes couldn't burn down a bad guy by staring at them very angrily, I still had fun imagining the situation. When I was busy crafting magic arms and armour with aid of my familiar, I imagined the goat would headbutt the armourplates into shape. I had fun when I saw the look on the face of my GM and party members when the goat sent a BBEG flying into a crevasse with a Force Punch.

I can understand you don't want to spend too much time with character building, especially if it's a group that big with many rookie players.

But I think trying to balance out the iconics is just as time consuming and confusing as helping everyone build their first character. Although not all iconics are great, there are always power differences in characters by default. I mean at level 1 it's not surprising that the Barbarian kicks everybody's ass square twice.

And even if some iconics sorta suck, they don't fail to explain the game and how a particular class works and plays.

If I were you and time really wasn't on my side:

For an explanatory game of Pathfinder RPG, with the promise that players can build their own characters later when they feel up for it, I would just hand them the iconics. I would also warn them that some characters are a little weaker than others, but that it's also probably going to be like that always and everybody gets some chance to shine at some point. Balancing is nice but it's not always a prerequisite in having a good time. Roleplaying and having fun is key, especially if you're playing locally where everybody's sitting around the table, waiting until their turn comes up.

Well, even in case they agree, they might not be totally aware of the consequences. It's an interesting idea for sure, but I'd add a safety mechanism: If the player is really unhappy with his character, he is free to replace him once, keeping his XP and wealth (with different items).

You're right.

I still think Valandil Ancalime's system is most interesting when considering 'random vs. balance' and still allows for both (usually) MAD and (sometimes) SAD characters.

Let's say I would use that system, with a few adjustments. To summarize:

*edited*

There are 18 paper cards, each contains a single number from 1 to 6.
The total of the cards is always a certain number, so every player has an equal amount of points spread out over his/her ability scores, just like with a point-buy system.

Let's say the available cards come in the following frequencies:

[1] ×1
[2] ×2
[3] ×3
[4] ×3
[5] ×4
[6] ×6

With that particular setup, that amounts to a total of 82 points. That is an average of 82/6 = 13.667 for each stat.

A player distributes these cards blindly over their six stats. Three cards for each stat.
Then reveal their contents. That results in their initial Stat array, before racials.

To be a sweet GM, let's say they

A) need to have at least one 16 for the stat array to be legal
B) can swap one pair of stats around
C) are allowed to put a +1 in one of the stats at first level, like when you reach 4th level.

I think that is both random and fair.

With this system, I just got the following three stat arrays in a row:

A)

Str 9
Dex 11
Con 12
Int 16
Wis 14
Cha 15

With a free +1 to put on any one stat and the choice to swap one pair around, before racials or age modifiers.

B)
First, I got two illegal stat arrays that were too spread out and had no 16 or higher.

Str 8
Dex 11
Con 15
Int 17
Wis 12
Cha 15

With a free +1 to put on any one stat and the choice to swap one pair around, before racials or age modifiers.

C)
Str 15
Dex 11
Con 15
Int 6
Wis 13
Cha 17

With a free +1 to put on any one stat and the choice to swap one pair around, before racials or age modifiers.

My two cents: Actually quite a lot of viable options with every stat array, thanks to the ability to swap a pair around, and being able to choose race. If I would add the ability to let players also swap complete stat arrays with each other, that should probably mitigate any remaining issues and make everyone happy I think. Perhaps none of these stat arrays are optimal for regular builds, but then again that's also sort of the point to trigger the creativity.

17

10
10
11
11
9

I guess i become a Big Stupid Fighter, there is not much i can do with that ;)

Not to worry, that stat array wouldn't have been legal by far. Needed to have a total modifier of +6. See my previous reply to InVinoVeritas. Anyway forget it because my current system is much better.

I still think Valandil Ancalime's system is most interesting when considering 'random vs. balance' and still allows for both (usually) MAD and (sometimes) SAD characters.

Let's say I would use that system, with a few adjustments. To summarize:

*edited*

There are 18 paper cards, each contains a single number from 1 to 6.
The total of the cards is always a certain number, so every player has an equal amount of points spread out over his/her ability scores, just like with a point-buy system.

Let's say the available cards come in the following frequencies:

[1] ×1
[2] ×2
[3] ×3
[4] ×3
[5] ×4
[6] ×6

With that particular setup, that amounts to a total of 82 points. That is an average of 82/6 = 13.667 for each stat.

A player distributes these cards blindly over their six stats. Three cards for each stat.
Then reveal their contents. That results in their initial Stat array, before racials.

To be a sweet GM, let's say they

A) need to have at least one 16 for the stat array to be legal
B) can swap one pair of stats around
C) are allowed to put a +1 in one of the stats at first level, like when you reach 4th level.

I think that is both random and fair.

Let's see...

4d6 Str 7
4d6 Dex 12
4d6 Con 10
4d6 Int 12
4d6 Wis 17
4d6 Cha 10

High score 17, total bonus +3. This is a legal character.

I can definitely make a dwarf caster cleric out of this. Heavy armor all the way, otherwise standing back and casting debuffs on the enemy.

Actually, that wouldn't be a legal character using the initial system I posted, because it has the prerequisite that the average modifier needs to be at least +1. (Not the total modifier) This character would have an average modifier of 3/6 = +0.5

Regardless, I think this system, like others have pointed out, is wonky simply because it's rolled and has a potential for Hercules versus sidekick characters in the group.

Fun stats?

20 point buy, nothing below 8.

You said fun right? I have fun when I can build the character I want and be effective.

I guess I should have written a more specific thread title.

Great input everyone! Thank you!

Rolling does lead to degrees of imbalance, even with a bunch of safety measures.

I intended to keep the power level as equal as possible for each party member, but to have a random stat array where people are challenged to be creative with their given stat array.

I think Valandil Ancalime's and Shiroi's suggestions appeal to me most in that regard.

I have a DM that gives us a 16,16,14,14,12,10 stat array. Assign how you want. If you wanted to make characters with good power but a need to build the class around the stats, you could instead assign these same stats randomly.

Assign each stat in order by rolling a percentile for each stat. Highest two percentile rolls get the 16s, next two highest get the 14s, 5th down gets the 12, and last place gets a 10.
This method gives everyone the same, above average, stat array but forces the interesting character choices of a random distribution of your stats. Other stat blocks could be created and assigned in similar fashion based on the power level of your preference.

Sounds great for my purposes, but one thing worries me here, and that is MAD versus SAD... because the given stat array seems to favor MAD-characters.

So true. Some players just want to play 1 or 2 types of characters and will be extremely unhappy if forced out of their comfort zone.
I would be ok with the "In order" part, but less so with the "rolling dice" part. I seriously dislike rolling dice for stats because you are likely to end up with Hercules(near demigod stats) and his mortal companions(average stats), with a sidekick/comic relief(barely acceptable stats) character.
We use cards instead of dice. Take 12 or 18 cards whose total values add up to the power level you want. Divide them evenly to the stats and add them up. Everyone has the same power level but distributed randomly across their stats.
We generally allow players to swap 2 stats to allow for the "I only play 1 type of character" player. We use;
1 x2
2 x2
3 x3
4 x3
5 x4
6 x4 = 71 (11.8 per stat).

Wait, I didn't quite get how this card system works exactly? I get that it's sort of a point buy with a random factor but could you explain in more detail exactly how these cards look and how many the player can pick?

EDIT: Okay I get how many cards there are and what they look like, but I don't get how exactly the rest of this system works.

EDIT2: Okay, wait, I think I figured it out now. It's blindly distributed over the stats until every card is used up, that's why there is 12 or 18. Haha, sometimes I can be a bit dense.

I would politely decline to play in that campaign. My idea of fun does not include re-rolling multiple times to get a viable character, only to not be able to play the type of character I wanted.

I think it's very important for this reason that players need to be informed beforehand and wholeheartedly agree to it. A lot of players have a preferred playstyle and I realize that this system simply wouldn't work out for that type of player.

I do notice that I have to re-roll quite a few times before I reach a stat array that fits all the prerequisites.

Str 15
Dex 13
Con 13
Int 8
Wis 14
Cha 18

This one's pretty high on average. Looks like a Bard to me. Or an (aberrant?) Sorcerer with shapeshifting and bad-touch ambitions. Battle Oracle? Maybe even Cleric with a heavy focus on Channeling Energy. Paladin could also work. With this kind of stat array your options are a lot more varied.

I got:

Str 14
Dex 11
Con 10
Int 14
Wis 17
Cha 13

Looks like a good fit for a cleric, but it wouldn't be too hard to turn it into a mystic theurge. Say a human, bonus into intelligence for a 16, then go wizard 3/cleric 3/mystic theurge 10. It's not something I normally do, so that's actually pretty cool.

Mystic Theurge does become an interesting option indeed. The potential is there at least! I would probably try and focus on offensive cleric spells and defensive / buffing / summoning wizard spells, since Wisdom is a stronger stat.

Personally, with this stat array, I'd probably play a support cleric. Normally clerics have little use for intelligence but with this stat array it might actually be worth getting a Trickery or Knowledge domain and put those extra skill ranks to use. Maybe a Halfling cleric with the Trickery Domain is pretty cool. A religious thief? Maybe elf would be even better.

One of the guys in our group really didn't like doing this, but we adjusted it slightly and allowed him to swap one pair of stats which seemed to be enough flexibility for him (he just hates having a low dexterity). Might be worth bearing in mind as an option.

It's definitely a good option to fix the totally broken stat arrays. Thanks :)

It's not something I normally do, so that's actually pretty cool.

Which is one of the things I think is fun about this! :D

The 16 minimum made me reroll. (Or was it the intent to make the highest ability a 16 if you didn't have one?) Point buy: 27, not bad! One thing I like about rolling stats is not having to min-max your point buy.

You did it the right way. The intent is to re-roll if there is no 16, you don't automatically get a 16 if you didn't roll one.

Hello everyone,

I'm probably going to start a homebrew campaign quite soon with five players. All of them have considerable experience in Pathfinder.

Now I was thinking that since they kind of know their way around optimizing a character (although they're not necessarily powerplayers by default) it would be fun to try an experimental way of rolling stats. Which would work as follows:

You may roll 4d6 six times, and take away the lowest die every time. The average modifier over six stats needs to be at least a +1, and you need to have at least one 16. Now here's the catch:
The first number they roll goes into Strength, the second into Dexterity, etc. They cannot switch the numbers around the different ability scores. They will have to build an effective character around the potentially oddball stats they have.

Obviously, I understand that this is limiting players tremendously in their freedom to build whatever character they want, and might end up in a weird party composition. but I talked to most of the players about this and they seem pretty interested and up for a challenge.

I'm wondering if any of you have experience with similar rolling systems, or how some of you guys would work with this?

I've tried a couple of rolls myself and sometimes I end up with weird sets like only a high Dex and Con and pretty much nothing else ;P or maybe a character that has pretty nice stats overall but both a low Dex and Con (both of which are usually stats that never go below 10)

Could you share your thoughts?
Even maybe roll some stats with this system and then think about what kind of character you would build around it? I've tried some myself but I'm curious what others end up with.

Allowed material is pretty much anything in the Paizo official material but not campaign-specific material.

EDIT: Oh, and Core Races only!

It also depends on your party composition. If there are familiars and/or animal companions in your party, then I would say craft feats like Craft Wondrous Items and Craft Magic Arms and Armor suddenly become great. It can be very costly and hard to find all kinds of protective items for extra critters. The feats give you the opportunity to make them yourself for half price.

Try to think of it this way: You could get any items without these feats, but with the feat you can get them as soon as you can make them, and for half price. It's basically selling your feat slots.

If it's a really hard choice because you were planning on getting a combat feat important to your character, then go for the combat feat. Craft feats are nice, but no must-haves.

It's not a Barbarian, but a Belkzen War Drummer Skald has a nice bonus with them.

Otherwise, I am looking forward to the Weapon Master's Handbook for weapon style feats to make sub-par weapons more attractive.

Perhaps I'll just be a total badass and spend feats to improve a sub-par weapon, just for shock value.

There's a Skald archetype specializing in it. You can be an ooga booga style primitive.

That's actually pretty cool, going to need to read up on Skalds, haven't tried them before or seen them in action.

I play a goliath druid that uses a club with shilleligh, I feel your pain.

Yeah it's a shame it doesn't work on greatclubs, but oh well. Rules are rules!

Stick shark teeth to it and call it a Great Terbutje, if you get good with it, i.e. exotic weapon prof, it can be used 1 handed. If you have that you can make it a Really Great Terbutje for -2 to hit to have a 2d8 two handed beat stick 19-20 crit.

Put that in the hands of a Natures Fang druid with the natural weapon combat style to pick up vital strike at 6 and improved at 10 with impact enchantment and enlarge person of some flavor and you have a very scary beat stick on a 9th level caster.

Now that you mention shark teeth I suddenly get inspiration for a totally different character.

Start saving right goddang now and buy a Maul of the Titans, the greatest greatclub ever printed. Check out the Gatecrasher sections in my Doorbreaker's Guide and tear right through this paper-thin world!

This guide is really funny! Mad props! Lots of interesting recommendations for gatecrashers indeed.

So I wanted to play a primitive barbarian, the dull type, maybe with the true primitive archetype. I kind of want to be a boss with a greatclub. But it's just so bad it seems! Does anyone know any special things that can be done with greatclubs?

I'd recommend playing a Small-sized Cavalier because it kind of circumvents the size issue. Gnomes and Halflings make excellent Order of the Sword-cavaliers.

You could also choose to play a Medium-sized cavalier whose Mount functions more like an Animal Companion as in, you simply don't ride it so you don't have the size-issues. It also makes your mount a nice flank buddy. You'll still need some backup plans if you have to cross environmental hazards.

If you really want to be a mountless Knight in shining armor I'd recommend just playing a Fighter or Paladin and choosing your feats and equipment to fit your playing style and character flavour.

I'd embrace the Cavalier's mount personally, I mean it's just one of the class's major plusses.

Thanks for all the replies and good advice!

Let's just assume the player uses Flaming Sphere and Burning Gaze a lot. These spells specifically state that objects and creatures catch on fire. Perhaps I could simply limit the effect to clothing, hair and flammable objects in the environment. It would make sense though that if an evil wizards or alchemists backpack is on fire his AlchemistsFire would basically explode on the spot. Perhaps I should only roll saves for such relevant objects and only in a secondary round of being on fire.

I'm a new GM looking to play with new players. One of them likely intends to play a blasty character around the element of fire. I was reading up on the rules of Catching on Fire and saw that I have to roll a save for every single object or piece of equipment. I predict this will slow down the game tremendously. How do I solve that? Perhaps it goes a bit faster with items carried on person because they use the possessers save. But how about unattended objects? How do I even know what kind of saves objects have?

Life Oracle into Rage Prophet, great advice! I'm going to look into it.

I was wondering if I could make a character work that is basically a damage sponge.

At first I was thinking a Dwarf Barbarian (invulnerable rager) with maxed out Con and Toughness feat. Just to gain a lot of HP and make Rages last really long. His rage powers would be things like Renewed Vigor and Regenerative Vigor and he'd have rage powers eventually like Boasting Taunt and Come and Get Me. Probably add in some feats that are particularly enemy-luring.

Add in some back up potions of Bear's Endurance, False Life, and whatnot.

But then I was thinking: That's mostly self-protection. And if the enemy is smart enough to go around me, what ways are there to literally suck up the damage that is done to other characters...?

I came across the spell Shield Other... and it got me thinking.
Is there any other way to redirect damage done to other creatures to yourself? Or something else that adjusts or negates the damage intake to creatures other than yourself?

How would you build a damage sponge?

Don't forget that the Trickery Domain gives a 2nd level Clerical SLA. You could go Cleric 1 Wizard 3 Mystic Theurge 10.

How is Copycat a 2nd level SLA?

I don't think this works.

Redneckdevil wrote:

Meaning wants to hold a charge but doesnt want to lose a natural attack with a paw or jaws?

Holding a charge without losing the claw/claw/bite attack is what I'm guessing he wants.

Now by his logic, it wouldn't be much different than saying I'm holding a charge in my knee, and when I need it I'll bring my knees together.

From the Combat rules section:

He cannot store a spell charge in different body parts. A charge is held throughout the character's entire body.

He can hold the charge and attack an enemy, but if he does so the spell would discharge on the enemy. If he misses, he does not lose the charge, but is in risk of discharging the spell again on the enemy if the enemy hits him.

Failing to make a touch attack does not fizzle the spell. If it was the round you cast the spell it becomes a held charge (Why? Because you did not discharge the spell - and you may now hold the charge indefinitely). If it was a held charge it continues to be a held charge.

PRD wrote:

Holding the Charge: ... You can continue to make touch attacks round after round...

This would be a meaningless line if a failed touch attack fizzled a held charge. (This applies to more than the two spells that have multiple charges associated with them).

Ah yes! You are right, I stand corrected.

Even if the creatures makes his save, after the spell hits, either through a touch attack or channeled through a regular attack: The charge you were holding is gone.

To do it again, you'd have to cast Cure X Wounds again (which you cannot do in Leopard form unless you have the Natural Spell feat), then you'd have to hold the charge again, and then you'd have to do a regular attack again if you wanted to get both your attack damage and the spell damage.

It will allow you to hurt Undead creatures extra badly in one attack but in terms of action economy, it would not have mattered if you had seperately attacked and seperately cast the spell and delivered it as a touch attack.

For this reason, the whole tactic of a druid holding the charge of a cure spell, turning into a leopard, and delivering the spell to an undead creature, seems to me like a really complex and relatively non-useful tactic UNLESS it was a one-time touch and go situation.

EDIT: The Touch Attack Flowchart

Cast cure or other touch spell > Use immediately? > Yes (A) / No (B)

(A) You cast and use the spell in the same round you cast it, delivering it as a touch attack that targets touch AC. Do you hit? > Yes (D) / No (B)

(B) You hold the charge

After (B), you can either choose to do (A) at a later time, or deliver your charge through a regular attack, be it unarmed or natural (C). The way I read the rules as written, is that if you are attacked when you hold a charge, the spell discharges on your attacker, willing or unwilling.

(C) You do a regular attack (unarmed or natural) and discharge the touch spell through your attack. In this case, you target normal AC, not touch AC. Do you hit? > Yes (D) / No (E)

(D) You hit, you always lose the charge, whether or not the enemy makes his save or not. The only exceptions are spells like Chill Touch that allow multiple touches per casting of the spell.

(E) You miss. The spell does not discharge, you do not lose the charge.

PRD (the official one) wrote:

You don't have to worry about www.d20pfsrd.com not providing correct information, even if it's not the "official" page. It's just a different layout, really.

It doesn't discharge if it doesn't hit. Tell me which part says "missing with the free touch attack fizzles the spell"

EDIT:

No one is claiming or contesting this, bringing it up is only going to cause confusion...

Sorry for confusing you then, I just thought it'd help clarify how holding the charge works. I was simply pointing out a common misinterpretation of these rules.

Touch spells and their attacks are a bit confusing overall, but I have experience in this because I played an Aberrant sorcerer once.

You should also keep in mind that when you hold the charge for a cure spell, you cannot keep making cure touches one after another.

Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action.

You could touch all of your allies in a full-round action, but the Cure spell would discharge only on the first person you touch.

This rule only really matters for spells such as Chill Touch, which grant you multiple touches for a single casting of the spell depending on your caster level.

I've seen people abuse the confusion around these rules to cast cure light wounds 6 times in a full round action with only one casting. I don't mean to imply that is the intention but I just wanted to clarify this just in case.

However, this is only true when you deliver the touch spell through a regular attack (unarmed or natural).

If you only want to deliver the touch attack without the regular attack, and THEN you miss, the spell is just a miss and it fizzles.

The difference is that the regular attack is aimed at AC, and the touch attack always targets Touch AC. Touch AC is usually much lower and you'll have a much higher chance to hit, which is nice for wizards and such.

From the Combat section in the SRD:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat

"Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge."

Tell me where it says it's not true for a cure spell? If I'm holding a cure spell and attack an undead, and miss, you're saying the spell just fizzles?

I think that the spell only discharges when you actually hit. If you had intentionally touched the undead creature as a touch attack, then the spell would fizzle on a miss.

So a leopard can held the charge in a paw or even its bite, but not in his tail.

It is not true that a touch spell absolutely must be done with a limb or appendage that a creature can 'attack' with.

That would imply that wizards would have to make unarmed strikes against everything they wanted to touch, but that's not true. They can deliver the spell by a mere touch.

I can't imagine that it would truly matter whether a wizard delivered the spell through his little finger or whether he'd deliver it by pulling down his pants and bumping the target with his bum.

Although that would of course be pretty weird!

The same applies to the leopard form. As I stated in my post above I think this is possible but the druid should understand that he cannot hold the charge of a cure spell in his tail, then attack with its paws and not deliver the cure spell to the target.

They way I read the R.A.W., you hold a charge with your entire body, not a single limb or appendage, because that would be cheating of some sorts.

I thought that when a character 'holds a charge' it is always immediately discharged as a touch attack (whether or not willing or unwilling) as soon as the character holding the charge touches or gets touched by any other creature, regardless of where he or she is touched.

From the SRD:

Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.

In my mind, the druid in leopard form would automatically cure the first thing it attacks.
That would mean: The druid can deliver the cure spell with his tail, prehensile or not, whenever he likes, HOWEVER, if he dared touch an enemy or get hit by an enemy in the meantime, that would mean the spell would discharge and the enemy would be healed instead.

"You can continue to make touch attacks round after round" only applies to spells such as chill touch, where you can make multiple attacks with one touch spell. This is not true for a cure spell.

What also drives me away from classes is having really few skills.
This happens most often with classes like Fighters, Cavaliers, Clerics and Barbarians... low Int can be fun to roleplay but it also sucks sometimes that you can do so little outside of combat. Having few skills can really harm a character's ability to succeed at anything. This is why I never really understood the hate for the Rogue other than the fact that he is fully outclassed by a Ninja.

Things that turn me off:

When classes are more or less telling you how to interpretate or roleplay a class. (Luckily this is always in your own control in the end, and there are always archtypes for different flavours)

For example:
Although I like the Alchemist for his unique abilities and versatility, I do think that the class was designed too much with Dr. Jekyll & Hyde in mind. Not every chemist is a self-harming split-personality maniac in my mind. I also think that many of their discoveries and optional builds are a bit too weird and twisted (Tumor familiars? Vestigial arms from another fetus? Are you kidding me?) I also hate the idea of a 'vivisectionist'. (I wonder if most players even know what that word even means.) I mean, I'm not saying that necromancy isn't twisted at times but the Alchemist really delves into the stuff that makes me go "I don't even want to bother with this weird stuff when a player comes up with it all by himself, and it's in the fricking rulebooks!". It's like alchemists are somehow almost the same as 'twisted chirurgeons'. At times as a GM I'd almost feel inclined to give them an alignment restriction like "any non-good" because I've never seen anyone play an Alchemist that was on the Good-axis anyway.

I have the same 'roleplaying' issue with the Inquisitor. The inquisitor desciption I hear is usually: "The inquisitor is like a cleric, only he is more extreme and he acts more like a badass and cares less about the rules." The players I've seen handling Inquisitors tend to be real zealots almost as bad as the people that don't understand how to be a Paladin and not be an ass. I don't necessarily see inquisitors as zealots. To me they're more like specialized hunters or mercenaries in service of churches.

It also irks me in a similar manner with classes that really lean towards specific stuff like how the Magus almost has to use one-handed-high-crit-range weapons. There really aren't that many one-handed-high-crit-range weapons to choose from and if I were a Dwarf then I really wouldn't want to run around wielding a scimitar which is one of the most non-dwarven weapons I can think of.

On a completely different note, I really hate the Summoner class.
The Summoner was seemingly built with two different archetypes in mind that don't really fit very well together imho. On one side of the coin, the Summoner was designed to be a class that could summon lots of creatures, on the other side of the coin, the Summoner was designed to have one big badass summon. I would rather have seen a Summoner who is more like a Pokémon trainer who just gets more Eidolons over time, or just really focuses on one Eidolon. The Summoner could have been the ultimate pet-class with lots of cool tag-team abilities but no, it's just a really wobbly unbalanced class with too much stuff going on but at the same time the Summoner has no utility or roleplaying value inherently whatsoever.

Thank you!