Gertak's page

Thanks for the mention of Calcific Touch, Qunnessaa, I had forgotten all about that one. I am looking, specifically, for damage dealing spells, though. Again, something I should have clarified prior.

My apologies I didn't clarify this part. I am looking for spells that are touch attacks but that are not actual weapons themselves, like Produce Flame and Flame Blade are.

Since no one has mentioned any other spells, does anyone have any ideas for a balanced spell that could be created? The rules on creation are really hard when you don't have any higher level spells to compare to. At level 15 Frostbite does 1d6+15 cold/nonlethal damage so how much would a 3/4/5 level version of the spell do? How about a higher level version of Elemental Touch? Elemental Touch's special effects, especially stagger, make it really good even without the damage but how would that advance?

On my magus my preferred spells are ones that allow multiple touches opposed to things like shocking grasp. For example, my primary spell is Frostbite which allows 1 touch per level, deals 1d6+1 per level nonlethal cold damage, and fatigues the target. The problem is I can only find a very few spells that are multi-use touch spells and they are all level 2 or lower.

The only 3 I have found are:
Frostbite
Chill Touch
Elemental Touch

Are there any other such spells in splash books, or any spells you have created for your campaigns that you wouldn't mind sharing?

No opinions, links, or thoughts from anyone else?

Thank you for the response!

I am animating by either Animate Objects or Posses Objects , the questions are aimed at one or the other.

As to the object having to have a form, I was thinking about say a 50' adamantine chain or stone statue.

I've looked around on the forums a bit and seen a few questions but not much in the way of answers on these. Perhaps my search skills just aren't up to par, in which case I'd greatly appreciate any links anyone does have. That said, here are my questions:

If you animate an object that is a material other than wood, say adamantine, how is it handled? Does the object become wood unless you spend the points to make it adamantine, does it remain adamantine (and thus DR penetration) but have wood's hardness, or are you required to spend the points and cannot animate it if it doesn't have enough points?

If you use Possess Object to possess a table it appears the attacks of the table would become your new natural attacks? Considering the table is a manufactured item, though, would you gain iterative attacks instead/in addition to? I assume no with the clarification that the object becomes treated as a creature and no longer an object for things like energy damage reduction. If I animate a statue can I pick up a weapon and use it? Assuming you could, if I have a statue with 4 attacks (normal statue with 2 hands) and use a 1h sword, could I still take the 4 "natural" attacks?

How do you determine the size of a "creature" you animate? If I animate a 100 foot chain what size would it be considered? It would only weigh like 20 lbs but is weight a requirement of size?

In the case of Possess Object, how does the "creature" see? According the bestiary entry it has darkvision 60' and low light vision so it obviously CAN see, but could it be blinded? What is it's vision range normally? (low light just says you can see twice as far as human in low light conditions)

Since an Animated Object is considered a construct with construct traits, do you gain that quality when using Possess Object?

The Possess Object spell does not list a material component but says it functions as Magic Jar. Does your 'soul' move to a gem and you can switch between multiple objects or do you just cast it and take over one creature? It actually doesn't show ANY components, material, somatic, verbal, or otherwise, is that intended?
(http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/spells/possessObject.html #_possess-object)

Is a corpse considered an object? Can you take over objects smaller than tiny (tiny is the smallest size listed in the bestiary entry)? If so do you just treat it as tiny? Could you animate the gem your 'soul' is in (assuming it goes into one, as in Magic Jar)?

Does damage scale with the size of the animated object or is it 1d6 no matter if it is tiny or gargantuan? If the form you animate has only 1 attack, either by choice or by point limitation, is it treated as a primary natural attack with the 1 1/2 str modifier (The bestiary seems to imply it does since it has a 14 str and gets +3 damage with 1 attack). Assuming it does, that seems to fully confirm these are just treated as normal natural attacks so what about a monk who is in possession of an object, can he flurry and use natural attacks (with appropriate feats of course)?

Sorry for the long string of questions, I just saw the Possess Familiar spell for the first time today and it has me quiet excited by the possibilities.

***edited for grammar and spelling

So how would you assign him in that regard? Large with multiple natural attacks is pretty powerful. Don't think he's as strong as a level 6 fighter but maybe stronger than a 5. Hard to say with no armor on the ape and no offensive feats. And even awakened it has no class levels or proficiencies for equipment. A level 3 fighter with a great sword and power stack and decent armor is probably still stronger offensively and defensively, just behind on hp.

Also, what was your thought on class levels? 1/1 at all times, ignoring the recommendation in monster advancement?

Hello everyone and thanks in advance for any advice/assistance.

I found a ton of threads on awakened cohorts but none of them had any real definitive information so I'm really just looking for advice here.

I have a dream of an ape dragon disciple cohort and I'm wondering on the numbers of making it come true. The first issue is converting the gorilla to a cohort. The layout for monstrous cohorts makes it really hard to decide where it would fall:

Worg(CR2) is a level 5 (4d10+4)
1 bite attack +7 (1d6+4) + trip
Str 17, Dex 15, Con 13, Int 6, Wis 14, Cha 10

Blink(CR2) dog is level 4 (3d10+6)
1 bite attack +4 (1d6+1)
Str 12, Dex 15, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 13, Cha 11
dimension door (quickened) at all
blink permanent

Ghoul(CR1) is a level 5 (2d8+4 hps)
3 attacks +3 (1d6+1)
Str 13, Dex 15, Con —, Int 13, Wis 14, Cha 14
paralysis on each hit
undead type

Giant Vulture (CR4) is a level 7 (5d10+20)
1 bite attack +9 (2d6+9)
Str 22, Dex 15, Con 18, Int 2, Wis 15, Cha 7
Flying

Based on those examples I'm just not sure where the Ape would fall base, before awakening. The vulture does seem to be about the best comparison since it is also an animal It's only special quality is rend but it does have solid base stats, also like the vulture (though weaker in about every area). It's a CR3 which probably puts it at like a 5-6 and then adding awaken increases it's int/wis/cha and gives it 2 more HD (it does use animal d8 instead of magical beast d10). That would seem to put it up 1-2 levels so 6-8.

But then when I look at like the Giant Owl I am thrown for a loop again.
It is a CR5 creature that has amazing stats (6d10+24 hps) and is level 8
Str 20, Dex 15, Con 18, Int 14, Wis 17, Cha 9
It has 2 attacks +9 (2d6+5)
can speak with all animals
flies
gets an initiative bonus based on it's wisdom
can use true seeing 3/day for 1 round

Then the hound archon is also level 7 with 6d10+6 hps, decent stats, and some powerful at will spells (aid at will??).

Looking at that I just can't figure out how to determine the starting level of my awakened Ape. Once I get to class levels I assume it would be a 1/1, even though monster advancement mentions 1/2 if it's not it's focus. So would it be 1/1 if I gained the companion before it took it's first sorcerer level and 1/2 if I gained it after it was already a few levels in?

Sorry for the really long post, just wanted to give some reference information in addition to the question.

As has been mentioned before the Lore spirit needs to be looked at again for requiring a few too many caster stats, specifically the Arcane Enlightenment hex. Requiring Int for spell level and Cha for number of spells on a Wis based caster is a bit excessive I think. I can see using Int for some of it, especially since they have an ability to gain bonus Int, but adding Cha...

Simple question, can you cast Spiritual Weapon at someone while blinded? The spell doesn't have a "target" field so I cannot determine for sure if I could cast it at all or if it would be a blind cast at a square or what.

It is my belief that by RAI it is intended to allow for templates of creatures like skeleton, zombie, vampire, lich, etc but by RAW it would only allow skeleton or zombie. In fact by some very strict interpretations of RAW it might not even allow zombie and skeleton templates since it does not say it allows the templates, it just uses skeleton/zombie/ghoul as examples of vaguely humanoid-shaped undead creatures.

It has been requested before but I really think this spell should be FAQ'd and/or Erata'd.

Although you cannot become a vampire using Monstrous Physique, you could with Undead Anatomy. There is the consideration of the polymorph rules that you linked, except I believe the specific situation of the spell over-rides the general rule of Polymorph.

"When you cast this spell, you can assume the form of any Small or Medium corporeal creature of the undead type, which must be vaguely humanoid-shaped (like a ghoul, skeleton, or zombie)."

The spell specifically calls out skeleton and zombie, both of which are templates. Additionally, in the later levels of the spell, you gain access to abilities that only come from templates, at least as far as I was able to find.

"burrow 60 feet, climb 90 feet, fly 120 feet (good maneuverability), swim 120 feet, blindsense 60 feet, darkvision 90 feet, lifesense 60 feet, low-light vision, scent, tremorsense 60 feet, breath weapon, constrict, DR 10/magic and silver, DR 15/bludgeoning and magic, fast healing 5, fiery death, fire aura, grab, incorporeal, jet, poison, pounce, rake, rend, roar, spikes, trample, trip, and web"

As far as I know DR 15/Bludgeoning and magic is Lich only, DR 10/Magic and Silver is vampire only, and Fiery Death is burning skeleton only.

If there is someone who can point out why this doesn't work I'd certainly be interested to see why. I have yet been unable to find a campaign where my party would let me use UA but I've always wanted to!

You cannot normally use a metamagic feat/rod on a spell storing item as it is not actually cast until it releases from the item.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kty3?Spell-Storing-Metamagic-Rods

Ya, I remember reading that as well. Between that and the link I posted about if they meant manufactured weapons they would have said manufactured weapons I believed it would work on my claws. I just wasn't sure if I missed something with the Arcana that would make it specific to the weapon.

Thanks very much for the reply and insight.

Any ideas from anyone?

Here is the link I was looking for, I knew I had read it somewhere!
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n16t?Ugh-Crane-wing#11

So I guess my question basically comes down to a matter of the arcana itself.

If my level 9 Magus were to turn into a Charda and then on the next round use the Accurate Strike arcana and take a full attack would he have:

1 sword attack at full bab (touch ac)
1 sword attack at bab -5 (touch ac)
3 claws at bab -5 (touch ac)
1 bite at bab -5 (touch ac)

or

1 sword attack at full bab (touch ac)
1 sword attack at bab -5 (touch ac)
3 claws at bab -5 (normal ac)
1 bite at bab -5 (normal ac)

Also, on an aside part for the same character, if I am wearing my gloves of arrow snaring and make my full attack with all 3 of my claws (4th hand holding weapon) can I still use the arrow snatching part (or crane wing or anything similar)? Or would I have to leave one claw unused? Actually, for that matter, does a claw even count as a "free hand" at all?

The Magus Arcana Accurate Strike lets you use two arcane pool points to make "all of his melee weapon attacks" until the end of his turn as melee touch attacks. Does this include natural weapons, such as claws and bite? I think I read somewhere that "weapon attacks" includes any type of attack, be it sword, unarmed, or natural, but just wasn't sure how that interacted with the arcana (and I can't seem to find where I read it either...). Arcane accuracy specifically says "on all attack rolls" and makes no mention of a weapon, so I'm just not sure. Can I get a comment on both RAW and RAI?

The arcane pool ability says specifically that it only enhances his weapon and can only enhance once weapon at a time but I don't see that same restriction on the arcana.

I'm not sure how it would help the build?

It probably depends on your group composition. I'm my groups primary front line "tank" type character so I use shield in pretty much all fights and use vampiric touch a lot for the survivability boost. I also use ablative barrier a lot, though it starts to fall off around level 7 when you get some really hard hitters.

Frostbite is my favorite of the dps spells personally.

I user monstrous physique a lot as a dps boost, movement ability, and survivability increasing spell.

This is a concept that I would like to use in PFS, but it's not actually FOR anything as of yet.

The elf is a must just for the ancient lorekeeper. I want to make him a kind of shapeshifter, even if he does do it through spells. And I want to combine those forms with spells like Frostbite. I really want to see if I can make it competitive with other damage classes and still match what I would like to play.

Ahhh, so back to elf we go!

Oh, thank you Imbicatus!! I had not realized that half elves could take elven archtypes. I knew they could take feats and stuff, just didn't realize it extended that far!

So as a half-elf I could pull:
16
10
14
10
10
16

I appreciate your input Blackbloodtroll but I am rather insistent on having the shapeshift forms, and the only way I know of for getting that as an Oracle is through the archtype. Is there a way that an Aasimir oracle could get those spells? I am also pretty interested in the Nature mystery for nature's whispers.

Oh, can anyone with improved unarmed use other body parts? That is very good to know, I thought that was something specific to monk since that is the only place I recall having seen it. I believe I read somewhere that you still take the -5 penalty on natural attacks when using unarmed attacks. If that's true not sure I really care about it anyway.

The only problem with raising con is that it gets very expensive to raise it much more on an elf. I was planning to just go as high of AC as I could and try to use that to keep me alive. Maybe add something like ablative barrier to help mitigate.

Lets go with standard PFS rules to keep it as simple as possible.

I've become interested in trying to create an unarmed, or at least no weapon, oracle and was hoping for a little advice. I'm planning to go elven Ancient Lorekeeper and using polymorph spells for my combat prowess, starting around level 8 (6 if I take alter self and go with a Trog or something similar). Combining that with spells like frostbite I should have pretty solid damage potential and still good BAB with forms like the charda granting 5 attacks a round. I'd prefer to deliver the spells through a high crit weapon but short of going level 6 Magus I don't think that is possible.

For my level 1 stats, on a 20 pnt build, I'm looking at:
15
10
12
10
10
16

Still leaves 2 points I'm not sure where I'll put (as you see I'm not going for a min/max approach). I'm planning to take the nature oracle Mystery and nature's whispers for the AC boost. I had considered taking the Lame curse and lowering my dex to 7 (base, 9 modified) and taking str to 16 but not sure I want to go that route.

So does anyone have any advice on anything that can be added or done differently for this type of character? I had considered a 1 level monk dip for their improved unarmed combat that allows using body parts other than hands/feet I just wasn't certain how that would play with natural attacks.

I'm not sure there is much more I can argue for in regard to fighting defensively. I have challenged it from every angle I can and can't seem to sway a single person to my line of thought.
I still don't understand why they would remove that as an option for spell combat, or really any attack type ability, and I'm constantly hoping they will make another adjustment/clarification and allow such things as fighting defensively and combat expertise.

I'm not sure I don't agree perse, just that I'm not seeing the wording as clear cut as you are. I'm not sure where you are seeing it say that those are some of the options but not all of the options. The only thing I see is that you can perform a maneuver as any one of those 3 or as a specific action. If you perform the maneuver as part of an attack, full-attack, or AOO you can replace an attack with the maneuver. It doesn't say you can do it in place of any other form of attack.

Fret,

I see what you are saying in most regards, but the wording is still not clear in all situations. Also, as I pointed out in my previous post, there are things that fall under those headings that are not those types of actions. As I pointed out critical strikes, and multiple attacks are both referenced under standard actions but are not actually standard actions (it also discusses ranged attacks, unarmed attacks, and natural attacks which are not a specific type of action). I don't think you can use those headings as a reason to rule a specific way.

Fighting defensively as a standard action could include things like cleave if it just requires "attacking" instead of an attack action, as the actual description text says.

The other question there becomes how is the wording meant. "Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action" could mean that fighting defensively is a standard action itself that allows you to attack or it could mean that you are able to fight defensively as part of another standard action.

I do understand the quote:
"Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action: You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full-attack action. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for until the start your next turn."
but it does not say you can only choose to fight defensively in that situation, it says you can do so in that situation. It might seem a bit nitpicky but there are multiple instances in those sections on actions that use the word "must".

DesolateHarmony,

I agree with you completely that you can use a disarm/trip/sunder in place of a melee attack, no debate there. Where my contention is the following wording:
" While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action."
By the wording of that quote, you can use a combat maneuver as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or an attack of opportunity UNLESS it says another type of action is used instead. Disarm, Sunder, nor Trip list a different type of action and thus would seem to require one of the listed action types. They replace a melee attack, but they replace a melee attack that was made as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or an attack of opportunity.

I had not considered them initially but I was looking at the new combat maneuvers and they all say standard action. That means that not a single combat maneuver says you need to make an attack action, full-attack action, or aoo for it to work. What I don't understand is why would they list those specific items in the general rules for combat maneuvers if none of them require it? Like I said, if there was an Erata or FAQ update somewhere that changed that then I'd love to see that link for my future reference.
The FAQ you referenced previously changed the wording of sunder to match other combat maneuvers but doesn't change anything with the wording in the general combat maneuver section.

On the question of fighting defensively when using a full round attack type action, there are some interesting wording considerations that I hadn't noticed until now.

"Multiple Attacks: A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full-attack action (see Full-Round Actions) in order to get more than one attack."

If you notice it does say specifically "must use the full-attack action". Now in the situation of spell combat they specifically called it as a full round action and not a full-attack action. If they make a specific consideration like that, I'm just asking that they review the other things that word choice involves and perhaps point out that things like fighting defensively, combat expertise, and combat maneuvers can be used with spell combat.

As was mentioned before, if you look at fighting defensively as a standard action it just says "You can choose to fight defensively when attacking.". It says attacking and doesn't specify the need to use an attack action. Initially I assumed that since it was under the "Attack" heading then it was saying it had to be part of the attack action but under that same heading are critical hits and even a reference to multiple attacks so I'm not sure that is the case.

Lastly on that topic, fighting defensively is listed as a full round action by it's title and then in the description it says it can be used when using a full-attack action. It doesn't say the only full round action in which you can fight defensively is when using the full-attack action.

Unfortunately since some things in the rules are so very strict and some aren't, it's hard to know when I am over analyzing something. I mean the whole attack action vs attacking is a perfect example of when every word can mean a big difference. Or comparing full-attack vs full round attack.

I hate to ask for a developer to chime in but the wording can be interpreted in a couple of different ways. I would just like full clarity on how all of this is supposed to work. For me it's not a huge deal right this minute, my GM already clarified that for our game I am allowed to fight defensively while using spell combat, but I would like clarity for my PFS games where the issue will certainly come up.

That is the general rule but it is the general rule FOR combat maneuvers.

I agree on the CE part, it is an unfortunate casualty and that's why I was hoping to get someone to change that ruling, or at least consider it.

You said it can be used as either but does that mean you can use it as part of a full round action (ie spell combat) or a full-attack action as you state there, or did you mean as a full-attack action or a normal attack action as in the section you quoted? I see the Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action and as a Full-Round action just not certain what clarification you are making.

Power Attack does actually apply until your next turn as well, including any AOO that you make.

Ok, so there was a FAQ for sunder so that makes sense and does bring it in line with the others. My pointed issue then becomes why do they even have "attack action, full-attack action, or AOO (in place of a melee attack)" if not a single maneuver requires those? (none of them call out any of those actions in the description) It seems to me they had them there for a reason, that they are only intended to work when using one of those actions. Maybe I am just way over reading this, but consider how some of their rulings are very nit picky I want to make certain.

I agree combat expertise and power attack are both using when attacking but combat expertise specifically calls out that it has to be used as part of an "attack or full-attack action", thus ruling out things like spell combat (essentially the same as fighting defensively).

My question on fighting defensively was kind multi-part. Does it require a full round action or a full-attack action? I believe it is part of a full attack action but then I have to wonder why does it specifically exclude things like spell combat.
and then more specifically to: Fighting defensively in the description says "You can choose to fight defensively when attacking". Now it does list that under the standard action heading and maybe that is the difference.
So does that mean you have to do it as a standard action since it is under the standard action header or can you do it any time you are attacks as it says "You can choose to fight defensively when attacking"?

I appreciate you taking the time to respond! I know it may not matter to you the why they chose to say I can user power attack but cannot use combat expertise, when they do the same type of thing, but it does matter to me so I can better understand.

As to combat maneuvers, is that clarified in a FAQ or erata somewhere? Because by reading the description it does not sound like that is possible. The description of combat maneuvers say many can be used as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or AOO (in place of a melee attack) but things like spell combat are none of those. So even though it says in place of a melee attack, the description states in exactly what situations you can replace that attack. Now due to the description of charge mentioning

Also, specifically on sunder, the description says "You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack" but charge does not grant an attack action, it just lets you make a melee attack.

Now, based on the description for charge under the actions in combat table I would agree with you ( Some combat maneuvers substitute for a melee attack, not an action. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full-attack action, or even as an attack of opportunity. Others are used as a separate action). But that is why I am asking for clarity, specifically if anyone can point to me where it has been officially clarified. But if I am just to go on the interpretation here, then why can you not fight defensively in the same situation? Fighting defensively in the description says "You can choose to fight defensively when attacking". Now it does list that under the standard action heading and maybe that is the difference.

I'm curious on a couple of points with the attack action and full-attack action and why they interact with some abilities the way they do.

******
First is on combat maneuvers. In the description of combat maneuver you have this:
When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action

But in the description of Charge it says this:
Some combat maneuvers substitute for a melee attack, not an action. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full-attack action, or even as an attack of opportunity. Others are used as a separate action.

So does it mean you can actually do a combat maneuver even if you aren't using an attack action or full attack action? I ask this specifically in regard to spell combat, which was recently ruled a full round action. I assume you could use abilities like tripping strike or grab even if you cannot do an actual trip maneuver?

******
Second is on fighting defensively. Fighting defensively is worded as:
Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action: You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full-attack action. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for until the start your next turn.

The description says as a Full-Round Action but the description says as a full-attack action. So can you choose to fight defensively when using a full-round action that involves attacking or only when doing an actual full-attack action? Again I will use spell combat as an example. If the wording is still meant to imply a full-attack action, why is it excluding the few situations like this one?

******
Lastly is on abilities like Combat Expertise. The ability says:
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +1 dodge bonus to your Armor Class. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every +4 thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the dodge bonus increases by +1. You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or a full-attack action with a melee weapon. The effects of this feat last until your next turn.

This one is fairly straight forward but comes with a question as well. This specifically says you have to use it during an attack or full-attack action but why? Why can you ONLY do this as an attack or full-attack action but something like power attack has no such requirement? Again I'll use the magus as an example as he seems the character most likely to want to use combat expertise on a regular basis. Why is he specifically excluded form using it with spell combat? I mean it seems like you want the magus to do everything pure offensive and use no defensive abilities, was that the design intent?

There aren't a lot of attack type actions that are actual attacks that don't fall into either an attack action or a full-attack action so I'm wondering if all of these are specifically intended for those special circumstances.

Diego,
I see what you mean by all the things you can do but you are kind of comparing apples and oranges. The Magus does have some really nice stuff in a lot of areas but you are leaving out what the Cleric at that level could also have. A cleric of the animal domain, at level 7 (the level you could be casting fireball) could have a large ape guarding him while using a shield for more armor base and having greater spell access. Alternately, if he has access to the travel domain, he can just dimension hop out of aoo range and not even need to worry about it. And if his animal companion and him had shielded spellcaster he could get the +4 concentration bonus for "free".

Now in no way am I saying the cleric is OP or that the magus is weak, I'm just saying that both sides have pros and cons and you can't just look at one aspect and say wow the magus doesn't need anymore, he's powerful enough already. The magus takes limited armor (though it gets better as he levels), a lower bab, lower spellcasting than a standard caster, and lower hps than a true melee so that he gains access to the abilities he gains. Again, each character has his own abilities, can't really compare aspects of the character without comparing the whole and get a real picture. I do understand the gist of what you are saying, though.

Kazaan,

I agree with your last statement, if that is actually the intent. My contention was that I'm not sure they intended it to have all of the effects it does have. Perhaps they intended it to be as they just said all along and never intended you to be able to fight defensively, use combat expertise, or use a combat maneuver while using spell combat. It is just not my opinion that is the case.

As to feats like Vital Strike, I believe they are made for very specific situations or play styles. For example to use in any turn where you have to take a move action, for using to bypass DR, if the opponent has super high armor and you know your iterative is not likely to hit, or in the case of a druid turning into a creature with one natural attack, like a wolf.

I do see what you mean by the pounce thing, though, that would have been pretty crazy. As to the focus to do both, I can kinda see what you are saying but at the same time according to RAW I'm pretty sure a Barbarian could rage and still fight defensively and using combat expertise.

Lots of good insight in here and interesting opinions. I am still very disappointed that they limited it as much as they did with regards to all of the defensive options. I am still not sure why they would restrict access to combat expertise, combat maneuvers, and fighting defensively when they don't with things like power attack. It just seems odd they intentionally limited the damage potential by removing the extra attack from haste, which appears to point to wanting to lower the damage, but they hit the defensive abilities with the change and left some of the major offensive ones alone.

I guess in the end I don't have to understand, I just have to adjust and move on. I would have loved to hear them say why they did this the way they did it, though.

I don't have a problem with the ruling as a whole, especially where it applies to Haste and the extra attack. My issue is how it applies to some other things, specifically like fighting defensively and combat expertise. Maybe it could be resolved better by making adjustments to previous abilities (such as the two above) to allow them to be used with any attack not just attack/full-attack action, same thing with combat maneuvers.

My research was not sloppy, though it is possible my interpretations are lacking I suppose.
I pull my information on Combat Maneuvers from two locations. First in the Core Rulebook under "Performing a Combat Maneuver" it says "While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action."

The second place is as quoted from Jason Bulmahn (Lead Designer)
"You can perform them as a standard action, or you can use them in place of an attack during a full-attack action." (in reference to disarm, trip, and sunder specifically)

As to styles, just to confirm for you so you don't have to take my word for it:
Crane style requires you to fight defensively to use crane wing or crane riposte and it's only benefit for Crane style itself is to modify fighting defensively.

Medusa's Wrath (part of the chain of Scorpion style) also requires a full-attack action.

Those are the only two I saw in a quick search and may well be the only two styles to have an issue with spell combat but I didn't do an exhaustive search so there could be others.

My reason for believing they did not think through all of the ramifications, specifically, are situations like combat expertise vs power attack. Why would they make an adjustment like this? It certainly is possible they made this change fully aware of everything it affects, it is just my believe (opinion) that they did not. not to mention things like Second Chance which just seem off to specifically not allow the magus to use.

The thing that concerns me about this is that I'm not sure they considered ALL of the ramifications. Here is a small list of the things you can now NOT do with spell combat as a magus, based on the wording from the prd on these abilities requiring an "attack" or "full-attack" action:

fight defensively
use the Combat Expertise feat
use a combat maneuver including things like tripping strike
some style feats
feats like second chance (and improved) (actually any feat that used combat expertise you are taking a hit to use, even if you can, since you cannot CE while using spell combat)

Yet it does work with things like power attack. Not sure why it's different to use things like combat expertise and fighting defensively than power attack.

Sorry for digging up an older thread, I just became aware of the full ramifications of this change fairly recently.

Bit surprised no one mentioned these guys:
(each * represents the level of MP you need to get that ability. Ones with a / represent partial at the first level and full at the later)

Charda
Small creature, which is a plus and a minus.
* 1 bite
* 4 claws
*/**** 90' darkvision (it has 120 but no MP gives that much)
* amphibious and aquatic
*** overwhelming
*/** 60' swim
*** Ferocity
*** Cold Vigor
**** Resist Cold 20
**** +8 save vs Poison
(This is a great all around form. It is small so you lose out on the strength bonus and your weapon damage will drop a little but it has a large number of very nice abilities. In a cold environment the Cold Vigor does help offset the str loss. Overall a great underwater form)

Girtablilu
Large but with undersize weapon
* 1 sting
* 2 claws
* 2 human arms for normal weapon/spell combat/crane wing/Unarmed
* Darkvision 60'
**** Tremorsense 30'
** Grab
*** Constrict
*** Poison
(Sting—injury; save Fort DC 20; frequency 1/round for 6 rounds; effect 1d4 Dex; cure 2 consecutive saves.)
(This is a great overall form against anything without real high AC, since you will probably want to use a manufactured weapon, making the sting and claws hard to land. The grab and constrict are really nice once you hit MP3, making up for the lower number of attacks of some other forms. The poison is really the bread and butter to me, though. True you do have to be 13th level as a magus to even get access to it but the dc 20 save is decent and the 2 consecutive helps it do it's job. The dex penalty can really start to add up, especially on lower fort save opponents.)

On the Caliking don't forget it does have a breath weapon, a useful bonus on the MP4 that is fairly hard to get on a decent form. It is a line, unfortunately, but still a DC 22 save with 14d6 damage. Though looking at the character, the breath weapon is really about the only reason I would use the form. It's really too bad you don't get Defensive Slam, that could really make it worth using.

I know this post is old enough the original poster likely doesn't care at this point but it is one of the first posts to come up when doing a google search on Monstrous Physique forms so I wanted to add this in for more options for anyone interested.

Thanks for the insight! I was thinking similar myself, any time I can avoid the defensive cast is nice, and even nicer if I can use it to attack my target back. I also think it would be great for stopping a rake attack by negating 1 claw or a poison bite/sting/etc. Not to mention if I can negate a crit that's always awesome.

I am a half elf and I believe my stats are:
16
14
14
16 (15 base, +1 at level 4)
10
8

I am currently level 4.

I'm currently playing a bladebound/hexcrafter magus and was hoping I might get a little insight from the community on the prospect of going with crane style.

My progression would end up going something like this:

Feat BAB Feat
1 0 Arcane Strike
1
3 2 Weapon Focus (Katana)
3
5 3 Dodge
5 4 Improved Unarmed Strike
7 5 Crane Style
6
9 6 Crane Wing
7
11 8 Crane Riposte
11 Improved Critical (Katana)

I've read a few posts on various forums that go both ways, some saying the feat investment is too large and others saying it is worth it. My reasoning on wanting to go this way is mostly for the extra survivability, especially in the low to mid levels where I do not yet have the heavy armor. Even into the later levels the ability to completely counter an attack is really nice, and I would gain a "free" attack out of the deal as well so a two fold benefit.

In the above build I could swap dodge to level one and for the level 5 feat take hex strike with slumber or evil eye as my hex. Seems like it would be a nice option once I get crane riposte, though probably wouldn't see much use before then, so not sure it'd be worth it. Might be better to take it at 15.

So what are your thoughts, would it be a viable front line fighter/tanky character or would I just be over-all better off going with a few arcane pool/arcana feats?

Before you stands a surly dwarf, covered head to toe in shining plate armor. He looks more like a walking arsenal than a dwarf, having a scimitar, a heavy wooden shield, a light crossbow, a warhammer, and a Guisarm all strapped on his person. From his neck dangles a large holy symbol of Freya, mirrored on the face of his shield.

He walks up to each of you and around you slowly before stating: "What a pitiful looking lot, do any of you even know which end of your weapon to swing? This is going to be a long trip into the depths of hell I'm thinking"

Poor Malicar and Adjo, learned too late that WOMEN ARE THE DEVIL!