Stalwart is good feat to have as well. Although it doesn't mesh too well with your build since you already have raging vitality (the prerequisite diehard does the same thing pretty much). Spell sunder is nice with strength surge. Ghost rager is nice since it gives you ghost touch and improves your touch ac.

Why not both a ride and a fly check? Have the rogue roll a ride check (give him a bonus [+2-6], as I doubt he has any ranks in it, if he's holding onto something), and make the DC equal to the drake's fly check. If he gets hit by some trees, make him roll a strength check with a DC of 15, increase the DC by 1-2 for every 1d3/6 points of damage he/she takes.

I'd have to agree, if acid dart is allowed this should be allowed as well.
"To attack with a splash weapon, make a ranged touch attack against the target."

Do you have a catheter in there, or are you just free-floating (if you catch my drift)? Can't cast spells targeting the outside from in there though, nice eidolon buffer though. You will probably be considered grappled while in there as well. Unless your DM says he/she will allow you not to be. Although I would imagine air would become an issue almost immediately (air bubble?).

So your idea, when barred from playing a synthesist, is to play a synthesist? I'd call it synthe-like?
"A synthesist summons the essence of a powerful outsider to meld with his own being. The synthesist wears the eidolon like translucent, living armor. The eidolon mimics all of the synthesist’s movements, and the synthesist perceives through the eidolon’s senses and speaks through its voice, as the two are now one creature."
If your idea, instead, is to give your eidolon armor, and then wear said armor. Wouldn't it be easier to have just given yourself the armor in the first place instead of being an Indian-giver to your poor eidolon?

EDIT: All in all, if you could hollow out a living creature, that would remain alive from doing so, and then dwell within it, I think I speak for everyone when I say: "Can I make a hovering welcome mat that follows me around?"
Good idea for a necromancer. I want to make one now.....

Murdock's point does have some validity to it. I can agree that the point of poison use is merely to become incapable of poisoning yourself due to inexperience. So, should you have poison immunity, this inexperience would not affect you in any way. This would, in effect, give you something akin to poison use.

However, in a game setting, when you lack the specific prerequisites needed to gain whatever it is you desire, you can't then bypass those prerequisites by gaining something similar enough to make up for it. For example, a monk gains flurry of blows, for all intents and purposes at level 1 he has the two weapon fighting feat when using his flurry of blows. Does this then mean he can take improved two weapon fighting if he has enough dex and BAB? I'd say no, and many others would as well since he didn't specifically take the feat.

My point is that while you can find many ways of accomplishing the same thing, when a feat or prestige class specifically requires something, you can't take anything but the specific item requested by the feat/class. Otherwise, you'll have to contend with a whole lot of ways to bypass said prerequisites. Heck, you can already two weapon fight without the feat, why not just skip to improved two weapon fighting if your dex and BAB are high enough? Feat taxes..... Good 'ol feat taxes.

In a round about way (if you are using melee weapons): Rage. The Courageous weapon enhancement furthers this increase in damage.

Touch of Rage (Orc Bloodline) with the Community Minded/Optimistic Gambler trait can be very good as well when taken with the feat Eldritch Heritage.

Moment of Greatness (spell) can be quite nice as well.

It doesn't stack, which is also why (I'm guessing) no one else has offered any advice (sad to say not even a prestige into stalwart defender would work).
The only way to increase your DR more is to have buffs that work in a manner similar to DR (Ablative Barrier will give you an additional quasi-DR/5 that also works with all other types of damage, [Greater] Infernal Healing will "add" 4 or 1 respectively to your DR for the first hit in the round). A four level dip into alchemist can be a very good dip if you want to go this route (you'll need at least a 12 int though).

Nauseated

Creatures with the nauseated condition experience stomach distress. Nauseated creatures are unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention. The only action such a character can take is a single move action per turn.

If you're already maintaining the bardic performance with a free action, you could argue that attention is not necessary. However, if your DM has said no already, he/she seems within the scope of the rules to do so.

Eldritch Heritage for the win? Still wouldn't stack though.

good 'ol noodle arms; pretty sure no GM would allow two abilities with the same name, that did the same thing to stack. The rest seems fine though (20 ft reach isn't bad though). You can take lunge (feat) as well to get back up to 25 foot reach.

Summon-Slave Crystal
Aura moderate necromancy; CL 9th; Weight —
Slot none; Price 10,000 gp

DESCRIPTION

This thumb-sized crystalline skull is carved with necromantic runes. Once per day, a spellcaster can grasp the stone while casting a summoning spell. When the spellcasting is finished, the caster may immediately attempt to possess the summoned creature, as if using magic jar, except as a free action. The creature does not get a saving throw to resist, though spell resistance still applies. If successful, the caster possesses the creatures' body until the duration of the summoning spell ends, at which time his mind returns to his body, the creature's mind returns to its body, and the creature disappears.

CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS

Craft Wondrous Item, magic jar; Cost 5,000 gp

So what happens when the players smash all the mirrors from more than 20 feet away? Does the mirror monster take negative levels for each mirror smashed or just the PCs?
Very neat idea although I pity the fool who ends up trapped in one of those mirrors (Pray dispel magic works? Although due to the CR level, I think the caster should have teleport).

The breakdown in logic occurs because rules, for the most part, have replaced what would normally seem logical with mechanisms through which these actions can take place.

Sure, in a real life scenario, when a person is touching you they are in fact touching you (although the argument could be made that they are touching your clothes or whatever else their hand may have happened upon). However, add even a bit of magic to this scenario (e.g. deflection bonuses) and it becomes less certain since there is no real life equivalent.
For example, what's the difference between touching someone through a shirt (armor bonus) or from 10 feet away using a pole (dodge bonus?) in contrast with a sacred bonus applied in game? Does some kind of divine light enshroud you and only work if someone touches you with the intent to harm?
Logically, if I am wearing an insulating material (i.e. anything that affects my touch ac) and someone touches me with fire or electricity (touch spell) that insulating material is still going to provide me with protection regardless of whether or not they are touching me.

My point was that you can't omit the required touch attack roll, without also calling into question whether or not saves/SR should also be omitted.

a) An intelligent item could hold the charge, the case could even be made that an unintelligent item could as well (it's casting a spell...doesn't sound like too much of a leap to say it can hold the charge as well). The word "you" does not limit the usage of holding the charge to creatures. Otherwise, constructs couldn't hold the charge either.

b) Good point. I can agree that if both parties say that they are touching, the one initiating the touch attack shouldn't have to make an attack roll.

The bolded line only allows you to cast the spell (now if you were talking about spellstrike: "this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell" or conductive, I would agree with your proposal). This does not allow you to automatically hit. If it did, how could you then justify that it allows a save or SR if you already allowed it to bypass the touch attack roll?

If you miss and it's a touch spell the weapon would hold the charge (if it's an intelligent item) or it would do as spells normally do and be consumed in the process. As you have stated, you do not cast the spell the weapon does (I missed that when I read it), so how can you then hold the charge? If it could hold the charge, then it should also be allowed to discharge it on the next successful strike you deliver since it doesn't limit you to that specific creature it missed, it merely limits you to one creature at a time.

Why can't they attempt a free melee touch attack after hitting with their spell storing weapon? It's a free action.

If it is your contention that it automatically hits, how can they still get a save or SR? Unlike other weapon enhancements (i.e. conductive, spellstrike) there is no language in the enhancement to even remotely assist this assumption. It only states that you cast the spell, and whenever you cast a touch spell you make a touch attack.

Spellstrike (Su)
At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell. If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks. This attack uses the weapon’s critical range (20, 19–20, or 18–20 and modified by the keen weapon property or similar effects), but the spell effect only deals ×2 damage on a successful critical hit, while the weapon damage uses its own critical modifier.

Spell Storing
A spell storing weapon allows a spellcaster to store a single targeted spell of up to 3rd level in the weapon. (The spell must have a casting time of 1 standard action.) Anytime the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, the weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action if the wielder desires. (This special ability is an exception to the general rule that casting a spell from an item takes at least as long as casting that spell normally.) Once the spell has been cast from the weapon, a spellcaster can cast any other targeted spell of up to 3rd level into it. The weapon magically imparts to the wielder the name of the spell currently stored within it. A randomly rolled spell storing weapon has a 50% chance of having a spell stored in it already. This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons.

A spell storing weapon emits a strong aura of the evocation school, plus the aura of the spell currently stored.

If you were to GM, how would you rule these two abilities interact? Here are my thoughts on the matter, listed in order of likelihood:
1.Upon a successful strike (regardless of whether it is a critical or not) you cast the spell. If it happens to be a touch spell, this imparts an additional free melee attack as per spellstrike. This spell is then capable of scoring a critical blow using your weapon's critical range.
2.After successfully striking a foe, you can cast the stored (EDIT: touch) spell but only through a melee touch attack (AKA no spellstrike).
3.Upon a successful strike, if that strike is a critical, the spell also scores a critical blow.
4.When you score a successful strike, the stored spell is cast on the target and the "effects of the spell" are imparted on the target, which doesn't allow for (a) save/SR.

PS I don't think 2, 3, or 4 should be an option but I've seen some people push for it.

AFter playing around ther may be a much better way using mostly brawler levels, pummeling strike and hex strike with only 2 shaman levels and prolific use of the extra hex feat.

For a pummeling strike with almost guaranteed hit each round to apply Hex strike evil eye, or 1 round misfortune or CHA rounds confusion or thought stealing brain drain. also hold just enough extra combat feats to stabilize the brawler side of things to hit and do some damage.

btw Accursed Hex dosen't work with the build, hex strike bypasses the save and accursed hex only triggers after a save has been made

Prerequisite: Hex class feature, Improved Unarmed Strike.

Benefit: When you gain this feat, choose one hex that you can use to affect no more than one opponent. If you make a successful unarmed strike against an opponent, in addition to dealing your unarmed strike damage, you can use a swift action to deliver the effects of the chosen hex to that opponent. Doing so does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

So it is your contention that hex strike doesn't allow for a save? I doubt any GM I meet will ever allow for such an interpretation.

I want to be a magus in one of your campaigns ("Spellstrike (Su): [...] If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell."). With accurate strike or true strike you could deliver a save or die spell without the save part pretty easily (+20 to hit or an attack versus touch ac). I like this way more and more.

A case can be made for flanking with snap shot.

Oh wait! You can take a move action in place of a standard action. That means move actions are standard actions, right?

Apples are fruit. Not all fruit are apples... Subcategories and such...

Ah yes, I was mistaken; looks like I was also looking at the one above it as well (rake).

"Rend (Ex) If it hits with two or more natural attacks in 1 round, a creature with the rend special attack can cause tremendous damage by latching onto the opponent's body and tearing flesh. This attack deals an additional amount of damage, but no more than once per round. The type of attacks that must hit and the additional damage are included in the creature's description. The additional damage is usually equal to the damage caused by one of the attacks plus 1-1/2 the creature's Strength bonus."

Typically rend can only be used once. However, since I don't see that same limiting factor here I'd assume this is a specific case that would allow multiple rends. However, the newer version of this evolution seems to limit it a bit.

"Rend (Ex) An eidolon learns to rip and tear the flesh of those it attacks with its claws, gaining the rend ability. Whenever the eidolon makes two successful claw attacks against the same target in 1 round, its claws latch onto the flesh and deal extra damage. This damage is equal to the damage dealt by one claw attack plus 1-1/2 times the eidolon’s Strength modifier. The eidolon must possess the claws evolution to select this evolution. The summoner must be at least 6th level before selecting this evolution."

So if you wanted to take this evolution, it wouldn't be beneficial for you until level 12 when you had access to 5 natural attacks (4 claws + 1 rend = 6 natural attacks if all 4 claws hit).

You roll separately for the additional damage die.

I think the names should be Styx (like the river) and Tryx.

You should use this trait as well:
Group Fighter(Regional): You gain a +1 trait bonus on attacks made while flanking an opponent.

I've always liked misfortune over evil eye since you won't find many creatures that are immune to hexes/magic; whereas you may find quite a few that are immune to mind affecting conditions (especially the ones you will be having a hard time against).

Accursed Hex is a must for the build.

I quite like persistent/dazing spell as well since they'll have to save three times if you spellstrike with an unarmed strike.

If you take a level in monk, I feel the three feats you pick up can be quite worth the one level dip (stunning fist, improved unarmed strike, and combat reflexes). That way you can hex strike, spellstrike, and stunning fist all at the same time.

Undone wrote:

The listed requirement is the spell must do damage.

What this means is simple. If the spell effect does not do damage or does damage indirectly (Bull strength, summon monster, magic weapon) it doesn't count. It must be directly doing damage.

Acid Arrow is doing damage indirectly.

The damage is not magic in any way, the damage is from mundane acid.

The ice slivers in cold ice strike aren't "magic in any way, the damage is from mundane [ice slivers]." Makes sense both ways does it not?

Undone wrote:

The listed requirement is the spell must do damage.

What this means is simple. If the spell effect does not do damage or does damage indirectly (Bull strength, summon monster, magic weapon) it doesn't count. It must be directly doing damage.

If it was simple, this thread would me much shorter. : )

There's no listed requirement that the damage must be dealt "directly", and even if there was, the division between "directly" and "indirectly" in this case is pretty blurry.

Especially since almost nothing deals direct damage (except for maybe touch spells). You create something with the spell (e.g. negative energy, ice slivers, fire-balls), which then deals damage.

I think the question should be more general: When a spell does not allow for spell resistance, does that mean the spell is not the mechanic for dealing the damage?

For example: Stone Call/Acid Arrow have no spell resistance checks; does this mean that dazing spell could not be used on them? If your answer is that dazing spell could be used with one and not the other, what is the reasoning for this? What criteria would you use to apply dazing metamagic to a spell?

It doesn't make logical sense to me.
However, I do like the belief that any damage dealt by a spell, which doesn't allow for SR, can't have dazing spell applied to it. It seems to cover all the bases without specifically prohibiting any schools of magic. It seems like the best way to solve the issue.

By this line of reasoning yes.

If you want to say that all creation, transmutation, and summoning effects can't be utilized by dazing spell that's one thing (a straight up rule). However, to say that the "fire ball" created using fireball is somehow more magical than the rocks created using stone call, makes absolutely no sense to me.

The only way to remedy that is to say that if then says no SR then it also does not qualify for dazing spell (another straight up rule).

EDIT: This is not a logical conundrum; it is a rules problem (house rules, more than likely, if you want to completely nerf dazing spell).

Why is it that every time this topic comes up it seems like spells such as fireball are deemed to do damage while spells like greater magic weapon aren't? Does fireball not create a "fire ball" that then does damage? How can you justify that the "fire ball" is magic while things like weapon enhancements are not?

My point is ALL spells of this nature utilize third party means to affect their surroundings. The only difference between these spells is the timing in which that damage takes place.

I was referring to the order of progression one usually sees with such conditions (e.g. shaken>frightened>panicked); If you house ruled that daze was a lesser form of stun, which path that I listed would you take? You can also pick other options if you feel they better fit the bill.
And if those are greater/lesser than signs (in the order of effectiveness part), stunned is definitely better than dazed. I would disagree on which is easiest to apply since there are quite a few things that can apply each.

So Dazed>Stunned>Paralyzed or Staggered>Dazed>Stunned?

Well now I want to make two of these spells overlap to trap someone without a save.

EDIT: Never mind, wouldn't work.

I'll concede that it can be viewed as such but I'll keep my interpretation.

Only one person can be within the antilife shell: the caster. If your GM has allowed the party to exist inside of it, it's up to him/her as to how this is taken care of.
Although, if the caster had a 15 ft reach, it certainly sounds reasonable to cast a touch spell against a creature outside of the shell and still remain encapsulated by it. You cannot, however, use the shell offensively to bull rush or reposition since that would cause the spell to fail.

I've always disliked the idea of keywords.... Makes things easier but it can lead to some mind boggling turn of events.

Is your character's name Seymour Guado?

Why stop there? Why not place your hands, fingers, knees and toes in there while you're at it? Knees and Toes?
If you are saying that there is no rule preventing you from doing this, then it is completely under your GMs discretion, and I highly doubt this would be allowed more than once (more than likely not even that). However, if your GM is fine with it, all the power to you.
Although, if your GM is somewhat mean he/she may end up accommodating you by having the tuba form there alongside your feet, inside the creatures mouth. This would more than likely relieve you of those pesky walking aids many call feet since it would crush them against the rough of the monster's mouth.

The term "Confessor" (as far as I know) is not tied to another game but a series of books known as the Sword of Truth.

Iterman wrote:

Interesting notion, which I suppose could mean a quickened dazing magic weapon cast while hitting someone would evoke the dazing spell?

No, I don't think so. The "effect" here is still the +X on the blade, which isn't changed at all by the casting time of the spell.

My thoughts were that, just as magic weapon provides +x on the blade as an effect, the physical "fire ball" would be the effect of fireball, not the damage. In both cases the effect can lead to damage.

If you follow the belief that the spiritual ally is a construct (which is more than likely the case), it would not be affected by the bard's singing since:
"Inspire courage is a mind-affecting ability"

Constructs are immune to mind-affecting abilities.

The same goes for heroism:
"School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]"

You'd be better off using heroism on an actual ally anyways (since the spiritual ally wouldn't last as long as the buff placed on it).

"Monk: A monk weapon can be used by a monk to perform a flurry of blows"

I'm fairly certain a lenient GM would allow you to use a monk weapon with your style feats but RAW doesn't allow such things.

Agreed ("No they are not"), although I would be interested to see the case where a dazed creature became so dazed he was stunned.

Interesting notion, which I suppose could mean a quickened dazing magic weapon cast while hitting someone would evoke the dazing spell?

My point isn't that the GM is stupid or obtuse and can't determine intent, my point is that even opening up that sort of argument is silly if you don't have to account for intent in the first place.

I'll agree to an extent but intent should factor in for the sake of realism/gameplay.

Dazing Spell would be a confounding factor, except that if you take my interpretation of "these things (i.e., Dazing Spell, the DC check against healing) happen when the spell is cast", then it doesn't present any conflict--the dazing spell effect would happen when Greater Magic Weapon is cast (i.e., it wouldn't do anything useful), and it wouldn't happen again, just like Infernal Healing (and Giant Form I, when the form provides fast healing) would invoke the DC check when they are cast, but not when the healing actually happens. In both cases, the effect is still magical (that healing is not happening for your normal everyday reasons, just like that +1 isn't some "natural" attribute of the blade), but the metamagic/DC check is against the spell, not the effect.

My statement is in agreement with this. I just don't understand how this applies to spells like fireball (the check would happen when you cast it- no damage has been done so no dazing spell) then the effect of the fireball happens and poof the damage happens.

You could save time, I suppose, by using:

Infuse Mutagen
When the alchemist creates a mutagen he can infuse it with an extra bit of his own magical power. This inflicts 2 points of Intelligence damage to the alchemist and costs 1,000 gp in rare reagents, but the mutagen created persists on its own and is not rendered inert if the alchemist creates another mutagen. This allows an alchemist to create different types of mutagens and keep them handy for emergencies. This does not allow an alchemist to gain the effects of multiple mutagens—only the most recently imbibed mutagen has any effect.

Costs some coinage but it allows you to have whatever you need at hand. Can't really think of any other way except for house rules or buying some infused mutagens for 2000 gp or so.

EDIT: Although these traits may also help a bit:

Unstable Mutagen
Once per day, you can create an unstable mutagen. It is like a normal mutagen in most ways, but also gains a single benefit or hindrance due to its instability. Roll 1d6 to determine the result of the instability.

d6 Result
1 The unstable mutagen lasts for 5 minutes per alchemist level.
2 The unstable mutagen lasts for 20 minutes per alchemist level.
3 The unstable mutagen does not grant a natural armor bonus.
4 The natural armor bonus granted by the mutagen increases by 2.
5 The penalty that the mutagen applies to the corresponding mental ability score increases by 2.
6 The unstable mutagen does not apply a penalty to the corresponding mental ability score.

Enduring Mutagen
The bonuses and penalties granted by your mutagens last for 1 additional minute per alchemist level.

If you can't tell the object of their intent in this case, they deserve to bypass the caster level check.

For instance, my GM had one of his casters use command on me, with the directive: "do not attack me." Even though I tried to break the ceiling above him, attack the item inside him (as he was incorporeal), both of these actions were denied. It was only after I was already inside him trying break the item in question with my non magical hands that he told me that he rolled to see if my magical weapon, which I was merely holding at the time, would do any damage to it (unintentionally since I didn't/don't think a weapon could do damage to a creature unless you take an action to do so) while I was passing through it.

Believe me when I say I'm in complete agreement that infernal healing should be viewed as magical healing, since it is magic that is healing someone and clearly defined to be so in the description. However, if that view is taken with respect to infernal healing, then what is to stop someone from using that same reasoning to apply dazing spell to say greater magic weapon? Is the spell greater magic weapon not applying the spells damage to the creature every time you hit it? The answer according to everyone I've talked to is that the spell and the effect become two separate entities independent of one another. So while the spell is magical the effect is not. Therefore, it is not defined as magical healing, and dazing spell can't be used with greater magic weapon since it is the effect not the spell doing the damage.

Now the tricky part starts when you think about this in terms of other spells with instantaneous effects like fireball. How come this method of casting doesn't separate the act of casting the spell and effect? The answer is: $*%@ if I know!

Besides, you can't argue that the spell is not "healing" when it is listed as such in the description:
"School conjuration (healing) [evil]"
Giant form at least has some leeway in this respect.

Infernal Healing is not magical healing (otherwise I'd have already used fast healer-when you regain hit points by resting or through magical healing, you recover additional hit points equal to half your Constitution modifier (minimum +1).- with a scarred witch doctor to cast infernal healing; fast healing 3-4 at level 1 sounds super nice); although that distinction doesn't matter in this case since it requires only healing of some fashion. For example, you could use a heal skill check (treat deadly wounds) with a DC of 20-24 depending on if you had a healer's kit to treat the bleed and you'd still have to make the caster level check. However, non magical classes can bypass this caster level problem by stopping the bleeding with a DC 17 heal check and then healing the creature through the above means.

EDIT: Infernal healing is a magical spell that grants an extraordinary ability intended to heal; the reason I'd say this differs from giving someone giant form I (troll - regeneration 5) is the intent to heal; So if you are giving someone giant form I with the intent of healing him you'd still make the caster level check. This is because just as a scalpel can both be used in a surgery to save someone's life it can also be used to kill that very same person. Therefore, it is the intent of the spell that determines whether or not the caster level check would be invoked. Similarly you can't cast a fireball on a creature with fire absorption to bypass the check either: intent.