Joynt Jezebel's page

My idea here starts with a guide that is to be found at Zenith Guides called "Summoning Information - a guide to an alternate Eidolon" which champions the idea of creating your Eidolon as a ersatz Rogue and using the Summon Monster SLA boosted by feats for combat. Interesting and innovative.

This guide dates to 2013 so is talking of the original "chained" Summoner, which I will be doing here. In 2015 the Morphic Savant archetype was published.

My idea is that this archetype allows you to create three Eidolons, one a Rogue and two others that can be employed for other purposes, most obviously combat, at need. Great for flexibility. Morphic Monsters makes your SLA's more powerful and flexible.

I will quote the 3 changes made to a Summoner by the archetype with some comments of mine in italics.

"Eidolon of Chaos
A morphic savant’s eidolon must be of a chaotic alignment (if using the Unchained Summoner, the eidolon must have the azata, demon, or protean subtype). The morphic savant’s eidolon has three base forms: biped, quadruped, and serpentine. Each form has the same feats and skills, but has its own set of evolutions.

When the summoner meditates and regains his spell slots for the day, he can select any of the three base forms of his eidolon. The eidolon has 1 fewer evolution point than normal for an eidolon of the morphic savant’s summoner level, and has 1 fewer skill point per Hit Die.

This ability alters eidolon."

So you get 3 eidolon forms to select from each day. You can use the serpentine Eidolon as a Rogue or scout, a second as a traditional combat wombat and the third... On this I am undecided.

"Morphic Monsters
Since a morphic savant’s power is drawn from planar energies aligned with chaos, all the creatures he summons must be of a chaotic alignment.

If a creature would normally be celestial or fiendish, it is instead an entropic creature.

This also causes the morphic savant’s summoning power to be less reliable than a standard summoner‘s.

Each time he uses his summon monster spell-like ability to summon multiple creatures, there is a 50% chance he summons one more monster than normal for the summon monster spell he uses, in which case the creatures remain for only 1 round per level (instead of 1 minute per level).

Also, starting at 2nd level, the morphic savant can grant one 1-point evolution to all the creatures he summons with his summon monster spell-like ability. He can’t grant an evolution that duplicates the function of, or has the same name as, any ability the summoned creatures already possess (for example, he can’t grant a creature with a bite attack another bite attack), nor can he add an evolution that causes the summoned monsters to have more attacks than his eidolon‘s maximum number of attacks. The creatures do not have to be of the correct subtype to gain an evolution, but do have to meet any other prerequisites.

This ability alters summon monster."

The news starts bad as you can not summon creatures which are not chaotic, so no devils or elementals. A significant negative. Any summoned creature with a template gets the entropic template instead.

Finally, at level 2 all of your summoned creatures gain a one point evolution. That is Evolved Summon Monster on each creature and technically you can select the Reach or Pounce evolutions. This is absolutely brilliant.

"Chaos Magic
A morphic savant gains the following bonus spells known at the listed spell level: 1st—protection from law, 2nd—shard of chaos, 3rd—magic circle against law, 4th—chaos hammer, 5th—dispel law, 6th—word of chaos. The morphic savant gains one fewer spell known per spell level for spell levels 1–6.

This ability alters the summoner’s spells known."

This is horrible. Effectively your 1st spell choice for each spell level is made for you and all the choices are horrible.

I am going to see if I get any responses before writing any more.

I like your idea Trokar.

But would it not be even better to turn into a liquid and apply yourself to your Eidolon as an ointment, to treat acne for instance.

You could have a Kitsune Summoner with this alternative racial trait-

"Superior Shapeshifter Some talented kitsune take more naturally to shapeshifting than magic, and develop that gift. They gain Fox Shape as a bonus feat at 1st level, ignoring its prerequisites. This racial trait replaces kitsune magic. "

This allows you to do what you want to, well in one way, from level 1.

If you want to take the idea further and in a somewhat deranged way, you can make the summoner a morphic savant, which gives you 3 eidolon forms of which you can have one a day.

The bipedal form can look like a kitsune [or other race] with a pet fox.

The quadruped form can look like a giant fox with a kit.

Maybe the serpentine form can look like a giant fox tail.

Belafon I agree on some things and not on others.

I can't comment on whether Iluzry is an obsessive power gamer or not. I would have to go re-read his guide with that in mind.

I too would not allow vivisectionist to operate as it is written. It isn't an interpretation it is a house rule.

Now I am literally a rules lawyer in that I have a Law degree with honors and used to be a solicitor. And a big part of what you learn is how to properly interpret what is written. I also studied a lot of philosophy which requires and develops the same skills.

The piece of rules in question reads-

"If a character already has sneak attack from another class, the levels from the classes that grant sneak attack stack to determine the effective rogue level for the sneak attack’s extra damage dice."

That is entirely lacking in ambiguity. Both a Slayer and a Nature Fang are other classes that give sneak attack. Now it is true that this is over powered with regard to Slayers and insanely so in the case of Nature Fang. It seems near certain whoever wrote the rule didn't realise this and the RAI would read-

"If a character already has sneak attack from another class which gives sneak attack which progresses at exactly the same rate as a rogue the levels from the classes that grant sneak attack stack to determine the effective rogue level for the sneak attack’s extra damage dice."

I added the section of text in bold type to change what the rules say to what the majority thinks the rules say.

But they do not say the same thing and there is no question that they do. Iluzry isn't twisting words he can just read.

What is wrong with the majority interpretation is obscured by this example. Here it is practically certain that whoever wrote the offending section of rules made a mistake the results are clearly totally unbalanced.

So the RAW and RAI obviously differ.

But generally, when do you actually know what whoever wrote the rules intended? Remember this is almost always someone you never met. When the design team make this public and you know it really is the design team and what they said.

If the RAI are not known it is just something said by someone that at best seems reasonable to them. Or allows them to to win an argument or allows their character to do what they want it to do.

It is always possible to say the RAI is [anything] therefore the rules are [anything].

Makes sense.

I was a bit worried I had killed off the PFS myself. About 15 years ago I was at the same venue as a PFS session and pointed out the path near the venue. Logically this rendered the PFS redundant and it should have been disbanded.

I know that.

So PFS only refers to PF 1st ed?

Heather 540- If we were starting in the same campaign I would offer to play one of the twins so you could play them together. It is a good idea and a pity you haven't got to play them.

But it does not surprise me. Players understandably normally want to play their own character ideas.

Hello Melkiador, and how are you?

I too would not allow vivisectionist to operate as it is written. It isn't an interpretation it is a house rule.

What caused the PFS to [nearly] die? I know that is what happened but don't know why.

Thanks I grok do u.

Scurrying Swarmer is an amazing trait. And it certainly makes sneaky stabby Ratfolk amazing.

But having 2 Ratfolk with sneak attack beating down on an enemy will still be doing more damage than one. And you economise on a feat.

I know there are lots of creatures immune to precision damage. But most are not.

I see what you mean. Long does not cover it, interminable is a better word.

Certainly the majority view is Iluzry is wrong. The majority view is certainly more balanced and is what the rule should have said. But it does not say that.

Even if the majority view is accepted and Vivisectionist shenanigans are ruled out, having an even number of Ratfolk with sneak attack is a very efficient way to do a lot of damage.

I was reading Iluzry's guide to the Slayer where he suggests taking one level of Alchemist (Vivisectionist) to increase the Slayer's sneak attack damage to equal a Rogue's of the same character level.

The archetype's class feature in question is-

"Sneak Attack
At 1st level, a vivisectionist gains the sneak attack ability as a rogue of the same level. If a character already has sneak attack from another class, the levels from the classes that grant sneak attack stack to determine the effective rogue level for the sneak attack’s extra damage dice (so an alchemist 1/rogue 1 has a +1d6 sneak attack like a 2nd-level rogue, an alchemist 2/rogue 1 has a +2d6 sneak attack like a 3rd-level rogue, and so on)."

I bolded part of of the text as it is important. I agree with Iluzry that this is a good idea and also that this isn't the clearest worded rule Paizo ever produced.

What the RAW is, in my opinion, is that if you add a level of Vivisectionist to any class that gives you sneak attack equal to a Rogue of the same level. So a Slayer, which will normally top out at 6d6 at level 20 would be increased to 10d6 as a level 19 slayer/ Level 1 Alchemist. 4d6 more sneak attack damage for a one level dip? Sign me up.

Then my genius [I am joking] started working on Iluzry's idea and came up with a better one: adding a one level Vivisectionist dip to a Nature Fang Druid, which only ever gets 1d6 sneak attack. This nets you +9d6 by level 20 at the cost of a one level dip. This is precisely 225% as good as the dip for the Slayer.

My genius continued to work, suggesting combining the idea with the Ratfolk's swarming-

"Offense Racial Traits

Swarming: Ratfolk are used to living and fighting communally, and are adept at swarming foes for their own gain and their foes’ detriment. Up to two ratfolk can share the same square at the same time. If two ratfolk in the same square attack the same foe, they are considered to be flanking that foe as if they were in two opposite squares."

This is a very efficient way of two Ratfolk who both have sneak attack to be able to get the extra damage most of the time.

I am interested in others ideas on possible uses of a Vivisectionist dip. Particularly with Ratfolk.

Indeed glass. That particular FAQ made a lot of people angry. It is the only time I have seen a reaction like that from players.

Ive seen alot around the forums people trying to find ways of early entry into mystic theurge

It was possible to gain entry into mystic theurge, then a FAQ came out, over a decade ago I think, and made this impossible.

I find that I want to share the rather hilarious indecent that happened at my last gaming session.

I am not going to give you grief over typos or spelling mistakes, especially as English may not be your first language.

But this one is really good. Not an incident but an indecent.

And I think you should change your Catfolk's name to Schroedinger. :)

education is usually the solution.

That is the only sensible thing you have said. Here is some.

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

...

There is no point including a quote where nothing is quoted.

Azothath wrote:

because you were wrong on every point in your Rules Forum post

This sentence is ungrammatical and does not make sense. And it is customary to capitalise the first word of a sentence. Honestly, I could write better English that you when I was in early primary school.

You don't seem to be able to read either.

comment

the idea that medicines are poisons or low dosage toxins is silly. It is a matter of toxicology (vector, genetics, health, amount/dosage) or chemistry & biochemistry. Almost any substance in quantity is lethal such as water or table salt (sodium chloride) and both are necessary for human functioning.
FYI warfarin. For this to work in the game with those rationalizations it would have to be immunity:warfarin rather than poison. Immunity:poison works on crafted poison which may be described as "warfarin based", the chemistry is a descriptive technical detail to increase believability in the Game.

You have garbled what I said.

I also said-

Of course Pathfinder does not take place in the real world so the answer to this question is, not for the only time, "it is up to the GM".

Criticizing me for not distinguishing between Pathfinder rules and real world science is due to poor reading and comprehension not an error on my part.

A bit of real world science at least as I understand it.

Poisons and medicines can be the same thing in different doses and for the same reason. Poisons from organic sources, like snake venom, are often investigated for their uses as medicines.

Warfarin is a medicine used to thin the blood when that is medically desired. Take too much of it and the blood gets so thin you die. Likewise the sedating effect of opiates will stop you breathing if too much is taken.

So in the real world if you are immune to poisons warfarin won't work as a medicine and you won't get high or obtain pain relief from opiates.

Of course Pathfinder does not take place in the real world so the answer to this question is, not for the only time, "it is up to the GM".

I would rule that in cases like the 2 I have discussed, where the medical effect and the poison effect are aspects of the same thing, that it would work the way it does in the real world.

I have resurrected ancient threads without realising I was doing it. They can show up on a search and unless you look at the date of posts, and you often don't, you have no way of knowing the thread is archaic.

That would be my guess as to what happened here.

It is what it is. The writing could be clearer

I can't say I agree. I do not know why anyone thinks that the limitations in the first paragraph apply to the second paragraph.

Casters can always share a personal spell onto their familiar and the spell level scales with the powers.

A good use of this is to cast Shadow Projection on your familiar. This makes your familiar a shadow for an hour a level, which is a long time. Given how dangerous Shadows are and that many monsters can't do anything to a shadow this is great.

my usual advice for wizards is to choose bonded object amulet over familiar and use blood sentinel:T3 if needed..

Why? You just think the bondage object is better?

What Mark Seifter said was-

As usual, not an official answer, but it seems pretty clear to me that the size limitation is consistent at all levels, but what changes is you can pick up stronger abilities like pounce and blindsense.

My opinion is that Perfect Tommy is entirely correct for the reason they give. I can't see any reason for questioning the interpretation of the text.

The other side of the argument is that Mark has the magic word "designer" next to his name. And still does even if he says it is not official and just their opinion.

The bonus from the ability doesn't CARE for the length of time the action to perform the skill check take, only that the bonus is applied to ONE skill check.

Yes yes. But that is you saying that, not a quote from the rules.

I actually think you are probably right about this having consulted the crafting rules. Probably.

To mount an argument against, recall you can start with focused trance at lvl 1. Compare it to this universal mythic ability-

"Display of Intelligence (Su)
As a free action, you can expend one use of mythic power to attempt a feat of Intelligence, gaining a +20 circumstance bonus on one Intelligence-based skill check or Intelligence ability check."

They are around the same power, display of intelligence uses one use of mythic power per use, where focused trance can be used as many times per day as your cha bonus without further cost but it takes 1d6 rounds. Focused trance could even be considered a little better. It seems obviously wrong that a revelation you can start with can be as good as a mythic power or anything like as good. Remember mythic anything is not available at all in most campaigns.

zza ni- I looked up the rules for craft skills and we are both wrong. Maybe I was a bit more wrong than you were.

The crafting rules are way too long to quote here, but as I read it in your example Da Vinci would normally make a craft check once a day or week and if successful he would make one days or weeks progress towards finishing his masterpiece.

The length of time it takes to craft the item depends on it's value.

Given that you can start with Focused Trance at level one and can use it a number of times per day equal to your cha mod, and Oracles run off cha, this makes a Lore Oracle incredibly good at some things.

Most obviously magic item crafting. Being able to give yourself a +20 on every check is insanely good. If the bonus was only +10 it would be more than worth a revelation for that alone.

Given that Focused Trance can be used for a bunch of other things as well and that the mystery is otherwise excellent I want to start playing one asap.

Don't underestimate the Lore Oracle when it comes to crafting constructs (or anything else); Focused Trance will give a Lore Oracle a +20 circumstance bonus on any intelligence-based skill check, which includes spellcraft. With the intelligence boost from their Mental Acuity, I'd say a Lore Oracle could easily trump a wizard when making the crafting checks.

Interesting.

It seems to me that using this revelation on something that itself takes a long period of time, such as a spellcraft check to enchant a golem, is problematic.

The wording of the revelation implies it can only be used for short tasks. It at least needs a GM ruling.

You do have a point about the limited spells known issue, but it's a minor hurdle, not a game breaker; playing a human, half-orc, or half-elf will provide bonus spells known, and there are always Pages of Spell Knowledge.

Or get yourself a Mnemonic Vestment. It is probably a better solution and an excellent purchase even if you never craft anything.

I'd actually put Witch hexes as second strongest, but unlike Eidolon, you can't make them work at full power on every character. Hexcrafter Magus and Sylvan Trickster Rogue are martials, they neither have a maxed out Int, nor can they afford to spend most of their actions in combat on using hexes.

The strongest non-spell-casting class feature is Eidolon, nothing even comes close.
Also very high on the list is the Summon Monster SLA,

Sylvan Tricksters seem to be a bit of a well kept secret. They are the only class or archetype that gets major and grand hexes except for the Witch.

You are right of course that they won't have as high an int as a Witch, but the availability of Hexes adds vastly to their flexibility. And they pay less for it than an Arcane Trickster or Eldritch Scoundrel does for their spells.

I played a Master Summoner prompted by the notion I could improve on a build of Mercurial's. The Summon Monster SLA, when it is not restricted to one use at a time and suitably built around can be really overwhelming. Nobody will let me play one again but I am finished with the idea anyway.

Dreamed Secrets is a feat that gives any divine caster access to nearly any wizard spell (short of all the level 9 ones I suppose).

Not quite, from the feats description-

"Prerequisites: Ability to cast divine spells, caster level 7th, worshiper of a Great Old One or Outer God."

* Razmiran Priest Sorcerer can cast spells from any divine caster list, just by owning a copy of the scroll

Imho this is easily the best of the methods of using spells off other lists that I know of.

You use up a spell slot of one level higher, so it maxes out at 8th level spells. But it is any divine spell.

Gathlains get to add enchantment spells from the Sorcerer/ Wizard list to the Oracle Spell List and Druid spells to the Shaman and Witch lists. Note that this is better for spontaneous casters than prepared.

Pathfinder allow a great many of ways and means to do this. It is going to take a lot of effort to track down them all.

JDawg75 wrote:

Quote:

Speaker for the Past Shamans get revelations. Other class features that meet your criteria are Eidolons and Major and Grand Hexes.

As far as Hexes: Restless Slumber is certainly OP, but you can't get Grand Hexes until level 18 (when a lot of crazy abilities kick in for several classes). The weakness of witches to me is most of their hexes just don't work well on the undead. I'm on the fence about it, to be honest.

Speaker for the Past not only get revelations and get to choose from 2 mysteries, but the Ancestors mystery is good and the Time mystery may be the best.

As to Witches, that is my favourite class.

Yes, you don't get grand hexes to level 18 when their are immense levels of power flowing around. But have a look at his one-

"Animal Servant (Su)

Benefit(s): The witch can use this hex to turn a humanoid enemy into an animal and rob it of its free will.

The transformation works as beast shape II and is negated by a successful Will save. The transformed creature retains its Intelligence score and known languages, if any, but the witch controls its mind. This effect functions as dominate monster, except the creature does not receive further saving throws to resist the hex. The effect can be removed only with wish or similar magic, although slaying the witch also ends the effect. Whether or not the save is successful, a creature cannot be the target of this hex again for 1 day."

Enemies become my slaves. Now that is just perfect.

No hexes do not work well, and a lot do not work at all, on Undead. Or Contructs. But unless you are playing "Mummy's Mask" or something similar most monsters are not undead. You are still a full arcane prepared caster and you can prepare spells to deal with undead if you expect them or just in case.

Quote:

Speaker for the Past Shamans get revelations. Other class features that meet your criteria are Eidolons and Major and Grand Hexes.

As far as Hexes: Restless Slumber is certainly OP, but you can't get Grand Hexes until level 18 (when a lot of crazy abilities kick in for several classes). The weakness of witches to me is most of their hexes just don't work well on the undead. I'm on the fence about it, to be honest.

Speaker for the Past not only get revelations and get to choose from 2 mysteries, but the Ancestors mystery is good and the Time mystery may be the best.

As to Witches, that is my favourite class.

Yes, you don't get grand hexes to level 18 when their are immense levels of power flowing around. But have a look at his one-

"Animal Servant (Su)

The transformation works as beast shape II and is negated by a successful Will save. The transformed creature retains its Intelligence score and known languages, if any, but the witch controls its mind. This effect functions as dominate monster, except the creature does not receive further saving throws to resist the hex. The effect can be removed only with wish or similar magic, although slaying the witch also ends the effect. Whether or not the save is successful, a creature cannot be the target of this hex again for 1 day.

Enemies become my slaves. Now that is just perfect.

No hexes do not work well, well a lot do not work at all, on Undead. Or Contructs. But unless you are playing "Mummy's Mask" or something similar most monsters are not. You are still a full arcane prepared caster and you can prepare spells to deal with undead if you expect them or just in case.

Second, Oracle Revelations. Similar to the above, many are much more powerful than feats and can let you do things some other classes just can't, which is probably why you can only get 6. Even the curses end up being useful. You need to be an Oracle, and unless you are a Ravener Hunter iIquisitor, you are pretty much out of luck.

Speaker for the Past Shamans get revelations.

Other class features that meet your criteria are Eidolons and Major and Grand Hexes. There are lots of ways to get Hexes but to get Major or Grand Hexes you need to be a witch or a Sylvan Trickster Rogue. The Druid's Wild Shape class feature likely does too.

It isn't surprising you missed the archetype that got revelations. There are just so many rules for PF1 that it is near impossible to know everything.

Not to use a scroll that is on your spell list in the normal way no.

But to cast a spell from a written source using mnemonic vestment is something else, which allows you to keep the scroll but uses up a spell slot. To do that you must follow the rules as stated for mnemonic vestment including understanding the written source with spellcraft or read magic.

What nobody has mentioned, including me, is you can use a spellbook or a scroll. Which makes the vestment even better.

Mysterious Stranger:

Neither I nor Joynt Jezebel is arguing that the sorcerer is the best option for a crafter. You don’t have to convince us! All we are saying is that if Heather wants to have a crafter in the party (and this is the last PC she’s building for the group) there are ways to do it and still do other things. Specifically the Impossible Bloodline - which gets Craft Wondrous for free, has Craft Arms&Armor as a bloodline feat, and gradually can ignore more and more spell prerequisites when making most items other than scrolls, potions, wands, and staves - and Mnemonic Vestments for those.

I must say this thread is being very civil when people disagree.

You are right of course that sorcerers don't have the easiest time being good crafters. Of the arcane casters wizards have it easiest, being int based and getting to add his int mod to spellcraft and skill points/ level and potentially knowing every spell on the sorcerer/ wizard list.

But that does not stop others doing it and it can still be extremely useful. Mnemonic vestment helps, as does your idea of the Impossible Bloodline and the Voices of solid things Trait mentioned by Belaphon.

I had a sorcerer who was sufficiently impressed with her Mnemonic Vestment that she put the same enchantment into the vestment a second time, at 150% cost. That is how useful I think the item is, even if you never craft a thing.

A sorcerer is going to be very limited as a crafter. Sine spell craft is an INT based skill his roll and the sorcerer is a CHA based caster his bonus will be lower than normal. He is also a spontaneous caster so will often lack the required spell and have to take a penalty to create many items.

You can get around the second problem by getting hold of a Mnemonic Vestment and using scrolls. The Mnemonic Vestment is very good even if you never use it for crafting. Unfortunately I don't have another idea to get around the first problem.:(

For anyone who 'worship' Raz i'd suggest picking up the overpowered trait 'Strength of Submision' and pay a caster to cast Sow Tought on you for those sweet permanent +1 to hit and damage bonuses.

my main go-to is the thought 'Razmiran is great!'.

That is a neat little combo.

It would work better on a fighter or barbarian than a sorcerer, who is still poor at combat even with +1/+1.

Azothath wrote:

Sorcerer archetype Razmiran Priest

 Req: PFS legal, 20 pt Abil buy, 5th Lvl $10500 gear | 11th Lvl $82000 gear....
Abacade male aasimarᶝ lawbringer Sor Arch-Razmir Priest 5 | 11
NN med sz humnoid outsdr(ntv)
...

it is a centric build with a good race but not the most tweaked, but who'd think a lawbringer was a razmiran priest?! I should have applied Innocent racial trait but +1 Fort ya know... Alchemical items are self crafted.

You could choose halfelf, halfling, human, ratfolk and adjust the ability scores. Humans have Comp Edu trait which is nice. Ratfolk swarm and work well with this class.
You can move some of the Equip/Gear around as a Page of spell Know would be nice at 5th. I did skimp on the wand charges...

Personally I think the class is gimped as it needs social skills AND it trades away good things. It focuses on UMD which for a caster is a trap and doing cleric spells at +1 SplLvl isn't all that. I think a dip in Rogue would cure it mostly BUT sorcerers take a beating on multiclassing. I think a Clr 1 (Bastet)/Wiz4 or Wiz10 would beat up the Razmir Sor...

Well, you are entitled to your opinion Azothath. Every other opinion I have read about the Razmiran, or False, Priest is to the effect that it is brilliant.

"doing cleric spells at +1 SplLvl isn't all that" well I disagree and agree with practically everyone else.

The point is that buying a scroll of each of the more useful divine spells is quite doable by the time this ability comes online and you only have to pay once.

It isn't that you have the most powerful spell ready. But so often you have the most needed spell, be it restoration or dispel magic or neutralise poison.

One problem I can see with this is Bilocation is a 8th level spell not on the witch spell list. And it creates a copy of the caster.

In principle the witch could get hold of a scroll of the spell and cast it with Use Magic Device.

From the section of the rules on familiars-

"Share Spells: The wizard may cast a spell with a target of “You” on his familiar (as a touch spell) instead of on himself. A wizard may cast spells on his familiar even if the spells do not normally affect creatures of the familiar’s type (magical beast)."

Note the words in bold print. I think this means that even if you set your scheme up it won't have the effect you are seeking.

Diego you are right about the Pathfinder rules of course.

You don't seem to be as good at spotting a joke. Lighten up a bit dude.

Buckler
"This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it."

I am surprised nobody has pointed out that if you take the wording strictly literally it means you will never take any kind of penalty, i.e. it negates range penalties, those for cover, anything.

It is a little insane to interpret the rules like this. Then again, some GMs are a little insane, so why not try your luck?

Nobody has mentioned a Beast Talisman or at least I don't think so. It is expensive but in many ways better than an amulet of Mighty Fists. Deserves to be better known.

I don't know if your GM would allow taking the witch's hex twice, but if so and you're laying back there is a combo I used with witch's hexes:

'Protective Luck' hex combined with the 'Soothsayer' which let you set it up ahead of time (and cackle\chant later on)

This combination isn't just good it is totally broken. I am currently playing a witch and have cackle and intend to take protective luck, but no Soothsayer.

Anyway. You're suggesting a reach build? Simple, but effective. If I want to make the most of it, I'll probably want Improved Trip, which requires Combat Expertise. Shaman stands behind Barbarian and knocks the opponent over. Opponent gets up, both Shaman and Barbarian smack him around.

I would suggest dropping this idea totally. Todd Sampson suggested not investing too heavily in it.

The reason is, as Todd says, you have plenty of other things you can do as a Shaman, and all of them are more effective than you acting as a second rate fighter. Making a Shaman who is good at being a Shaman is the way to make them effective.

3. We've found that letting the character survive somehow, winds up being far more fun in the long run. By no means make it easy, or give them a sense of being invincible. take them down to -5 HP, So they are "dead" but still healable.

Sound thinking imho.

But if the GM is having to bend the rules to keep players alive often they are likely making things too difficult. I have been in campaigns where the GM is always putting us up against foes that will kill us all, then bend the rules so we stay alive, then do it again.

I agree with most of what has been said earlier.

Likewise, a group of adventurers meeting in a tavern and deciding to do something incredibly dangerous together, which means trusting the others with there very lives, makes little sense either.

This can be got around if the players spend a lot of time and effort making joint backgrounds. While this is a great idea, as is anything joint, it is not often done.

It's not realistic but neither are fantastic medieval worlds.

Diego is 100% right of course. I am going to add some thoughts mostly as a DM. As Diego says, a PC can't create a Tulpa the way they can, say, a Construct.

Tulpa

So this is really three questions, but each extra question only is relevant if the previous question's answer is "yes".

1: Could a character have a Tulpa of a Heavy Horse, which among other things, is a horse with the Advanced Template?

There is no problem having more than one template, so the creature can clearly exist.

As a GM I would have no problem letting a PC hire or befriend such a creature if I thought it would not unbalance the game, ie the PCs were high enough level the Tulpa would not dominate things.

If it turned out to be bad for play balance I could just have the Tulpa go away.

Tulpa

2: If yes, can a character have a Guardian Spirit Tulpa, applying the Guardian Spirit template first, then the Tulpa template, meaning the base creature for the Tulpa is a Guardian Spirit?

3: If yes, would they get to choose which spell level the "Guardian Spirit" is "conjured" by, assuming the Tulpa is intentionally created?

The RAW answer to question two is no, likewise question 3.

Guardian Spirit is already a powerful spell that allows you to conjure a creature as per the spell description.

Would I allow an invented spell that somehow allowed you to conjure a Tulpa over and over? Nope. There are lots of ways such a thing can prove thoroughly overpowered and I don't trust myself to think of them all. Sometimes Paizo's whole creative team can't do that, it's one of the reasons you get errata or things banned in PF society.

I don't mean to sound negative but I have been looking at the recruitment thread for over a decade and recruiting a GM for a new or existing campaign never works.

Omnimage- I am not disputing your costings as per the rules at all.

But... I guess this is the reason most magic items are almost never purchased or crafted by PCs.

It is easy to get twice the power out of half the 180,000 GPs you cost the item at.

Taking off 20% because you have no control over what you get seems, well stingy. And you don't give anything off because of its drawbacks'

You may be a Crazy Alchemist, but you give an excellent explanation of coming by feats in PF1.

There was GDS "Space: 1889" too. You would have to adapt the rules, but it was a Barsoom-like setting with a sword and Victorian mad tech theme.

"Space: 1889" was an excellent game that deserved more players than it got.

It had a Barsoom-like setting but only on Mars. We flew there in our zeppelin. The rest of the solar system was different.

That is a very cool idea. If the time of the C/T boundary, when the dinosaurs who were not birds died out, that puts it 65 million years. A long time.

I go much older, more than 13.8 billion years. Which should suggest something to the science nerds.

I want to know what is the oldest relevant historical event that anyone has ever come
across in a Pathfinder 1st ed, campaign.

I will be running a one shot, and hopefully later a campaign, that I expect will smash all records in this respect. I want to see if this is so.

I think you are dead right Name Violation.

The single character described has the luck of Oedipus and the stability of Donald Trump. I have no idea how to play such a character.

If you actually put together a campaign along these lines, everyone having undergone a major reversal and mandatory change of class, it would be very different to most PF campaign.

Very morally complicated with, hopefully, lots of agonised roleplaying. And if anyone was a murder hobo, they would be painfully aware of the fact.