Joynt Jezebel's page

@ Azothath- My answer said essentially the same thing as yours, but with less comprehensive quotes from the rules and FAQ's.

Stop showing off :P.

Two quotes from the rules-

"Activation: Wands use the spell trigger activation method,"

"Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it’s even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell."

So the answer to your question is no. Your creature usually will not have a class and cannot cast the corresponding spell.

Running into this is a grizzly prospect.

@Joyant Jeezebel - Yeah, that player is a bit frustrating. They don't want help with the build.

Players often do not. Even when they don't know what they are doing. I try to help less experienced players with their characters or to get the party efficient in terms of what the group can do. Often I am not followed or it is even resented so I have given up doing it unless asked.

Then I get asked for advice after many decisions have been made which can politely be called sub-optimal.

And it is Joynt Jezebel. I am only Joyant Jezebel when I am ecstatic, which unfortunately isn't very often.

@ Mysterious Stranger

I agree with you. But why do so many players swear by a one level dip into a martial class when playing a divine caster? They are attracted by the apparent benefits not realising it does not work as well as it appears?

@ShroudedInLight

It sounds like your player's understanding of the game is not the best.

I know that some players swear by a one level dip into a martial class when playing a divine caster.

I have not tried it but it seems likely this works well at making the character a decent melee combatant at lower levels but would suffer at higher levels when casters start to dominate the game.

At least 90% of the time the most effective characters are built by putting all your levels into your base class. That has always been by deliberate design. So I don't think you are just bitter, dips are a mistake more often than not.

The third - a smug rule lawyer - declares that he has chosen Profession: Costumer and therefore just about every wondrous item is fair game for him.

At which point a fourth player chimes in and suggests Profession: forger. You know - someone who forges items that look like specific magic items. Or in other words, anything.

As a literal rules lawyer, someone who has a law degree and practiced law, I really should have thought of these. Also profession (salesman) should work for every conceivable magic item.

And despite having expressed a different opinion earlier I am convinced by your argument that the skill or profession should work for very magic item
to avoid power gaming silliness.

1) Did it mean use-activation item or a spell-completion item? Both could make sense I guess, but I think it meant spell-completion items--which are basically just scrolls.

I agree. It could have been more precisely worded.

2) Then the next question is that the way it is written, a character with the feat and the other two mentioned can make anything that is a weapon, armor, or wondrous item.

Could one really use craft (basketweaving) to make a magic sword? Or use craft (bows) to make a magic hat?

Was it intended that the craft skill used to qualify for the feat also has to apply to the magic item being made? For example, it would make a sort of narrative sense that a really excellent cobbler could make acrobat slippers or a really good blacksmith could make horseshoes of speed

Or is the thinking that a master craftsman in any kind of crafting could apply his skill to any magic item in the weapon, armor, and wondrous categories?

As you say, it is not clear.

3) Lastly, what about other item creation feats? Could a master carpenter also take Craft Construct to make a wood golem, for example?

Hey great, a question with a clear answer. The answer is no, or at least not with this feat.

The game has a lot of ways you can get to create a kind of magic item w/o having the feat as such.

As I read the spell description the twilight knife will move to attack the enemy you do if it can. So it moves rather than dematerialise and rematerialise.

I expect circumstances where this can't be done, per the description, are those where there is no physical path big enough for the dagger to move to the new target.

That is certainly an interesting and unusual character idea Deathless One.

However I am not convinced it is the best solution to the problems you mention in terms of effectiveness.

You still have to spend feats on Medium and maybe heavy armour proficiency and martial weapons. And you can't use your druid spells while in metal armour.

Alternative answers like dragon skin armour and maybe a one level dip into fighter may be more effective.

I believe 2.

Look at the wording of the last paragraph-

"You can cause an item..."

Having more than one item won't give you extra uses.

Note that not all items that require a divination spell to create qualify.

Yes, you are right. My mistake.

Mostly I agree with Azothath.

And I think most FCBs that could stack do. For example the Dwarven bonus for-

Summoner: Add a +1/4 natural armor bonus to the AC of the summoner’s eidolon.

Must stack as otherwise it would not do anything however many times you took it.

There is a question as to what happens if you take the Wizard FCB in question multiple times and reach the point you can, by the RAW, craft an item in no time.

I think it sensible to rule you can produce, say, 2 items a day but no more.

Thanks. Now I know what I was missing.

Spirit guide is fantastic and probably the most powerful oracle archetype.

I played one in a skulls and shackles, very flexible, can adjust to situations, still plays quickly and smoothly.

I may be missing something as I have never played the archetype and haven't played a oracle.

Spirit Guide gets only a restricted version of the wandering spirit and grants only one hex, which wanders too. It costs 3 revelations, leaving only 3.

My favoured Speaker for the Past gets 5 revelations and 8 hexes. It seems to me that this must be much better. Can the restricted wandering spirit really be that good?

@Shrouded Light- Different people evaluate things differently.

One of the times I played a spontaneous caster I crafted a mnemonic vestment with the same enchantment put in the item a second time, at 150% cost, so I could use it twice a day. That item is the spontaneous casters best friend imho.

I don't especially like prepared casting. When you don't have good information about what you're doing the following day its easy to fail to have sufficient spells prepared. If you're fine with having a mediocre loadout of buff and summoning spells when you don't have a good idea of what threats are head;

I dispute the logic of this.

Certainly it is much better if you are playing a prepared caster and know what challenges are ahead and can prepare spells accordingly.

If you do not you just have to prepare spells which are generally useful, which is nowhere near as good. Perfectly logical up to here.

BUT, this puts the prepared caster in the same position as the spontaneous caster. OK, the spontaneous caster has [slightly] more spells and can use their spells known in any combination, which is great. But they are one level behind in getting access to 2nd and higher level spells, which is dreadful.

What seals the deal for me in favour of prepared casters is spontaneous casters is the latter can only ever use their spells known without items. Divine prepared casters are particularly good as they have immediate access to every spell on their list.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

GENERALLY, in response to the original question, the responses above are pretty much in consensus, and I agree with that consensus.

So I am going to talk about my favourite divine caster, the Speaker for the Past Shaman.

I have not played a Shaman with the wandering spirit feature. It is obviously excellent and is what makes shaman's unique. But it is too much work for me and risks me holding up the game while I update for the day.

The Speaker for the Past trades this away for improvements to the classes skills and spell list and a total of 5 oracle revelations over 20 levels. A standard Oracle gets 7. And you get to draw from 2 oracle mysteries, the good Ancestors and Time, which is as good as it gets.

The result is a PC with a good arsenal or hexes, revelations and spells that all run off wisdom. This provides great flexibility in how you can meet the challenges of the game. Further, using hexes and sometimes revelations tends to save spells or allow an alternative when spells are running low.

A one level dip into Inspired Blade Magus, mostly for Arcane Parry and Riposte seems a good option.

Taking 3 or 4 levels of a full divine casting class, one level of Wizard and then going into mystic theurge offers great flexibility and depth.

On another tack, it would help to know what your characters stats look like.

Necklace: Works as a rod of reach, but only for spells with the curse descriptor.

The rod costs 11,000, so the necklace would be the same (unless I'm missing something). But again, how much of a discount should we apply for the curse restriction?

Thanks all.

Well, either I am missing something or everyone else is.

A necklace takes up a slot, where a rod does not.

So a necklace of reach that works on all spells up to level 3, 6 or 9 should cost half of what a rod of reach does. Then there is whatever discount you get for restricting it's use to spells with the curse descriptor. I would think that discount would be quite a lot as few spells have the curse descriptor.

That would be it. My mistake.

@ Diego Rossi

Your ballad puts my own tendency to get involved with the wrong women into perspective.

i got rid of the spell like ability to use the "Variant Aasimar Ablities" chart. DM let em pick.... (silly boy) and added an extra +2 str/cha. so starting with a total of +4 str/cha.

You get to choose once. That could give you +2 str or +2 cha, not both.

River Rat trait is +1 damage; Pharasma's Obedience gets another +2. Trunau Native gets you a masterwork dagger.

The obedience mentioned is to hit with daggers not damage. You still want it.

I just got my ability to post back after a long period when I could not.

I think the consensus here is that the arcanist wins for sheer power, if not by much. I would add that sorcerers, where some bloodlines give powers and arcana that are very powerful, lend themselves to some particular specialised very powerful builds that other classes can't replicate.

Examples are the blaster builds or the Kitsune enchanter build.

I don't think anyone has mentioned the Titanoboa. It starts medium and has a regular, climb and swim speed of 30 and is good in other ways.

Fortune is not as good as it looks. Once per round he can roll twice and take the better result. And the choice has to be made before the dice are rolled.

It has it's limitations yes and probably isn't as good as it looks at first blush.

But you are going to be Cackling anyway which keeps a collection of debuffs going. Once a Witch gets all this going most opponent groups are in deep trouble if not comically helpless as long as you can keep Cackling.

Fortune is still a significant buff and is improved by something you are usually going to be doing anyway.

I would take extra hex twice for fortune and slumber over precise shot and point blank shot.

I'll probably take mor of a support role (buffing/debuffing).

Then you should include the Fortune Hex. Probably early on.

You can only use it on each ally once/day but it is excellent while on and it is cackleable.

Iceplant is also a recommendation. Anything that tends to keep you alive is good. You can't buff or debuff if you are dead.

In addition, does anyone know of a simple way (within the upper frame) of getting a single psychic spell as a witch (looking at you, mind thrust I)?

I can't find a convenient way.

Why do you want that particular spell?

The Mind Patron gives you a bunch of psychic spells. But not that one. You could ask your GM very nicely if they will allow you to take the spell you want in place of the 1st or 2nd level spell the patron gives you. Promise them sexual favours or something.

Another path is to start as a half-elf with the starchild trait, or a human by way of adopted. That gives you the Psychic Sensitivity feat which is one of the pre-requisites of Psychic Disciple. It also has other benefits, psychic skill unlocks, at least I think so. Check that it works by the RAW or with your GM if you are motivated by getting the skill unlocks.

Finally, have a look at Northern Spotted Owl's Witch Guide. It is very good and up to date.

One of the reasons why I chose a Character with low Dex is that our dear GM is very fond of playing enemies that stifle your movement (sleep, hold person, improved grab, grappling, etc..) at the point that during last campaign back in the days I had bonus to Dex negated half of the time at minimum.

To expand on a valid point made by Tim Emrick, maybe you should talk to the GM.

This is an example of the GM putting the party up against opponents who have the Kryptonite for one or more PCs character/s. Other examples of Kryptonite are opponents immune to precision damage for characters with sneak attack or opponents immune to magic or with good SR for spellcasters.

It is good GMing to have opponents with the Kryptonite rarely and they should have Kryptonite for different PCs. That gives the other PCs a moment to shine and challenges the players.

Your GM was giving them Kryptonite against high dex characters more than half the time. That just makes high dex characters weak and leaves the player wondering what they can possibly do to succeed. If you switch to a spellcaster and suddenly you find all your opponents have good SR you can talk to your GM and if that does not work [and it probably won't] find another GM.

But consider this. You cite 4 examples of of Kryptonite for high dex characters. Two of them, the spells sleep and hold person, are effective against any kind of PC high dex or not. What you need against the spells in a high will save. So make sure you are right about the problem.

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

"Mercenaries are useless, disunited, unfaithful
They have nothing more to keep them in a battle
Other than a meager wage
Which is just about enough to make them wanna kill for you
But not enough to make them wanna die for you"

John Cale

While I agree that Cale was, musically, very talented, can you shed some light on his credentials as either a tactician or a historian?

I can write a(n admittedly less-good) song that includes whatever words I like. That won't make those words true.

In quoting John Cale I didn't at all mean John Cale is a great expert so what he says on this topic must be true. If I had intended to do that I would have quoted someone like Sun Tzu.

The John Cale quote made a point I wanted to make better than I could myself.

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

NPCs are not robots that will do anything you tell them. If treated as suggested they will normally display as much loyalty to you as you do for them.

I completely agree, and I hope it's understood I was being a bit blasé in my initial post.

Fair enough.

“Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious, and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy.”

Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

John Cale was alluding to Machiavelli I believe.

It is worth googling the song and giving it a listen. I think it is tremendous.

A mercenary warrior costs 3 silver pieces a day. He comes equipped with studded leather armor and a club, shortsword, or shortspear. Order 2-3 of them into combat whether you have spells left or not. Take their silver pieces off their corpses if they die.

"Mercenaries are useless, disunited, unfaithful

John Cale

Especially if you treat them like that.

NPCs are not robots that will do anything you tell them. If treated as suggested they will normally display as much loyalty to you as you do for them. They are probably more likely to defect to the other side during combat, something real world mercenaries were notorious for, and loot your body after helping to kill you than die for you. Hell, I would.

By 4th-5th level, consider Monster Summoning spells for emergency fodder

Monster Summoning is a brilliant flexible strategy.

Every HP lost by a summoned creature is a HP not lost by the party.

It allows you to keep enemies in combat, restricting their options. You can summon creatures behind your opponents or into places where there arcane casters are thrust all unwilling into melee.

Summoned creatures can be selected to deal with particular problems. they can cast spells or SLAs for you.

Sadly, you need to build around it and it takes a fair few levels to become really effective. Which means it is not much of a solution at lower levels where running out of spells is at it's worst.

Angelic Aspect seems to me the least powerful of the effects by far. You would expect this from a level 2 spell compared to level 5 and 6.

Antilife Shell is an immensely powerful effect, great on full casters, especially arcane casters as it negates so much of there trademark squishiness. But it isn't always going to be that relevant.

True Seeing does so much so often that you will always want one party member with it for 24 hours.

You may have noticed this yourself, the spell with Enduring Blessing lasts for 24 hours and can be cast once on each individual. So use it like this-
1 Cast a buff spell on each party member just before you go to sleep. Include animal companions and familiars.
2 Have a 8 hour snooze.
3 Replenish all your spells.
4 Head out for a full days adventuring with the buffs in place until you are ready to sleep the next night.

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

I really like this in principle. But I haven't figured out how to do it efficiently.

Poisonous blood works OK, but other ideas seems to use up resources for something that will not do anything if things go to plan.

You are always going to be using resources for plans that usually don't happen, but you'll be thankful you did if it ever happens. My playstyle makes it more than likely that the enemy will attempt to go after me more than usual, so I get more mileage out of preventative measures than others might.

Play styles seem to be why the experiences differ.

My play style when playing a full arcane caster is to avoid melee combat like the plague absolutely all the time. what measures I take concerning melee are just to be able to survive it when I wind up there anyway, at least until I can get away from it again.

Also just in Pathfinder 1 generally I aim for my character to be very good at what they are best at. Then I want to be good at some things to be well rounded. But you can't get close to be good at everything and PF1 rewards specializing. So I just accept that there are a whole lot of things I am poor at.

Accordingly I don't try to get any good at using weapons when playing a full arcane caster. A lot of people have posted here who do try to get decent with weapons. I know why they do it and am not saying it is mistaken. But I prefer to structure my character figuring there is more value in just using feats etc. to improve my character elsewhere.

And I always, ALWAYS, design my characters so that when (not if) they ever get caught on the front line, the monster immediately regrets it. Whether that is from having poisonous blood, a held charge from a touch spell ready to detonate when I'm struck, or something else... It will cost the enemy much more than I lose when we come into contact.

I really like this in principle. But I haven't figured out how to do it efficiently.

Poisonous blood works OK, but other ideas seems to use up resources for something that will not do anything if things go to plan.

Scrolls good for utility and situational spells. If the caster level of the spell is not important or the minimum caster level is sufficient, they are perfect for a scroll. This allows the caster to memorize more combat spells but still have access to other needed spells.

Lots of good sense from Mysterious Stranger. I have something to add to the quoted passage.

Spontaneous casters have it even better with the use of scrolls if they have one of my favourite magic items, Mnemonic Vestments. Once a day thay can use the niche spell from the scroll... and not expend the scroll.

sometimes this means being pretty useless in combat, unless you want to risk your life giving someone a flanking partner.

I think this has way too much chance of that becoming a dead flanking partner.

Missile weapons or cantrips, which tend not to do a lot but you can do it as often as you like.

Then there are items like a wand of fireballs, but again they tend to show up at higher levels.

If none of this appeals, you can play a witch, which always has a powerful alternative to spells in hexes, many of which can be used once a day on each target.

Hasbro was rattling sabers about finding a way to cancel the Open Game License, so Paizo decided to move to a new system that is less vulnerable to challenges in court.

It is an age-old story, sadly. Game Designers' Workshop (GDW) was killed by a cause from TSR (owned, at the time, by Lorraine Williams). It had no merit, but they had to defend themselves and spend money. At the end, they were forced into an out-of-court settlement. After that, they closed.

I have a law degree and used to practice. It is hard to see any way of cancelling an open use license or even seriously trying to. My legal knowledge is Australian and hardly up to date but it sounds far fetched.

Which is all kind of irrelevant as the financial resources of Paizo and Hasbro are so imbalanced.

@Neriathale

Your comments about the systems I would almost totally agree with. Except regarding PF2 which I have never played, so I can't really say anything beyond it sounds a bit too much like 5th ed, or 4th ed.

Sysryke wrote:

4e is definitely not the best system, but I'll never agree with the hate some folks throw at it.

A lot of the hostility to D&D 4e has little to do with the system itself.

1 - In the minds of many, D&D 4e came out too early - well before D&D 3.5 had run its course. I offer the popularity of Pathfinder 1e as evidence of this.
2 - Some of the actions of WotC to try to force the new system on the community did not engender good will. Hasbro/WotC has a general problem with the way the interact with the RPG Community.

I tried 4th ed after hardly playing D&D for decades and thought it an OK [but no better] system.

I found the degree of hate a lot of players had for 4th ed bizarre. Can't you just play something else, or stay with 3.5?

I would add that 4th ed changed a lot of things players did not want changed. I have heard the complaint that it "just wasn't D&D" often.

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

For me to get the appropriate nostalgia hit it would involve going way back to AD&D which is markedly inferior.

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

I don't recall playing 2nd ed at all. Maybe I played it once or twice but can't recall. So I am only talking about AD&D. I agree with TOZ and Dragonchess Player that version of the game didn't have the merits you found.

Ozreth wrote:

I suppose I wonder if it has been so many decades since trying it, why do yu deem it inferior? At the very least, the quickness, simplicity of rules (in combat, at least),

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

Hell no.

The DMG was so hopelessly disorganised you practically had to know it by heart, which I did incidentally, to find anything.

Ozreth wrote:

Not to mention characters staying within a reasonable power level at all levels

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

Can't say I agree here either.

You can apply exactly what the DMG says you should do and get massive parties that are near impossible to challenge and round take forever.

In AD&D every character automatically had leadership.

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

Arkat wrote:

To move on to PF2e would mean another huge investment. My friends and I are all approaching 60 years old. We're tired of buying new versions of games.

We're happy with PF1e, so that's what we're sticking with.

I have the same sort of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" approach. And PF1 has so many more possibilities than D&D 5th ed.

And I am even older, 64, and should properly be referred to as a "Great Old One". Memory declines with age and learning new systems becomes more difficult. So does sorting between different versions of the same system.

I am still playing the 1st iteration of Vampire and Werewolf. Another of my favourite games is Star Wars d20 saga ed. Sadly, aside from World of Darkness [which is still having new material produced despite there being a newer version] these games are dying as far as players go.

64, nice! Did you move through all the editions? Have you ever gone backwards and tries TSR editions again?

I started way back in 1979 when only a starter version of D&D was available in Australia which only went to 3rd level if my memory serves me well.

I played a huge amount of Advanced D&D that came next. I overdosed in a major way and played mostly other RPGs for a long time. World of Darkness, Shadow Run, Champions others. For a long time I played D&D reluctantly when there were not better alternatives available or so I thought at the time.

Really, I suspect what I saw as faults in D&D were faults in the very early versions which were hopelessly disorganised and encouraged confrontation between players and DM. That and the fact that we were all new to playing and DMing and like beginners in anything made a lot of mistakes.

Just an aside, I have been DMing for 46 years and am still learning.

I really became more of an enthusiast around the time PF1 appeared. My then group wanted to play it and I was rather surprised to find it was really good. I don't want to abandon such a great game just because it is no longer commercially supported but it keeps getting harder to find players.

D&D 5th is OK but PF1 has so many more possibilities.

Given my history it should be no surprise I have done little if any revisiting of older versions. For me to get the appropriate nostalgia hit it would involve going way back to AD&D which is markedly inferior. And I don't play with other Great Old Ones who might be inclined to go that far back in time.

To move on to PF2e would mean another huge investment. My friends and I are all approaching 60 years old. We're tired of buying new versions of games.

We're happy with PF1e, so that's what we're sticking with.

I have the same sort of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" approach. And PF1 has so many more possibilities than D&D 5th ed.

And I am even older, 64, and should properly be referred to as a "Great Old One". Memory declines with age and learning new systems becomes more difficult. So does sorting between different versions of the same system.

I am still playing the 1st iteration of Vampire and Werewolf. Another of my favourite games is Star Wars d20 saga ed. Sadly, aside from World of Darkness [which is still having new material produced despite there being a newer version] these games are dying as far as players go.

Those guides are written from a powergamer/optimizer/rules lawyer perspective. You can find several threads on these boards where Ilzury is trying to come up with a way of reading the rules to do something that a class can't do. Every time one idea got shot down, another one with even more convoluted reading would pop up. Just about every one of the guides includes at least one suggestion that only works if you seriously twist the language of the rules.

Convoluted reading of language isn't limited to power gamers. There are FAQs which involve equally convoluted readings or even would clearly be wrong if they were not from an official source.

It would appear I was mistaken.

You raise a good point.

As far as I know there is no FAQ on this issue either. And the phrase "can select any hex possessed by her spirit or wandering spirit" is, as far as I know, unique to this piece of rules text, so you can't get anywhere by looking for how the phrase is interpreted when used elsewhere in the rules.

Which leaves it a matter for a GM ruling. Unless there is something I am missing, which is quite possible I fear.

I would rule that you can take any hex you could take if you selected either spirit including generic hexes. Since the rules don't explicitly say, I think it seems right to allow the same choice you would have if you were gaining a hex as a result of going up a level.

Male Kasatha Fighter: the four-armed desert dwellers, using dual wield broken back seaxs and two star knives, current feats and weapon/armor tricks/training/exploits unknown.

Your post isn't clear on exactly what this character does.

There is this feat-

"Multiweapon Fighting (Combat)
This multi-armed creature is skilled at making attacks with multiple weapons.

Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.

Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.

Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting.

Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.'

They can quadruple wield their broken back seaxes with only a -2 to hit and take Quick Draw and throw 4 star knives or chakrams a round. That only costs 3 feats, so it is very efficient as well as good.

If you add the Blade Boot feat you can have 6 attacks/ round w/o inconvenience.

JDawg75 wrote:

STR 12 – You’re not a brute; Multiweapon builds rely more on Dex

DEX 18 – More AC, initiative, and attack bonus for light weapons

Deadly Agility (Path of War) – If allowed, lets Dex replace Str for damage with all finesse weapons

I have a lot of feats I need.

If I am going to invest so heavily in dex I will likely need my GM to say yes to Deadly Agility.

My wondrous GM said yes to Deadly Agility. With Weapon Finesse and an eventual double slice I will get +4 to hit and damage on all my attacks except with a composite longbow at extreme range.

My very crowded schedule for feats looks something like this-

Level 1 Multiweapon Fighting
Level 3 Weapon Finesse
Level 4 WP Martial
Level 5 Crafting feat
Level 6 Deadly Agility
Level 7 Improved Familiar
Level 8 Double Slice
Level 9 Quick Draw
Level 10 2 weapon rend
Level 11 Blade boot

I want to see if the groups other 2 spellcasters will agree to take an item creation feat each for the good of all.

@Java Man Fine idea. The Darkleaf Leather Lamellar armor is inferior only in having 1 less max dex mod. And it is slightly cheaper.

STR 12 – You’re not a brute; Multiweapon builds rely more on Dex

DEX 18 – More AC, initiative, and attack bonus for light weapons

Deadly Agility (Path of War) – If allowed, lets Dex replace Str for damage with all finesse weapons

Thanks for the input.

I have a lot of feats I need.

If I am going to invest so heavily in dex I will likely need my GM to say yes to Deadly Agility.

Dervish Dance (if scimitar is your pick)

This feat is good if you want to fight with 1 scimitar. I want 6 attacks in a round...

Accomplished Sneak Attacker – Boosts precision damage

Level 8: Rogue Talent: Finesse Rogue or Combat Trick (Two-Weapon Feint/Deadly Aim

I can't be good at everything. If I take Accomplished Sneak Attacker I will get to a max of 5d6 sneak attack at level 16. Then I need to invest in ways of setting it up. I plan on just sneak attacking when the opportunity arises.

Gear Suggestions:

Mithral Chain Shirt +1 – Max Dex + mobility

No metal armor for a druid. :(

I will need some fairly obvious items to increase my AC. Getting up close and personal with only leather armor is my biggest weakness.

Belt of Dex

Ideally combined with a Blinkback Belt.

A Blinkback Belt costs only 5k. Combine that with the Quick Draw feat, which has other uses too, and I can throw 4 weapons a round.

Ranged weapon combat is my 3rd priority, after melee and spellcasting. Only needing one feat, which is good for melee too, to become a good ranged combatant is very efficient.

A Slayer can take a Ranger combat style which allows you to take feat w/o their usual pre-requisites. You want this one-

Weapon and Shield
Improved Shield Bash, Shield Focus, Shield Slam and Two-Weapon Fighting.
At 6th level, he adds Saving Shield and Shield Master to the list.
At 10th level, he adds Bashing Finish and Greater Shield Focus to the list.

Of these feats you want most of them. You can do w/o shield focus and greater shield focus but likely don't want to. Aside from that Saving Shield isn't really related to anything else though it is an effect that might prove useful.

You want the rest of the feats there and maybe improved 2 weapon fighting and greater 2 weapon fighting eventually.

There is a divine ranger combat style that uses trident though not paired with a shield. You may wish to look at it anyway.