Lady Beldaran's page

How is there no inherent choice in those? You choose your spells on a case by case basis. Its not just "here's your list" and done. And pretending spells aren't useful is just...completely unsupported. As for uncommon/rare spells, the point is that you have to work for them. If you've built a build based on them, then your character should work toward them. Uncover them, research them, etc. Any decent GM would be upfront if they wouldn't give you access to a spell that is crucial to your build.

I just think you're way overblowing everything. But to your original points:

2) This is 1000% better than PF1. Martials actually matter and picking one over the other means something.

5) They haven't released everything they intend to, and aren't likely to. The point is to test key abilities and concepts, not to flood playtesters with tons of options akin to current PF1 levels.

The entire point of skill feats being an exclusive progression is to give you the opportunity to pick the things that will make your skill feel "legendary". Those feats can't be swapped out.

Yes, theoretically you could invest in a bunch of random skill feats instead of ones you have as signature skills, but that is clearly not the intention. And I'd much rather have options than not.

While the text about archetypes in the Advanced Player's Guide doesn't specifically rule that out, nor does the FAQ, I (as a GM) would be inclined to say no. I don't know what PFS says on the matter (though again, I imagine no).

Sounds like something that a) should be FAQ'd and until then is b) up to your GM.

It seems reasonable to house rule...especially in a lower stat game

That's a great point. And I can definitely see how even modest scores would get you some use out of the hex. Oh well, its up to each GM and group at this point. Either ruling would be reasonable.

Its at least conceivable that the CHA part was a typo. I'm not sure why an ability for the LORE spirit called arcane ENLIGHTENMENT would have anything to do with the force of your personality. As a GM I would definitely consider allowing Intelligence instead - because even if you have access to a few 7th level spells, you still have to have them prepared. In fact, using intelligence would allow a shaman to pick up a few key spells if one's party didn't have a full arcane caster or if the spells were of the wizard's opposing schools...

The example with sneak attack is taken straight from the archetype definition. and wild shape has a progression, +1 for every 2 levels, but once you would hit 9 it becomes infinite instead. your at will isn't a capstone. It's the top progression of wildshape. SO you "lose your capstone" for this archetype. Here's your link for the archetype quote i used. So "my sneak attack example" wasn't my example, it was Paizo's example. archetypes

Now you can take this or not. But here's what you got that deals with your question.

That is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you. That said, I may consider house ruling something (not necessarily the full unlimited) and requesting a similar ruling from my GM should it come up. It doesn't seem quite right.

Lol, I suppose it was too much to hope for that someone from Paizo might chime in. My GM is kind of a stickler for that kind of thing.

I only see one link...that said, your example with sneak attack isn't really relevant. Unless you can speak to a specific instance where Paizo uses similar language - and sneak attack isn't a capstone, either. The difference between 9d6 and 10d6 is exactly 1d6. The difference between 8 & unlimited is infinite (well effectively).

So I'm glad to get some discussion on this! Chess Pwn, I had already searched the FAQ and seen that entry - I don't think it addresses my concern directly, but it does seem to reinforce point 3 of my OP. Paizo uses very different language when the entire progression is affected...that said it isn't much of a price if it jumps up at 8th to its normal number.

The pack lord archetype states that Improved Empathic Link "replaces the 6th-level additional use of wild shape." This seems simple enough, but does this affect the entire progression of wild shape? In other words, will I end up with 8 uses per day at 20th level or unlimited?

My first instinct says that the price isn't that great unless the entire progression is affected. However, I have a few reasons for thinking that you still end up with unlimited uses.

1) I don't know of any other archetype that trades away a capstone.
2) The trade-off seems a little steep. The Beast Master archetype for ranger is very similar and only trades away a single combat style feat for Improved Empathic Link.
3) The archetype creation guidelines in the new ACG suggest that if an archetype's new ability is intended to affect the entire progression of an ability, it should state that explicitly. This was done for the other druid archetypes, which typically alter wild shape to function at a decreased effective class level.

If one of the Paizo people could weigh in on this or post a FAQ concerning the issue, that would be ideal, but I would love to have other opinions in any case.