Lelomenia's page

The language is poor, but reasonable assumption that it is a primary natural attack that can be used as any other primary natural attack (i.e., in conjunction with other available natural attacks) as would be the case for any other Slam.

Dominate the bard (scroll of Limited Wish ==> Geas) and have him Cacophonous Call the party. I’m sure party will still be fine, but it will at least be a memorable road there, and that’s really the goal.

In general very hard to balance things for a party that large.

Shaman can add any sorcerer/wizard spell to their list through Arcane Enlightenment
Shaman can add any cleric/oracle spell through Favored Class
Shaman can add any Druid spell through Favored Class Bonus
Shaman can add any Psychic spell through Favored Class Bonus
Shaman can add sorcerer/wizard enchantments, illusion(shadow), and Darkness descriptor spells through Favored Class
Etc. (spirit magic, archetypes)

The challenges/concerns you describe (mini me riding on PC, taking extra actions each turn to cast spells) are more or less the same as you could face without Leadership, just with any Improved Familiar that gets UMD high enough for scrolls and wands. If that’s not your cup of tea, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t worry that it represents some game altering power level or cheese.

Note that as a Monstrous Cohort, what he’s proposing would probably end up with ~10 levels of wizards (after the ~4 levels as a Wysp). A lot of utility, but unlikely to be problematic among 16th level PCs.

I mean, Extra Hex explicitly says the shaman can’t pick a Hex from his wandering spirit?

I would recommend discussing how Extra Hex interacts with Unsworn with your GM; it looks like it should work, but it’s very unclear how.

Sir Longears wrote:

Considering they asked the question over a year ago... They probably already got the answer or moved on.

Considering there was no answer, and I personally am struggling with finding any kind of information on the 3rd question. Not even the book itself elaborates. It'd just be nice to find something

the cost is in terms of spellcasting points that you can allocate when you choose the spellcasting ability.

You get 5 points to distribute, being able to cast a 2nd level spell costs 2 points, but you can cspend twice that many points (4) to be able to cast that 2nd level spell three times instead.

I guess RAW they can’t, in that they neither prepare nor know the spell in question, but that same RAW would suggest Oracles can’t meet prereqs. Pretty clear intent is that a character has to be able to provide a cast of the spell, whether through item or otherwise.

Bigger issue is that the resulting item wouldn’t be usable, as it would be an arcane item with a spell that assumptively isn’t on any arcane character’s spell list. So you’d need UMD to use it.

What difficulty? Even if the mod added a bunch of features, did it close many/most of the rules differences that made optimization in the game completely different than pnp (e.g., things stacking that aren’t supposed to stack)?

To be honest, this issue has usually been handled by banning the Vivisectionist archetype (e.g., PFS). As worded by Rules as Written, the way Vivisectionist is worded would work the way the player suggests in a hypothetical case of a bunch of levels in a generic class with 1d6 Sneak Attack damage and 1 level Viv. Nature’s Fang isn’t a generic class of that sort, however; it has specific language for how its Sneak Attack stacks with a second class that contributes Sneak Attack dice, and that language specifically contradicts the Vivisectionist language. I don’t believe there is an official ruling in how to handle this particular contradiction, so I believe it would fall to the GM to decide which language applies.

For Viv/Slayer, Slayer has no Sneak Attack stacking language so the Vivisectionist language would apply.

It would technically depend on when you cast the spell, i.e. you need to cast first thing before you throw your weapon, or you need to get it back somehow (star toss style or ricochet toss come to mind) to cast at the end of your full attacks.

Again technically nothing stops you from casting normally when you have a weapon in hand and an otherwise empty hand, see every cleric ever, but you aren't getting to make attacks at the same time. That's what spell combat is for.

So by RAW, you just need to be careful with having your weapon in hand, although admittedly by a fairly reasonably RAI, as soon as you start treating a melee weapon as a ranged weapon, it should just be considered a ranged weapon (thus requiring eldritch archer/myrmidarch/etc.)

myrmidarch doesn’t give Ranged Spell Combat. Which i originally interpreted as it being a terrible archetype. But as with the OP, on further reading I couldn’t see where thrown weapons weren’t allowed for Spell Combat. And search for other discussions on the rule leaned the same way (it probably works). Card Caster gets Spellstrike only for thrown weapons (no melee), but doesn’t modify Spell Combat from how it is written, which would also seem a bit weird if thrown didn’t work with Spell Combat.

Or the Combat Stamina feat. Spending 5 stamina points with Rapid Reload reduces the reload time for a two-handed firearm to a move action; an alchemical cartridge reduces a move action reload to a free action.

I'm thinking something like:
** spoiler omitted **

by level 7 you’ll want to be reloading up to what, 5 times per round? Which would be 25 stamina points per round out of a pool of 11ish? The language is also a bit awkward as Combat Stamina Rapid Reload reduces Move Action to Swift Action (I understand how you could argue it would work).

Trench Fighter + Rapid Reload + Alchemical Cartridges => Full Round Action (for two handed gun) goes to standard action goes to move action. Which is pretty much worthless.

Need Musket Master for free action reload (with two handed gun).

Lelomenia wrote:

I always put Musket Master+ Eldritch Archer on one side of the gestalt, straight full caster on the other. Honestly you don’t need more than 5 levels of Gunslinger or 6 of Magus.

that's what I am staring with.

Musket Master/Eldritch archer, and once I get enough levels in each to have Ranged Spell combat/Spell Strike, and the reload abilities so I can make full attacks, them I want to switch to Slayer/Exploiter.

the limiting factor is the Broad Study Magnus Arcana coming at level 6. if I stick long enough to get it, I might as well just do a dip in Exploiter and then go full Magus.

to clarify, i mean building toward

Saying you really don’t want any dips on your full caster side. Unless you are starting at high level, your full caster class is going to be worse at casting than a straight Magus would be for most of the character’s career (at even a 3 level dip).

And noting that level 5 is the milestone for Musket Master, dex to damage, not the fast reload, is the critical mass. And not sure Slayer is the best way to invest the final 9 levels. E.g., you could get Legacy Weapon, Champion Spirit, and Trappings of the Wwarrior out of a Haunt Channeler Occultist out of that.

I always put Musket Master+ Eldritch Archer on one side of the gestalt, straight full caster on the other. Honestly you don’t need more than 5 levels of Gunslinger or 6 of Magus.

I guess one factor for attributes not noted so far is Archetype access; on launch, a Wizard’s Int gave access to what, only Alchemist class archetype? Where Bard and Champion were both attractive archetypes for an Arcane caster. Squeezing 14 str/14 cha on an Int class was fun!

Now with witch/inventor/investigator/psychic also available (wizard too), there are at least enough options that Int unlocks for it to be ‘interesting.’

Wouldnt you be able to start the game with skills at expert by doing that part of character creation after picking skills from class if int provided skill increases?

no, that would make Int worthwhile. Class and Int only make you trained and you select them at the same time.

“Trained in a number of additional skills equal to 2 plus your Intelligence modifier” etc

Question. Does everyone playing a non fighter martial feel like they are not optimal because they have 2 less to hit?

i would hope they feel a big, comparable contribution from their other class features to compensate. But the fact that a +2 is a massive, great class feature is really an argument that dumping +4 to +3 is comparable to throwing away half the benefit you’d expect from class features.

A lot of it just feels weird right now, hopefully lore addresses. Weird that schools have 3 8th/9th (combined 2+1) level spells but only 2 1st level. A second level wizard has 7 1st level spells in his book. That seems off…already by second level the vast majority of your spells you learned elsewhere? It’s not possible to stat instructors that only have two spells per level either.

I’ve always imagined that the extra slot was available only to spells of the school because there was something magically unique to the spells of your school, which is rules demonstrated by the typing. That logic feels gone.

And the fun random schools, like civil service, why would they go up to 9th level? Is there a single civil service magic school somewhere led by an nigh all-powerful 20th level planar wandering civil service bureaucrat, or are surprisingly identical civil service wizard schools that go up to 9th level all over?

It would have been really easy to do something flavorful and made good lore sense, e.g., publish a few high level wizard NPCs that ‘established schools’, and wizards can pick one of them and have their spell lists as school spells. Maybe they get automatic access to some Rares etc. Hopefully my brain adjusts and it feels fine/normal after a while.

Nine Lives is worthwhile even if you have to take a feat to get access.

People seriously underestimate the range limitations.

Also, cackling makes noise, and if you protective luck everyone, while cackling and then kick in the door you give the enemy time to prep and takes party members * rounds turns to do so, and is reasonably loud.

So, if you properly police time, and have enemies react, for example by retreating a bit and casting their buff spells and reading actions etc, things get less effective too.

The BBEG can jsut have some mooks who have stones that have silence cast on them, and throw them close to the cackling witch. No more cackling.

with soothsayer that’s not an issue, you set up potentially hours in advance and don’t need to cackle until combat is underway.

If curricula are really going to be as narrow and limited as currently appears, i’d think most wizards would want to be dual majors.

For those who mentioned that PF2 should have been more flexible with for example using int with a Religion check to recall knowledge about undead, this is already in the rules: "If the GM deems it appropriate for a certain situation, however, they might have you use a different ability modifier for a skill check or when determining your skill DC." (Source)

For some reason it just never happens in practice, I haven't seen any PF2 GM make use of this rule and as a GM I never use it myself. Maybe I should, but then I think players will expect to always be able to swap their ability modifiers.

that reads to me to be intended for niche situations, like allowing a Str modifier to Intimidate other competitors in a weight lifting competition. Not carte blanche to use Int for Wis skills because either you think it should have been an Int skill in the first place or feel bad for Int characters.

Str is for anyone that ever wants to swing a weapon that has a relevant damage die. Which is probably > 50% of characters.

Ok so what if I was a Fire Kineticist and used Kinetic Blade on my sword, which deals my Kinetic Blast damage (Fire)... Could I then use Blistering Feint and deal fire damage with my weapon (the sword) which is now "enchanted" with Fire damage?

kinetic blade IS the sword, but to your point, yes, that should work. I do think Blistering Feint is poorly worded; probably should have said “deals fire damage on a melee hit”. How much fire damage does a Balor’s Lash do? Or a Fiery Boulder (or an Alchemist bomb w/fire damage) used as an Improvised Weapon? I think it’s fair to say Wand of Fireballs doesn’t do fire damage, it casts a spell, and the spell does the fire damage. But other items just directly do fire damage (Hellcaller’s Edge, Flametongue), so that criterion doesn’t fully resolve things. I think mostly you just pretend it says “fire damage on a melee hit”, and go from there; as such, Kinetic Blade and Flame Blade do full damage. Which is fine.

Some options in line with my (probably unconventional) suggestions above. Trying to keep your original Glitterdusty build features. You probably will want more BFC spell options; but as you don’t want Summons and I don’t have a ton of experience with Pit spells (which many swear by), I defer to others on comments there.

Traits: Magical Lineage (Glitterdust), Fate’s Favored
1 Scribe Scroll, Spell Focus (Conjuration)
3 Craft Wondrous
5 Persistent Spell (Wizard Bonus Feat), Lookout
7 Improved Familiar
9 Outflank
10 Open (Wizard Bonus Feat)
11 Open (Snake Style! 250gp ioun to meet IUS prereq)

1 Heightened Awareness
Vanish, Mage Armor, Feather Fall, Grease

2 Embrace Destiny, See Invisibility
Glitterdust, Invisibility, Tears to Wine

3 Shared Training (Lookout, Outflank), Clairvoyance/clairaudience,
Haste, Fly, Fireball

4
Black Tentacles, Dimension Door, Improved Invisibility, Emergency Force Sphere

5
Teleport, Cloudkill, Echolocation, Wall of Stone

6 True Seeing
Chain Lightning, Contingency, Jatembe’s Ire

Standard action summons is enormously valuable. If a combat is decided in perhaps the first four rounds then bringing the additional forces in the first round rather the second makes a substantial difference.

the Summon Evil Monster standard action summon effect isn’t really full standard action summon; the summons can’t act until an extra turn after being summoned. So timing wise, pretty much the same speed as one round, just with less risk of concentration breaking. And you get the extra move action. (is why i was looking at Elemental Mystery for this; elementals are good beatsticks at most levels of SM).

Dark Tapestry, the Shaman spirit, has Alien Summons as a Hex that is a massively stronger version of the Cleric Dark Tapestry It Came From Beyond Domain power. You get the Advanced Template on something from every summons, not one per day, and it applies when you only summon one creature, etc.

Shaman otherwise isn’t great for summoning. But other classes can get Shaman hexes, so if i was a summoning oriented Oracle, I’d love to have Advanced template with every cast (Spirit Guide; Elemental Mystery can give standard action summons, probably other options as well but I’m not an expert on Oracles). Summoner can get it through the Spirit Summoner archetype, but that gives up their Summon Monster which hurts the value significantly (although getting Advanced Template on your Eidolon through the Summon Eidolon spell is neat). Wizard can get it through Spirit Whisperer.

Probably Wizard with Spirit Whisperer and Acadamae Graduate and sniping underleveled Summon Monster spells off the summoner list (Samsaran or Pathfinder Savant) is going to be the best summoner if that’s allowed, hard to beat standard action casting Summon Monster VIII at 11th level for something Augmented and Advanced. Assuming that’s not allowed, Occultist Arcanist is the best Summoner, but Herald Caller Cleric is ok.

Thanks for the input everyone.

Our session is coming up this Saturday so I'd like to get my lvl 11 character wrapped up.

A lot of recommendations but I need to assemble an outline for feats/spells.

I think foresight is interesting and Divination was fun to play in 5e.

Outline assistance would be appreciated.

did you finalize opposition schools?

Shared Training (Divination spell) is kind of amazing; Lookout with Shared Training on a Foresight Wizard means your whole party gets to go in every surprise round. Might as well give everyone Outflank while you’re at it; uses up two of your feats but saves everyone else a bunch.

6 levels of magus to Broad Study for Spell Combat and Spellstrike as a Shaman, to Dazing Frostbite or what have you through your Desna Shooting Star starknife attacks. Could give neat options.

On traits:
The metamagic reduction traits are the best in the game. Assuming they aren’t allowed to stack, Fate’s Favored is probably the next best; it has particular synergy with Foresight (but eventually you should have applicable luck bonuses to everything anyway).

On feats:
Dazing Spell is overpowered, but you really need to build around it for it to be usable. Improved Familiar is great if you want a wand monkey, but you lose access to familiar archetypes and Protector is passively excellent without requiring a feat. Craft Wondrous is a must if crafting is allowed. Looking back, my Wizard actually took Snake Style (can meet prereq with a 250 gp ioun stone); it’s extremely impractical to get your AC up to a useful level normally, but pretty easy to have AC 45 or so once per turn with Snake Style. Which is usually enough for anything that can’t pounce, and while not having notable power synergy with a Foresight Wizard, feels very on-theme (“Maybe next time try something I wasn’t expecting.”). Mostly you’d like to stay invisible as much as possible. Persistent Spell is very strong if you ever plan to go after Saves, Quicken Spell is a must at level 13 but maybe just okay at level 11 (outside of a heavy metamagic reduction build). True Name deserves to be mentioned.

On opposition schools:
Evocation is a surprisingly useful utility school for non-blasters (e.g., Emergency Force Sphere, Contingency for no obvious reason). Necromancy is an easy one to give up, the next two would probably be Divination and Enchantment.

On items:
The guides will show standard useful items (e.g., Haversack, Pearl of Power). Some of the less commonly mentioned but strong equipment: Book of Harms, Four Leaf Clover (better with Fate’s Favored), Scabbard of Pain (getting to reroll failed will saves 3x per day with minor drawback is kind of crazy), Numerology Cylinder (DC 25 Arcana should be pretty much automatic), Talisman (e.g., Lesser of Freedom) for neck slot. Wizard in a grapple is just a punching bag. And lots of things grapple.

Monstrous cohorts tend to be horribly underpowered, and CR+8 appears to be worst case scenario on the table, so i would scale directly off CR. Also, 19+12 isn’t 29. Also, how are you getting cohorts with effective level over 20?

20d6 force damage (save for half) every time you go back and forth through an enemy’s square as part of your move action is pretty nice too. I’m not more broadly familiar with spheres of power though, maybe 60d6 is negligible compared to the other toys that system hands out.

Is there a duration on Lattice Weaver? Improved Cover is indeed the bee’s knees.

Edit: probably strong lean toward Lattice Weaver.

Spell resistance applies to energy blasts, does not apply to physical blasts (including Air Blast). Both count as magic for purpose of overcoming DR. It works like that because that’s how the Kineticist class rules work; trying to square it with core rules will add a hint of confusion potential, yes.

Lelomenia wrote:

"Faerie Dragons can add levels in Sorcerer to increase their magic ability"

Could you tell me where this came from please?

Unlike true dragons, faerie dragons do not grow larger with age, but their scales do change color, starting with red and moving through the rainbow to reach dark violet at old age. Faerie dragons grow in power as spellcasters as they age (typically gaining levels in sorcerer), learning more powerful spells to complement their innate abilities.

it’s left to the reader as to how that works mechanically.

Faerie Dragons can add levels in Sorcerer to increase their magic ability, but it’s not clear how that works mechanically; I would assume whatever way it worked, the ‘levels in sorcerer’ would stack with their baseline sorcerer casting. So kind of a precedent, albeit an unhelpful one on the rules side.

Arcane Trickster characters are almost never one level behind Rogue; e.g., a wizard 3/rogue 3/arcane trickster X always has the same Sneak Attack dice as a Wizard 3/Rogue (3+x).

In the Master Spy case, within the first 12 character levels, Vivisectionist/Master Spy Sneak Attack stacking is actually slightly worse than Rogue/Master Spy Sneak Attack stacking (specifically Rogue 7/Master Spy 1 has 5d6, Vivi 7/Master Spy 1 has 4d6). Though maybe Vivi/Master Spies would argue to use the Master Spy Sneak Attack stacking rules in that scenario.

I find it approximately 100% likely that the goal of the author’s stacking language was to prevent players from getting 2d6 Sneak Attack dice at level 2 with Rogue 1/Vivi 1 (and more generally prevent characters from having more Sneak Attack dice than allowed by their class progression), which hadn’t previously been possible and appears much more disruptive than potentially allowing an extra 1d6 at character level 13 or whatever.

I had previously assumed that there was a simple rules language solution that would have achieved the dual goals of (1) preventing dipping in multiple Sneak Attack at level 1 classes to build up tons of dice at very low levels and (2) prevented players from benefiting from replacing a slow Sneak Attack progression with faster progression, but after further thought I’m not sure what that would be. Given the character options available at the time, that language was as good a compromise as I could imagine; but very not future proof.

I think the hostility was more directed to the claim that the interaction was “Rule as intended” by the author. If the only comment on it had been “as far as I can tell, it is Rule as Written, and it doesn’t appear to be out of line with other character options in terms of power, so I probably wouldn’t ban it on that basis”, I think people would have generally been on board from the start. Personally, I’ve built characters to aggressively leverage synergistic rules features in ways I presume the authors didn’t foresee, but would avoid leveraging what appeared to me to be sloppy or non-future proofed rules language. I don’t think I’m the only person that views things similarly, but I’m self aware enough to consider that as ethical principles go this probably isn’t a hill worth dying on. It’s not really overpowered, but calling it Rule as Intended is olympic level trolling.

Arcanist/monk just seems so much worse than Sorcerer/monk for no significant benefit.

I vote Arcanist/Slayer, as synergy is solid across the board.

What AP is it? I would generally view Cleave as an occasionally useful thing, but too situational to be worth investing much in. Vital Strike is kind of in the same boat. Usually full attacks are just much, much better after you get iteratives. Cleave at least is nice at low level.

Looking at Dwarf specific things, the Dwarven Fury style feat chain looks kind of neat, though i’ve never used it.

Why would a random peasant worship Baphomet, or what would be the spiritual motivation for a cleric, or what would the mechanical motivation for a player?

Mutagens from two different classes do not stack so should be treated as spells from two different classes. You have to separate mutagens, one from each class, but can only be affected by one at a time. The section on drinking another alchemist’s mutagen makes it clear that drinking any second mutagen ends any mutagens you are currently affected by. The rules from brewing a second mutagen assume both are from the alchemist class.

So, the way I would handle it is you have two separate mutagens that can coexist, but if you drink one while under the effect of the other the first mutagens immediately end.

so basically the same way when you cast touch spells from two different classes you can hold the charge with both at the same time and they discharge together….

No. At least I don't think so.

However, as a GM, I would allow an Arcanist access to arcane discoveries. They're a hybrid class of wizards and sorcerers.

I'd probably let anyone access to them if they had the focus to learn it (and maybe role play the process). It just it comes naturally to wizards.

Arcanists already have access to Arcane Discoveries through the Arcane Discovery Arcane Exploit. The problem is an Arcanist would need to be 22nd level to qualify for Staff-Like Wand. Most campaigns end before that.

An Arcanist with VMC Wizard could get Staff Like Wand. So there’s that. I can’t imagine not going True Name there though barring GM Hard No.

All the Stars in the Sky would work if consuming magic ammunition was allowed. Obviously a bit niche.

What Stranger said.

That said, there are lots of mechanics and options in the Pathfinder system to create whatever character you envision, just happens that ‘multiclass full caster’ is a really bad one.

Consider “variant multiclass” for example; you could be a fully-leveled Druid while obtaining some Cleric abilities and flavor, for example. Or vice-versa. Plenty of archetypes on both sides as well.

If i was going to try to ‘fix’ it, i would make the Max Dex scale with caster level.

I don’t mind it being a valuable effect, but the fact that a wand is basically just as good as a wizard for using/abusing it is a negative to me.

Melkiador wrote:

I’d expect most to just go with a standard quadruped build. Bite,claw,claw at level 1. You would have to pay evolution points for a weapon build so I wouldn’t expect that to be a big improvement over a standard natural attack build.

And i would have...if the shadow eidolon didnt qualify for like none of the natural attack evolutions. I'm not even joking. Honestly weapon build is all the shadow eidolon's got.

if Shadow doesn’t qualify for Bite, Claw, and/or Tail Slap,

Are those evolutions non-functioning in the Shadow base forms that grant them (like feats you get but then lose prereqs for)?

You can also get an animal companion via, e.g., Exotic Heritage feat line.

Your point was that if you got an Animal Companion through the Animal Ally feat, Share Spells is a dead feature. And that’s a valid comment no matter how obtuse people want to be.

Lelomenia wrote:

he said you can’t take Animal Ally if you have a class that grants an animal companion.

You are saying you can take Animal Ally if your classes don’t grant an Animal Companion.

I don’t see a real disagreement/contradiction here.

With respect, “you can’t take the Animal Ally feat unless you do not have levels in a class that grants an animal companion” and “must not have an animal companion” are two different things.

they are very different. But, if you have an Animal Companion from a class (which is a practical requirement foe Share Spells to work), you generally don’t qualify for Animal Ally because of the prereq. If that sounds really obvious, it is.

Animal Ally doesn’t care about whether the Companion is granted by a class, but Share Spells does.

Are we reading the same feat? Alternately, has there been a FAQ to the feat in question? I'm asking sincerely, because what you are positing here conflicts with the way my GM and I have handled an active character of mine.

Faiths and Philosophies wrote:

Prerequisites: Nature Soul, character level 4th, must not have an animal companion or mount that advances as an animal companion. (emphasis mine)

Benefit: You gain an animal companion as if you were a druid of your character level –3 from the following list: badger, bird, camel, cat (small), dire rat, dog, horse, pony, snake (viper), or wolf. If you later gain an animal companion through another source (such as the Animal domain, divine bond, hunter’s bond, mount, or nature bond class features), the effective druid level granted by this feat stacks with that granted by other sources.

I don't see anything in that description that disqualifies a Paladin who chose to take a Divine Bond with his weapon, or a Ranger who (for whatever reason) chose a Hunter's Bond with his companions, from taking the Animal Ally feat.

he said you can’t take Animal Ally if you have a class that grants an animal companion.

You are saying you can take Animal Ally if your classes don’t grant an Animal Companion.

I don’t see a real disagreement/contradiction here.

I guess you could look at it as either

“All Animal Companions have an ability called Multiattack that grants some Animal Companions the Multiattack feat”

Or

“Some Animal Companions get the Multiattack feat/ability”

The Ultimate Wilderness authors probably viewed it as the latter situation, and felt that language was essentially just reminding people that that’s how it works. Where I think most people would interpret it the former way.