MargarineMeadow's page

The EK build actually has a +1 advantage on Reflex saves not Fortitude. The Extra CON from the DD levels brings the save to +11. The extra level of paladin gives a +1 to Reflex saves.

I went back to double check my math. For reflex, EK gains 0 (paladin) + 1 (sorcerer) + 1 (dragon disciple) + 3 (eldritch knight) for a total of +5. DD gains 0 (paladin) + 2 (sorcerer) + 3 (dragon disciple) for a total of +5. Not sure where you're getting the extra reflex from.

And while the extra CON from DD does effectively offset the +1 Fortitude, I'm counting it separately because CON does more than just Fortitude. The CON +2 is noted under Class Abilities

You may want to consider paladin 3/sorcerer 2 before dragon disciple. Aura of Courage and Divine Health are pretty nice to have (immunities are powerful).

Also, I would recommend only taking four levels of dragon disciple and switching to eldritch knight for the BAB and better spell progression.

These are two separate decisions which I will address independently.

Regarding three levels of Paladin:
You ultimately have slower spell progression and give up 1 caster level in exchange for Aura of Courage, Divine Health, and a Mercy. (You also trade a +1 in WILL for a +1 in REFLEX, but I'm setting that aside). The single caster level alone isn't huge, but it makes a difference if you're going with the crossblooded sorc. archetype because they lose one spell **known** at each level. Thus, they do not gain a spell known at the same time they gain the spell level. So while 3 levels of paladin will still end with 8th level spell slots, it doesn't have any spells known and will require a page of spell knowledge in order to cast any 8th level spells.

Even if you don't go with crossblooded, you still gain all spell levels (except 1st) one level later. Sorcerer progression is already slow, and this REALLY exacerbates the issue. While immunity to fear and disease are strong, I still think the casting drawbacks are simply too much.

Regarding Eldritch Knight verse Dragon Disciple
I'm going to be comparing builds that are P2/S3/DD4/EK10 and P2/S8/DD10. I will refer to them as the EK and DD builds respectively.

BAB
EK = 16
DD = 13
Net = EK +3 BAB

Saves
EK = 11/5/11
DD = 10/5/14
Net = EK+1 Fort and DD+3 Will

Caster Level
EK = 16
DD = 18
Net = DD +2 CL

Spell Level (While there is no .5 SL, I'm noting it as such because of the issues with spell known referenced above).
EK = 8.5
DD = 9
Net = DD +0.5

Feats
EK = only requires 2 feats for FPC and PS. Gains 3 bonus combat feats.
DD = requires 4 feats for FPC and PS*3. Gains 3 bloodline feats.
Net = EK+2 feats and additional flexibility in feat choices.

Class Abilities
EK = Diverse Training, Spell Critical
DD = CON +2, INT +2, Natural Armor +4, Blindsense 60 ft, Form of Dragon II 2/day, Wings (90 ft), Claws and bite +1d6 energy damage, Energy Resistance +5, 9th level Bloodline, 15th level Bloodline,
Net = No easy way to compare these directly.

Summation
EK = BAB+3, Fort +1, 2 feats
DD = Will +3, CL +2, SP +0.5, SO. MANY. ABILITIES.
Net = I think its plainly obvious that the minor gains from EK cannot meaningfully compete with the plethora of abilities that DD grants.

To answer the immediate question about first level feats, I’d suggest Noble Scion - Scion of War. While you have a good DEX, your build will prioritize CHA so your CHA bonus will likely exceed your DEX bonus by more than 4 over time (making Noble Scion better than improved initiative).

Not sure on your deity, but I’d suggest the Iroran Paladin archetype for Paladin. It will make your smite much less effective but you will gain a constant +2 AC. It will also grant some minor unarmed combat bonuses which can tide you over as a melee focused strength sorcerer before the draconic natural attacks are available.

Definitely focus on your CL rather than BAB. Even with a melee focus, spells are stronger than BAB. The Favored Prestige Class and Prestigious Spellcaster line of feats is a huge feat tax but well worth it to be able to cast 9th level spells.

Crossblooded is an excellent archetype for this but I’d suggest draconic/orc rather than draconic/arcane but not necessarily for the extra +1/damage die. Rather, the inherent bonuses from Strength of the Beast (SotB) coupled with the untyped STR from dragon disciple can make for an absolutely insane STR score.

With a base of 20, you can exceed 52 STR (if you know why that’s relevant, have fun ;) calculated as 20 (base) + 4 untyped (dragon disciple) + 6 (enhancement from a +6 belt) + 6 (inherent from SotB) + 10 (size from Form of the Dragon III) + 10 (morale from Blood Rage) = 56. This doesn’t even include any STR boosts from level ups which means those can be used for CHA instead.

Beyond the fun you can have with Blood Money, the STR capable with this build more than makes up for the minor losses to BAB. And since you will be using draconic natural attacks anyhow, losing out on some BAB won’t also cause a loss of iterative attacks. Ask your GM about taking the Powerful Wings Feat after you’ve gained your wings at level 14 for an additional 2 secondary attacks while not in Form of the Dragon.

For your bloodline feats, consider Power Attack, Intimidating Prowess, and Skill Focus (Fly) (assuming your GM will permit Powerful Wings. Also consider taking Cornugon Smash as this is a great intimidate build.

I'm sure you are aware that Paizo has stopped producing content (which would include FAQs, errata, etc) on PF1. It's a business decision and they have moved on.

Yes, that’s why I prefaced the question as I did. There is no FAQ nor will there be one, so we’re left with what comments there are in terms of “official” responses.

A Paizo designer gave his opinion on how he'd run it in his home game.
…
The staff could have decided it was fairly obvious and didn't need an FAQ.

Official Paizo voices are generally granted some higher degree of authority, so JB’s opinion is one of the few sources of authority on this specific issue. Searching on the subject yesterday, I saw three different threads within the last two years which cited to this specific comment from JB; however, I think there’s a compelling argument to be made that the non-existence of a FAQ on the subject should be considered evidence that JB’s thoughts were in the minority. That’s what I’m looking for input on, whether you feel that the lack of any FAQ following this thread should carry evidentiary weight.

I am going to look into adding this to the FAQ, but here are a few notes (subject to change).

…
2. As for this particular issue, I think the intent here of this spell was to keep the subschool limitations. Without them, this spell is probably too good, seeing as its 80% limitation would not really apply (or would have to be creatively applied) to a number of spells outside the subschool limitation. For now, that is the way I would play it, and that is certainly the way I am leaning toward with any clarification.

Does the lack of any FAQ or errata implemented throughout the entirety of PF1 imply that the rules team considered and rejected JB’s position in this spell?

This is all well and good for the basic general default rules of how Overrun works... However the OP is citing a class ability which trumps the general rule... In fact, it makes it a FREE action instead of a Standard action so we take that out of the equation all together:

Breaker Momentum (Ex)
At 2nd level, when a siegebreaker successfully bull rushes a foe, he can attempt an overrun combat maneuver check against that foe as a free action.

This is why other websites lock threads after a certain point. An 8 year necro-post. Impressive.

It's hard to have arcane offense and healing in the same meat-bag.

Phoenix Bloodline with Magic Trick: Fireball. Turn your ridiculous levels of aoe fire damage into ridiculous levels of aoe healing.

Maybe it is possible to cast Magic weapon on the flask, as it is made to be thrown offensively, but Magic weapon doesn't increase Energy damage, so it will not affect the fire damage. As the flask doesn't do any physical damage, there isn't any damage that could be increased.

What’s the basis for this position? Would you suggest that Magic Weapon doesn’t work on a Battle Poi? That’s energy damage but is very clearly still a weapon. Nothing within Magic Weapon precludes energy damage.

Margarine, I think you're misreading what people are saying here. No one is saying that it's giving you powers from both bloodlines.

I came here because there was a Reddit post this morning linking to this thread for the premise that it increased “both” bloodlines, I.e., the PC would gain both 1st and 3rd level powers. It’s a ridiculous interpretation.

That’s how Scavion’s response could be interpreted. In the absence of direct authority from Paizo, players often look to these forums and find threads like this with no opposing viewpoints and argue that as authority. I was trying to cut that off because it’s one of the more egregious misinterpretations I’ve seen.

Crossblooded sorcerer does not have two separate bloodlines. What they have is a single bloodline that has aspects of both bloodlines. It allows the player to choose what bloodline power, feats or spell they gain from between the two. You also gain both bloodline Arcana, but you still only have one bloodline.

That’s how I prefer to describe it as well, but there’s some contention on that point. For example, can a cross-blooded sorcerer qualify for dragon disciple if one of their two bloodlines is draconic? You’ll find answers saying yes and the PC can continue to select powers from either bloodline (leading to some fairly ridiculous results); yes but it only advances the draconic aspect of the bloodline (which doesn’t comport with there being a single bloodline); and no because it’s a “single” bloodline and therefore isn’t the draconic bloodline. All interpretations have some merit to them without any official response from Paizo. But for simple issues like the robes, I agree that treating it as a single bloodline assists with interpretation.

Necro’ing because apparently this thread still shows up in Google searches on this topic and it’s horrible advice that doesn’t have any basis in the rules. The robe of arcane heritage absolutely does not increase “both” bloodlines. As per the robe, “The wearer treats her sorcerer level as 4 higher than normal for the purpose of determining what bloodline powers she can use and their effects.” The rules for crossblooded still apply. The sorcerer can select their powers from either bloodlines available powers, but the robe does not apply independently to each bloodline. In general, it’s best to think about the crossblooded as a single bloodline but regardless of how you semantically think about it, the robe only increases the effective sorcerer level, not the bloodline(s) specifically.

Unfortunately, despite this question being around for the better part of 8 years (https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2riqg?Evangelist-aligned-class-with-prestige- classes), I don’t believe anything official has clarified.

It grants entry into it earlier but does it still scale off of your character level?

Yes. Look at the rules from the prestige class which grants the early access. For example:

When a divine boon grants a spell-like ability, the sentinel’s caster level for the spell-like ability equals his total character level.

This thread isn’t that old and it’s directly on point to an issue I’m having, so I’m going to do some light necro-threading here.

I have a draconic bloodline sorcerer/dragon disciple who uses natural attacks rather than unarmed strikes. I just finished all the pre-reqs for Whirlwind Attack but the game might not make it beyond two more levels, so I’m trying to use the training special weapon property to finish the feat chain.

The AoMF explicitly works with natural attacks but the weapon special ability specifically calls out unarmed strikes. Since I am planning to use the “weapon” while making the Whirlwind Attack, does this seem okay?

There is no official ruling on this specific spell, but the interaction is covered by the existing rules. The spell is incompatible with the mechanics of the Alchemist, and either shouldn't be on the Alchemist list, or have extra text that makes it work for them via specific exception (something like "an extract of Full Pouch targets the user, and allows drawing the item as part of drinking the extract").

Even if I agreed with that interpretation of the Alchemist mechanics as RAW or RAI (I don’t), such an interpretation should instantly be dismissed. Think of the variety of spells that would no longer be available to Alchemists: Tears to Wine, Deathwine, Empower Holy Water, Waters of Maddening, and Liquefy to name a few. These spells target objects and literally perform some form of alchemical alteration to said objects.

Any interpretation of the rules which views these all as “mistakes” which are mechanically incompatible with alchemists needs to seriously re-evaluate what the class is. Alchemists which are mechanically restricted from performing alchemy? Doesn’t pass the smell test.

I guess this is what I get for opening the can of worms but it’s absolutely nonsensical for there to be any sort of “official” ruling that alchemists cannot even use Full Pouch—a spell which both thematically and mechanically is 100% their domain. Considering that never made it into any form of errata, TFG, I’ll continue using it—albeit in a limited capacity. Appreciate all the insight everyone

It would still be a standard action to drink the swift action spell as an extract.

That’s a fine interpretation but my question is whether there has been an official clarification from Paizo. The only ruling I have seen is the general guidance from this FAQ:

It is a standard action to use an extract, mutagen, or throw a bomb. This action includes retrieving the necessary materials from the alchemist's supplies, in the same manner as retrieving a material component is included in the act of spellcasting.

IMO, the phrase, “in the same manner as retrieving a material component is included in the act of spellcasting” implies that the act of drinking an extract should be treated like casting an equivalent spell.

This is particularly a pronounced issue for Full Pouch which thematically should be able to be used by an alchemist but which mechanically doesn’t make sense if drinking the spell is a standard action. This is why I am wondering if there are any other official rulings—including if PFS had any rules for how it worked.

This question is specifically about spells on the alchemist spell list that have a casting time of “1 swift action”, such as full pouch. I am not looking for any other traits or feats which reduce the time to drink potions or other “potables” as there are many threads discussing such things.

Specifically limited to swift action spells, has there ever been any official ruling or FAQ on how that works for alchemists/investigators?

If you’re talking about Arcane Discoveries, an arcanist can take them as an Arcanist Exploit using half their arcanist level as their wizard level to determine whether they qualify.

Has this ever been addressed in a FAQ? Clearly the phrase “powers and abilities” has to mean something more than just “powers”.

Neither works, just as scrying either of them does not cause their effects to trigger, neither would being able to see through a wall.

Scrying is a poor example as it has its own unique set of rules.

a scrying spell creates an invisible magical sensor that sends you information...The sensor, however, is treated as a separate, independent sensory organ of yours, and thus functions normally even if you have been blinded or deafened, or otherwise suffered sensory impairment.

Chrion was vague regarding the specifics of how they were seeing through the wall, but there are a variety of options beyond scrying that would yield different results. For example, the Gloves of Reconnaissance allow the user to see through the wall. Gaze attacks "take[] effect when foes look at the attacking creature’s eyes." Thus, the Gaze attack would trigger with the Gloves of Reconnaissance but would not with scrying. Symbols would depend on the symbol trigger.

1: Correct, dispel magic specifies that it does not work on instantaneous spells.

2: The last line of Sculpt Corpse states, "Any spell or effect that targets the corpse (such as speak with dead or raise dead) treats it as if it still had its original appearance."

Restore Corpse specifies, "The corpse looks as it did when the creature died." Thus, I would rule that restore corpse returns the corpse to its original appearance.

3: I don't believe you would need to take this step, but it would definitely work if the GM disagrees with the interpretation of Restore Corpse above.

Shield fighter (lvl 5) is essentially weapon training 1 but for shields only. However, he also technically loses the weapon training class feature which impacts feats and items that can be used in connection with the ability. It is a downgrade from weapon training but is part of the overall package.

Shield mastery (lvl 19) provides the same DR5/- with the added limitation that he must be wielding a shield. Simply wearing armor isn’t enough. Again, it is a strict downgrade but part of the overall archetype package.

While there are responses to each of the explanations above, I’ll take the fact that the universal response has been to apply a strict 30 foot interpretation to mean my vested interest in the outcome is leading me to create arguments rather than just accept the plain meaning. Thanks for the input!

I appreciate your general perspective, but I cited to two sections in the rules that provide differing definitions for range. Per the weapons rules, daggers have a “range” of 10 feet. I’m wondering if the range listed for Mystic Bolts should be treated like a dagger or a spell.

The Warlock Vigilante archetype gains Mystic Bolts as a supernatural ability. Mystic Bolts can be either melee or ranged attacks. "A warlock can sling projectiles of magical energy at will by shooting a bolt or touching her foe. A melee mystic bolt requires the target to be within reach, and a ranged mystic bolt is a ranged attack with a range of 30 feet."

There are many forum posts regarding the damage element of Mystic Bolts, so that's not something I'm trying to bring up again. Instead, I'm interested in how to interpret "ranged attack with a range of 30 feet."

From what I can tell, range is interpreted very differently when used under the Magic rules for spells compared to the Weapons rules for weapons. As a supernatural (SU) ability, Mystic Bolts are magical but not spell-like. They are not subject to SR, counterspells, or dispel magic. This definition of SU leads me to believe that Mystic Bolts should be treated under the magic rules.

While most spells have a range of Personal, Touch, Close, Medium, Long, or Unlimited, the magic rules state that, "Some spells have no standard range category, just a range expressed in feet." Thus, if the range of Mystic Bolts is interpreted under the magic rules, it has a static, absolute range of 30 feet. And because Mystic Bolts are not spells which use spell slots, the range cannot be extended with metamagic.

On the other hand, Mystic Bolts act and are generally treated more like weapons than spells. "The warlock vigilante attacks with mystic bolts as though they were light one-handed weapons, and the bolts can be used for two-weapon fighting (with each hand creating one mystic bolt) and feats and abilities that apply to weapon attacks (unless they’re excluded from that feat, such as with Power Attack, Weapon Focus (ray) doesn’t apply to mystic bolts, but a warlock can take Weapon Focus (mystic bolt) and apply it to both melee and ranged mystic bolts."

Looking at the weapons table for light melee weapons and/or one-handed melee weapons, each of the tables has a column titled "Range." Range is defined as follow: "Range: Any attack at more than this distance is penalized for range. Beyond this range, the attack takes a cumulative –2 penalty for each full range increment (or fraction thereof) of distance to the target. For example, a dagger (with a range of 10 feet) thrown at a target that is 25 feet away would incur a –4 penalty. A thrown weapon has a maximum range of five range increments. A projectile weapon can shoot to 10 range increments."

There is a significant distinction between having an absolute maximum range of 30 feet (as implied under the magic rules) versus a range increment of 30 feet which would allow attacks from beyond 30 feet (up to 150 feet as a thrown weapon) with increasing -2 penalties for each range increment. By level 3 a single Mystic Bolt can resolve against touch AC and at level 5 all Mystic Bolts resolve against touch AC. Unlike with guns, there is no language which limits the touch AC only to the first range increment.

Due to the dramatically different result depending on which definition of range is used, I am wondering whether the range for Mystic Bolts should be interpreted under the magic rules or the weapons rules?