Masalic's page

Power of Suggestion

Found a trait that might be useful if you want to "hide" it by bluffing

Oh this is really good...there's just one question though, what would i suggest that it would otherwise be?

Seduction seems an odd choice for Sarenrae. Especially if you aren't taking Companion to the Lonely social talent

A Skill or spell focus feat

Sarenrae's Divine Fighting Technique is good if you are building non-lethal.

Unfortunately, you can't take weapon focus(scimitar) 1st level

Improved initiative is always good, of course

Crap I forgot to take that part out....ok the truth is this this is actually supposed to be a zealot of arshea. But I tried making it a bit more safe for work because I thought the deity wasn't all that important and I didn't wanna make anybody uncomfortable.

I made a mistake about the marital weapon proficiency. But if you read the OP it looks like he asking for advice on a vigilante with the Zealot archetype.

@Masalic if we knew more of what you wanted to do with the character it would be easier to give decent advice.

Well, this is the build path I established so far.

Social Talents
1.Transformation Sequence
3.Social Grace
5.Ancestral Enlightenment
7.Quick Change
9.Skill Familiarity
11.Hidden Magic
13.Immidiate Change

Zealot Vigilante(Seduction Inquisition)
Vigilante Talents
2.Lethal Grace(Enforcer)
6.Harsh Judgment(Purity)
12.Zealot Smite

1.Weapon Finesse
3.Piranha Strike
5.Deific Obedience(Sarenrae)
7.Righteous Healing
9.Judgement Surge
11.Divine Interference
13.Encouraging Spell

Belafon wrote:

Mysterious Stranger wrote:

Vigilantes are also only proficient in simple weapons.

Ultimate Intrigue wrote:

Vigilantes are proficient with all simple and martial weapons.

Also, the OP is asking about feats for an inquisitor, not a vigilante.

Well the zealot is more or less just a more stealth suited vigilante with better weapon proficiencies

So the title is kind of a lie. Backstory is i made a vigilante zealot and got weapon finesse at level one and lethal grace at level 2, the overall build is fine, but since I got weapon finesse at level 1 lethal grace leaves with a free feat and i have no idea what to get. So i'm hoping to get some suggestions.

I was thinking if there was any way to be a sword and boarder zealot vigilante while still being able to hide my main weapons on myself. If this isn't possible then what other options do i have that can give me the same effect?

Keep in mind strafe bomb still provokes as a thrown attack if anybody is threatening your square.

Also worth noting is there is some conflict on whether or not alchemical weapons works the way we often think it does. RAW, alchemical weapon just adds some bonus dice to your attack. You also don't get the int or concentrated splash bonus.

The only ruling we have otherwise that it ~does~ work is some guy claims that the author of the grenadier archtype said it does. There's never been official confirmation of that and it conflicts with Paizo's rulings on (ability bonus) stacking.

So if you want to nerf yourself, then just be extra rules lawyery on yourself and limit the alchemical weapon bonus to 4d6. Still a nice bonus, but hardly OP at level 13 compared to the nonsense a pure bomber alchemist can put out.

Well that's fine, main reason i got it is so i could use it without having to get hit with my own splash damage, the bonus damage was just the icing on the cake.

Probably overthinking it!

What do you feel is overpowered compared to other party members? It's a fun martial build alchemist, but you're going to have action economy limits as the alchemical bonus damage is only a single hit, and takes a move action for the first 5 levels.

If you feel like you are outshining other players, just swap out something for infusion and buff them. Alternatively, focus on using debuff alchemical items like flash powder (any rogues will love you) or itching/sneezing powders.

Oh, that would be a good option. Might not have the highest DC in the world but in tandum with an attack it kinda doesn't need it.

Weird question i know but I've been scratching my head with this build thinking it might be a bit too powerful at least in the early stages of a campaign.(I mentioned this build in a post a while back.

Grenadier

Traits:Enduring Mutagen
Firebug

2.Annointing:Mercurial Oil
Bonus Discovery:Precise Bomb
4.Explosive Bomb
6.Strafe Bomb
8.Annointing:Essence Booster
10.Preserve Organs
12.Greater Mutagen

1.Steadfast Slayer
3.Concentrated Splash
5.Master Alchemist
7.Power Attack
9.Vital Strike
11.Extra Discovery(Mummification)
13.Devestating Strike

Weapon of Choice(Greatsword, Earthbreaker, Glaive or Scythe)
Get Vest of Stable Mutation

The general idea is to pump up on mutagen, load up a hybridized Artokus's Fire/Mineral Acid combo, and just leap in and tear up anybody that gets in your way with powerful single strike blows and point blank Bombs.

Am i overthinking it thinking it might be a bit much?

Melkiador wrote:

“Slots” only apply to magic items. You could easily wear 20 rings with 2 on each finger. But you’d only get the benefit of two magic rings.

If wearing 2 armors, you only get the magical benefits of one.

I suppose you could wear more than 1 suit of non-magical armor, the same way you can wear more than one pair of non-magical boots.

Again end of the day it's just a modified tunic so unless you can come up with a real reason why it would be any different from putting it under a regular tunic the argument is moot

Masalic wrote:

Chain shirts imo just come down to common sense. If we know chainmail exists there's no reason to think someone didn't think to make a smaller more compact version of a chainmail

We can use the same argument for leather armor.

We know that we had cuir boli lamellar armor, we know we had hide armor, and we know that a heavy leather jacket (like the ones used by bikers) can protect fairly well from claws and bites. So it is common sense that someone developed a low-cost leather armor version for the peasant infantryman.
After all, the Babylonians used cloth armor, and that didn't protect that much.
During the XVI and XVII centuries, a lot of armies used leather uniforms. They were good enough against spent bullets.

Well if a chain shirt isn't just shortened chainmail then what would it be?

Masalic wrote:

Unfortunately, i can't find any evidence of leather armor that wasn't lamellar in nature. I want to believe solid one-piece leather armor existed but i can't find anything that isn't immediately disputed.

Besides the artists' depictions (that aren't accurate at all), whoever said that leather armor is a solid one-piece of leather?

The description in the CRB is:
"Leather armor is made up of multiple overlapping pieces of leather, boiled to increase their natural toughness and then deliberately stitched together".

The main problem is that most leather armors have rotten away, so there is little historical proof. Same problem for chain shirts, BTW. They rusted to nothing. AFAIK we have some rings but nothing complete.

Chain shirts imo just come down to common sense. If we know chainmail exists there's no reason to think someone didn't think to make a smaller more compact version of a chainmail

“Slots” only apply to magic items. You could easily wear 20 rings with 2 on each finger. But you’d only get the benefit of two magic rings.

If wearing 2 armors, you only get the magical benefits of one.

That I can work with.

RAW you have a single Armor slot, so cannot wear a chain shirt and a reinforced tunic as both are considered armor.

So, I can wear a chain shirt under a regular tunic but not a reinforced one?

Most real-world armor was layered, and the overall effect of the layers is what we get in the game. You don't wear plate armor without some form of padding under it.

As an example, half-plate says: "Half-plate armor combines elements of full plate and chainmail", and those don't mention wearing a gamberson under them, but it is practically mandatory to wear one. Otherwise, blunt force damage from maces or war hammers would be transmitted to the body with full force.

Leather armor existed; it was made of boiled leather. And the best approximation of the Roman lorica segmentata is the banded mail.

Unfortunately, i can't find any evidence of leather armor that wasn't lamellar in nature. I want to believe solid one-piece leather armor existed but i can't find anything that isn't immediately disputed.

Also, Metal plates, Chainmail AND gambeson? Wouldn't your reaction time slow to a crawl?

As for the padding, idk about you guys but me personally, I'd rather deal with some broken ribs over a punctured lung.

Masalic wrote:

And I'm assuming it would work the same way if say a breastplate was worn over the tunic correct?

Pretty much. There is no reason it logically shouldn't or anything rule-wise to say otherwise. You are using it as you normally would and the only thing different is that you have a breastplate over it and I don't see any reason that would hinder its properties. As a GM I would rule that the reinforced tunic's +2 AC on critical confirmations would apply but only if it was better than a breastplate's AC. In this case, it wouldn't be (breastplate is 6, reinforced tunic is 1. 1 + 2 is still less than 6). Note that it adds +2 to the tunic's AC, not yours. You wouldn't add it to the AC you were getting from the breastplate (which is what you would be using, since it has the highest AC). Only in a case where the attack were bypassing metal or the breastplate and not the tunic would that come into play (or the tunic had magical bonuses that enhanced its armor bonus to within 1 or more points of the breastplate where the +2 would kick it up and over).

About the only ruling you might get is from the armored coat. It has some qualities that only apply to itself (time to don or remove, what types of armor it works with, ie. not heavy, etc.) but it also says that magical effects and properties only apply from the outermost armor. So if you had a +1 breastplate worn over a +1 reinforced tunic of fire resistance you would use the breastplate's AC, since it's higher (You'd get to use the tunic's if it was higher from magical bonuses, since I don't believe that's what they meant by effects), but you wouldn't get the tunic's fire resistance. The tunic's resistance to critical hits is inherent in its construction and not magical.

Ultimately, it can be done, but the times when it is useful are very limited. You would have to be wearing armor within 1 point of the reinforced tunic for its bonus to be better or that...

That's fine. Truth be told I'm looking more for aesthetics anyway.

I'm looking into whatever kind of armors that could have been worn by someone who is associated with Roman or Norse culture on someway. I would use leather but sadly I can't look at leather armor anymore know that no leather armor existed that wasn't lamellar.

And I know this is gonna be a hot take, but lamellar just doesn't look right to me the segmented nature of the armor throws it all off imo.

By RAW, there is nothing about wearing 2 armors, some GM might allow it based on the situation.

Logically wearing breastplate and tunic shouldnt have stack effect, because tunic is fully covered by breastplate.

My intepretation for this is that, a Tunic provide bad overall protection (AC 1), but it still able to help you avoid the critical damage (additional +2). While a breastplate is overall good at protection, so it can help you avoid both normal hit and critical hit at same AC bonus

That would actually be pretty good as armor ngl.

Nothing stopping you from doing that. As long as the chain shirt fits under the reinforced tunic, you can do it (for example, I wouldn't allow someone to wear full plate and also half plate or a breastplate. You would only get the benefit of the best armor. You would have the weight of both and the AC penalty or check penalty of both added together.

About the only benefit you might get is if there's an attack that could bypass one but not the other armor or material (say a blade that passes through metal, but not leather or vice versa). In that case you would use the AC bonus of the effective armor. Similar to wearing a breastplate (+6 AC) and having mage armor (+4 AC), you would normally get the +6 from the breastplate, but if attacked by a brilliant energy weapon (ignores non-living matter) or an incorporeal touch attack (ignores armor except force effects) then you would use the +4 from the mage armor.

I believe the armored coat is the item most used to layer armor and should be used as an example in most cases (for stacking actual, material armor, not spells). As long as the items could believably and realistically be layered under each other, that doesn't mean it won't be obvious or noticeable, but that depends on the specific armor/clothing. An armored coat is more likely to be able to conceal a leather jerkin or chain shirt underneath than an armored or reinforced tunic.

And I'm assuming it would work the same way if say a breastplate was worn over the tunic correct?

I mean end of the day the tunic is just clothing right?

...and let's not get started on the whole 'longsword' thing.

The more I think of it, the more I come to appreciate the category of 'Normal sword' that BECMI had.

Oh yeah honestly the longsword is close to a broadsword if not a bastard sword.

Fluff wise, the appearance and denominations of the different swords are so varied between locations and years that there is no problem in calling a scimitar a "small falchion" or "a one-handed falchion".

What doesn't work is using the stats of one for the other or saying that a size small falchion is a scimitar for feats and other abilities.

Perfectly fine, thematicness is all I really need.

fluffwise, sure. call it whatever you want. mechanically however, no, a falchion is a falchion, and a scimitar is a scimitar. So no buying weapon focus falchion and getting a +1 on a scimitar, etc.

Obviously i know that.... I was more talking about in general appearance.

Normally I don't like relying on fluff but given the scimitar and the falchion are close enough in form to be comparable, I don't think it would be too big of an issue.

I swear GM's like that are why I learned to condense my builds and why i tend to stick to PFS legal so they won't have any excuse to say i can't use something.

If a GM use the game to go on a power trip, im moving to another table.

Everything seems to lean towards yes so long as I'm jumping off something (Say off another enemy via dragonfly style), but I just want to make sure.

I honestly haven't the foggiest why one would use a fragile weapon over something else.
I mean if you look at say the terbutje, get past the fragile thing it's literally just a longsword functionally.

I know there are some builds centered around the fragile aspect of these weapons, but would they really be worth having to constantly repair your weapon all the time?

Masalic wrote:

To a total of 9d6+10...at level 3. What I'm trying to say it as long as you have the ammo for it, if you hit anything, its gonna die. In a very brutal and painful way i might add, and im not sure most DM's would be cool with you one shotting everything while being 4'8

You're looking at 2550 in equipment (out of an expected WBL of 3000 for a third level character). And 50 gp per attack. And 10 minutes prep per attack.

Which is to say this sounds more like a theorycrafted build than something that saw actual play and turned out to be too powerful.

I've had a couple of PFS builds that turned out to be so powerful I held way, way back. But I really enjoy roleplaying so it turned out great for me as I turned those characters into "teachers" who congratulated others on doing well or "entitled jerks" who (role-played that they) believed it was everyone else's responsibility to do the actual work.

It's not so much that it was objectively powerful, so much that even the potential to just completely trivialize boss encounters, up until level 8 might get the DM to up the difficulty just to deal with you. But yeah thinking about it, TriOmega has the right idea. And those rounds would only be something to pull out when you can't afford not to.

Campaign: Wrath of the Righteous (with watered-down mythic rules)

Character: Aasimar Oracle
Build Focus: Using Desna's Divine Obedience to add my ridiculous Charisma mod to SR Penetration checks and boosting caster level on Holy Word (I think I was at +8 caster levels without using my Karma Prayer Bead).

Effect: Most foes couldn't avoid being paralyzed for at least a round, which was plenty of time for the party martials to spend an MP for a free move action up to the foe and Coup-de-grace them.

I didn't actually change my build at all, but I did put Holy Word in my 'for emergency use only' bucket because it was essentially an 'I win' button...

So basically, it's one of those "Practice restraint" sort of deals

I'll try to break it down for you
Grenadier Alchemist
Choose Greatsword as your martial weapon
Get concentrated splash at level 3
Make Artokus's Fire and Mineral Acid
Mix em together in a hybridization funnel
Annointing:Mercurial Oil

Example build

3d6+7(from Weapon and strength mod from mutagen and +1 magic enchantment)
6d6+3(Artokus's Fire and Mineral Acid+Int mod from throw anything and concentrated splash)

To a total of 9d6+10...at level 3. What I'm trying to say it as long as you have the ammo for it, if you hit anything, its gonna die. In a very brutal and painful way i might add, and im not sure most DM's would be cool with you one shotting everything while being 4'8

Oh yeah btw this build was intended for a small race. So just imagine this little halfling just tearing through everybody with a sword secreting volatile chemicals. Awesome but kinda busted.

I think i might have found one of the few cases where a familiar is stronger than its animal companion counterpart. and this is for the simple fact that due to evolved familiar it can get more natural attacks to use.

There's also an argument to be had about the shimmerwing dragonfly technically getting 2 feats, because its technically a vermin creature getting an intelligence score and by extension a free feat, but even if it doesn't have fly by attack while getting multiple natural attacks alongside its boosted strength means it will eventually even out if not outperform whatever the giant dragonfly could pump out even with power attack.

Masalic wrote:

I was just wondering how powerful this could potentially be on a negotiator bard as call truce does quote...

...
Now on paper this sounds absolutely ridiculous, but i wonder how often you could do this in practice?

It depends on the GM and the campaign. It's going to be way more powerful in the hands of a negotiator bard than almost anyone else, as you point out. Diplomacy is the main focus of such characters and they get abilities that are practically unheard of to any other class, like Taking 20 one or more times a day when threatened and at no cost.

How often could such a person do this? As much as they want in a normal situation. There's always going to be a group or situation where some reason exists that it won't, and a player will have to accept that, even without knowing the reason. They may not know the opposition has a short-term buff spell on or they're mind-controlled.

Also, they get checks if anyone in your group even plans to get a combat advantage, which could be healing up or buffing. Naturally it comes down to reasonable. I think it would be reasonable to see someone healing a fallen or unconscious person (but they'd also be reasonably and logically removing injured from the field during a truce, not just healing them back to take up a battle position), but it's another thing when you see your barbarian or still standing warriors getting magically restored. So there's lots of things that you can't do, including moving to where you could flank or threaten someone or remove an advantage they have, even in terms of positioning. This can even include an ally leaving sight, for instance just moving down a passage off to the side that the opposition knows could lead around to their flank (they still have to make a Sense Motive check, unless it's an obvious threat, but still they get one).

They have no such restrictions. If you call the truce, they can move to surround you, they can buff, and heal, or send one or two runners to their allies or to get...

So, it's in this weird limbo where it's both powerful and situational at the same time.

I was just wondering how powerful this could potentially be on a negotiator bard as call truce does quote...

"Once you’ve called for a truce, if any of your allies attack or take any threatening action against those you are entreating before the start of your next turn, your call is unsuccessful.

At the start of your next turn, attempt a single Diplomacy check (DC = 30 + the Charisma modifier of the creature with the highest Charisma modifier in the opposing group). If you are successful, combat ceases for 1 minute, or until any creature in the opposing group is threatened or attacked."

Now 30+the leaders charisma modifier is a high bar to hit. But the negotiator has the master of rhetoric you can take 20 once per day. This means once per day you can in theory just...stop a fight.

Now on paper this sounds absolutely ridiculous, but i wonder how often you could do this in practice?

I kinda wanna work on a character that's decended from a lamia matriarch and over time gains some powers from that, is the salamander bloodline the only way to get such a tail naturally?

Versitile Evocation from the Admixture School does indeed change the Descriptor.

Versatile Evocation (Su): When you cast an evocation spell that does acid, cold, electricity, or fire damage, you may change the damage dealt to one of the other four energy types. This changes the descriptor of the spell to match the new energy type. Any non-damaging effects remain unchanged unless the new energy type invalidates them (an ice storm that deals fire damage might still provide a penalty on Perception checks due to smoke, but it would not create difficult terrain). Such effects are subject to GM discretion. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.

So something like elemental spell won't work?

I wanna say yes, but this wouldn't be the first time paizo had such an oversight.

I'll keep this quick. Symbol of storms, have it on your hand, set the condition to have people look at it, cover the symbol up, when you're ready to whip it out, show it to your opponents who unless blind will likely see it, and basically turn into the center of a hurricane.

Have this coupled with some sort of fly speed with perfect manuverability like wind oracles wings of air and have wind flyer so said hurricane also increases your fly speed.

Can this work?

You might want to take a look at Cihua Couatl If so an Oracle of Life or Battle might be more fitting. Personally I would probably go with life. Oracles have proficiency with simple weapons so using a short spear works well with the theme.

Other than being able to fly I am not seeing any connection to air and wind. Neither Oracle of Wind nor Stormborn Sorcerer seems appropriate. The fact that Couatl cast cleric spells makes the Oracle more appropriate than sorcerer.

If you do go with Cihua Couatl as a deity a Cleric or Warpreist might work.

I'm using the more irl reasoning as quezacoatls whole thing was being the god of rain and wind and there are a lot of coatls in pathfinder who have similar powers

Right now im torn between a Wind oracle or a stormborn sorcerer.

For Context

"The vigilante’s wild attacks allow him to block his foes’ counterattacks. He gains Power Attack as a bonus feat. If he already has the Power Attack feat, he can immediately swap it for another feat for which he qualified at the level he chose Power Attack. When he takes an attack or full attack action, if he uses Power Attack on every attack to make melee attacks that use his Strength bonus on attack rolls, he gains a shield bonus to his AC until his next turn equal to his penalty on attack rolls from Power Attack. This bonus applies only if he actually takes that penalty on at least one of the attack rolls."

I'm Leaning on yes, but I just want to make sure.

Claxon wrote:

Masalic wrote:

Pathfinder really hates dex builds doesn't it? Also you're forgetting about harsh judgement. which gives me the destruction judgement, so yeah i'd say i have plenty of flat bonuses

More like Pathfinder doesn't like to let character ignore one of their ability scores.

I'm looking for this Harsh Judgement ability and the only thing I can find that references that is the Gray Warden prestige class. So I'm not sure what you're talking about. Did I miss where you said you're going to multiclass into Gray Warden?

Edit: I found it on AON but not on d20PFSRD. That option does help with damage, but doesn't help with your attack. Or rather you can choose which it will help you with, but Harsh Judgement never gives you the Second or Third Judgement class feature of Inquisitors so you'll never got both attack and damage.

Two Weapon fighting on a 3/4 BAB class without some good inherent bonuses to attack rolls isn't going to work as well as you think. And the damage scaling bonus isn't amazing. At 9th level it's only a +4.

I personally think you're build would be much better off if you used a two-handed weapon and were primarily strength based. Even with less dex you will still be stealthy enough with the right selections.

Just following up with my thoughts from earlier. Destruction judgment will give you a +4 bonus to damage at 9th level with no inherent attack bonus in your class.

Conversely, a full BAB class will be between 1 and 4 points ahead of you on attack rolls. Which a strength based character would then trade for damage via power attack. At level 1 power attack trades 1 point of attack for 3 points of damage when using a 2 handed weapon. So from a single feat, it's granting almost as much as damage at level 1 as judgment will at 9th level. Judgments for an Inquisitor are good, but they are not the main source of damage. Inquisitor are normally going to use justice judgment for attack bonus until they get second judgment and can have...

only if you can realistically convince me that i can sneak a bow in places without the use of magic. Cause you gotta remember, this character end of the day their primary role is to be a Face/disguise sneak character with just enough damage that they can't just be ignored. It's a utility focused character rather then a combat focused one.

Masalic wrote:

Pathfinder really hates dex builds doesn't it?

It doesn't make the act of entirely ignoring the Strength ability score easy like other editions.

But more on topic, I've had some fun with combining the Shield Gauntlet Style feats to work with a two-weapon dex combatant that uses spells. Gauntlets do not tie up your hands for spell casting. It also helps you qualify for other feats that require Improved Unarmed Strike.

I've used that feat in conjunction with a Zealot Vigilante in the Hell's Rebels campaign.

Good. Very good but unfortunately because it requires weapon focus it come online much later then I would like, and given i can just get IUS at level 2 since i got weapon finesse at level 1, I'd say it's ultimately not worth it.

Masalic wrote:

Claxon wrote:

A) None of the above

Spell casting and two weapon fighting don't play nicely together

Although if you're playing a divine spell caster, some shields or sometimes favored weapons of your god can be used as a holy symbol and maybe allow you to supply somatic components.

In general unless your class offers a lot of static damage and attack bonuses, TWF is not a something worth pursuing.

Perhaps give more specifics about what you're thinking about playing and people would be able to give better advice.

Zealot vigilante with lethal grace, if twf doesn't work then my only other option is single blade which is very limiting damage wise

I'm confused why you think this. Basically the only resource you have from your class kit that is a damage bonus is Smite, aside from whatever spells might do for you.

TWF works best when your class gives you some sort big flat damage bonus, because TWF gives you extra attacks to take advantage of that.

For a Zealot, a two handed weapon with reach is probably going to work better. Keep in mind your Zealot doesn't have full BAB, so TWF which causes you to take penalties to your attack roll is already a poor fit. You also seem to think you need to have super dex and no strength for your character. I would argue instead you should have a good strength and as much dex as your armor will cap at.

Also I agree with someone else who said you should just play an Inquisitor. An Inquisitor with the right Inquisition and a decent dex (but not as primary ability) will do just fine at stealth. Even if they're not the best.

Pathfinder really hates dex builds doesn't it? Also you're forgetting about harsh judgement. which gives me the destruction judgement, so yeah i'd say i have plenty of flat bonuses

Masalic wrote:

And for context. A. This is assuming you want unfettered access to spellcasting(As yes you would be playing a spellcaster) and B. You intend to infiltrate places either by stealth or disguise on a regular basis.

For A, probably the "preferred" option (requiring the least jumping through feat hoops) to switch between spellcasting and Two-Weapon fighting is using a double weapon. Taking a hand off to cast a spell or gripping it again with two hands are both free actions in PF1. The only issue with double weapons is that they tend to lag behind the "crit fishing" options (other than the pick head of the gnome hooked hammer for damage).

For B, a "humble" quarterstaff might work (it did for Gandalf in Lord of the Rings); too bad transformative is so expensive. Otherwise, you might be better off with using spells to create weapons: force sword, ghost whip, instant weapon (which can be any type of melee weapon), etc.

Hmm....The inquisitor spell list does have holy ice weapon as an option and in a lot of cases its a better weapon then anything you could really enchant. Still, that would limit me to like a few battles per day.

The quarterstaffs only problem is you can't finesse it and since I'm using lethal grace it and all double weapons in fact are basically useless to me.

I have to agree with Claxon that we need more information about what you want out of the character. For me, the most important thing is why are you going vigilante? An inquisitor might actually be a better choice unless there is some reason you want to be a vigilante.

An inquisitor with the Infiltrator, and sanctified slayer archetypes and the clandestine inquisition would be able to infiltrate places quite easily. Being able to choose what alignment you detect can be better than the vigilante’s dual identity. You could be l awful good and detect as chaotic evil. Studied target and sneak attack are going to be a lot better for a two-weapon fighter than lethal grace.

You could honestly use that logic for the vigilante class as a whole.

A) None of the above

Spell casting and two weapon fighting don't play nicely together

Although if you're playing a divine spell caster, some shields or sometimes favored weapons of your god can be used as a holy symbol and maybe allow you to supply somatic components.

In general unless your class offers a lot of static damage and attack bonuses, TWF is not a something worth pursuing.

Perhaps give more specifics about what you're thinking about playing and people would be able to give better advice.

Zealot vigilante with lethal grace, if twf doesn't work then my only other option is single blade which is very limiting damage wise

And for context. A. This is assuming you want unfettered access to spellcasting(As yes you would be playing a spellcaster) and B. You intend to infiltrate places either by stealth or disguise on a regular basis.

So let me explain Lethal grace has the line that goes "He gains Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat, and if he already has the Weapon Finesse feat, he can immediately swap it for another feat for which he qualified at the level he chose Weapon Finesse."

However Noble scion strictly states that I can only get it at level one, which i would have been if i had chosen noble scion as my first level feat instead of weapon finesse. I have a feeling this is gonna be a resounding no, but i just wanna make sure.

I've been looking into this and know that most bombs don't work because they don't apply direct damage, and I'm sitting here thinking, there has to be SOME bombs that work with this, and the only one i can think of is the smoke bomb line, which would make them a reliable debuffer.

The bow warpriest would go your standard route, trying to get as many attacks as they can into a single full attack, but the sling would go into startoss style, would eventually get juggle load, Sling flail, and sacred weapon would help sling out more then it would ever help bows.

have you considered unarmed strikes? Zealot gives you Improved Unarmed Strike if you pick a suitable deity, and while the base stats are bad, they're finessable, they don't restrict hand movement so you can cast while wearing them without issue, and Handwraps let you use TWF while only paying the enchantment cost for a single weapon. Since handwraps are literally just a bit off cloth, you can smuggle them ito any place.

By themselves nah like you said it would be kind of bad for base damage...but since I'm would have to get quick draw anyway, I might as well swap it out for IUS and combine kicks with the main weapon that being a gladius or even a rapier. Honestly I'm kicking myself for not thinking of this before