MrCharisma's page

Thank you for the detailed post @MrCharisma ! Seems like an Occultist can do quite well without Trappings then, It seems like such a versatile class with many build options.

For this idea I was looking at occultist because it seems like they can be a decent martial while still having plenty of other things they can do, With their spells and powers and skills and stuff. I quite like the 6th tier casters. :)

100%

My favourite class since second edition DnD has been the Paladin. It' a Martial class with some magic and some flavour to help you roleplay, so it's stayed my favourite through multiple editions. The Magus and Alchemist almost supplanted the Paladin but didn't quite take the top spot, but the Occultist managed it. It's my favourite class in so many ways, and yes it fits your description perfectly.

What I will say is that if you want to be a Martial character you need a Transmutation Implement, you'd be giving up too kuch otherwise (of course you can ignore Transmutation if you're playing more of a caster). I also advise getting a defensive Implement fairly early if you want to be on the front-line. Abjuration is the obvious choice but Divination or Illusion can do the job, I'm sure there are some other Implements that can combine to give you enough defence to get by. Other than that it's basically up to you. I've absolutely loved the Conjuration implement for the movement abilities and utility of the spells, and Divination is great (though keeping both Transmutation and Divination resonant powers fully powered is hard to do), but they're all good depending on the campaign and your preferences.

I read a guide to Reach Clerics just before I read the Occultist, and I think everything in that guide applies to the Occultist as well as the Cleric. There are so many standard action spells and abilities, and having the ability to attack enemies on their own turn really lets you use both the martial and caster sides of the class in a way that would be difficult otherwise.

Absolutely 100% yes, Occultists keep up with damage.

So first things first, by RAW you do Not have to equip your shield to benefit from Trappings, but I think it's a totally reasonable stance to say you do. It's still completely fine for damage and it's probably RAI, so I'm not gonna tell you to argue with your GM.

So for damage, you'll probaboy struggle a bit for the first few levels, but once you get a +1 weapon (or get to level 6) you can use Legacy Weapon to make your weapon a +1 BANE weapon. This adds +2 to hit and damage and +2d6 bonus damage vs any one creature type for 1 minute, and will absolutely be the most powerful buff you can give yourself. Between this and the Physical Enhancement Resonant power you'll essentially be getting +5 to hit and 2d6+5 bonus damage to every attack by level 6 for the cost of a standard action. If your GM finds this too cheesy, maybe ask about using the RUNEFORGED property instead of Bane. It essentially gives the same bonus as Bane against themed enemies, but it doesn't quite cover all enemy types and costs a +2 enhancement bonus instead of +1.

Speaking of standard action buffs, the Occultist has a lot of them and they can quickly clog up your action economy. Personally I think Lead Blades is a waste of time. It's ~+2.5 damage, which is just not impactful compared to Legacy weapon, it lasts for minutes per level, but unless you get advanced warning of your combat that's still usually an in-combat spell and it takes up a spellslot that could be used for something else. If you want to deal damage in combat you have to actually spend actions doing damage, so my recommendation is to have 1 buff (almost always Legacy Weapon) and then start swinging. Spending more time buffing is reducing your overall damage output. If you really want more damage from your Longsword, a potion of Enlarge Person is only 50gp, and gives you the same damage dice upgrade, plus 1 damage from the increased STR, plus reach. I recommend a potion rather than a wand or spell because Enlarge Person has a 1-round casting time (you start casting now and the effect happens at the beginning of your next turn) which means it can easily be interrupted, but Potions ignore casting time so it's a move+standard and you're instantly big.

Speaking of Reach, since the Occultist has a whole bunch of standard action buffs and Legacy weapon gives a damage bonus that isn't multiplied on a crit (the +2d6 damage from Bane) I recommend a reach weapon, and Combat Reflexes if you can fit it in (12 DEX is enough to make Combat Reflexes worthwhile). This lets you attack on other people's turn, increasing the number of extra +2d6s you get to add and allowing you to take non-attack actions if you want to. Also as a general rule denying space is good in PF. You can even do this with Trappings if you really want to by taking the SHIELD BRACE feat (a Buckler or Darkwood shield has 0 ACP).

Speaking of Trappings, you don't need it. Now that doesn't mean you shouldn't take it, or even that it isn't good, but you absolutely 100% deal enough damage without it. Think about our 6th level Occultist from earlier who is already getting +5 to hit and 2d6+5 damage from their Transmutation Implement. Well they'd be getting a whopping +2 to hit from Trappings. That's not quite true, they'd also be getting their iterative attack 2 levels earlier, and they'd get scaling bonuses from feats like Power Attack earlier as well (Power Attack often lowers your damage as an Occultist since you have such high damage bonuses, the penalty to hit is more impactful than the bonus damage even with a 2 handed weapon, check whether it's right for you) but even so the bonuses from your Transmutation Implement are having a more significant effect on your damage output than the bonus from Trappings. If you have a reach weapon then the iteratives aren't even adding that much since you're probably getting 2+ attacks at full BAB every round anyway. Now as I said that doesn't mean Trappings is bad - it's quite powerful even - but it comes at a cost, and that cost is that you lose access to 1 Implement. I actually think Trappings is a perfectly fine Panoply to take since there are often multiple Abjuration/Transmutation spells you might want to take, but if there is another Implement you want instead you shouldn't feel like you need Trappings to be competetive. If you Do take Trappings, take it at level 6 when you get the extra attack, it's totally not worth it for +1 to hit at level 2.

So where does all that leave us? I recommend taking a reach weapon (but you don't have to), focus on 1 standard action buff per combat, you can take Trappings if you want but don't need it, and pretty much no matter how you build around that you'll be fine for damage.

Also take a look at archetypes. My Occultist is a Haunt Collector, which is good for those Implements with bad Resonant powers. There are other good ones depending what you want, it's worth checking them out.

I would say most PCs who finish an AP would be able to solo the first 4 books of basically any other AP. The experience gained from those 4 books is probably enough to level them up enough to solo book 5. However book 6 is usually geared towards a party of 4 high level adventurers, so even a fairly well optimized PC would have real trouble with this.

Having said that, you could certainly build a PC who could solo another AP. If you had particular APs in mind it would be easier to tailor, but you could build a generalist that would be able to handle most APs. We're in the middle of book 6 of Iorn Gods, and some of the weapons in that AP are ridiculous, load up on batteries and you'll be golden. I'm sure a lot of APs would have some advantage that you could bring to the next one.

Yup, it extends all relevant hexes within range.

The Raven Black wrote:

Because obvious is not an absolute. Consider that several posters see it one way and AFAICT only you see it your way.

I'm on his side.

I'm not, but I see the argument.

Once again I feel like the argunents have been presented. If people aren't convinced then they're not going to be, and as has been said it's up to our GMs to decide (if you are the GM then it's your prerogative).

I still don't understand how this is supposed to work and how this is relevant. 'If your unarmed attack bonus is higher, you can use it instead.' Why for a wizard you just take your number with your 'Fist' attack and compare it with the number from the spell, and for a fighter you can't just take the same number for the same attack and compare? Yes, it's bigger for a fighter and can be different for different fighters, so what?

I didn't see the difference either at first.

If you look at a Monk, they're trained with "unarmed attacks". Then at level 5 they become an expert in "unarmed attacks".

If you look at the Fighter, they're expert in "unarmed attacks". Then at level 5 they can become a master in 1 weapon group. The brawling weapon group includes fist, which happens to be a type of unarmed attack, but it doesn't give you master proficiency in all unarmed attacks. The relevant quote from Animal Form is: If your unarmed attack bonus is higher, you can use it instead. It doesn't say if ANY unarmed attack bonus, it's referring go your training level with "unarmed attacks", which at this level is expert.

So the fix is to take MARTIAL ARTIST dedication at level 6 (which is doable because I'm using the Free Archetype rules). Martial Artist says: Whenever you gain a class feature that grants you expert or greater proficiency in certain weapons, you also gain that proficiency rank in all unarmed attacks. Because this applies to all "unarmed attacks" we can use it for Animal Form.

Oh, although one advantage I'm seeing is that I don't have to pick Brawling as my Fighter Weapon Specialization. Martial Artist seems to just keep my "Unarmed Attacks" trucking with whatever weapon group I pick.

OK, 30 seconds later and I'm already less annoyed. Thanks guys.

ARISE THREAD

Thank you all for the help. Unfortunately, literally 30 seconds before we hit level 2 my character was killed by a few unlucky rolls. Unlucky for me =(

The good (?) news is that since I hadn't got to level 2 I hadn't actually done any of my Druid stuff, which means that's all still on the table. I've decided to build a new character that still uses Wild Shape, but I'm going with Fighter as a backup plan.

TLDR: I'm making a level 2 FIGHTER with the DRUID ARCHETYPE (using FREE ARCHETYPE and ANCESTRY PARAGON rules) to be a WILD SHAPE Fighter

I guess my main questions are about which feats work with Animal Form and which don't. Assuming I'm in say Bear form (which has a bite attack and 2 claw attacks), which of the following do you think would work: DOUBLE SLICE, SNAGGING STRIKE, COMBAT GRAB, DRAGGING STRIKE, DUELING PARRY, TWIN PARRY, DUELING RIPOSTE, CUT FROM THE AIR, DISARMING TWIST or TWIN RIPOSTE? Later feats don't really matter since our campaign only goes to 10, but feel free to discuss them.

I'm also probably going HUMAN, but DWARF has slightly better stats. I really like the Human feats though (particularly COOPERATIVE NATURE and CLEVER IMPROVISOR, that kind of thing), and with Ancestry Paragon rules that makes a big difference. We're probably getting into Advice territory here rather than Rules, but I'm less familiar with Dwarf feats, so if there's anything cool I'm open to it.

Diving completely into advice territory, does anyone have any other possible archetypes that could pair well with a Wild Shape Fighter? I've heard some rumblings about Wrestler or Martial Artist, but I'm not sure I get the nuances, and there could be other fun things to try. I'm focused on being the best Wild Shape combatant I can be, though I'd also like to focus somewhat on debuffing enemies and assisting allies if possible (looking at Combat Grab or Intimidating Strike as my preferences for the 2nd level feat).

Also if you think this is diverting too much from the Rules Forum I'm happy to make another thread in the Advice forum. I figured it's easier to keep it all in one place, but maybe it's easier for everyone else if I separate this into 2 threads?

just to make sure it's clear, when you go down with wounded 1, then come back up... you're wounded 2 now.

Yup.

You go down with wounded 1. Now you're Dying 2 before you even fail your saves (you automatically go to Dying 1 + your wounded value = Dying 2).

Then you fail a save and go down to Dying 3.

You fail another save and go down to dying 4, but luckily you have the DIEHARD feat so you're still not dead.

Then you're revived by an ally, and you're Wounded 2 (You were Wounded 1 before you went down so now you're Wounded 2). Your previous Dying condition doesn't matter, only your Wounded condition.

Then you get knocked down again and you instantly go to Dying 3 (you automatically go to Dying 1 + your wounded value = Dying 3). Once again your previous Dying condition doesn't matter, only your previous Wounded condition.

EDIT: Oh I read that as a question so I thought I'd make a more elaborate answer. I just realised it wasn't a question, but I'll leave my answer here and hopefully it'll help someone =P

I feel like we just had the OP say "My character is overshadowing everyone else at the table" and a bunch of people replied "No it isn't". It's not what everyone said, but still ...

Ok, so:

Offence: At levels 1-4, 10-14 and 20 you will be -1 to hit behind most Martials. This is ... it's a bigger deal than it would have been in other editions, but it's not That big of a deal. Specifically at level 8, it's not a problem at all. Yes you are a Martial character. For damage you are limited to 1-handed weapons, but you get a damage boost that essentially puts your 1d8 Longsword on par with a 1d12 weapon, so your damage will be good as well. Some classes like the Barbarian have a damage bonus but then so do you, the main difference is that your damage doesn't multiply on a crit. Thaumaturges are good damage dealers.

Solution: As others have said, weakness damage isn't multiplied on a crit so make sure you're doing this right. Also you do need to set this up, so action economy will hurt you more than most classes. Make sure you're spending the correct actions to exploit vulnerability, and that if you're not using it you aren't forgetting to remove the damage from your calculations. Also note that Thaumaturges don't get the critical specialization effects for their weapons, so not only does your Exploit Vulnerability not multiply, you also don't apply conditions like Flat Footed or Prone to your targets on a crit. Most Martial characters should have critical specialization by now.

Defence: Your AC is low, and your HP is low, but you essentially have the Shield Block reaction from your Amulet. This shield block also comes with a lingering damageresistance, making it even better vs enemies who attack multiple times. Between the Pros and the Cons this probably puts you on-par with other fragile-ish Martials like the Rogue.

Solution: This might just be some luck if you aren't being hit much. Maybe try using your reaction to protect other PCs more often? You'll still be helping negate damage, but people might not see you as the tank so much. Also this ability can only be used agsinst the target of your Exploit Vulnerability, so make sure you haven't been inadvertently giving yourself protection when you shouldn't. Once again, action economy is going to hit you harder than most - it's the same action to prepare both your offensive and defensive powers, but you have to renew it on every target, so be sure you're doing this correctly.

Social Skills: A Thaumaturge with a Regalia Implement should be the undisputed king of social skills. Well maybe not undisputed, but unless someone else is investing heavily into this area you should be the best.

Solution: I don't think this one really needs a solution, this is your niche.

Knowledge checks: As others have said Diverse Lore only works with Recall Knowledge checks, not all uses of the skill. Also note that the in-combat use (free check when using Exploit Vulnerability) only ever gives you a regular success on Recall Knowledge, even if you rolled a critical success on the check.

Solution: I actually do think Diverse lore is somewhat poorly designed. Not only do you essentially get free Master proficiency on all recall knowledge checks and you get to use your primary stat. The only people who will ever have higher bonuses are extremely specialized characters, and even then they'll only have +2 compared to your checks. Maybe retrain this skill into something else (I think Root to Life is an incredible feat - less flashy super useful, and the lack of flash could help keep the heat off you in this case) so that you don't overshadow other PCs in their own sphere of specialization.

Miscelaneous Utility: Between your Regalia, your Talismans, your Scrolls (both the free ones you craft each day and any that you buy) and any other skills you have you likely are rpoviding more utility than most. This class is good at utility.

Solution: Once again make sure your action economy is correct. You have to spend an action to pull out a scroll before using it (one action to retrieve scroll, 2 actions to use it). Talismans also take actions, some are free actions but some are not, double check this. Affixing a Talisman to an item takes 10 minutes, each Talisman can only he affixed to a single item, and each Item can only hold 1 Talisman. Final word on Talismans, if people think you're OP, just hand them out to other PCs atthe beginning of the day and they can feel badass when they get to use them - you're still helping the team and being the best but the focus isn't on you. Same can be said for free scrolls really. One last note: You CAN swap Implements as a free action as part of using that Implement, and this DOES mean that you can be holding your Regalia and free-swap to your Amulet as part of the Reaction. However since the Regalia doesn't have any actions associated with it you CAN'T swap back to the Regalia without spending the actions (1 action to put away your Amulet, 1 action to retrieve your Regalia). I don't know if this has come up, but it's another thing worth checking. Personally I believe the Intensify Vulnerability action should work to swap back, but I have seen this debated - also the Regalia's Intensify isn't exactly spectacular (it's the equivalent to Aid Another), so it's probably going to come up less often than your Amulet.

Conclusion I guess: The Thaumaturge IS a strong class, but it probably shouldn't be the absolute strongest in most of these areas. It sounds like part of this is just that the other players didn't optimise as well as you (be that by chance or design), but however it's happened you've become the "Star" of the show. My advice would be to simply try to use your abilities to help others succeed and make double sure you're spending the correct actions to get everything working. Also swapping out Diverse Lore for something else - it's jot actually that powerful (you could already use Esoteric Lore on creatures) but it does kind-of step into other PC's niches. Doing these things should at least take the spotlight off you, and since ("hogging") the spotlight is the problem that should solve most of the dispute.

TLDR: Read this guide, make your Magus player and your GM read it too: GRICK'S GUIDE TO TOUCH SPELLS, SPELLSTRIKE AND SPELL COMBAT

Anonimagus wrote:

Is there a feat that makes it so you can just roll against touch ac with melee weapons?

There are ways, yes.

It is also possible to just target Touch AC with your Spellstrike if you give up dealing normal damage in addition to your Spell damage. It doesn't sound like that happened here, though.

It is possible to target Touch AC with your SPELL, but "Spellstrike" always targets regular AC (unless you have a specific ability that says otherwise, like the Accurate Strike Arcana). Wonderstell is correct though that if the attack misses regular AC then the entire attack is considered a miss - both the weapon damage and the spell damage.

Anonimagus wrote:

I might have it wrong, but I thought that with spell strike you had to hit with the weapon to cast a touch spell.

Yes. If you decide to make your Spellstrike as a normal attack and it misses their normal AC, it does not connect with their Touch AC. The attack misses, but the spell is not discharged.

This is correct.

If they had attacks left they could choose to make those as Touch attacks to make sure their spell lands. That might be what happened here?

This is not.

When you cast a Touch spell you get 1 Free-Action touch attack to deliver that spell. This touch attack must be used during the round in which the spell is cast or the free-action is lost. On following rounds you can continue to attempt to deliver the touch attack as a Standard Action, but no more Free Actions. Alternatively, you may use unarmed strikes or natural attacks to deliver the attack, any hit will deliver the spell as well as deal damage. These Unarmed/Natural attacks are not free actions though.

If you are a Magus, you get 2 advantages from the Spellstrike ability. First, you can deliver your touch spell with Weapon attacks instead of Natural attacks, which lets you do what an unarmed build or natural attack build could do by making attacks that deal weapon damage and spell damage. The second thing (the one that people misunderstand) is that you can substitute in a Weapon attack in place of any Touch attack from casting a spell. So in the round when you cast the spell instead of getting a Free Action touch attack you get a Free Action weapon attack.

The important thing to know here is that once the PC has cast the spell and attempted their Free Action TouchWeapon attack, any more attacks made during the round are regular weapon attacks. You do not get any more Touch attacks during that round, even if you have more iterative attacks. Any subsequent attacks would be weapon attacks made against regular AC.

The short version of this though is that - as Wonderstell said - the Magus should not have hit you with their Spellstrike.

It’s funny, I never once considered the (obvious, now that i think about it) orphanage angle. I had always associated that trait with the Lancelot story: that all those Paladins had been rescued and raised by Dryads, Nymphs, etc.

I mean, that's probably what it's meant to evoke, but it sure seems like there are a lot of them ... time to set up an orphanage.

The paladins in my group have never been orphans.

We're talking about general trends within the player base.

The FEY FOUNDLING feat is so strong on Paladins that a huge proportion of Paladin players pick this feat as their first level feat. Now a lot of people think this is meta-gaming (and sure, it is, but is but so is taking Power attack so whatever), but what I was saying is that kind-of like the narrative that this gives us. If we assume we're all playing in a persistent world that means there are a huge number of Paladins who were abandoned faerie babies that were picked up by someone. The idea that they all ended up in an orphanage run by the church of Iomedae, and that the church is recruiting for their war effort from the orphanage just tickles me.

In a similar vein the MAGICAL LINEAGE or WAYANG SPELLHUNTER background traits are incredibly strong for a Magus, who can use one of these traits to get a level 1 Intensified Shocking Grasp or a level 1 Rime Frostbite (or occasionally a level 1 Toppling Magic Missile). So while the Paladins of Golarion are apparently all coming out of religious orphanages, the Magi of the world all seem to come from either a long line of famous wizards or they come from Minatra.

This is essentially an emergent macro-story that comes from the choices made by players at countless tables. It's also not canon in anyone's world, but it's something that I personally happen to enjoy.

That's all we're really talking about here.

* Frightened 1 is -1 to all enemies attacks and -1 to all their defences. It is basically like giving everyone +2 to everything --- and people complain about fighters?

While I agree it's good, it's a lot more like giving everyone a +1 to everything ... +1 to two things is still +1.

I'm not sure what the point of this current derail is about.

Me neither brother.

MrCharisma wrote:

<Spell Combat requires a 1 handed weapon>

I see this as being indeterminate, because the Magus text (from 2011) was obviously written without consideration of somebody having more than 2 hands.

Spell Combat also references TWF, which generally doesn't allow 2-handed shenanigans. Honestly, I basically agree with you but I think RAW it's not allowed. RAI who knows, but RAF (Rules As Fun) I'd allow it.

ForsakenM wrote:

I completely understand the notion that someone who can cast spells AND fight in melee combat is super strong and needs to be balanced in some way to not outclass all other options, but it wouldn't be my first decision to take one of the classes first core features and immediately have it apply negatives to dice rolls unless ALL the other classes had very similar drawbacks, and I honestly just disagree with giving such a penalty in general.

Here's the thing. I don't think you do understand it, at least not fully. It's free action spellcasting packaged into a full attack, which no one else can do, and in exchange you're just taking the Two-Weapon Fighting penalty... which everyone else with that feat has to take. Also see the next to last quoted reply.

Here's the actual thing: 2 attacks with a -2 penalty are more likely to get at least 1 hit than 1 attack without a penalty.

Let's say you hit on an 11 or higher, so a 50% chance to hit and a 50% chance to miss.

Now let's give you a -2 penalty to your attack rolls but you get 2 attacks. That means you now need a 13 to hit, which is a 40% chance to hit and a 60% chance to miss. Now the chances if you hitting with both aren't great (0.4 × 0.4 = 0.16), you only have a 16% chance of that. However the chances that you miss with both is also smaller (0.6 × 0.6 = 0.36), you have a 36% chance that both will miss, which means you have a 64% chance that at least 1 attack will hit. Not only is that a higher number than your single attack (50%), but it also includes the chance that both of your attacks hit. So you end up with a 16% chance to hit twice and a 48% chance to hit once, which will be 60% more damage on average than your single attack would have been.

Now the math will change with this depending on what you need to roll to hit, so those percentages won't stay the same, but it works out that 2 attacks at a -2 to hit is always better than 1 attack at -0 except if you originally needed an 18 on the die to hit. Any other number needed you'll be better off attacking twice. The downside of TWF is usually that your offhand gets a -50% damage modifier, but the Magus not only ignores that part, but also gets to add spell damage if they really want to. So the only real downside for a Magus using Spell Combat/Strike is that they're restricted to 1-handed weapons and don't get the +50% damage modifier that 2-handed weapons get ... and you were allowed to ignore that downside.

I think a much better way to balance such a concept is to put on other limitations, such as having limited types of spells that you can cast w/ Spell Combat or having to choose a limited number of your spells when prepared that can be cast with Spell Combat, and have it become broader or increased as you hit certain levels.

Seriously, look up the Occultist. I really think the problem is that you wanted to play a particular kind of character and the Magus didn't quite give you what you wanted. I love the Magus but the Occultist is my number 1 favourite class, and it sounds to me like it would suit you better. All you need to be good in melee is the Transmutation Implement, and after that you can customize it however you want. You don't get Spell Combat, but you do get an incredible weapon buff that works wonders with a reach build for AoOs, meaning with good positioning you can cast on your turn and attack with AoOs ... or you can just wail on enemies if you prefer, that also works fine.

Wow, this thread really did stay active after I said I had moved on since the second page of this thread, that's wild.

Yeah I realised the other day that I only joined this thread after you left, and I think I joined in the first half of the thread. Welcome back, nice to formally meet you ;)

I was told by PF1 Reddit that I HAD to take Combat Casting as my 1st lvl feat even though I failed to understand why at the time, and that at 3rd lvl I should take Power Attack because I was building a STR-Based Magus that was wielding both a Lucerne Hammer and an Earthbreaker

Yeah both of those are bad advice if you ask me. You can Spell Combat from outside most enemies' AoO range with a Lucerne Hammer, meaning you don't need to cast defensively. And while Power Attack is good, its not essential. I usually don't take it until +4 BAB for the +6 damage. +3 damage isn't super likely to make the difference between a kill or not, but the -1 to hit absolutely can. In fact, as you say later you had trouble hitting things this could have been part of the problem. Classes like Fighter and Barbarian need it to add damage (and its an amazing damage boost for them) but the Magus has a ton of other damage options that don't impose an accuracy penalty, but no pressure.

I now realize that the BEST I could have done was to throw one of the 16s in DEX and just take a 15 in INT, but at the time I was putting my highest numbers into what I thought were my most important stats and just trying to make do with the rest.

You're right, you could have, but I would definitely put my highest 2 rolls into my attack-stat followed by my casting stat. More INT gets you more spells per day, higher spell DCs, more Arcane Pool Points (more skill points, better knowledge checks, etc).

It wasn't until even later that I realized that wanting to be a Spellstrike-focused Magus and trying this wasn't even close to the kind of dmg I would get by going a Dex build and crit-fishing

I mean ... how much damage were you expecting to do on a level 2 Magus? A Scimitar crit with Shocking Grasp is only 6d6+10 (~31) damage or so, which is likely about the damage you were doing on a a crit with your weapon without even taking Spellstrike into account. If you do go for a crit-fishing build there is literally no weapon a DEX build can use that a STR-build can't, so ...

That said, I will admit that I think my rolling being generally awful outside of critical moments ...

I hear that -_-

My Bloodrager in our campaign has an attack routine of something like +30/+25/+20/+15/+10, and I just picked up RAGING BRUTALITY and Improved Critical, so I was excited to hit for 4d6+47 damage with a 15-20 crit range for the first time. Last session I attacked some tentacle monster with an AC of 29, ready to bring the pain ... My dice rolled 1, 3, 8, 5, 14. That's 5 misses on an enemy who's AC was lower than my attack bonus. No amount of optimizing can save you from a dice curse =P

As for the rest of it, it sounds like a fun campagin. I'm sorry it didn't work out for you. I can see how it was frustrating, but all I can say is that this class clearly doesn't gel with your playstyle. Yes the Magus has some drawbacks, but that's because the bonuses it gets are phenomenal. It does require some planning, but any weaknesses can be overcome by using the class abilities given to you ... well any weakness except cursed dice.

I'm not going to tell you to play more Magi and you'll love it, maybe this class just isn't for you. However it goes though I hope you find classes and character concepts that you do enjoy. As I said earlier, I think the OCCULTIST class might suit you better.

OK ... So correct me if I'm misunderstanding something here, but this is a summary of our conversation on this topic so far:

- You asserted that a Magus needs DEX-to-damage.

- I asserted that they don't.

- You said any damage buffs that they could put on would take too many actions (a reasonable concern).

- I showed you how a Magus could deal comparable damage with only a swift-action setup that only uses 1 Arcane Pool point and a single first level spell.

- You stated that 1 Arcane Pool point and 1 first level spell is apparently too much use of "limited resources" for your liking.

...

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!?!

Every Magus in the history of Magi - Including the Dervish Dance/Shocking Grasp Magus - will use an Arcane Pool point to buff their weapon at the beginning of basically every combat. This buff lasts for 1 minute. Its not something that you have to do every turn, its not something that's a rare resource to be used, its the primary use for this resource, the base assumption of the class. So what I'm doing for the four 4-round combats per day is I'm using 1 Arcane Pool point on each combat, which is exactly what you'll be doing with your Dervish Dance Magus. I really don't get this at all.

I also used a first level spell, just as you would. If anything I'll be using Less resources than your Dervish/Shocking Magus since Frostbite can potentially last multiple rounds.

Up until this point I thought you were just someone who's stuck on a certain build, but now I'm really not sure you understand how the class works ...

DO you understand how it works? Really I'm not being funny or trying to trap you, I'm genuinely not sure you understand how the mechanics of this class work if you're worried about the action cost (1 swift action) and the resource cost (1 arcane pool point and 2-3 spells per combat). A 5th level Magus with 14 INT has enough Arcane Pool points and spells to handle that (4 AP points, 5 first level spells, 3 second level spells). That's literally the lowest INT score I can imagine on a 5th level Magus, and its totally fine.

So what are you doing differently? How is your Dervish Magus somehow out-competing my Magus without apparently using any resources? How is it out-competing the STR-based Magus despite having 2 less feats (if nothing else 2 extra feats could be 4 extra Arcane Pool points)? What is it that I'm missing in this conversation, because right now I'm not following you at all?

(Sorry if I'm coming across too strong. I'm just really not getting what you're putting down.)

Ok let's see.

1. Starting with only Light armour means you have to build a DEX-Magus.

As far as I can tell you didn't address this at all.

2. A DEX-based Magus must have DEX-to-damage.

Your response was:

MrCharisma wrote:

Further, the assumption that you Need DEX-to-damage - even when playing a DEX-build - is another leap. DEX-to-damage is likely ~+4 damage by level 5, meanwhile you can use your Arcane Pool to make your weapon Flaming/Frost for +7 to damage, and you can add another ~5d6 damage with your favourite damage spell,...

The theoretical set up I'm seeing is multiple rounds of prep, minute per level spells lasting the entire dungeon, action economy and rounds spent on buffs, and then still having spells left over to cover up for non damage.

So to start with I showed how a Magus can deal damage without DEX-to-damage. Your response wasn't to show that I was wrong, it was simply to tell me that my setup took to long to get going, so here's a run-down of the action economy I was proposing:

Level 5 Magus, round 1:

- Swift Action: Spend 1 Arcane Pool to enchant my Rapier. Since I'm level 5 this gives me a +2 modifier, but I can "spend" those enhancements on enchantments if I choose to. I choose to spend them on the Flaming and Frost enchants.

- Full-Round Action: I use Spell Combat to cast Frostbite and full attack. This nets me 2 attacks this round, and each one deals 1d6+1 damage from the Scimitar, plus 1d6+1 damage from the Frostbite spell, plus 2d6 damage from the enchantments I added as a swift action. This gives me a total of 4d6+6 (~20) damage on a regular hit and 6d6+12 (~33) damage on a crit. Perfectly respectable damage for a 5th level Magus.

This was all done in a single round with no pre-buffing and the only thing I had to prepare in advance was the spell being cast, so I really don't know how it comes across as "Schrodinger's wizard". It comes online at level 5, which is hardly "higher levels".

3. The only feasible way to get DEX-to-damage is Dervish Dance.

Your response:

MrCharisma wrote:

This is blatantly untrue. You can get DEX-to-damage with the Agile property or by multiclassing.

The agile property requires a +1 weapon to enchant, which means its a

+2 weapon, which means you can't do it till level 6-8. It also requires either the DM placing it for your especially or a magic mart system that may not be in place in a home game.

So there are 2 parts to that.

The first is that level 6-8 is too late for DEX-to-damage to come online. This depends on the idea that the game will end before a certain point. If you can prove that as a truth then this is a fine argument, but if not then this is circular logic (A is true because B is true and B is true because A is true). I actually do see this as a semi-relevant point because some games do stop at level 10. If you're playing in those games then level 8 really would be too late for this to come online. However assuming that as the default is decidedly not an argument that can be made without backing it up. This essentially comes down to how you answer point 4, so we'll come back to it.

The second point you make is that the Agile property is not something that can be reliably assumed since it "requires either the DM placing it for your especially or a magic mart system that may not be in place in a home game."

I do understand this, but how often do GMs restrict this kind of material? You could find an Agile weapon in the wild, you could find a blacksmith to craft it for you for coin, or you (or someone in the party) could craft the weapon for yourself by taking a feat. This feat would of course mean spending the same number of feats as a Dervish Dance Magus, but would also help the rest of the party in the long run as well, making this a better option in the long run.

Also while its true that weapon properties could be restricted, the Dervish Dance feat also requires that GMs allow certain materials into the game, and is possibly just as restrictive in home games since it technically has links to Paizo specific lore.

I will concede half a point here since there will be games with no access to crafting or the Agile property, but without data on how common those games are it doesn't hold much weight.

4. The game will be over by level 10, so you need your build online by level 3.

Your response:

MrCharisma wrote:

Also while it wasn't part of the message I'm quoting you seem to be of the assumption that most games are over by level 10 or so, and this assumption seems to come from your time spent GMing Pathfinder Society games. This makes sense since most PFS games finish by then, but this is not the case for people playing home games.

It is not an assumption. It is a conclussion. Yes, PFS is A data point in that conclussion but it is only one datapoint.

Great. Show me your data. I'm not saying this facetiously, you've used this point to prove this point and another point. Without evidence to back this up you're making spurious claims about both the duration of games and the need for a non-Agile DEX-to-damage option.

I realise you probably meant "data" in more of a metaphoical sense (which is fine), but the point here is that without data to show me I can talk about my own "data". According to my "Data" the obvious "Conclusion" is that most games go well beyond level 10, and level 8 is a perfectly fine level to get your Agile weapon.

I would also posit that reduced damage - especially at low levels - might be the balancing factor between STR and DEX builds. Perhaps if you are unwilling to wait that long you should try a STR-build, that would come online at level 1 with zero feats invested.

Now to address my asumptions:

MrCharisma wrote:

This also probably explains why you see so many cookie-cutter builds,

This is absolute, utter, unmitigated, balderdash.

Fair enough.

I made this assumption after reading through your posts and seeing you mention it a few times, but I will concede that I could have read through them more thoroughly. I retract my assumption. If that isn't where your assumptions (or conclusions) come from then where do they come from?

Finally, just 1 more base assumption that I want to challenge.

You don't seem to be arguing that the Dervish Dance Magus is a good build (which I would agree with), or even that its the Best build (which I would disagree with but still understand). You're arguing that its the Only viable build - that the STR-Magus, the INT-Magus and even other DEX-Magus builds aren't worth making because they aren't good enough. This is an extreme position to take, which is why the onus is on you to prove your position. I realise that you aren't even the one who started this thread, but whether you're continuing their premise (Magus is poorly designed) or simply arguing about the viability of non-Dervish builds the burden of proof lies with you.

If this is NOT the position you are taking then please make that clear, as that is the position people are arguing against.

BigNorseWolf I was going to nitpick a bunch of things you've said, but I don't think that's really productve. Instead I want to go back to your base assumptions about the class and nitpick those ...

The class only cares about crit range on a weapon and not the multiplier. Meaning every magus wants an 18-20 weapon.

needing the free hand means you need a 1 handed weapon

These are true. Whether we like it or not the Magus is deigned around 1-handed weapons with a high crit-range. You absolutely can play without them, but the class mechanically rewards you for choosing these options. I will say that there are other ways to take advantage of Spellstrike besides a high crit-range (eg. Whip Mastery and the Frostbite spell) but this is noche enough that I think the base assumption of a 1-handed weapon with an 18-20 crit-range actually is the default.

Getting heavier armor later in your career means you have to build to do without it which means.. you do without it.

This is also true.

Building without it means a dex build.

This is not.

There is only one handed 18-20 weapon that can be used with dex to damage.. the scimitar. You can only do this as a worshiper of saranrae with dervish dance. So you have a non religious arcane class that plinkos into worshiping one specific deity And every magus winds up looking the same.

This is blatantly untrue. You can get DEX-to-damage with the Agile property or by multiclassing. There are a number of weapons that will give you the option for a DEX-based 18-20 crit-range besides the Scimitar.

Further, the assumption that you Need DEX-to-damage - even when playing a DEX-build - is another leap. DEX-to-damage is likely ~+4 damage by level 5, meanwhile you can use your Arcane Pool to make your weapon Flaming/Frost for +7 to damage, and you can add another ~5d6 damage with your favourite damage spell, or 2 × 1d6+5 damage with Frostbite, or 5d4 damage to a bunch of enemies with Burning Hands, or hell you could even do something besides damage that would still be helpful ... the point is that the Magus has a ton of ways to add damage, and even more ways to help the party that don't involve Dervish Dance or DEX or even damage at all.

Also while it wasn't part of the message I'm quoting you seem to be of the assumption that most games are over by level 10 or so, and this assumption seems to come from your time spent GMing Pathfinder Society games. This makes sense since most PFS games finish by then, but this is not the case for people playing home games. This also probably explains why you see so many cookie-cutter builds, but PFS builds don't necessarily reflect the standard for other games.

So your base understanding of the class is coming from these core assumptions, but you haven't really proven any of them. You're arguing a set of truths without proving that there they are in fact true. Some of them have even been demosnstrated to be untrue, but for the sake of the argument, prove these things first and then we can go from there:

1. Starting with only Light armour means you have to build a DEX-Magus.

2. A DEX-based Magus must have DEX-to-damage.

3. The only feasible way to get DEX-to-damage is Dervish Dance.

4. The game will be over by level 10, so you need your build online by level 3.

All of your arguments seem to stem from these assumptions, and I can see no evidence that any of them are true. This is the reason people are arguing with you, your base assumptions about the class differ from ours.

Kurald Galain wrote:

That's the beauty of spell combat: you don't have to choose whether to buff or attack, you do both.

You're still picking attack attack buff vs attack attack ATTAAAAACK.

The dead condition is a heck of a debuff.

I think this is the problem with the disconnect here.

Action Economy is a huge factor in this game, and so getting off 2 attacks makes a big difference compared to 1 attack and 1 buff. However this is missing the nuance of what action economy actually means. Action Economy is not simply maximizing your own actions, its maximizing your actions relative to your opponent's actions.

Lets say you have 4 PCs vs 4 enemies. Each PC automatically hits once each turn and deals 1/3 of an enemy's health.

- Round 1: Your PCs kill 1 enemy and deal 1/3 damage to another. Then the enemies go and get 3 attacks against you.

- Round 2: Your PCs finish off the injured enemy and deal 2/3 damage to another enemy. Then the enemies go and deal another 2 attacks against the PCs

- Round 3: Your PCs finish off the injured enemy and then kill the final enemy.

Total: 3 rounds, the enemy got 5 attacks against the party.

But what happens if one of our PCs decides to use their turn to somehow negate an enemy attack instead of deal damage? Just as the other PCs automatically hit and deal damage, this PC automatically hits but does zero damage, instead dazing that enemy for 1 round after which that enemy becomes immune to the daze ...

- Round 1: You daze 1 enemy and the other PCs kill 1 enemy. Then the remaining enemies attack your party twice.

- Round 2: You daze another enemy and the other PCs kill the enemy you dazed the previous round. Then the last enemy with actions attacks your party.

- Round 3: You daze another enemy and your party finishes off the enemy you dazed the previous turn. There is 1 enemy left, but since they're dazed they can' attack.

- Round 4: Your party wipes out the final enemy.

Total: 4 rounds, the enemy got 3 attacks against ththe party. Even though this took longer the ratio of PC actions to enemy actions was much better.

Now I know what you're going to say: This is a random hypothetical situation and has nothing to do with actual play. Well think about what Bladed Dash does when you use it to move away from an enemy. You get a full attack plus a bonus attack from the spell, and then you leave the enemy's threatened area forcing them to use up actions moving toward you. This is exactly the same principal as the scenario I described above. Likewise your Shocking Grasp Magus could move up and attack, or you could use your first round casting a defensive spell or a debuff which negates 20% of the enemies' attacks against you, thus improving your action-economy comparative to the enemy. This is how you actually make the most of action economy.

I’m pretty sure Claxon was being satirical. The ooc tag can be hard to interpret.

That's alright. If it was satirical then it was a perfect setup for my comment. If it wasn't then I still think Claxon's pretty cool, even if we disagree.

A couple of things:

1. Nothing personal, but I tend to be wary of anecdotal, damage-centric examples.

2. I don’t know that I agree with the idea that “a magi can't really do anything that a Fighter and Wizard couldn't do.”

Yeah both of those are fair.

For the damage example I was actually just using average damage numbers, and since I helped him build his character I also know our attack modifiers are very similar. But as you said that point wasn't really meant to be taken on its own, it was more speaking to the class as a whole. The Magus is a good damage-dealing class, but its not alone in that and isn't really the worst offender (which makes it an odd choice for being "OP" in my mind).

And or course you're right, there are things a Magus can do that a Wizard and Fighter couldn't replicate, but that goes both ways. I think the Magus does a pretty good job emulating the Wizard/Fighter. There are some unique tricks that can be done with both the spells and martial ability on the one character, but both those classes have tricks the Magus can't replicate as well.

Is it a good class? Yes.

Is it OP? Compared to what? By any metrics that put the Magus in the OP category you'd have to put a few other classes there as well. That could absolutely be a sign of an unbalanced system, but its not really a symptom of a single OP class.

I can see some room for improvement with this class (best described by Melkiador), but I could say that about most classes. I can also see how people could get stuck thinking only certain builds work, but while those builds are very common they are Not the only viable way to play this class. If the Magus feels repetitive to play its only because you've chosen to make it so, it should be one of the least repetetive classes in the game.

Anyway I feel like I've probably used more than my allotted time, so I'll go back to the bench. =P

I will say, though, that the Magus could have used a clarity rewrite, som that somebody wouldn't have to write a whole mini-guide (linked from the Zenith Games page) just to clear up confusion about how Spell Combat and Spellstrike work.

My go-to guide for this is GRICK'S GUIDE TO TOUCH SPELLS, SPELLSTRIKE AND SPELL COMBAT.

I think the big problem really is just that the way Touch spells work is weird. Once you get your head around that the rest of it kinda flows, but most people never learn that janky but of rules. I don't mind how touch spells work either - It would have been easier to just say "Touch spells don't provoke AoOs and you get a touch attack as part of the standard action to cast the spell". To be honest that probably would have been better overall ... BUT I like that there are things you can do with touch spells the way they are, like holding the charge between rounds with a Frostbite spell or similar.

Dervish dance isn't the only method if DEX-to-damage, you can also use an AGILE weapon. I helped a player at my table build a Magus with a MONOWHIP and he's having a blast. Its waay better than a Scimitar. Of course its not something that would fit in every campaign, but we're playing Iron Gods so its fine.

Regarding the Shocking Grasp Magus, I made one that was pretty standard, but I also took PREFERRED SPELL. Yes it still just does Shocking Grasp for damage when it needs to, but this allowed me to load up on buffs, debuffs and utility spells and completely ignore the spellstrike side of the Magus when doing my spell prep. Between this and Spell Recall you're basically a Melee Arcanist. You Can spam Shocking Grasp, or you can make the most of your spell list and do other things.

Aside from that, yes you'e stuck with 1-handed melee weapons, but if you really want to you could go ranged with an archetype, or you could grab a reach weapon and play the 2-handed archetype with a Frostbite build. There are options for thise who want them. And to be honest, how many Magi are people actually making that they get sick of them? Sure its a cliche on the boards, but if you haven't played it yourself its a fun thing to try. Honestly I think its fine.

Regarding the thread title: I do think it could have been designed with more versatile weapons in mind. The Eldritch Archer is great, but the 2-handed archetype isn't really as good. I also agree that there should have been a more interesting selection of touch spells to play with, that seems like a missed opportunity. Other than that though I can't really agree with a lot of this. There are other classes that self buff, there are other classes that switch between spells and martial prowess, but the Magus is fairly unique in its ability to do everything all at once, and I think it works great. Also you can totally play a STR-Magus, I don't know why people think otherwise. Sorry =P

Good summary.

Unless noted otherwise in the creature entry, Bite, Gore, Claws, Slam, Sting, & Talons are by default Primary Natural Weapons. Any other natural weapon is by default secondary unless noted otherwise OR is the ONLY natural attack the creature has and it lacks the ability to make unarmed strikes or attacks with manufactured weapons. If a creature attacks with a manufactured weapon or an unarmed strike then ALL natural weapons are considered secondary for that round, no exceptions.

This isn't quite right.

If you're holding a sword, but as a standard action you use your bite attack instead then your bite attack is treated as a primary attack. It's only treated as a secondary weapon if you use it to attack during the same action (usually a full attack action) that you're using to attack with your manufactured weapons (or unarmed strikes). It's not about whether you have the capability, it's about whether you're currently using them.

If you were to make a full-attack with a sword-and-bite then the bite would be treated as a secondary natural attack. If the enemy then went to retreat and provoked an attack of opportunity you could bite them and treat this as a primary natural attack, since this is a new action.

Additionally, I think turning DaS into essentially a true strike is that GMs will be much less willing to give it away for a free action, and the feature becomes much better for anyone MCing into investigator than it does for actual investigators. Too much class power is tied into that first attack being successful for “just attack again, but without your class stuff” to really be enough fun to justify such a major errata.

I don't think the power of the multi-class feats should determine whether a class gets functional abilities. If the class feature is better on other classes that seems like a design flaw in and of itself. It shows exactly why the Investigator needs the buff.

An easy fix for this could be to change the Investigator's DaS to use the word "can", but specifically leave the word "must" on the multiclass feat. I'm not 100% sure how to explain it in the fiction, but then I'm not really sure how the restrictions on DaS are currently explained in the fiction.

This is not different from rogues with Feint. If you fail to feint you and your party don't receive the benefit from flat-foot that target. The diference is that DaS don't allow you to try again but also can be made by any distance from target.

Except a Rogue who fails to feint a target can still attack that target. They won't get their sneak attack or debuff the enemy, but they can still do it. The Investigator can't - or rather they can but they know they'll miss.

Imagine if when a Rogue missed the feint they were not allowed to even attempt to attack the target. That's how the Investigator currently works. It's baffling on both a mechanical and a thematic level.

Actually, I consider having a backup plan being very appropriate for an investigator. They are supposed to think multiple steps ahead.

So let’s focus on where else they are good at.

Int class with 6 plus Int modifier trained skills. Two of those skills are defined between class and methodology. Still, they can easily be trained in all the monster identification skills.

Feat support for a free RK check against an opponent via Known Weaknesses. I had underestimated how useful that was on my own investigator and will need to pick it up later.

Multiple abilities that help other players. The RK from Known Weakness has a small chance of giving a bonus. Shared Strategem can make an opponent flat footed for an ally. Even without a rogue, that improves the chance of a hit or critical. Clue Them All In is a nice skill boost.

I don’t think they will ever be the highest DPR in combat. They are reasonable in combat, capable of being a switch hitter, and have plenty of ways to help the team with various skill checks and combat.

My Investigator lietrally has every option you just mentioned. When the DaS goes well this class functions well. I don't deal as much damage as the Barbarian, but I contribute well to the party, help to set up crits, I give people knowledge that's helpful, it's all good.

The problem is when the DaS goes badly. Not only does my damage for the round plummet to basically zero (even when I can attack other enemies I have a lowered to-hit and lose my damage bonus), but my in-class support optionss like Shared Strategy are also tied to that roll. I have Bon Mot and Intimidating Glare so that I can use those options, but there are plenty of enemies immune to those.

Essentially what this means is that in a single-enemy encounter where I roll badly on my DaS I've basically just confirmed to myself that my class won't be giving me any abilities this round. I spent an action so that I'd know in advance I can skip my turn. Having off-class options is a great idea. Having to rely on those options on ~40% of your turns isn't.

Some of this is very scenario-specific (eg. The Clay Golem we fought recently had a hard-counter to all of my backup actions including Battle Medecine), but a lot of this is generic enough that I see this more often than not.

People in this thread have given 2 solutions that I think are great, 1 simple solution and one a bit more complex.

1. "The Investigator can use this roll ...". That one word would fix the bulk of the problems, and would allow people to continue their turn without being locked out of normal combat options. Not only would this fix the mechanical problems people have with the class right now, but it also fits the fiction of what Devise a Strategum actually does. If your super-smart Investigator is clever enough to see in advance that their plan will fail, why are they now locked out of trying a different plan using the same enemy? Sure the left-jab is about to be blocked, but the right hook could still be effective ...

2. Having some in-class options that trigger on a failed DaS roll, or that work with non-DaS actions. A few new feats might be enough. I would be perfectly happy with non-damage options, just something you can do besides spend 2 more actions attacking, with the knowledge that the first attack will definitely miss and the second attack is made at a penalty.

Yeah, the thing the investigator needs more than anything else is interesting and effective things to do when your DaS fails, especially early on.

I think this is the major issue with the class.

We fought a golem recently, and after a grueling fight we almost had it down. On my turn I devised a Strategum and rolled a 3. The GM actually told me the golum had 6 HP left (it was the end of a long night).

At this point I was basically stuck. I'd used 1 action, I could attack but I knew I'd miss, so in order to deal damage I had to attack twice taking all my actions. The attack that might hit was at a -5 to hit (agile weapon, but using DEX instead of INT), and since I wouldn't get any bonus damage I wasn't a guaranteed kill even on a hit (I think there was a 50% chance I'd kill it on a regular hit).

A single bad roll meant I had something like a 20% chance of being able to deal 6 HP to this enemy, and to deal that damage I had to use my entire round. In a multi-target fight it's not quite so bad, I could just target someone else, but for a class who's main schtick is focusing on a single enemy it sure has trouble with single-enemy encounters.

Let's compare Divise a Strategum with the Thaumaturge Tome Implement's Intensify Vulnerability;

Your tome's power not only reads a creature's present but even records its future actions. When you use Intensify Vulnerability, roll a d20 and set the result aside. At any time until the start of your next turn, you can use the d20 result you set aside for an attack roll to Strike the target of your Exploit Vulnerability, instead of rolling a new d20; this is a fortune effect.

There are 2 things that make this easier to use.

The first is that the Thaumaturge can choose to use this roll. If you roll a 3 then you can just ignore it. You spend an action, roll poorly and the only thing you've lost is 1 action, which is not the case for the Investigator (as I explained in my example above). In my opinion letting the Investigator choose whether or not to use the roll from Devise a Strategum is enough to fix the problem, even if ignoring the die-roll also means you lose the bonus damage dice.

The second thing is that the Thaumaturge can choose which attack to use the pre-rolled die on. If you roll a Nat-20 then it's more advantageous to save that 20 for your second attack - You'd get a regular attack at your full attack bonus followed by a guaranteed crit. This is a trick the Investigator can't do, despite this being the Investigator's main schtick.

Now it's worth noting that it isn't all gravy for the Tome-Thaumaturge. This class feature comes online at level 9 so it probably should be better than a level 1 feature. Also the Intensify Vulnerability action can't be used until the round after you've Exploited a creature's vulnerability, so this ability is only useful if a creature survives a round. But this is an optional class feature for the Thaumaturge, and even if they take the Tome they have a 2nd Intensify Vulnerability option to choose if they're not interested in this pre-roll mechanic.

I built my class to have options on a bad DaS roll - Bon Mot, Intimidating Glare, Battle Medicine (Forensic Medicine methodology) - but there are times when none of the above are useful and I can't deal damage, like Fighting a lone golem who's immune to mind-affecting effects and who curses all the PCs so that they can't benefit from non-magical healing. This encounter was obviously more difficult than usual for my character specifically, but the problems around rolling poorly against a single enemy is very common, and this isn't a build-specific problem it's a weakness with the core mechanics of the class.

Also to be clear I am enjoying the class, but there are times when the mechanics of the class are underwhelming, and even sometimes feel limiting when they should feel the oposite. It also seems like Paizo agrees since they gave the Thaumaturge basically the same mechanic but with the wrinkles ironed out.

Also sorry this post got so long, I meant to just chime in with a short example =P

I don't know if it's just me, but my experience with the Bloodrager was that at low levels I was a strangely fragile PC. I effectively had light armour on a non-DEX character, but didn't have enough HP to survive the hits - especially on the front-pine. So despite being a big tough Barbarian-type I actually went down more than anyone else in the party. I ended up picking up a shield and just not using Rage much untol level 6 or so.

(Also side-note: Bloodragers get Shield proficiency but get no way to reduce the Arcane Spell Failure chance on shields. I assuke this was a typo, but it's there. As far as I know they're the only arcane class to get proficiency without text about ASF.)

Then fairly quickly around level 6-7 I went from being super fragile to being super tough. By level 10 or so I was basically unkillable. It was probably partly my build (after spending 6 levels being a punhcing bag I spent items/feats/spells/etc becoming harder to kill), but I don't really remember much middle-ground. First I was super fragile and basically couldn't use my Rage, then at some point someone flicked a switch and my rage was always-on because I was invincible.

I assume Barbarians have the same problem.

I don't know if it would be too complicated or something, but maybe an unchained Barbarian/Bloodrager would have a lower AC penalty at low levels, and it could increase as you level? That penalty is meaningless at later levels but it's game-changingly bad at low levels. It just seems like you're encouraged not to use your class features until you've leveled up enough.

I don't know if this helps but the Oracle's Curse increases with non-Oracle levels.

Oracle's Curse (Ex): Each oracle is cursed, but this curse comes with a benefit as well as a hindrance. This choice is made at 1st level, and once made, it cannot be changed. The oracle's curse cannot be removed or dispelled without the aid of a deity. An oracle's curse is based on her oracle level plus one for every two levels or Hit Dice other than oracle. Each oracle must choose a single curse.

So with a 1 level Oracle dip you the 5th level Curse ability at level 9 and the 10th level curse at level 19. If you want tye 15th level curse you meed at least 10 levels of Oracle so that's peobably not worth "dipping".

Mightypion wrote:

My main problem with shield and board on 6 casters is getting a hand free for spells with somatic components.

It's a bit wonky, but it works fine with a light shield.

Or a Psychic caster who doesn't have somatic components.

Some thoughts after reading all that.

People compared the Paladin's weapon Divine Bond to the Warpriest's Sacred Weapon. The Paladin's Divine bond is more akin to the Warpriest's swift-action Divine Favour, it's what you use for standard combats with many enemies. Sacred Weapon is more like Smite, it's what you use when you need that extra oomph. The Warpriest's Divine Favour (or Divine Power) will be more impactful for most combats than the Paladin's Weapon Bond, but Smite will definitely outdo Sacred Weapon.

Regarding damage throughout the day, the Warpriest gets feats. The Paladin with a Flachion isn't going up against a Warpriest with a Falchion, they're going up against a Warpriest with a Fauchard, Cleaving Finish and Improved Critical - they're going to get more attacks or more damage or something else to give them an edge that the Paladin can't copy. If your Warpriest makes a build that a Paladin can compete with then you're doing your feats wrong (well, assuming you're optimising - it's fine if you're not).

As for the baseline damage that they can do "all day long": A 10th level Warpriest likely has ~10 more spells per day than a Paladin, ~9 Fervour and enough money for ~5 first level Pearls of Power fairly easily. This means there's literally no reason not to be buffing every combat. Refusing to include spells and Fervour is like ignoring the Paladin's Lay on Hands (LoH), and without that the Paladin is only about 11HP tougher than the Warpriest (which is nice, but not exactly game-breaking).

Also regarding LoH - the Warpriest can actually emulate this (poorly) with Fervour. It's usually not the best use of your Fervour, but having this option is better than not having it. A 10th level Paladin has 5d6 (~17.5) healing to a Warpriest's 3d6 (~10.5). It's more likely that the Paladin buffs this with feats (with Fate's Favoured it's 5d6+10 = ~27.5), but both classes can technically take this feat and I don't think it's really fair to judge a class based on the idea that it always takes 1 particular feat - even if they all do.

I also don't think you can call the Warpriest better based solely on the Molthuni Arsenal Chaplain. If it needs that archetype to compete then the class isn't better, it's the archetype propping it up. If we ARE picking an archetype to compare to the Paladin it should probably be the CHAMPION OF THE FAITH.

I think these 2 classes often cover similar roles in a party, but play differently. My general take is that the Warpriest will probably deal more damage overall in the average adventuring day, but the Paladin is a boss-killer and will do more damage against a few specific foes per day.

Defensively the Paladin is the unrivaled king, but the Warpriest is definitely a high-tier tank if you don't feel like playing a Paladin.

For utility the Warpriest is probably better overall, but it's hard to say. I love that Paladins get interesting and unique mechanics that set them apart (Auras, Mercies, etc) but it's hard to compete with the versatility of a higher level spell list. We're essentially comparing the Paladin's 4th level spells, Mercies and Auras against the Warpriest's 6th level spells, Blessings and Fervor.

One thing I will say for the Paladin (having played a tank for the last couple of years in my main campaign) is that there is more utility than you'd think in having a virtually unkillable character. There's a noticeable difference between "Tough" and "Invincible". That idea of a boss-killing Paladin is much more threatening when you also have the highest saves in the party, immunity to some powerful effects, high AC and a virtually unlimited HP pool. It can also allow you to achieve other objectives while being attacked or in areas with serious traps or hazards, or to save the rest of your party in those circumstances.

Specific trumps general.

Generally you can't activate scrolls of a tradition you can't cast.

Trick Magic Item is a more specific rule that bypasses the general rule and gives you the mechanics for how it works.

Scroll Thaumaturgy is a separate specific rule that overrides the general rule and makes no mention of Trick Magic Item.

You're overthinking this. Sorry.

I don't think a reach build needs amazing dexterity. A dexterity of 12 will give you 2 AoOs per round and that is probably enough for almost any real fight

100% agree. I have a 16th level Bloodrager who uses reach and combat reflexes to protect his party. I'm the only front-line character so my whole job is protecting the backline and making the most of my ability to deny space. I've had something like 8 rounds in the emtire 16 levels where I even had the option for more than 2 AoOs. 2 AoOs per round is enough to be worth it.

The big reason to go with a longspear is because it's a simple weapon, so can take the inspired magic weapon quality ...

<This> effect is an even bigger deal if you are going half elf for the bonus to inspiration, because now you can double it for damage.

The Half Elf bonus allows you to get truly ludicrous numbers on your Inspiration.

Now you might have a reason to go DEX-based, but as a Half-Elf I'd have a weapon that can be used with Inspiration, otherwise you're missing out on a lot there.

The untyped AC bonus alone is always useful to anyone not able to outright ignore attacks. When you take into consideration ranged weapons, Aura of Justice goes from really good to potentially game-changing.

It's a deflection bonus, not an untyped bonus. As such it's not as useful as seems, it's probably only a +1 or +2 bonus over the Ring of Deflection already worn, but it's not nothing.

Having said that, I stand by what I said earlier. It's likely a very noticeable bonus to hit, a small bonus to AC, a huge bonus to damage and the ability to ignore DR. It's basically a way to delete any 1 enemy on the field for any martial. Smite Evil lasts as long as needed, and while Aura of Justice only lasts a minute, 1 minute is more than enough. It gives each PC the ability to choose their own target, effectively deleting 1 enemy each (or 1 big enemy a lot faster).

AwesomenessDog I hate to say it but that's a lot of very specific things to be worried about. You're right, a Warpriest does have other swift actions to use, but Divine Favour is unlikely to be a bigger bonus than Smite Evil, and it only delays them for a round before they get the bonuses from both. As for who can use it, you only need 2 PCs to be able to use Aura of Justice to make it worth using, any more than that is a bonus.

Yeah I've recently started using Combat Expertise and realised how good it is. It's not good on Every character, but it's certainly a good feat on the right PC, and nearly not as bad as people think.

The thing I missed when I first looked at it was that you can use Combat Expertise and Fighting Defensively at the same time.
At +1 BAB you end up with -5/+3.
- At +4 BAB you end up with -6/+5 (the +1 from Acrobatics).
- At +8 BAB you end up with -7/+6.
- At +12 BAB you end up with -8/+7.
- At +16 BAB you end up with -9/+8.
- At +20 BAB you end up with -10/+9.

This means that by +8 BAB you're getting a better AC bonus than you would with a Full Defence action, but you can still make attacks and AoOs, albeit at a penalty.

Now there are 2 ways to deal with that penalty:
- Have a good enough bonus to hit that you can soak the penalty.
- Use tactics in a way that means you don't need to be the main damage dealer for a round.

I'm playing a Bloodrager in a party with a Bard, so between my own ridiculous attack bonuses and the bonuses I get from the Bard I can absolutely soak a -8 penalty to attack.

But before my attack bonuses got that high I was able to make excellent use of this by forcing all the enemies to attack me, and then upping my defences to the stratosphere. In the beginning I was able to force attacks against me by finding a choke point and holding position to prevent enemies attacking my allies. Later on I was able to use positioning, reach and the threat of high damage to make attacking me a more attractive option than moving past and risking an AoO (Even if I only had a 30% chance to hit, that was often a 30% chance to 1-shot an enemy).

The other thing to realise is that action economy isn't really about getting the most hits, or even the most actions. It's about getting the most actions Compared to your opponents. Reducing enemy actions is the same as adding actions to your own team. Knowing this, some rounds you don't need to be the one dealing damage. This could be because you're intentionally tanking like I was, or it could be an emergency button for a fragile character who might occasionally need to survive for a round or 2.

If I can negate 90% of the enemy attacks for a round that does a lot for the action economy balance between my party and the enemy. MY attack bonus may not be able to contribute to the action economy of the party, but the other 3 party members are still able to fight at full capacity, meaning we're still functioning at 75%-90% capacity while reducing the enemy party's action economy considerably. Then the following round when the enemy have been softened up a bit I can revert to a more offensive posture and bring the pain, negating more actions by ending lives than I would by increasing AC and taking more attacks.

Minigiant wrote:

But fun, and that is ultimately what we play for

But it's not actually fun, in my opinion, because it costs so much and comes up so infrequently. Like I said, if it was a +2 equivalent I might be inclined to pick it up because it would be comical when it actually kicked in.

But as I said before, as a GM I absolutely wouldn't let you use it with Flash of Insight to select that a 20 to activate vorpal. Confirming a crit becomes pretty trivial, but the 5% chance to even have the opportunity is pretty rare. Getting to once per day decide "that creature that uses it's head is dying" is too powerful.

This seems somewhat contradictory to me.

It's not powerful enough to be worth the +5 enhancement bonus, and you think it'd be alright at +2.

But on the other hand it's too powerful and you wouldn't allow it.

I get where you're coming from, but I think if someone DID want to invest this much into their character then they SHOULD be able to 1-shot some enemies. And while 1-shotting the big-bad is maybe a bit of a downer, there are other ways PCs can do this. There are also ways the big bad can avoid this (eg. Displacement/Mirror Image), so you still have tools to stop this derailing the whole campaign.

Is it powerful? Absolutely, but it's 1/day and extremely expensive.

Now as to whether it's fun, that's totally subjective. You don't have to agree there.

I think you ron't really need the CHA-to-hit. It'd obviously help with the confirmation roll, but you should be able to get that high enough anyway.

Since it's 1/day anyway you could take a single level dip into Paladin for Smite Evil to give yourself CHA-to-hit (and +1 damage) vs 1 enemy per day. You'd have to set it up the round before because both Smite Evil and Flash of Insight are swift actions, but it'd work with any weapon. Also a second level of Paladin would get you CHA-to-saves. Maybe not worth it, but you'd still end up with 9th level spells ...?

(Or Antipaladin for Smite Good, or there are archetypes for Smite Law/Chaos.)

Regarding Vorpal, you can always just get a weapon with a ×4 modifier, that's often enough to 1-shot things anyway. Vorpal is fun but it's 72,000gp for a ~4% chance to insta-kill something.

Dragonchess Player wrote:

Shikaku Kyouryuu wrote:

Arcanist (white mage?) 20/ Oracle (Time?) 10, Mystic Theurge 10

Mystic theurge is one of the prestige classes that specifically should be prohibited in the gestalt variant rules.

In this case it would actually be weaker. The gestalt rules state you take only gain the better of the two class features. Since both Arcanist and Mystic Theurge advance the caster level you still end up with a caster level of 20 for the Arcanist side, and not a caster level of 30. But you lose out of 10 levels of class features on the oracle side. You would be much better off taking Arcanist 20/ Oracle 20 instead.

One small caveat for that: Oracles still increase their Curse with non-Oracle levels, so you would still end up with the benefits of a 15th level Curse.

But yes the Arcanist side would be mostly useless. You could use MT to get 10 levels of another class instead of Arcanist though.

The ability might not specify. I tend to just tell everyone to make their rolls for anything that happens daily at the start of the day because I find it easier to keep track of.

We usually do this as well, but the saves happen After spell preparation etc, so that you can remove conditions. Basically for the exact reasons you mentioned 2bz2p.

If giving someone more time to recover is necessary (eg. They don't have the spells, but they're within half a day's journey to someone who can cast restoration) we'll give them the correct amount of time, but usually it's easier to just to condition removal stuff as part of spell-prep.

Basically, keep the bookkeeping easy, but don't unfairly hamper the players if they have a way to remove those conditions.

Kensai Magus is the classic for Spell Combat with higher level spells.

I like Investigators. You'll get ridiculous bonuses on skills, the ability to augment saving throws and attack rolls. I like the LAMPLIGHTER for the bonuses to Initiative. I'm also a big fan of Half Elf Investigators for their favoured class bonus (+1/4 to Inspiration rolls), but that would obviously be competing with the FCB options for Arcanist, so it depends how good those are.

Another good option is the OCCULTIST. It gives you some pseudo-divine casting and some Focus powere will keep up with your spells. The big draw though is the Resonant powers - and you even get access to Medium Spirits through the Haunt Collector archetype if you run out of good resonant powers.

Java Man wrote:

Okay, to be blunt your GM is being a tool. That said, it requires no action to make a knowledge check, so just ask to roll every one you have.

I would, but if you roll the wrong skill, he is not allowing you to roll a different skill. I came up with the idea of just rolling every knowledge already.

If this is the way he's doing it and he doesn't wajt to tell you which knowledge then he should be rolling secret checks for you.

If he doesn't want to add that work, you could roll a d20 and shout out what the modifier would be depending on which skill is used, eg. "I rolled a 13 on the die, which would be a 19 for Arcana, a 16 for Dungeoneering and a 22 for History."

Because yeah the way he's doing it now makes no sense.

Agreed.

If the GM thinks telling you the check to use is too much meta information, then perhaps they should just have a chart of everyone's knowledge checks and they should roll it themselves at the beginjing of each encounter. This will not only let them keep their secrets and give the players the information they're supposed to have, but it will also create more work for the GM and slow things down, which is clearly what they're aiming for.

VMC would be wizard . . .

Discovery: At 15th level, he gains an arcane discovery or wizard bonus feat, treating his character level as his effective wizard level.

Immortality (Ex) (Ultimate Magic pg. 86): You discover a cure for aging, and from this point forward you take no penalty to your physical ability scores from advanced age. If you are already taking such penalties, they are removed at this time. You must be at least a 20th-level wizard to select this discovery.

Either you've missed something or I have.

MrCharisma wrote:

Well the Heal spell is another obvious choice.

Yes it is. But a sorcerer with a handful of extra healing spells is not markedly more powerful than a regular sorcerer, and that clearly doesn't mean it's "tier zero" now.

No but that post was responding to Minigiant's post about being an arcane healer. The Heal spell definitely makes someone a better healer.

The arcanist is definitely stronger than the sorcerer. However, the wizard still gets higher level spells one level early (that is, half of the game the wizard is casting spells that arcanist or sorcerer cannot access yet) and wiz has markedly more spells per day than arc. I'd say wiz and arc are pretty much tied in terms of power.

Just to clarify this, it's 40% of the game (8/20).

At even levels prepared casters really don't have a significant benefit over spontaneous ones. Even though at even levels the Specialist Wizard gets the same number of spells per day as a Sorcerer (more if they have a bonded Object) I don't really think one is superior to another. You can emulate the spam-ability of a spontaneous caster with a Bonded Object or with Wands and Staves, and you can emulate the versatility of prepared casters with Scrolls and Staves.

I DO think this gives Wizards the edge because of the early-level access, and I think it's an unnecessary nerf for spontaneous 9th level casters to be 1 level behind (except the Arcanist). I find it weird that 6th level spontaneous casters and 4th level spontaneous casters don't have the same delayed casting that their 9th level counterparts do, but that's a different rant =P

Ah ... no it was THIS THREAD (and it wasn't you it wss Gisher, I just vaguely remembered the avatar, and both your avatars are beard-y men looking down and right).

Anyway it might have some good options for you to look at. If you want to try an Occultist healer it's obviously useful, but it could also give some advice for what kind of spells and class abilities to look out for that might be less-obvious but still useful.

Well the Heal spell is another obvious choice.

It's not quite arcane, but someone made a list of all the healing and condition removal options available to the Occultist that was better than I thought. Though that might have been you Minigiant, which would obviously make this a less useful suggestion =P