Neo2151's page

I think reading up on the changes to spellcasting is probably the biggest hurdle I have when it comes to trying PF2E, and I wonder what the community thinks about it.

Vancian casting is already very clunky and hard to work with (Schrodinger's Wizard aside) and PF seems to have tripled-down on that.

Simply put, upcasting spells for things like damage is pretty much always a bad idea, yes? A 6th level spell cast in a 6th level slot is always better than a 2nd level spell cast in a 6th level slot.
The one exception to this is spells that *must* be upcast to be effective - Dispel Magic and the like... But how on earth are you supposed to prepare upcast utility spells with anything even remotely resembling success? If you want to beat your foe's illusions or enchantments or whatever... it's just a crapshoot where you pray you prepped it high enough? Or you're required to put those spells as your Signature Spell (or other similar class ability), yes?

Maybe errata has softened things since last I looked, but it seems like spellcasting is just a mathematical nightmare (too many choices, too many possibilities to have to plan for, etc).
How does one deal with this? Or how is it not as bad a problem as it seems?

Yes, I know there are a few exceptions of spells that cast with one action (Magic Missile, Cure Wounds, etc) but it seems like the vast majority of spells require two actions to cast, leaving you with one action a turn.
Mechanically, one action a turn is *very* similar to the old "Move Action" of edition(s) past; you can move, you can stow/retrieve an item, etc.

It reminds me of the Age of Conan MMO's release: There's this new and interesting chassis for non-magical characters in combat where you queue up your combo and then have to execute directional attacks to complete the combo - essentially very much more interactive than most MMOs where you just auto-attack and hit 1, 2, 3, repeat or whatever. Meanwhile, if you're a caster, you just press the button to cast your spells just like in every other game.
PF2 is looking like this to me. Non-magical characters have this new 3-action chassis to play with where maybe you want to attack more than once or twice, or maybe you want to move multiple times, and the mini-game of combat is just a lot more interesting and interactive than it was in 3.5 or PF1... but the casters are still just casting a spell and moving, etc.

Am I underestimating the number of single-action spell options?
If not, how do you make spellcaster tactics as new and enjoyable as non-caster tactics? Or is it just a matter of dealing with it being the same as before?

Just reading the Vorpal enchantment again and remembering why I hate it: I need the most expensive magical enchantment in order to... target someone's neck?
Seems dumb, feels bad, yet been around for literally decades over various editions.

But even so, Vorpal only applies to heads. What about legs, arms, hands, eyes, etc?

How do you handle actual wounds and not just HP damage in your games?

Why is "training" necessary still? It seems outdated and awkward mechanically.

It certainly doesn't match anything resembling actual armor usage (where you used the best you could afford, and Plate was easier to wear than maille).

Weapon proficiency makes sense, because you actually have to train with weapons to be good with them.
Armor is just whatever you wear. It doesn't have peculiar quirks or attachments that require being knowledgeable - you just gotta put it on and hope you win before the heat stroke gets you.

A lot of class comparisons are ending up with, "you won't be as good as a Fighter, but that's their shtick so it's fine."

Is that a Fighter's shtick? To take a fighting style and just be better at it than anyone else with that fighting style?
That doesn't sound right to me.

A dedicated archer Ranger should be just as good as a Fighter at archery. Where the Fighter should stand out is they should shine regardless of what weapon (within some sort of limits, obv) you put in their hands.
Bow breaks it's string? That's fine, he's excellent with a sword and shield too. Shield is sundered? No worries, he makes great use of that newly free hand for maneuvers or 2-handing.

I haven't looked too closely at how the Fighter class feats break down, but I'm curious how many styles they will strongly support.

Seems like the Shield cantrip is your only reliable defense.
The Divine list isn't very well suited to a non-armored caster any more than it ever has been, lacking options like Mage Armor, Blur, Mirror Image, etc. This wasn't an issue for Clerics previously, obviously, but it seems it might be one now.

If the Cleric is going to become more Mage-like, shouldn't the Divine list adapt to compensate a bit?

How would you keep your Priest alive (aside from casting Sanctuary and never attacking ^^ )?

I realize this is probably different from class to class based on what's available, but I've got a Ranger bug lately, so I've been looking at what that class can do, and I can't help but feel like you only get enough Class Feats to support 1 avenue of play-style.
Wanna be an archer? Whether you go bow or crossbow, you're gonna use up most of your feats. Ditto TWF. Same for an Animal Companion.
It'd be really fun to pick up some of the more thematic feats like Terrain Master, Camouflage, Sense the Unseen, etc. but... just not enough room for them.

Yes, this is a bit of an optimization argument, but still...
It feels like if you want to be really good at one thing it'll eat up the vast majority of your feat slots leaving veeery little left for other things.

We're seeing a lot of topics pop up with concerns about proficiency scaling issues for anyone trying to step even a little bit outside of what the class provides (Bards and Medium Armor, Wizards and a Martial Weapon, even things built into the class, such as a Dragon Sorcerer's prof with their claw attacks).
I've also noticed that since every class is so heavily tied to it's class feat options, you really can't adopt a playstyle that wasn't built specifically for the class. If you want to TWF as a Barbarian, for instance, you just can't as the feats that make it happen aren't available to you (yes, you can "technically" TWF with regular MAP attacks and two different weapons, but we aaaall know that's not what anyone means by TWF ;P ).

There is certainly a lot of new and interesting things with the new edition that are improvements over the old, but I'm getting the feeling that Classes specifically are essentially so rigid that you either play the way the rulebook tells you or you struggle to keep up, by design.

That seems anathema to D&D-esque gameplay.

How do others feel?

I don't believe 1st edition ever gave any sort of justification as to why druids had to avoid metal - it was 100% a holdover from older editions.

Now, in 2nd edition, it remains a holdover, still with no explanation.

So my question: why is it okay to kill the tree to work it's wood into armor or shields, but not okay to mine the ore to work into armor or shields?

Am I wrong? It really seems like we're still in a situation where a 1-die upstep in damage is nowhere near good enough to make up for the longer reload time, and that's before considering bows got sweet upgrades (deadly, propulsive?) while xbows got nothing at all.

What gives? Will fantasy rpgs ever deliver a crossbow that doesn't feel like a drag to choose?

Reading the feat from Nethys, I'm having a hard time grasping exactly what damage is dealt.

For sake of argument, say a Ranger is using a longsword/shortsword combo and uses this feat, which activates when Ranger misses their initial attack with longsword - what happens?

Lots of discussions around Paladins lately (obv, lol), and I keep seeing the idea of the Paladin as "the Round Table knightly order style" of class.
I would agree that they're certainly knightly, but I've always kind of seen them as loners taking on the burden they do because "no one else can" rather than a collective working together towards some goal or another, and the "knightly order" classes are the Cavalier and Hellknight.
After all, I can name several Hellknight Orders or Cavalier Orders, but I can't think of any Paladin orders.

So... are there any?

Something I've always wondered: If HP damage is supposed to be an abstract of wounds, fatigue, strain, etc. and you aren't actually in mortal danger until you cross that 0hp threshold...

Then why can't a good backrub heal HP damage?

No really, why is serious amounts of rest or magic required to heal what you're totally allowed (encouraged, even) to call stiff muscles (or the like) after a long fight?
Sure, you'll need magical healing energies or appropriate downtime to heal actual wounds, but HP damage above zero is never flat-out called actual wounds. And yet, a Heal skill-check can't cure HP?

So I'm not interested in alignment issues or mechanical issues (though some mechanics will come up) - this is purely about thematics within Golarion with the information we know.

A Paladin has been described as:

divine champions of a deity

How does this not equally describe a Cleric?

So the traditional response (I would guess) to this is that Clerics are the "spell-casters" to the Paladins "warrior."
The issue I see with this is that Clerics have always been warriors. There is no "wizard-like robed priest" class; there is only the "wears armor and wields their deity's favored weapon in battle" class (Archetypes aside).
(I'd even say that the only reason we ever saw the Warpriest come into existence is that the Cleric was simply bad at doing it's job, through no fault of it's own, because of combat mechanics; ie, the buffing took too long in actual combat because PF combat is extremely quick. Were it not for that particular unfortunate circumstance, the Cleric would fill it's role just fine and Warpriest would have been unnecessary.)

And now, with BAB being replaced with Proficiency, the gap closes even more!

I understand that mechanically they work differently and Paladins have an extra code they must follow, but thematically, in-world, they seem to serve the exact same purpose; champion the cause of their deity. And they do it in essentially the same way; a combination of spells and fighting.

Alchemist preview is up now, and it's *another* preview that basically does a really long-winded job of saying a whole lot of nothing.
I think the only thing I took away from it was that "Alchemist Bombs" were going away in favor of alchemical items that traditionally see very little love (alchemist's fire, thunderstones, tanglefoot bags, etc).

Everything else is pretty meaningless without additional knowledge that wasn't provided (for instance, an example of what Alchemist's Fire will look like).

I'm getting the feeling that previews are so limited because they want the Beta Rulebook release to be the *real* preview... which seems rather money-grabby to me.
I mean, how is it not? "Please spend money on this upcoming book that is guaranteed to become obsolete within a year... in which time we'll ask you to re-buy the book but with finalized rules!"
It's everything people complained about 3.5 Ed, except worse, because 3.0 was a finished product.

I feel like these previews would have been much more exciting if they started much later, when more relevant information could be spoiled. As they are, I've consistently been underwhelmed.

How do others feel? Am I way off point or am I onto something maybe?

It goes without saying that there's an opinion, a rather large one, that "mundane" classes like Fighter or Barbarian or Rogue just don't get anywhere near as good at end-game levels (17-20) as many believe they should, while Spellcasters get *too* good.

So when you're thinking of mythological characters to represent what a level 20 Fighter *should* look like, I'm curious to know who you'd consider?

I'm also curious to know how deeply you've considered what makes them exceptional in the first place?
Here's what I'm getting at - let's look at some heroes most might point to to represent very high level martials/non-casters:

•Heracles
•Gilgamesh
•Sigurd
•Samson
•Achilles
•Cú Chulainn
etc...

Pretty typical examples you might find when discussing the topic. But under a tighter scrutiny?...
•Heracles: Son of the King of the Gods. Divine blood flows in him.
•Gilgamesh: Another demigod. Not mortal. Pushups won't get you here.
•Sigurd: Dragon shenanigans gave him supernatural abilities. ie he's not mythical without magic.
•Samson: Strength gifted directly from God.
•Achilles: Dipped in magic to be magically magified. (I'm getting lazy, I know...)
•Cú Chulainn: Another demigod...

So...

It seems like "iconic epic warriors" only end up that way either through powerful magical effects bestowed upon them, or by being directly related to the gods.
ie: More than what leveling to 20 can do for you.

Thoughts?
Who might be some inspirations I didn't consider who *don't* have an unfair magical/divine edge but who still carved their name deep enough into mythology to qualify as "epic level inspiration?"

Just stuff like:
•Gambeson (ie: padded) armor was actually really good protection and much better than something like hardened leather. Maybe have the stats reflect that?
•Call an arming sword (currently longsword) an arming sword and a longsword (currently bastard sword) a longsword? Ya know, like they're supposed to be?
•Can a dagger not be completely terrible? It's probably responsible for more battlefield kills than any other weapon, after all.
•Can a falchion be a falchion and not a scimitar?
•Can you explain how tricking the senses (Illusion) is fundamentally different enough from tricking the senses (Enchantment) that they deserve to be entirely separate schools of magic?

Ya know, just some basic common sense type stuff? :)

No really, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around what to do with my Hover Droid.
It's skills are utter crap, it's intelligence is utter crap, it's attack bonus is marginal at best, it's weapon options are near the worst.
At first, I was excited to read some of the Mechanics' Tricks you could do with a Drone, just to find out after-the-fact that a lot of that stuff comes pretty easily (ie: Invisibility-Hampering Projector sounded legit awesome... until you find out that invisibility isn't actually all that hard to get around, and the whole party can easily be equipped to handle it long before you have access to 14th level Tricks... ).

What is the point of this thing? How is this supposed to help my character do anything?

Necromancy is a solid option, but problematic for groups and GMs alike.

Debuffing comes with all the strengths and weaknesses of any SoS playstyle (if it works, it's great; if it doesn't, nothing happens).

Summoning is pretty solid, but you're not as good as a Wizard or Summoner.

Calling is strictly worse than the Wiz/Sor option (Planar Ally < Planar Binding).

Buffing has a handful of really solid spells and then a metric ton of spells that just won't stack with the magic items you'll definitely have access to if your GM doesn't hate you (becomes significantly better in a game with low or no magic items, but that's one sadistic GM - there are better systems to run that game in than PF!)

Direct Damage options are both rare and generally too weak to make a fuss over.

Better healing options than almost anyone else, but healing really just comes down to "kill it faster and remove ailments" ... which is just a couple of situational spells (very important ones, but not enough to carry the class).

And that's basically the vast majority of the list, yeah?
Most of the time you're just pretending to be a melee or ranged character until one of the small handful of good spells becomes viable... or you're ruling over an undead army and clogging up the turn-based system, yeah?

lol
Am I wrong?

Triple the ammo charges to deal a non-scaling 1d6 extra damage?
Was this designed to be unimpressive or am I missing something?

Personally, the 3.X baggage adds up too quickly and PF gets tiring, but my group prefers it to almost any other system for D&D.

So I'm looking for classes that shake things up enough that they can shake off some of that PF fatigue, whether it be through interesting flavor, a new or different take on mechanics, or what have you.

Just been playing some Skyrim lately, and you can't help but notice... Are Illusion and Enchantment really different enough to warrant being different schools? (Skyrim's Enchantment being much more aptly applied to magic item creation.)

And then considering that, you can't help but think of things like, "Why are Cure spells in Conj instead of Necro?" And so on and so fourth...

So! Just out of sheer curiosity and boredom...! How would you redo 3.PF spells if you could? Would you even? Put it in writing here!

I know, I know, why here again?
Because I'm curious about something.

Generally speaking, I'm curious about something with the way people fall when deciding which "branch" of alignment to follow when Good and Law come into conflict.

For example: A Paladin has knowledge that a criminal about to be executed is actually innocent, but has neither the time to prove it or the influence to stop it.
Now, a good GM isn't going to put this situation into play, but this isn't about the situation, it's about people's reaction to the situation.

In my experience, most people will say that a paladin in such a situation (break the law to save innocent life or uphold the law and allow innocent life to be lost) will choose Good over Law.
My issue with that position is that generally following the law but choosing the greater Good over legitimate Law is a characteristic of Neutral Good as an alignment, and a truly Lawful Good follower is the type who understands that sometimes not all Good can be done because the Law needs to be upheld.

No matter which way the Paladin in question goes, they'll be due for an atonement quest.
My question is why do people assume that the choice will always be to go the Neutral Good route instead of the Lawful Neutral route? According to descriptions of Lawful Good, upholding the Law is just as important to a person of that mindset, because they understand just how important rules and structure are to society and the greater good as a whole.

tl;dr - If you break the law for the sake of Good, you are Neutral Good, not Lawful Good.

(Question inspired by reading through alignments here:
http://www.easydamus.com/alignment.html)

Maybe it's just me, but Iaijutsu Strike seems horrible, and that seems to be entirely what the path is based around.
Complex Action
Only once per opponent per day, period.
Extra damage can't crit.
Take an AC penalty.
Seems like, "hey, you can have Sneak Attack! ... Once. If you really really really work for it."

How is this desirable? Sure, it's thematic for a samurai-styled duelist ala L5R's Kakita or Rurouni Kenshin copies... But mechanically it just seems bad. Like, if you wanna be a "duelist" maybe just take quick draw/something equivalent and fluff it that way?

Or is this a solid Path and I'm being over-critical of it? Opinions? :)

So no one is happy with skills. There are an absolute ton of them and most classes get nowhere near enough skill points per level to flesh out a well-rounded character.

So, while most people suggest upping the number of Skill Points earned by most classes each level, I figured why not tackle some of the bloat in the list itself too.
For consideration:

•Acrobatics (absorbs Fly)
•Appraise
•Athletics (Jump, Climb, Swim all move to this new, sensical skill)
•Craft (Profession "goes here" - really it's just a useless skill, except for below)
•Diplomacy
•Handle Animal
•Heal
•Intimidate
•Knowledge: Arcana
•Knowledge: Dungeoneering
•Knowledge: Engineering
•Knowledge: History
•Knowledge: Local (absorbs Know: Nobility)
•Knowledge: Nature (absorbs part of Know: Geography)
•Knowledge: Planes
•Knowledge: Profession (the one use Profession had as a skill was as a way to fill a Knowledge that didn't exist, so why not just make it into it's own Knowledge skill, purchased seperately for each "profession" one needs to know how to do, such as Sailor for instance?)
•Knowledge: Religion
•Linguistics
•Perception
•Perform
•Ride
•Sense Motive
•Spellcraft (absorts UMD - no reason to have both)
•Subterfuge (becomes the "catch all" stealth and underhanded skill, absorbing Stealth, Slight of Hand, Disguise, Disable Device, and Bluff)
•Survival

Yes, at first glance it seems like Subterfuge may be "overloaded," but honestly the same could be said of Perception and no one really minds that one. ;)

Thoughts/criticisms appreciated :)

Is there any way to get Summon Nature's Ally down to a Std Action?
I know there are feats that will allow Wizards/Clerics to get their summon casting down, but am unsure if there is an option for Druids to do the same.
Thx!

I'm kinda feelin' a support Bard but I've never played a game with such low stats, so I'm lookin' for advice, any and all, about what's okay and what just won't work well.

I get that any class can *have* spellcraft ranked up, but without magic to actually back it up (specifically Detect Magic, although other spells can and do also apply), what is the point?

If a Lore Warden puts ranks in Spellcraft, what good did that actually do the character? Yes, you can identify spells as they are being cast, but you can't counter those spells, and you can't do anything to those spells once they are in place. You just get to know it's there, which you probably already knew since you just watched the caster cast a spell on him/herself.

I've seen people post that ranks in Know: Arcana and Spellcraft on their non-casters has helped them in the past.
Know:Arcana makes sense.
Spellcraft... I don't see how?

I recall in 3.X there was a splat book that included some feat options that made pairing different weapons actually somewhat attractive (I can't remember for the life of me which book though).

For instance, TWFing with an Axe/Knife combo. Or Longsword/Dirk. Etc.

Does *anything at all* exist like this in PF?

Starting a game and the GM has set some limitations:
Starting level is 3rd.
Wands, Potions, and Scrolls are all base value, but all other magical items cost 2x.
Wands start with 25 charges instead of 50.
3000g starting.

So obviously I'm masterworking all the things, and picking up some basic stuff, but that leaves a lot of gold burning a hole in my Inquisitor's pouch and I'm looking for ideas on things to spend it on.

Any tips are appreciated. :D

I know a Sun/Glory Cleric will wreck some undead face, and am very familiar with said build.

However, I haven't touched a Warpriest yet, and I wanna know how they compare doing the same role.

Advice appreciated!

Thoughts? Opinions?
I'm thinking Tetori wins but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

Don't mind me, just sulking out loud at how many feats my Dwarven Inquisitor needs.

*sigh*
#gamewontlastlongenoughtomakethiswork

For whatever reason, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around these classes, as in "how they'll play" rather than "what they are."

Could I possibly get a 1 or 2 line real brief explanation on the playstyles of each Occult class? I'd really appreciate it. :D

Seems like a fun concept, but in practice would I be stretching myself too thin?

Fighters are notorious as being good at dealing damage and nothing else, and personally I've found that when playing a Fighter, once my build is finished, I no longer have anything to look forward to.
The lack of out-of-combat abilities/skill points makes having any real non-combat hobbies almost impossible.

The cop-out answer is always "roleplay" but that doesn't take into consideration that your character sheet is there to tell you what your strengths and weaknesses are, and when all of your strengths rely on killing something, it leaves a pretty big hole in the potential for believable roleplay.

Maybe I really enjoy cooking?
Well, I would if I could afford to put any points into Craft or Profession, but being Int-low and having only 2 skill points per level means I'm tapped out once the "adventure-necessary" skills are taken.

Any tips/tricks/hints/experience to give?

Staying relevant against higher encounters requires wealth. No class has the built-in tools to survive encounters designed to be a challenge after a certain threshold (especially at higher levels).
Martials need magical weapons and protections.
Casters need magical protections and ways to boost their spell's chances of successfully landing.
Everyone needs healing.

The Fighter needs only worry about equipping herself.
A Druid/Ranger/Hunter/etc. has to worry about equipping both themselves and their companion - A dire tiger is a huge boon at level 7, but those higher level demons are going to laugh it's pounce right off if it can't get through that DR.

If animal companions/eidolons/etc are treated as "class features" (which, by all arguments, they are), then they obviously shouldn't be granting bonus wealth to their players - that would be unfair to everyone else, right?
However, by not granting them bonus wealth, their "class features" can quickly become ineffectual (and in the worst cases, simply a liability).

The feat itself says, "You may choose a familiar with an alignment up to one step away on each alignment axis (lawful through chaotic, good through evil)," however the accompanying table does not match what the Feat describes.

For example, an Almiraj is a Neutral creature, but the Table suggests you can be "Any" alignment.
If you can, as the Feat text suggests, be up to one step away on each alignment axis, then this makes sense.

However, whether "on each axis" means once on each, or just once period has been asked and gone unanswered (the question I found was 4+ years old with no FAQ reply.)

Additionally, this should hold true for all other Neutral options, but it doesn't. For example, the Paracletus Aeon is also Neutral, but it's alignment requirement is listed as "Neutral," not "All."

Furthermore, some creature descriptions suggest you must be a specific alignment to have that creature as a Familiar. For example, the Lyrakien Azata has the text: "A chaotic good 7th-level spellcaster can gain a lyrakien as a familiar if she has the Improved Familiar feat."
Does the specific of the Azata trump the General of the Feat?
Or can you be one step away (such as CG, NG, or CN)?
Or can you be one step away on each axis (which would then include N)?

Many discrepancies, no FAQed answers I can find.
Does clarification exist for this and I missed it, or does Paizo still need to address it?

What are the specific rules surrounding creatures that are size Tiny or smaller and could I get a link to them please?

The PRD is incredibly unintuitive and I can't find them anywhere, save for the generic "size bonuses" table, which doesn't cover everything.

Improved Familiar is proving to be quite a pain! :)

Here are the Azata's stats. (2nd one down, after Brijidine.)

So, some of my problems:
•Outsiders have Full BAB progression and, as a Tiny creature, the Lyrakien should have the choice of whether to use Strength or Dexterity for it's To-Hit. 3HD with a 19 Dex should place it's Slam attack at a +7, however it is listed at a +2. Why? How? I don't understand...

•Outsiders have, "Skill points equal to 6 + Int modifier (minimum 1) per Hit Die. The following are class skills for outsiders: Bluff, Craft, Knowledge (planes), Perception, Sense Motive, and Stealth. Due to their varied nature, outsiders also receive 4 additional class skills determined by the creature's theme.
Firstly, I assume the Outsider skill proficiencies and the Familiar skill proficiencies stack?
Secondly, I have no way of knowing what the bolded skills are, and the Lyrakien has more than 4 listed skills that do not generally belong to Outsiders or Azatas specifically. How can I know which one's are getting the +3 Prof bonus and which ones aren't?

There are quite a few spells that always end up "green/blue" on any caster guide, and for good reason:
Obscuring Mist
Glitterdust
Pyrotechnics
Sleet Storm
Stinking Cloud
Black Tentacles
Confusion
Fear

and so on and so fourth. But the number of spells like this that allow you to choose the targets can probably be counted on one hand with fingers left over (Horrid Wilting comes to mind for extremely-high-level play).

So, how do you control the battlefield without also controlling your allies? Sure, if you can take the first action in combat and if the foes are starting totally separated from the allies and if the space you're fighting in is large enough to not be entirely engulfed in the spell effect, then yes it's amazing as a tactic.
But that's a whole lot of "ifs."

Curious about opinions here.

So I'm retiring a Witch early because, as it turns out, Slumber Hexing all the melee brutes isn't exactly riveting gameplay, even if it is really powerful.

But our last encounter with said character was just a total beatdown - for them!
Our level 7 party consists of:
•Your stereotypical Invulnerable Rager Barbarian
•A ranged-focused Hunter with a "big cat" companion.
•A Sun/Healing Cleric of Sarenrae
•A rather vanilla Unchained Rogue
•And a Paladin focusing around shield and "aid other" techniques.

Our BBEG was a Night Hag riding around on an Undead Nightmare, with quite a few Black Skeletons serving as fodder.

It was quite a fun fight, and the party managed quite nicely (and with more than a few Str penalties thrown around... those darn skeles!) to overcome in the end, but wow! Never have I felt more useless as a character!
The Hag's SR never even mattered, as it was either flat-out immune to my effects, or it's save bonuses were strong enough to make the rolls almost an after-thought! And since most of what a Witch has to offer is SoS/D effects, my options were incredibly limited.

How do people overcome this? Monsters designed to be a real challenge tend to have all the defenses they need to ignore targeted spellcasters. What's a Witch to do?

(Mostly just curious to see what peoples' responses are - I'm bringing in a Admixture Evoker "God" Wizard in place of the Witch; no more uselessness here, although it IS rather boring knowing that there is only one viable avenue to play a character. :/ )

My Evoker needs a hobby, and building golems sound like a fun in-character things to do.
...
Until that price tag.
Until those skill requirements.
Depending on the golem, those *spell* requirements!

Has anyone gone down this road before, and if so, was it worth the effort?
Also, if it was, what golems are reasonable to go for? (Adamantine is obviously a pipe-dream, but Iron? Stone? What'cha think?)

Just wondering what the general consensus is about which metamagic feats are good enough to actually learn, and which ones are wasted as a feat but great to have as a Rod.