Phage's page

There was a scythe prestige class from 3rd party content for 3.5.

They used the standard spear, but added in a bludgeoning end that was adjusted by the amount of weight put in the hilt.

Was the pointy end the main focus for this character or was it fairly even between the two? If they are fairly even a preexisting double weapon would work. Or you could just take any stats between a one handed weapon with an offhand and use TWF.

If it is more like just a small attack you could just add in some 1d4 1/2 strength at -5 attack and treat it like a secondary natural attack, which would provide much simpler rules.

Simple question, aside from some additional HP and some higher BaB,

What does the Martial Artist give you that monk doesn't already?

I completely get that a lot of people are very unsatisfied with the current monk, but it looks like you dropped many of the unique bonuses and just turned this into a fighter with progressing unarmed strike damage.

Flurry of Blows is basically just a free TWF progression for the class at full BaB, which is what most of your full round actions will be regardless, so that increased BaB progression is relatively less useful. It does gain some more HP in this, but only average 1 more than expected. Plus you dropped the fast movement, AC bonus, and will save.

So what exactly does this offer that isn't a fighter in a monk shell?

Do you mean a splash attack? Flurrying a splash attack is likely very unbalanced since you could get way too many ranged attacks hitting multiple targets.

There is a big difference between upgrading a +N enhancement and from changing its base materials of an already complex item.

The description says to consider Celestial Armor to be silver/gold Chainmail +3, so you could pay to make it a +4.

Paizo does have information for how to create your own items so really aside from some ambiguous pricing you could just make your own adamantine Celestial Full Plate Armor with +11 AC and treat it as medium armor. It would be pretty obscene, the encounters could use some rescaling since you would be more powerful, but if the GM's campaign allows for it there is nothing to stop them from doing it.

Awesome, completely awesome.

Now to figure out what sort of class combinations would synergize best with the ponies.

I'd say it depends on how you deliver it.

If you slip something lethal into a punch bowl at a fancy dress party, it's pretty much evil. If you smear something inevitably fatal on your sword then shove it in someone's gut, it's no different from the flaming property. The point is that if it's used as a deception-based weapon, it could be construed as kind of evil. That's likely the core issue for paladins. If you're using it as a damage-multiplier, it's like adding spikes to armor.

Agreed. If you're trying to deceive the target in any fashion, it likely is shady behavior and at best CN. Good people likely would be more upfront about matters.

As far as the paladin code goes, they really should either add explicit rules for all the enfeebling sources being against the code OR just explain what sort of behavior is or is not acceptable.

I imagine sniping someone with a distance fireball would probably be more against the paladin's code then stabbing someone with a poisoned sword after prearranging a lethal duel.

Well the OP hasn't posted anything recently from what I can see, so I can only hope he took some value in the posts.

There isn't any need to become melodramatic, the reality is that even if you have a specific play style, it can be improved. You can learn more rules, come up with more story ideas, and be more apt at guiding your players.

Even if this OP isn't the GM in the linked thread, you can easily draw some lessons from that situation. Players view the game differently, and sometimes this can easily have them feel slighted, confused, whatever. It is important to have an open dialogue with your players and genuinely be open to criticism.

The real answer to whether or not the OP is a bad GM is how he will respond to the situation. If he sits down with the new player and talks about the issues, does the same with the other players, and comes to a mature decision at the end of it, that's a good GM.

The player very well may not fit your group's playstyle, which doesn't make you a bad GM.
Your other players might agree with the new player and propose you attempt to make some changes, which also doesn't make you a bad GM.
If you become overly defensive and make no genuine or lasting changes in response to the feedback you got, then you know what? You are a bad GM because you failed to listen and adapt.

This looks a lot like Magus, only on amphetamines.

The weapon ritual business is way too long to be practical. Nice idea that you would only use one type of weapon, but a bit underwhelming for such a large restriction with a long reset.

The free action casting is too powerful. Maybe if spells were super watered down they could become swift actions, or give some innate bonuses for swift actions, but not free actions and no where near those spells' efficacy.

Basic armor is too powerful, period. Starting off with 7 armor is too high, much less adding 1/4 level bonus on top of that. Maybe if it lasted rounds and not minutes.

Splinter weapon looks like a cool spell in its own right. Solid bleed damage, decently long duration.

You could just as easily argue that a paralyzing poison used by a Paladin could be the best route to reduce causalities.

There's a big difference between status effect poisons, damaging poisons, and then slipping some anthrax in your ally's canteen. It might be considered a bit underhanded for the first two, but the third one is obviously more shady, especially if you're potentially poisoning multiple people where some may be innocent.

Coating your weapon in poison seems far less "evil" than slicing someone with it. It's a tool and like many tools they come in various forms. A flail isn't evil either...but one made of baby seals' skulls might be less so.

It is a named item that clearly states it is essentially a silver or gold +3 chainmail, with unique penalties and benefits.

I'm pretty sure it appears no where on the armor enhancement list, so it does not appear that you would make any legal substitutions on its material nor its armor class. You can always try to convince your GM, but make sure you find the ratios for how the higher bonuses and lower spell failure would translate etc.

Well it is important to note the two key differences between RAI on the forums.

There is the RAI (RAI1) where Paizo knows what it wanted to say, but failed to so properly.

And then there is the RAI (RAI2) that Paizo failed to predict an exploit.

This seems more like RAI1, they meant to say 1/10/15/20, but failed to RAW it properly.

RAI2 would be more like 1/5/10 or 1/6/11 sorts of progression where you would be attempting to acquire a second NAC at 5 or 6.

Since we have a response from Paizo it seems pretty clear it is RAI1 and non-exploitative, so I would think most GMs would allow it, but RAW still says you could only take it at 5/10/15/20.

Really you're just creating a feat for equal potency spells between classes that would likely not receive the spell, which means conversion.

There's not really any way to simplify a conversion method for classes that would function on 4, 6, or 9 tiers. The easiest way would just be to make a giant list for what X tier from class Y would translate into another tier of another class.

You're basically extending Paizo's Two-World Magic trait to become a feat that will include higher level spells. Copy its wording and then add a level adjustment for the off-casters.

A simple ratio would be to take the original class' max spell tier and divide it by the chosen spells max tier. For example, a sorcerer has 9 tier spells, but a ranger only has 4. To take a ranger only spell you would multiply the ranger spell by 2.25. So a level 1 ranger spell takes up a tier 2~3 slot. A level 2 ranger spell would take up 4~5. On the flipside a level 1~2 sorc spell would take up a ranger's tier 1 slot. Alchemists have 6 tiers so 9/6 would give them a ratio of 1.5.

Also note that you would only be ever adding the spell to your known list and you shouldn't have to ever add it when you take the feat. It would make sense to choose it just like any other spell, though you would likely want to take it as soon as possible. This helps casters out since they gain spells on both even and odd levels, but only gain feats on odd levels.

#1 Per Paizo's natural attack table, claws go 1d3(S) => 1d4 (M) => 1d6 (L) => 1d8 (H) => 2d6 (G). Per the bloodline you're basically getting an improved natural attack for your claws at 7, so you just go up one size. For example, if you used you claws in BSIII to become a huge animal you could be dealing 2d6+1d6 claws. If you had Strong Jaw and INA (Claws) you could be dealing 6d6+1d6 per claw.

Natural Attacks by Size

Also note the key reason you can use your draconic claws in other forms is because it is a conditonless free action. You don't need language or somatic requirements to activate it, only a limited number of non-consecutive uses per day. If they were claws based on you original form, you would not retain access to them if you changed form (enlarged person would work with them though).

#2 I believe the RAW is generally that you need access to whatever you want to enhance for at least 24 hours. There might be exceptions for magical flight, but usually for body parts or super natural abilities it would need to be relatively permanent for you to augment it. That being said, it would eat a feat for a low feat class and would only be usable when you have flight so I would allow it.

#3 Note that Dragon Disciple gives you the FotD as a SU ability and does specifically mention it matches the dragon type, but if you're freely casting the spell there's nothing limiting you. Think about it like Wild Shape and Beast Shape III with magical beasts. Also for others' clarification, your claws will always match your bloodline dragon type element, regardless if you FotD to another elemental dragon.

Flavor really makes the character though. I can see a Gold dragon sorcerer FotD'ing into maybe a Red or Brass dragon for some additional utility and just claiming its Gold, but White (or any ice) seems a bit like cheating (even if it is RAW).

The issue is a little confounded as already pointed out.

Most people on the forum have never played a game with you, they don't know whether your campaigns justify the level variation or anything else that has been mentioned.

Remember that just because your players' census data comes back positive doesn't mean you can't improve. They could just be unaware or indifferent towards the serious issues, they might also just be your friends and not want to point out DM flaws that you would be unwilling or unable to improve. The new player might be not desensitized or hyper sensitive towards these issues. Also, by reading the linked thread, it sounds like you could have helped him out a bit more and maybe pulled a couple punches.

The linked thread sounds like the guy was down, but honestly seeking advice as to his situation. He framed everything pretty neutrally, but it may have been a bit biased against you. He definitely didn't immediately come across as slanderous.

Personally it sounds like you're too harsh and strict of a GM for me, but some people like the rigidness in a game. You see rules, you play by them the best as possible, and you play it like it rolls - no matter what. It's not how I play the game, but it does sound like you're being fairly consistent and upfront. It is your game, it is a specific approach, and it really isn't for everyone.

Also I think your party sounds like they are roleplaying some pretty cruel players (not that they are themselves, just the party setup...also the player ate dirty clothes?).

You could also just approach it that you are a sorcerer with the curse, but because of you innate magical ability you are not so typically ruled by it like most.

You could then use the same lycan template, but also add on some bonuses representing your ability to apply magic to a magical curse!

I think one of the issues people are also having is that Paizo is lacking good PC templates in general. If you could choose any class combo and then apply templates like feral, lycan, undead, etc I would be totally for it, but until then you need to work within the models that you have and for sorcerer it is fairly limited bloodlines (many of them sure, but none super fleshed out).

While less of an issue, what would you suggest for a player with ideas, but is rather timid about expressing them since the rest of the group is significantly more experience and close knit?

There are ideas, but just not a good method of bringing them up.

Reminds me of that episode of Buffy, Earshot, where Buffy's reading minds, and Cordelia's saying exactly what she's thinking.

YES! Such a good episode. Oh Cordelia, too bad the show went to comics for season 8.

I think that a lot of people who opt for fighters (aka pure combat utility with next to no roleplaying necessity) generally play what would be considered a low charisma character.

They wouldn't really voice their opinions, but they could definitely have them.

I definitely tend to think of Jess Door's character, though that would likely be matched with moderately low int and/or wis to boot.

I just had a thought. What would happen if you put this on a light weapon and used finesse with it? Would you use Wis for attacks? Dex?

Weapon Finesse is an option to use Dex instead of Str, because it changes your Str to Wis you would then have the option to use your Dex or Wis for accuracy, but only your Wis for damage.

Unless we hear a direct response from one of the Paizo people, Guided is compatible with any weapon with a strength bonus, though obviously ineffectual for any weapon that lacks an inherent strength bonus (includes some ranged, but not all).

Douglas Muir 406 wrote:

Well, we have yet to try it -- but "stagger with a touch attack, no save" sounds pretty good, actually. Us this to debuff a boss in the first round, so that you and other spellcasters can pile on with save-or-bad spells.

Unless you houserule it differently, the Spectral Hand cannot be used to convey the Corrupting Touch (as it is a power and not a spell). Is your player aware of this?

He is also confusing stagger with shaken. If it were stagger it would be significantly better, but it isn't. And honestly the entire bloodline seems pretty meh.

Now the Undead bloodline does look significantly better and has some sweet unique bonuses that are often overlooked! Granted you are like part dead'n'stuff...

Ya, I definitely was overestimating the simplicity of a 5 foot step. Strategically it has a lot of complex implications, but really I guess it's just like a small step out of the way.

I guess I just expected a lot of monsters to be dumber for purposes of flanking and such since there are so many feats and other abilities that depend on positioning that can constantly be avoided.

A lot of the flanking feats now seem especially terrible since they are so easy to get around, gah!

Thanks for the feedback, really helped give me the baseline for actions :)

IUS is the most undesirable part of the monk build, imo, for a sorcerer.

I take the splash for the Flurry with a staff (hey, looky, Im Just as good as a Fighter!) the awesome saves, and the bump to AC that stacks with my Mage Armor. Add in a good dash of HP and its not so bad a loss for the early level, and helps make sure you survive into the higher levels.

IUS isn't that great you're right, but relatively speaking neither is the rest of what you get out of monk. Really I would not suggest mixing a monk with a casting for multiple, marginalized reasons.

Flurry is not level-dipping friendly because it sets your BaB for the attack equal to your monk level...ya not a multiclassing skill option.

Monk does have the best saves, increasing your off saves by 2~4, but in many ways that is its main contribution.

AC bonus is nice, but you get it once for every four levels spent in the class. Sweet it stacks, but that's a pretty huge chunk of levels for a single AC, which at least Draconic bloodline can match at levels 3(1)/9(2)/15(4). Also remember that the insight bonus to AC comes from wisdom, and if you're attempting to melee on sorcerer you already need CHA, DEX, and potentially STR.

Monk has mediocre HP, it's only a d8. That's on average only 1 more HP than a sorcerer, plus if you go down the Draconic bloodline you can take Dragon Disciple and that has a whopping d12.

The faster movement at 3/6/9 is nice early game, though eventually multiple sorcerer bloodlines pick up wings so it is unimportant at higher levels. Plus at level 6 a beast shaped sorcerer can hit 90 movement speed.

For every two levels you would put in monk you're losing out on a full tier of spells, which becomes even more rough the higher the tier you're losing out on. Having access to all those higher tier spells is what you can use to overcompensate for your melee deficiencies. By level 6 I would much prefer access to Haste and Beast Shape. By level 10 you can change into a magical beast and be able to cast. By level 12 a dragon.

Assuming your goal would be to melee, the higher tier spells easily help you shapechange, increasing your natural attacks, accuracy, damage, and defense far more than monk would. Really the only key thing you're missing from not taking monk is the saves, but personally I would much prefer the spells over them since shapechanging can basically give you everything else.

If you don't want to be in melee range you can easily take some of the metamagic feats like reach or go down the aberrant line and you should be able to stay relatively far back, but still apply all your fancy touch attacks, which you would far more likely benefit from just pure sorcerer than anything else.

Well Composite Bows are odd in their own right because you need to pay 100G per mod tier, so not only would you need to toss on the +1 Guided cost for the weapon but you would also need to pay another 100G per every 2 wisdom. While Guided could potentially be exploitative for a zen archer...it would also be very expensive.

Remember that while Guided could be applied to a ranged weapon it wouldn't necessarily give the weapon any wisdom bonuses if it did not inherently have strength bonuses.

By RAW it looks like you can apply Guided to a ranged weapon HOWEVER it would only function for ranged weapons that make use of strength bonuses, which again save for several exceptions Guided would not affect most ranged weapons.

Oh didn't know about the tactics section, thanks Mr. Jacobs!

My main concern was that I think my GM is playing all creatures strategically and extraordinarily well, but because I lack any good frame of reference for how they should be behaving.

Now for humanoids this seems to make sense that they would be very clever, predatory cats being patient and cautious makes sense, but for the weirder creepy crawler foaming-at-the-mouth creatures? Zero baseline!

Does it make sense for more bestial animals to constantly reposition themselves to avoid being flanked?

If so, does it make sense they would 5 foot step and then attack or would they just try to withdraw and create an AoO?

Mostly I'm just confused on how most creatures respond to being flanked and how frequently they would reposition themselves.

To me it would make sense that a raging creature would not 5 foot step to hit extra people in a cone attack. The 5 foot steps in general seem like a more complicated strategy where many creatures would either stay stationary if there was a target there or make a committed move.

Wouldn't there only be one save per troglodyte regardless of how long the fight would go on though?

Also if they fail at least one roll wouldn't it be a max of 10 rounds of being sickened regardless of how many other rolls were left?

So at best you pass all eight, and then at worst you just fail at least one and are sickened for 10 rounds?

This might just be my opinion, but I'd let it be used for ranged weapons, too.

Guided shots make a lot of sense.

You could definitely allow it in homebrewing, but in no way is it RAW to give a STR=>WIS bonus to a weapon that would solely use DEX bonuses.

That being said, given the cost of the bonus it doesn't seem like it would be that far fetched just to give a INT/WIS/CHA option for casters so they wouldn't have to squander so many resources to effectively use any weapon since Eldritch Blast and similar abilities were removed from their repertoire.

I'm relatively new to Pathfinder, so unsure how most encounter monsters are played. Tried to search through the forums, but not entirely sure what this would be considered.

So given a monster's intelligence, what do you expect their in-combat behavior to be like? What is the difference between the monster's listed int bonus versus their base int?

At what level of INT do you expect monsters to:
Avoid AoO?
5-Foot step?
Reposition to AoE the most people?
Make use of combat maneuvers?
Target weakest and squieshiest person?
Target strongest and biggest threat?

I really have no base line for what a creature of INT 0 or 2 or 5 or 7 or 15 should really be doing. Should players be able to roughly gauge a monster's cognizance and adjust their in-game strategies or are monsters always hard to read and predict?

Thanks!

Using the aid rule generally works out decently well, though usually need to apply a limit to how many times it can be applied.

Because the troglodytes are a CR 1 with a base DC 13 it seems really unlikely to turn that into a 27.

Making it a DC 15 (maybe 17~19 if you're feeling cruel) is still pretty hard to beat, but still appropriate for the predicted CR level.

IIRC ranged attacks only use dexterity for attack with no damage bonuses. Because they inherently lack strength bonuses it would not make sense to give them wisdom bonuses.

While "striking blows" does imply melee, the fact that ranged attacks generally lack strength bonuses gives you a mechanical ruling as to why this is likely a very poor enhancement for ranged weapons.

Exceptions to this would be thrown weapons that do make use of strength and to a lesser degree composite bows that have damage bonuses from strength. I can't recall the rules for slings and rocks, but I think they use strength to some degree so you could probably Guide them as well.

Again there is nothing preventing you from putting Guided on ranged weapons, only that most ranged mechanics do not give you any benefits from strength and therefore would not be suddenly applicable to receive wisdom bonuses in place of lacking strength bonuses.

If you could take it before 5 then you could take it again at 6.

Because you can't take it again until 10 it would likely be the case that you would need to be at least 5 to choose it, but as long as it is just once a GM very well may let you take it sooner since you could likely spend the evolution points on something more useful right off the bat.

The target restraints on Ghoul Touch is what you can target with it, not what/who can cast it. A lich could give himself Ghoul Touch, but if he high fives his undead BFF the spell would fizzle because of how touch spells work: the spell would trigger off the next touched object, if the target is not applicable the spell fizzles. If he bumps into a living humanoid then it would trigger.

Per the rules of potions, the zombies could drink a potion of Ghoul Touch, but, the touch would immediately trigger because they would be touching themselves (would not paralyze, though the stench would resolve). Note that you could make a potion of Fireball as well because the wording is that the imbiber is the target, not that the spell must have a personal target (eg potion traps). As mentioned Elemental Touch would be one method of giving method of giving zombies a touch attack through potions, though they have durations so you couldn't hold an indefinite touch charge.

An easier solution might just be to create a new monster for a caster dipped ghoul. Having some levels in wizard/sorcerer would give them access to touch spells, give them a slightly lower BaB, and then they would likely have higher int so you could give them more complex commands. It might be a bit of a work around, but you could increase their base CR and then negate it by limiting the spells they plan to use(ie only touch spells). You could just make up some story reason for why the hag has smarter zombies. If you wanted a more mechanical version you could base it off of leadership feat. I think having a couple of fighter/sorcerer ghouls would provide a slightly smarter guard with the ability to cast its own touch spells (then hold charge indefinitely) and to understand orders to stay still, then attack meat bags.

Well think about what this bloodline would focus on and what it would offer over the alternatives, like versus draconic or abyssal bloodlines.

All the lycan forms in the PRD seem to focus on a bite as opposed to claws so you could just give them a stronger bite that would follow a slightly earlier physical progression and then end in some bleed damage (in place of bonus elemental damage). Also you kind of overlooked the fact that all the other level 1 supernatural abilities, including draconic and abyssal claws, can only be used 3/day + CHA mod. If you made the bite and/or claws permanent they would need to be weaker (Ranger for example only gives 1d4 claws)...three free natural attacks is a lot.

Natural defenses I would focus more on some fast healing and then silver based damage reduction. You want to move away from being a furry version of draconic so having resists and/or natural armor in addition to fast healing and DR/silver would be a bit much.

The strength bonus paired with the claws is basically identical to the abyssal bloodline. I like the idea of having the multiple types of lycans (cats, dogs, bears, etc), but being able to choose between STR, DEX, or CON would be a bit too much freedom within a single bloodline.

The heightened senses makes sense for lycans, however, I don't think any of the other bloodlines get a 2nd level sequential bonus so you might need to take out part of the "Hide of the Beast" to include senses.

Would be nice if Paizo released some general templates for PCs as opposed to only monster templates since it is a pretty sweet monster mechanic.

It looks almost identical to Draconic bloodline with a bit of Dragon Disciple mixed in. Many of the key characters look to be taken directly from the draconic/DD levelprogression, but slightly improved.

I don't really see enough of the werewolf in here. I don't know the stats offhand for the lycan hybrid form.

The lycan idea is sweet, but I think of the bigger problem is that none of the bloodlines are really fleshed out enough and sorcerer in general is just boned for attempting to melee.

In the homebrew TZO has a sweet Battle Sorcerer alternate build that is much more melee compatible, but at the moment sorcerer is just a bit boned fomr the start.

Magicdealer, what are you even arguing? It appears that you're supporting the counter argument to your original post.

If this bonus can be applied to brass knuckles, which use unarmed strike, then this bonus would function with amulet of the mighty fists. You just pointed out that it is dependent upon being compatible with unarmed strikes, which your original post supported.

Honestly the only potential issue is whether or not you would increase the cost of the enhancement because it affects all natural attacks and unarmed strikes, which is a perfectly valid approach to applying this to multiple attacks.

I'm pretty sure all the bonuses can be applied to any attack, be it manufactured, natural, or unarmed, unless it specifically states that it is not compatible - like Vorpal Blade.

Any wording related to being drawn should be completely compatible with unarmed strikes and natural attacks. If the point is you're just able to react to combat quicker then not having to draw is always faster than drawing.

If it were some sort of unique bonus to unsheathing a weapon it would make sense that anything without a scabbard wouldn't be compatible, but that is not the case.

If you need to pull out your weapon, even with quick draw, a monk will always be faster because he doesn't require any drawing action, therefore he would physically gain initiative easier. If you always walked around with your sword drawn you would share the same bonus, which is why old school DnD made heavy differences between weapon drawn/readied versus not.

Bestiary only lists out the general strength bonuses and how they can be used in conjunction with manufactured weapons. Aside from the iterative restriction and primary/secondary distinction, there is no other references to manufactured and natural being different in regard to TWF, be it for PCs and NPCs.

In general you wouldn't opt to use TWF feats for natural attacks because they require a lot of the TWF iterative bonuses and high dex, most of the people who ever take TWF get them as free combat feats.

I am also just using the PRD online resources so there is a chance that the book differentiates further, though I'm pretty sure this is either an overlooked RAI by Paizo or that the RAW does have them compatible with each other (albeit inefficiently).

That's not how the rule is worded. PRIMARY natural attacks that inflict 1-1/2 Str give 150%. The tail attack is a SECONDARY natural attack. RAW, it's flat-out 50%; the 150% clause doesn't apply.

RAW, it is 50%.

However, this is far more probable that Paizo missed the application of strength modifiers to unique natural attacks and Power Attack.

Really Paizo should just make a clear response saying that their intention was that Power Attack only functioned by 50% for all secondary natural attacks and 100% for all primary regardless of their strength bonuses OR that they intended for the PA bonus to match the strength modifier.

Again the ridiculous deficiency and ambiguity of almost every rule for PCs with natural attacks would indicate that Paizo just hasn't gotten around to it as opposed to them actually being intentional.

two weapon rend etc do not help with natural attacks. they are not manufactured weapons.

In the case of rend there is already a natural attack for this.

as far as double slice goes I'm pretty sure I don't want to see 9 armed eidolons with multi weapon and doublebslice also getting a zillion tentacle attacks at full strength bonus.

feats for twf do not work with natural attacks.

First off I think you're confused on what I am talking about. Iterative bonuses, that is extra attacks gained from high enough base attack bonuses, are specifically called out in the rules saying you don't benefit from them. I am not saying you do, but I am saying that some of the supplementary TWF feats do not make any references to manufactured weapons nor their incompatibility with natural weapons.

So with that being said, could you can provide a reference in the PRD or rules stating that the supplementary TWF feats requires manufactured weapons (ie all the feats not dealing with extra full round attacks)?

Per RAW, natural attacks are considered light weapons, in their rules there are specific rules stating that natural attacks do not gain normal iterative bonuses. In certain spells like Magic Weapon and Lead Blades it also specifies that natural attacks do not benefit.

However, Double Slice and Two-Weapon Rend make no references to natural attacks or manufactured weapons. DS only requires you to have any attacks with a 1/2 STR modifier. TWR only requires at least two attacks, which natural attacks are considered.

Rending Claws is a terrible feat when compared to Rend, TW Rend, or Rending Strike. It deals a static 1d6 with no strength or other modifiers. It's definitely debatable whether or not you would want to invest four feats to get TW Rend, but as far as I can find it is RAW legal to use.

Double Slice appears to follow RAW going by natural attacks own description concerning using them with manufactured weapons.

The third feat, which again I can't remember, you only gain one extra attack per standard action. Polymorph, animals and eidolons all gain access to pounce so this is an inferior option for them, however, it might be useful for an alchemist.

I'm merely looking for RAW references from what is likely RAI. If you can provide them, great. If this is just another RAI topic, though, your opinion is unsubstantiated by rules. A GM can decide if this would be problematic or Paizo could errata the feats, but having similar natural attack alternatives is in no way RAW for the TWF to not be an option.

twf feats have no effect on natural attacks at all.

While natural attacks would never ever benefit from iterative attack bonuses, but unsure if they could benefit from Double Slice, Two-Weapon Rend, etc since they have non-iterative bonuses.

I'm pretty sure secondary natural attacks benefit from Double Slice to increase their strength bonus because they are considered offhanded light weapons.

Two-Weapon Rend would require four feats (two of which would do nothing for you) that could potentially give you 1d10+1.5STR since it only requires you to attack with at least two weapons.

The third feat that is slipping my mind is the one where you can swing with both weapons during a standard attack. Again because natural weapons are considered light they should qualify, though again they would never benefit from any of the iterative bonus TWF feats (though still require them as prereqs).

As long as you have a charge touch attack you do no provoke AoO, however, you can not react to a AoO with a charged touch attack.

The benefit of unarmed strikes or natural attacks would let you respond to an AoO, but more importantly you would just be able to deal more damage.

Given the proper choices mages can melee effectively, such as Heroism (+other buffs), improved natural attack (+other feats), polymorphs, general bloodline bonuses, etc.

If you were aiming to be an upfront meleeing sorcerer it is a valid option. If you just wanted to be more voyeur about your touching than you would likely not bother with applying any physical damage to your touches.

That list I made is basically all the touch spells with the highest one being Calcific Touch tier 4, AFAIK/IIRC. That leaves your spell book open to taking normal evocation options or if you wanted to be more of a brawler you could pick up Beast Shape, Heroism, etc and dish out some respectable numbers while applying some potentially lethal damage.

Calcific Touch is by far one of the best spells in the game, extend and reach it and you can get up to 14~42 rounds of grabbing 1d4 dex, that is likely plenty of time to ruin any huge or bigger create (they become "helpless" at 0 stat). Given that spell alone you could likely shape an entire character.

What if you invested heavily enough into TWF feats, could you be able to do it since they function like light weapons? Granted the max natural attacks with a standard attack without pouncing will be at best 2, right?

Louis, I don't think you can take two points, average them, and then arbitrarily replace one of those values with that new average.

RAW is 50%
Reasoning is 150%

If your GM is being super reluctant to venture off of RAW you could compromise at 100%, but this is more along the lines that Paizo has terribly ambiguous, short-sighted natural attack wording.

Well mages have terrible base attack, so touch AC is generally how they get around it. If you use unarmed strike or natural weapons you go against normal AC, which is more likely to miss.

Monk splashing would give IUS for punches and maybe some dodge AC, but personally I would opt for spells. Your punches don't get better til four levels in same as dodge. Without heavily investing in monk there's not much benefit.

Taking Draconic or Abyssal bloodlines, feral mutagen from alchemist, or aspect of the beast from ranger would give you some access to natural attacks, which offer some melee attacks.

There is nothing stopping you from just taking Improved Unarmed Strike by itself if you just want to add a bit of brawling with your touches against weaker targets.

If you barely or rarely want to engage in melee attacks you can also just use Stone Fist (APG tier 1 spell) or Cestus (APG weapon) would allow oyu to freely punch with your fists.

Aberrant is likely the best touch option given reach. Corrupting touch...not so hot nor optimal for touching.

Remember that touch attacks can be delivered through unarmed strikes and natural attacks, which makes the Abyssal and Draconic both decent options since they give claws. Draconic also increases your natural armor to help stay up front.

As far as touch spells to consider:

Chill Touch gives touches/level that deals 1d6 damage + 1 strength damage, main perk being its a tier 1 spell with multiple charges.

Shocking Grasp deals 1d6~5d6 lightning damage that gets a +3 to hit tarets with metal. Just one attack, but pretty accurate level 1 spell (only one attack).

Elemental Touch is a sweet option because it is actually a buff that gives you 1d6 elemental damage of your choice and one of four neat effects based on that element. It lasts rounds/level and because it gives you a touch attack versus being a touch attack it does not dissipate and can be used with other spells.

Vampiric Touch gives 1d6/2lvl that also gives temporary HP, which is pretty nice (only one attack).

Calcific Touch is another neat spell that deals 1d4 dex damage and slows the target. Much like Elemental Touch it isn't a standard touch spell and you can make one attack per round/level.

Some other decent touch spells to consider Touch of Fatigue, Ghoul Touch, and Touch of Idiocy.

As far as full versus standard attacks, if the creature also made a move action the attention spent is likely similar (hence you can only take a full OR a standard+move).

Remember that it takes two feats AND specific positioning in order to benefit from the teamwork feats, so it likely isn't overpowered given how situational it is. Even still given Outflank and Paired Opportunist that's a pretty sizable likelihood boost.

Fluff should be used however much the GM wants to include it for out of combat, however, once you start trying to do new mechanical stuff in combat it should be supported with mechanics.

You could call your knife a spoon, your GM could let you use it to cut up people or eat porridge, mechanically for in combat it don't make a difference.

But say, maybe you want to improve its ability to deal nonlethal damage so you could potentially safely bludgeon children with it, at that point you would likely want to find alternative mechanics!

Personally, I really would like to see more shield/weapon options, and I mean better options than just spikes on it that provide a bash. Like blade bucklers, wide weaponry, etc.

Dragon's tail slap is an anomaly of secondary attacks and specifically states that it functions counter to standard secondary attack rules.

This is more likely that Paizo just didn't go back to edit dragon's tails to include Power Attack or add an errata to Power Attack itself, but going by RAW it would technically be no...in a long line of poorly worded rulings for natural attacks.

However,

In basically every other case Power Attack matches the weapon's base strength bonus because it is basically offering you a comparable bonus based on the strength you can swing that attack. Since that trend is basically consistent in every other case, except a Dragon's tail that is clearly self-labeled an exception, it would definitely seem to follow that this should be treated as a two handed weapon for Power Attack's bonus.

It would also follow the opposite. If your weapon gives you a reduced strength bonus, PA should also match that reduced bonus.

Would definitely be nice to just have a clear response from Paizo, but I'm not holding my breath.

I don't recall saying anything about touch AC -- flat-footed yes, touch no.

That would be because I don't know the difference!

Sweet idea feat ideas though, I've been looking into them recently and they have some great potential, just kind of a bummer you really need to be a feat heavy class to really get access to them (which many allies are not).

What other circumstance AC bonuses are there?

I really do like the flanking feat since I otherwise never ever see any AoO in combat (smart monsters, smart players make these unlikely).

The flanking AoO would likely only work once per full or standard attack (not each swing), though it seems like Outflank and Paired Opportunist would make more sense for prerequisites than Hold At Bay, which doesn't really make sense.

Also you shouldn't have to worry about Touch AC when PO and (Out) Flanking would be giving you +6~+8 to the attack roll. Alternatively you could just make it standard bonuses or Touch AC, whichever is lower (but not both).