ShoulderPatch's page

I would have phrased it "Can the Bestiary 2 Elementals be summoned by the Summons Monster and Summon Natures Ally spells" but I imagine we're hoping for different outcomes. ;)

Reposted (with slight editing for this thread) from the thread that started this...

-----

As it currently stands...

default Pathfinder - Yes to Bestiary 2 elementals, by RAW they are allowed, no ruling, FAQ, or Errata has ever been issued saying otherwise.*
*(Yes SKR posted about it once, the original question he was answering was something else this was related, however if it didn't come from the Design Team account (or I guess maybe Bulmahn as lead) then that's still only RAI until one of those two verify it. That was the whole big hubbalo when they moved to this system, any other sources haven't ever been and aren't official rulings.)

PFS - No to Bestiary 2 elementals, by specific system rule
(The fact PFS has to make a specific rule about it tells you what they consider the default to be. If the rules didn't allow as written the Bestiary 2 elementals PFS wouldn't have to include a clause.)

Houserules - YMMV

I agree with FAQ'ing however it's been flagged before, I remember this coming up a few times a year since at least 2011, they've chosen not to address it. Cool if they finally do, though I hate to see the already nerfed SNA list nerfed more, it (kind of) needed this more than SM, but I'm not holding my breath.

I suspect they've been deliberately leaving it as a semi-ambiguous GM call in everyone's own games.

Right now, a GM can say Yes to it and he's got RAW on his side.
Right now, a GM can say No to it, and he's got some RAI and PFS's system rules on his side.

Basically if they let it stand as is everyone can be happy and sort of right.
My guess is that's why it's been deliberately back burnered, especially over other FAQs which were needed for rules paradox, current rules disfunction, or balance reasons (which this is none of).

Red wine. In case you were wondering.

Can't talk. Enjoying Corvus w/ teriyaki sauce.

It was mentioned that elemental that aren't fire / earth/ air/ water are allowed .

Where does it say that ?

@666: it's not explicitly stated anywhere, but it is strongly implied. Everything else that you can summon with Summon Monster comes from Bestiary I. Only "elemental" is a bit open-ended so you could also try to summon elementals from the other bestiaries. Personally I wouldn't object since I firmly believe earth elementals are the best ones anyway. Though lightning elementals are pretty cool as well.

RAW, it's allowed, and despite being known hasn't warranted a FAQ/Errata

...probably because from a power perspective it isn't abusive. It tends to help SNA more than SM and SNA could use a bit of catching up. I've never met a GM that didn't allow it (excepting the PFS note below) though I did meet two that make it SNA only.

RAI, it was unintentional (it was done the way it was originally to save space)

... PFS , it is NOT allowed by a specific PFS ruling. Short of a Faq/Errata or Dev comment that's about the 3rd best way to guesstimate what Paizo wants/wanted.

What I'm getting at is: YMMV, if it's critical to you ask the GM of your game ahead of time.

... or an illusion/shadow effect which could be a little column a / a little column b?

A post like this... rules forum not homebrew section... hours before PF staff are gone a day...

Get your ten foot poles to not touch this thread with! Right here! Ten foot Poles of Not Touching for sale, high quality, cheap!!!

I'd like to spice up my campaign with the moral dilemma of neutral or good aligned undead. Do these exists?

Perhaps some Twilight-esc vampires?

Flagging this for advice or homebrew. VRMH gave some examples of the rare (very rare) exceptions but in official PF/Golarion they really, again with rare exception, do not. It's part of the core morality, and way neg. energy as it applies to undead, works in that setting. Will of the gods and all for that world.

However despite that, and the fact you invoked :finger in throat gagging motion: Twilight ;) and thus we probably shouldn't help, it's YOUR Golarion. Unless you're PFS have some fun with it and go for it! Make Neutral skeletons and Good vampires.

Edit: ... though I recommend if you do so you also tell your players or let them knowledge: religion roll to know your world has the possibility of good undead.

If this is in the house rule forum I'm sure it won't be the first time someone asked for/did what you're wanting. I've seen several posters over the years address how they want negative energy to be more a neutral force, one of them has to have done what you want before and can offer guidance or links to pevious threads on the matter.

What most people dont realize is dnd leaves any sense of reality very early on. Human ability ends about 5th level. The absolute peak of human capability is maybe 6th level. A 12th level barbarian is a super hero. So yea he can walk through lava, so? The cleric is a literal walking miracle, the wizard bends time and space to his will, why are we concerned that a barbarian can deal with some lava?

Agreed and "like"'d.

I kind hope, if a PF2 ever comes out or maybe in an official post, they insert some text summarizing that great "Calibrating Your Expectations" essay. I think many players/GMs don't entirely understand what PF/3.X levels really equal and I don't know of a better read on the subject.

Melee's past level 5 aren't Conan or (book) Legolas, they're Capt America or Daredevil by 6-7. By the time you're talking mid teens they're Wonder Woman. By 20, they're Superman just w/o natural flight but also no kryptonite weakness.

Even before you break human norms physical liberties are already being taken, just look at giant insects. So even at levels 1-5, cut the poor melees some slack. Even with just (Ex) abilities they're basically already magical too.

Past level 7 or so though... they aren't [Sp where appropriate] Gimli, Aragon, The Mountain, The Viper, Conan, Madmartigan, etc, etc, etc... they are a Hercules, Beowolf, Brock Samson, Vegeta, Wolverine, (comic) Thor.

A some point they brush their teeth with lava. [And, it's important to remember, in all areas but direct combat are prob. still outclassed by spell casters].

To sum it up... if you as a GM past level 6 are holding your meleers to real world physics you're not understanding the system or the world it's portraying/it's narrative level. They're already exceeding what a real human body can do, welcome to a world of high fantasy. If you want realism you need E6 or E8. If you can grasp guy who can take an earth elemental punch to the testicles and smile all while knocking all of Smaugs teeth out in one blow then you're ready to run Level 7+ meleers.

Generally speaking, when you are playing a caster, Fog clouds and obscuring mist aren't about the 20% miss chance, they are about the total prevention of vision over 5'. For a caster, this can be monumentally useful in a number of ways, I'll list a few of the most common here:

First let's explain how a fog cloud doesn't screw you over (this is the most common complaint I hear, "The fog cloud hurts me as much as the enemy!")

If you have a variety of spells, there are likely many choices you have that don't require you to see your target. Fog cloud blocks line of sight, but not line of effect. This is an important distinction. You may not be able to see anyone, but you can still summon creatures, lay down walls, throw area of effect spells, etc. Keep in mind that with things like summoning - you don't even need to know where the enemy is, you can summon the monster, it runs out of the fog, and locates the enemy. Some creatures (like Dire Bat) can locate creatures within the fog as well.

Now let's discuss how it can be used to foil the enemy:

1) Archery: Wizards and Sorcerers don't like being attacked, that's why they hide behind the big stupid fighter types. Archery can eliminate that advantage, so making yourself effectively invisible by fog eliminates their ability to target you.

2) Enemy casters: Some casters use dirty tricks like actually targeting your character with spells. The nerve! Fog forces them to play on your terms, eliminating nasty rays and other targeted spells. By the way - most spells that provide a Fortitude save (you don't like making fortitude saves) require line of sight.

3) Enemy melee attackers: Not seeing you is basically invisibility, it prevents charges, and also makes them need to hunt through the fog to find you. Maybe they find the fiendish dire wolf you summoned instead...

4) Summoning: My favorite trick is summoning, but the 1 round casting time is a vulnerability I don't like. Summoning in Fog reduces that vulnerability.

I've used the term...

Welcome back, Treantmonk. :)

[Looks at the threads dates]

Wow. If people ask me how mythic necromancy works, I am pointing them to this thread.

(Re)Read through the spell rules in the CRB and the ARG. There's nothing tricky about the spell (contentious yes, tricky no). Opinions of people aside, it does exactly what it says it does in the exact way the book describes it.

This is one of those questions that people wish was simple X or Y, but it's just not.

BF control? Druid. Healing? Cleric.
Level 20 [SL9]? Cleric. Level 10 [SL5]? Druid.
Undead? Cleric. Out in nature? Druid.
Solo/small party? Druid. Normal/larger party? Cleric.

... and none of those are absolutes, you can expect 20-25% of the time circumstance can make those flip, as whatever part of reality you need to change by a spell to fit the situation is better served by the other classes list due to some extra factor.

... and that's BEFORE
Battle cleric vs Caster cleric
WS Druid vs Caster druid
Archtypes
Splat book spells
Etc, etc, etc.

In the end they're both top tier (probably both at THE top tier, at most .5 down), which means they're both versatile in what they do, are survivable, and powerful, plus they even have options in what they don't spec in [ie a caster cleric is still 'okay' in a fight, a wild shape druid is still 'okay' at casting].

Too many variables exist for a simple answer, and they have/can have ebough overlap, just pick the one you want and be glad you like playing divine casters not poor rogues or monks. ;)
[Note: that's a joke, one of my gaming peers plays a monk and I couldn't like his character more, tier be damned he's fun.]

Two issues you'll face...
1) OUAT would be best represented by E6 (maybe E8) Pathfinder.
2) Rumpel is, like Gandalf, less a class and more a creature, sort of "human with a "dark one" template" (similiar to a Vampire).

You'll be better off making a PF based version of Rumpel, where you keep some of his traits (personality, magic based) but accept PF/vancian/gygaxian systems aren't 100% translatable to other systems, than trying to shoehorn a different fantasy 'magic system' into DnD/PF and not having insurmountable glitches.

Basically, make your life easier by not asking "How do I cram UOAT Rumpel into PF", but changing the question to "What would Rumpel look like if he was a PF being, not a UOAT being". Otherwise you're going to run into a lot of conflicts between the systems, as you're already seeing.

Hitting FAQ on this
Still seeing this discussed
I think the answer is in the rules already... though poorly worded
I think the answer is no, Sylvan is not valid with Eldritch Heritage
I also think we all think something about the issue, and it comes up enough the RAW isn't clear enough, so instead of discussing it let's just FAQ it

I bet total over 500-1000 posts have already been made about this issue, let's get it clarified and move on to something new.

To the Devs: The question is...
Can you use the Eldritch Heritage feat for a wildblood archtype bloodline, Specifically Sylvan, to gain the animal companion

I've got 10 platinum and a jade circlet that says "no", but even if I'm wrong at least the question will stop being asked.

As Quandry explained (rather well), within the RAW it's already disallowed. A FAQ isn't really needed... though it would be nice, if for no other reason than to end this question being asked over and over by people who are confusing disagree with dislike.

Rappers are too long to hide in your boot, or stuff up your sleeve.

Well said, both in what you meant and in the typo. :)

The range and inevitability of my Magic Missile disagrees with your assessment of EPS's relative power level, and my Charm Person'd new best friend agrees as well.

The gaggle of enemies I put to Sleep would also disagree, but they're, well, sleeping.
Coup de grace, anyone?

[And if you're discussing houseruling it, that's got it's own forum]

It's a nice spell, probably top 1/2 of what's available, but it's not a power breaking one for spell level 1.

Holy Gygax's Ghost

[Puts his arms up, puts on "Thriller", starts choreographed shambling]

If we're doing a thread this old, we're doing it RIGHT.

It appears through Share Spell I can combine Beastshape III/animal only (from animal domain) with a Mantis animal companion (from animal domain + Ult. Magic).

If so, when the animal companion is level 8 (PC11), using Beastshape III, what's the best melee combat form to turn the Mantis into for doing raw melee damage? Dire Tiger? Allosaurus?

Does your GM allow for custom spells or other discoveries?

Somewhere in a world as diverse as a fantasy one is probably some magical mold which eats at undead [or if there isn't, at a high enough level one could be created], or some way exists to unleash a 'reverse plague' of positive energy.

Easy? Common? Definitely No and No, but as a plot item to a good story teller? Certainly not beyond suspension of disbelief.

Warhammer, if you're familiar with it, tends to use that for "poison" attacks. The reason poisons often work on robot creatures or undead etc is it represents the poisoner using something that would work because he knows his foe. A rust parasite when fighting a metal foe, a holy water gel fighting undead, normal XXXXX on the bottle poison for humans, a rare reptile killing fungus on lizardmen, etc.

Same here, if your GM will play along, and you've invested/quested in the proper skills-abilities/places-ways.

... Good luck. [Billy Crystl voice] Have fun storming the castle!

FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9qux

Magus, Black Blade: Can I use Craft Magic Arms and Armor to increase my blade's enhancement bonus?

No, nor can you use that feat to add other properties (such as flaming) to the black blade. You can use your arcane pool to temporarily add abilities to your black blade.

If I wake up on Sun. naked with no memories, a 1/8 of a bottle of Jack in my hand and next to a passed out stripper, with a goat mysteriously staked to the roof and a new tattoo in bright yellow on my chest that reads "I Am A Golden God", that still won't make this weekend as awesome as the PDT finally confirming the RAW on this did.

Thank you, [raises a glass], and here's to the death of this issue in the rules forums*.

(*As for house rules, wish the other side the best of luck with that in those forums. It's been a fun year+ opposing you guys.)

Improving/modifying intelligent items requires following an ego progression chart
A black blade does not follow that chart and cannot fit in it
Ergo the rules do not allow for improving a black blade
Anyone that does is using house rules, this is the wrong forum
RAW it is not able to be done

It also isn't allowed in PFS

Now I just have to get you to understand that killing off evil monsters and marauders is a good act, and has been in every version of D&D prior to PF. You know, save the kingdom/princess/poor villagers from an evil scourge? Yeah?

I can assure you that even in 1st Ed. most players understood a difference between a child goblin slave tied in a chair helpless and a fully enraged orc warior in a raiding band resting for the night, and slitting the throat of each was not the same moral action.

Take explanation and intent out of a moral discussions (HOW and WHY are you doing an action) pushes it into absolutes.

Killing CAN be good. Yes, killing an orc with his sword raised and about to come down upon an innocent pregnant woman is a very good action.
[Real world example: A cop shoots a gang banger about to open fire in a crowd of bystanders]

Killing CAN be evil. Murdering a sleeping pregnant woman in her sleep just because she's a member of a non-[Evil] race that is usually evil, for example.
[Real world example: A cop shoots a gang bangers pregnant wife, though she is not a criminal and never has or will harm anyone she is okay with what the gang does, because it will prevent her from giving birth to who might or might not join next generation of gang bangers]

Killing CAN be neutral. Having to kill a misinformed innocent because htey're about to do an act on behalf of an evil party, due to trickery, but you have less than 1 round to cease them or their act will harm dozens.
[Real world example: A cop has to shoot a child gang banger about to commit a violent act. While it is perhaps unfair the child, not old enough to udnerstand their actions in the fullest, has to die because of the actions and words of evil men who influenced him, it is also unfair to let innocents die or be harmed because of the childs actions.]

Pushing morality to absolutes is a great way to justify attrocities (or at the least, attrocious callousness) on either side.

Morality is a combination of WHAT you did, HOW you did it, and WHY you did it, each applied to varying degrees, and then applied to PF/RPGs, it is also how the GM feels about it. [Which in this case was stellar, though that is just IMO]

This has been kicked around on the forums forever but I can't find any formal answer.

1) Has there ever been an official Paizo response (FAQ clarification, Dev comment, Errata update) changing Spiritual Weapon and Spiritual Ally to be casting stat based, not just wisdom based?
Something that would be PFS valid or RAW game valid, so players in those games with Oracles, or Clerics who use Int as their casting stat, gain full use of the spell.

2) If not, and if you think it's a possible error of omission (no non-Wis casters with access to it when the core book was written), please FAQ it here. Maybe SKR or someone will see it and at least either consider the issue, it's balance implications, and edit it, or formally put it to rest that they aren't changing it for whatever reason.

Use the search engine option. :)

This has come up twice before here/this forum, people have posted good lists to get you by until Paizo officially answers.

(And just a heads up, and not to discourage it here but, since both of those threads had multiple FAQ request clicks and it's been a year, Paizo may be awhile answering)

General rule they used: Default to Witch, unless it's not on Witch list, then default to Wiz/Sorc, then default to whatever other class has it if both Witch-Wiz/Sorc don't.

Personally I would say, anything a person could reasonably climb up with non-magical equipment (not necessarily your character, but someone with decent climb modifier).

Perhaps not counting rope (with no additional surfaces available), but I'd let you try to grab a rope to stop your fall entirely, safe fall or no.

I would say any non moveable object that could support the weight of the monk. Paper wall =no, rope = yes, stage curtain = yes, house curtain = no.

I work with drapery installers, you can pull a curtain off a wall with almost no effort, but those stage drapes arent coming down for nothin.

I think herein lies a great pair of standards to use.

The material must be strong enough to tolerate a light push off (I'd argue a wall of light wood or even semi-thick cardboard would work, but a wall of paper or 'wind' for example wouldn't), though I could see some lenient GM's not caring about the paper and they wouldn't necessarily be wrong.

If it's not a 100% wall (tree trunk, giants back), I think Hopea's definition works pretty wall. A ladder would work. A flowing waterfall wouldn't.

In terms of using a giant (or other creature), I think it should be allowable assuming the creature is relatively motionless (IE not flinging about in combat, not actively hostile to you and knows you're there) and can follow the same rules as a wall (solid enough to take a light push off without moving)
Ever had a cat use you to jump down from something? If you see the cat, when it jumps you move and it usually makes the situation into one very pissed off ball of fur that's mad you messed up it's beautifully timed exit from it's current perch.
If however... and God help you, there WILL be scratches... the cat can catch you unaware, so by the time you notice it and move like the hairless monkey the cat knows you are the cat has generally completed what it needed you for, the cat will have landed quite safely and will give you a look explaining it is great and you are not, but it still appreciates your limited use in making it's life comfortable.
So I'd say creatures would be on a case by case basis, but like the wall would need to be solid enough to support a good kick off from you (so breastplated back of a Huge giant or side of Huge dragon, yes, another human being looking the other way, no), and would need to be voluntarily or inadvertently holding relatively still and solid.

Considering balance, this should really be as close to Feather Fall as much as possible.

For me, any of the above would constitute a wall. I'd want to go so far as to say you could use the wind as a wall, assuming there are no actual walls nearby that could be an alternative.

Now maybe I'm showing the grey in my beard here, but it should not act like Feather Fall for 'balance reasons', 'wind'/air by RAW would not work.

Today what are the top 3 best/most effective classes in Pathfinder? Also, does anyone know where I can find great builds for these classes?

Thanks in advance!

As you have defined "best" in the context of this question as "most effective"...

1) Whatever class the best player in the group is playing.
2) Whatever class the best player in the group is playing.
3) Whatever class the best player in the group is playing.

What class is FotM can change often (though it's usually assumed to be classes with 9 spell levels). The above three classes virtually never change.

As for your "great builds", see the Guide to the Guides sticky at the top of this forum. Those can guide you through about 80% of the process of making an effective character, and if you can't do the last 20% on your own, you're not going to know enough about whatever class you're playing to get the most milage out of it anyway.

The level you play at, and how you functionally handle playing a style of class, also has a radical effect on this question. I love watching people playing casters who think it's an "I win" button for Pathfinder, who then have to face the realities of it. Meanwhile I've seen well played Bards and Rogues conquer worlds over competent caster players through creative uses of abilities. Players > Class before good class > mechanically inferior class.

Note: I consider myself both a veteran roleplayer and a power gaming optimizer, and that is my answer as an optimizer. Asking what the fastest race car is does you no good if you're a naturally terrible driver and should be boating instead. Part of being an optimizer IMO is 1st discovering what your natural strengths are, and realizing playing against them is going to nerf whatever you pick. I actually do think "playing what you like" leads to solid optimization, because you're more likely to put the time in and to learn more about the class you play and the tricks it can redline within the system.

If/when you're playing a Sorcerer what bloodline/style do you play, and at each of the 9 spell levels (10 if you want to count 0 level), what TWO spells do you consider the most "must have" at each level?

I leave how you define "must have" and if you want to explain it in your reply up to you, it could be "key spell of the build I use" or "spell every caster should have at this level", it could be "most useful at the level you get it" or "most useful as part of a lvl 20 complete list", or whatever standard you want.

There are some wonderful guides out there for spell casters and certainly going off the "blue" standard is a quick answer, but I'd like to hear both the opinions and viewpoints that might reinforce those old standards or might differ or come from a use of a spell other people might not commonly think of.

This reminds me of a situation in the old Knights of the Dinner Table comic. The game they played in the comic had an 'overwhelm' rule or something along those lines. If you had enough people tackle one person you overwhelmed him and held him helpless on the ground. The characters in the comic used the rule to wreak havoc on the DM's campaign by gathering a bunch of bums and having them tackle anyone dangerous. So keep that in mind. A rule like that can be easily abused. But levels are an abstract idea anyway and purposefully so. Heroes and villains don't get taken down by the faceless masses they are saving/oppressing/defeating.

*LoL* Thank you for bringing that up. That was my first thought as well.

---

To the OP, part of the problem is the mechanics are in the game (some posters here are giving you examples of how the RAW can be applied to do what you want), but you just need to realize the scope of the game you're playing when you wonder why it's not easier to do at the CR difference you're discussing. You see 3.0-PF isn't Warhammer. It's more "Starts as Warhammer, Ends as Exalted" (I read that on the forums here once, and I think it's one of the best explanations of the relative power level I've heard)

Using game rules, real world humans have never achieved higher then level 6. Ever. That Level 6 isn't even once in a generation either, it's literally a handful of individuals in the history of all mankind. (Note: The general math actually supports it at about level 5, but some areas of human endevor dabbled into level 6, so I round up) As low as level 2 is statistically one in several hundred in the real world, level 3 is top of their field in a nation. Hell, Einstien stat'd out would only be level 4 tops as an Expert. In the whole world right now it's doubtful more then a handful of individuals are level 5, and likely no more then a few hundred of six and a half billion at level 4.

Even the vast majority of fiction, which doesn't have to deal with trying to please gamers that want to live vicareously through their characters, is low fantasy and represents a level barely above our world. Aragon? He is represented by about levels 5-8. Gandalf? About levels 11-13 [He can technically work at 9-10, but it seems stretching]. Conan? 5-8 range as well.

So once you pass level 5-6, you stop playing real world, and in PF it's not a path to low fantasy, it's stepping towards high fantasy. What you... or even the most MMA/Navy Seal/Powerlifting-combined human champion could do in the real world... ceases to be the limit, or the logic on which something making sense can rest. You have to start understanding that magic is now part of even the purely physical in the game world, and the physics of that world start to bend to reflect it (much as they do for dragons flying). As one of my friends puts it, past level 5 or so, every class in DnD begins to be like the Monk... even if you're not using "magic", you're still magic because what you can do isn't real anymore.
>... and that's why your Fighter kills so many Goblins so fast while being so perfectly able to hold off being grappled, by design in the rules (perhaps not 'perfectly', but far beyond what anyone in the real world bound by non-magical realm altered physics could do).<

In a nutshell, your level 7 example choice... or arguably a level 6... isn't human anymore. You're already looking at someone that has stepped beyond what is physically possible in this real world we live in. The reason that mass of Goblins can't take him down in the rules... certainly without invoking a massive number of side rules, and even then not having a perfect chance... is that you're picturing real world limits and physics to a purely physical person. At that point though, you've stepped into high fantasy, and everything is supernatural to some extent. The same suspension of disbelief that lets you be okay with a dragon flying, or magic spells, is now a natural part of even pure melee classes in those worlds at those levels. You have to either accept that, or be misunderstanding the power level deliberately in the game system. [And this goes back to 1st Ed ADaD if you're old enough to remember it]

So in a way, your answer is you're not going to have a real world logical answer. You could stack rules, and yes you could probably even pull it off, but never to the point you'll find it believable if you're seeking gritty realism like Warhammer that (attempts) to mirror the real world, the levels you've listed is when PF starts to step into Scion or Exalted, and at that CR difference between foes it's highlighted boldly.

It's only overpowered if you allow the Arcane Mark exploit. Given that spellstrike RAI is intended to use spell slots, that brings it down to balanced levels.

Merriam-Webster just called, and they'd like to know if in their newest edition next to the word "Wrong" they could put a copy of this post.

The Pathfinder writers/Paizo staff define RAI, not what you wish the game would be. They left it on the list. They've seen the posts. I guarentee you they've at least glanced at Walters guide since as game makers go they've been pretty receptive of their players (I always assumed they'd just hire Trentmonk someday).
They've chosen not to FAQ it out, because it is both A) RAW and [even if it wasn't before, it definitely is now] B) RAI.
If that wasn't the lid on the coffin of the issue, Brand, as has been pointed out several times on every major thread on the issue on the forums here, disproves any RAW/RAI arguements you could even hope to make.

As to the original poster, if your default response to people disagreeing with you on a public forum is to take your ball and go home (because honestly, none of us were that mean to you, we just enjoyed a chuckle at how wrong the comment was), you're going to eventually have bigger issues at your table then you and your groups lack of understanding of the core game mechanics.

... I've been in contact. Currently he's in the works on another project and hasn't gotten around to UC's material, but he said once he did that he'd get his guide updated...

I'm a big fan of Walter's guide and several of the discussions on this thread off of it, but I'd noticed it was short a detailed sections about Spellblending options.

I've added a post...

http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5bne?Which-Spells-To-Add-Spellblending-Arcana-Y our

...here on the advice section specifically to discuss spell choices to be taken with Spellblending (note: or Greater Spell Access).

I thought I'd mention/link it here in the hopes some of you might stop in and post some logical opinions on "Must Have", "Should Have", or "Looks Good But You Probably Don't Want/use a wand" additional spells to take for a Magus.

The Spellblending Arcana seems like one of the potentially strongest the Magus class can take, if the right spells are selected to be added to the Magus list.

I am somewhat curious, at the various levels from cantrips to 6th level spells, what other Magus players consider "Must take" spells from Spellblending, or at least what spells if taken feed so well into the Magus's role they're best to have in your own book and not just left to hope a more dedicated casting class has and can cast on you.

I've read Walter's guide and this is one area it seems to sort of glance over, and while Trentmonks guide is all but a holy text, it's written from the perspective of a class staying out of combat and controlling it, where as the Magus is more of a get into it and be a part of it [let's face it, Ghoul Touch and Touch of Idocy alone from just the 2nd level spells have far more use to a Magus then a Wizard]

So... what spells do Magus players feel are "Must Have", "Want To Have", "Somewhat Useful To Have", or "Seems Useful But Really Useless To Have" from those gained via the Spellblending Arcana?
[Edit: Or, to a lesser related extent, via the Greater Spell Access ability, if you're one of the few games that plays that high level]