Sintog's page

I think there is a serious flaw. Bond Conservation notes the requirement that the "last action" was drain bonded item. Which means

Free action: Drain bonded item >
Cast a Spell Activity >
Can't use bond conservation because the last action you used was to Cast a spell.

Therefore, it has to go
Free Action: Drain Bonded Item >
1 Action: Bond Conservation >
Leaving you with 2 actions remaining to Cast a pair of spells.

Right?

Pounce by itself doesn't impose any of those restrictions, but there might be something in the movement rules that does. Like spring heeled reaping specifically calls out the ability to move, attack, move, attack where pounce and charge do not. But we are already juggling a half dozen rules text boxes, and I don't care to go looking.

Thanks for your feedback and time.

Are you looking at the trample feat or monster ability? The monster ability (for tikbalang) notes trample is a full round action, but then points back to overrun rules, which points back to charge rules, which points back to pounce rules...

Well if we go with your interpretation, if selected was overrun as part of charge, then I think you can take pounce attacks at any point during charge, since... The overrun is still a charge and that's all is needed for pounce. Or no?

So the charge rules state, "You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent."

This means if you threaten the squares around you as a size small or larger creature does, your charge is stopped as soon as you threaten the target, resulting in not being able to perform overrun Manuever?

Edit: How did this come up? It's all about move to closest square from which you can attack. Let's look at a wizard polymorphed into a tikbalang weilding a spear.

Is the closest space

A) 15ft. Away where it can attack with it's spear?

B) 10ft. Away for natural attacks

C) In the Target's square for trample

D) Some place past the Target's square assuming successful overrun / trample

Follow-up: how does the charge restriction interact with pounce? If A, does he just full attack with spear? If D, can he take all attcks at any point during movement?

I think it's viable, especially since it seems to be compatible with startoss style line of feats. I wonder if there is a way to get it without being a universalist wizard

Well we know from the spell mind blank that see Invisibility constitutes a divination spell that gathers information about the caster. The difference between then is an order of magnitude, and a CL check. Based on that, I'd say nondetection works vs. see Invisibility and true seeing just fine (with cl check) but gets shredded by discern location.

Would be convenient if they just called it lesser mind blank, or used the same wording.

What about the spell reloading hands in a repeating crossbow? It says ammunition. Does a clip of crossbow bolts count as ammunition?

This is a bit of a strange spell. It's conjuration (summoning) spell, but works like an evocation spell. Soo...

1. Can the Dazing metamagic spell be added? Is it the spell doing the damage, or the summoned ancestor?

2. Can the summoned ancestor spirits provide a flanking bonus?

My guess is;

RAW dazing works because spiritual weapon strikes as a spell and is subject to SR. Can't flank because spiritual weapon can't flank.

RAI dazing doesn't work. It's the ancestor guardian that is dealing the damage, and the entire reference to spiritual weapon is just there to govern how attack and damage rolls work. Sure, they can flank.

What do you all think?

Okay how about summon ancestral guardian. It's a conjuration (summon) effect, but they are treated as spiritual weapons except damage type and movement. So is it the spell doing the damage and benefiting from dazing spell since the weapons strike as spells? Or no, because clearly you are summoning actual ancestors, and the creatures not the spell deal damage?

When do you get access to the poison? I could see at level 4 as it lists sting. But then later at level 15 it calls out using the poison specifically for AoO, which suggests you don't get the poison until lvl 15 and when you do get it, it only works in specific circumstances.

Am I reading Savage Slam right in that
1. You do not get the +5 bonus for maintaining a grapple because the feat specifies instead of maintaining a grapple you can do x as a standard action instead?
2. Similarly, if you have the grab ability, you also do not get the +4 bonus since you are neither maintaining nor initiating a grapple
3. You cannot combine a Savage Slam and a whirling hold because whirling hold lists it's effect as an alternate option to maintaining a grapple and so it's either but not both?
4. Finally, you do get the bonus for maintaining a grapple and the grab ability with whirling hold.

Polymorph description notes that natural attacks use strength modifier for damage

An unchained rogue with a natural attack and finesse training (natural attacks.... Or claw if you aren't using feat tax rules) applies dex damage to that attack.

But if the unchained rogue is under a polymorph effect, which trumps the other? It seems like finesse training is the more specific of the two, but polymorph subschool is also a specific rule I believe. At least, I can't think of any other ability that overrides polymorph rules.

Wow great discussion! The only thing I can think of to add that hasn't been specifically called out already (if someone did and I missed it from skimming let me know) is that sneak attack is precision damage. So while both harm and sneak attack deal negative energy damage, harm deals "spell damage" with its own subset of rules and sneak attack deal "precision damage" with its own subset of rules. So I would lean a bit toward SA not falling under the the 1hp limitation.

That said, it looks to me like there is no clearly defined RAW answer and just another point in the rules where you need DM adjudication.

Am I reading stone shape right in assuming you cannot make doors or pits or the like out of large stone objects because the large area of these objects exceeds the area of the spell making the entire mass effectively immune to the spell? And for something like a castle made from quarried stone blocks, a single casting of stone shape would only effect one block if that block is small enough to fit within the area of the spell?

Mighty Strength requires a one hour devotion to gain access to this spell, granted by Trudd or one of his family members. Does shield of Wings have some kind of similar requirement?

Say I have a cleric with BAB +6, an active (previously cast) lightning Lash, and take a full attack action.

Does the cleric take two normal attacks at BAB +6/+1 and then an additional lightning Lash touch attack at +6 BAB? Or replace one of the normal attacks with the lightning Lash attack?

I'm pretty sure I get to use the lightning Lash as a free action on the round the spell is cast but am unclear how it works after the first round.

Boots of the Battle Herald wrote:

Aura moderate enchantment; CL 11th

Slot feet; Price 30,000 gp; Weight 2 lbs.
Description
These boots are made of fine white leather tooled with scenes of epic battles. Once per day as a move action, the wearer can affect himself with greater heroism for 11 minutes.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, greater heroism, remove fear; Cost 15,000 gp

These boots have one effect. It is CL 11 and the effect lasts 11 minutes. No need to figure out the formula.

This means that making it a higher CL is easy: [Original Price]*[New CL]/[Old Cl]
Making it a extended means it is a higher SL, and have a higher minimum CL.
Greater Heroism is arcanist 6, bard 5, psychic 6, skald 5, sorcerer 6, spiritualist 6, summoner 5, summoner (unchained) 6, witch 6, wizard 6.
Remove Fear is bard 1, cleric 1, inquisitor 1, medium 1, mesmerist 1, oracle 1, psychic 1, sahirafiyun 1, shaman 1, skald 1, spiritualist 1, warpriest 1
For a Wizard 6 spell that is extended, it becomes a Wizard 7 spell with a minimum CL of 13.
Extended Boots: [Original Price]*([New SL]*[New CL])/([Old SL]*[Old Cl]) = 30,000*(7*13)/(6*11) ~= 41,364. This gives 1/day for 26 minutes.

/cevah

Took me a minute to figure out the math but that makes sense. Basically you are just figuring out price per CL (30000/11=3727). Then multiply 3727 x desired CL. That isn't exactly how you wrote it, but I believe it's the same effect give or take a few gp.

Not only is that not an actual formula, Boots of Speed are also a special case because you don't get the full spell duration per use, but only a fifth; the price is likewise a fifth of what it would normally be (again presuming that free-action-use uses the price of use-activated).

The actual calculation for Boots of Speed seems to be: 3 [slvl] * 5 [clvl] * 2000gp / ( 5 / 10 ) [charges per day] / 5 [duration factor].

Boots of Speed are CL 10 not CL 5. Haste gives you 1 round/lvl, or 10 rounds at CL 10 just as boots of speed do. I don't understand how this formula you have provided results in a 12000gp market value, or how you calculate you get a fifth of the duration per activation (a fifth being 2 rounds not one). But it does make sense that (3 x 10 x 2000)/5 for slvl x CL x continuous use item / charges per day works out to 12000gp, the market value of boots of speed.

Okay thanks for clarifying on boots of battle herald. I don't disagree with your analysis, I was just hoping to point out a clean RAW formula for my GM, who allows improvement of existing magic items but doesn't like much guesswork in the process.

Is the 25% percent cost increase an educated guess because the numbers don't work out and it makes sense that a cost increase should result by reducing from standard action to move action? Or is there a rule on how that works.

For example, boots of speed reduces from standard action to free action and follows the formula (10 x 3 x 2000)/5 exactly

Anyone know how these are priced?

https://www.aonprd.com/MagicWondrousDisplay.aspx?FinalName=Boots%20of%20the %20Battle%20Herald

I'm interested in increasing CL, adding extend spell, or otherwise improving the duration but can't figure out how to break down the calculation to figure out the cost of such improvements.

What I've done to keep from making classes with multiple archetypes or options and page flipping from being annoying is downs 30 minutes cut and pasting the original class.

I go to the online source, copy it, delete what's changed and paste in the new stuff. And while I'm there, paste in the scaling bonuses too.

The end result is a class layout tailored for me. No more flipping back and forth. You may find this helps you Sintog with your frustrations about 3 pages back and forth, just invest some time and never do it again.

Yes! I'm playing a Gestalt character and found I had a full 5 pages I had to scroll through, so I did exactly this. It took me a bit longer than a half hour though, but part of that is because I did it on my phone.

Sintog wrote:

If I understand correctly, your interpretation is that with both feat trees you can effect multiple vital strikes as part of an improved/greater spring attack. That's debatable as vital strike specifies, "you may make one attack at your highest base attack bonus." It is thus not crystal clear to me if the "one attack" clause is waived, and if it isn't, how the "at your highest base attack bonus" clause interacts with "The second attack made this way is made at your full base attack bonus – 5." Which trumps the other? It's a mechanics discussion with your GM (or at least would be with my GM).

Here's the thing: That whole section of the Vital Strike text ("you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage") is not actual rules text, but reminder text. It doesn't make a ruling, because there is no need to - the attack action is already a singular attack at full BAB.

That's new to me. Can you please provide a linked to RAW or RAI source explaining the difference between "rules text" and "reminder text?" Or is that distinction just something you came up with on your own?

I like Empericist investigator a lot, though it kind of falls into the same middle ground as Kensai Magus. Maybe if I did both... I'll have to think on that.

Inspired Blade swashbuckler is pretty tough though - GM's position is I give you gestalt and other generousities. Pathfinder is a big system. Make it work within existing rules. There is a feat that let's you treat a one handed melee weapon as a piercing weapon and adds dex to damage instead of strength, so a katana (or wakizashi) could be used with the Swashbuckler but inspired Blade is rapier specific.

Maybe I will do Empericist Investigator / Full Int caster. I feel like the Investigator would make for a perfect Spymaster. And while Ninja / Wizard is nice, I hate the name Ninja Wizard and lots of Ninja abilities work off Cha. The Empericist Investigator fixes that, and it's easier for me to imagine one with an Eastern Flavor then say... A slayer.

Thanks for the great advice! For sure slayer is sweet, there is another game I'm using same gestalt rules and am running a Cleric/Slayer in that. Unfortunately, bonus to save DC only applies to Slayer abilities from my read.

I will for sure check out the other options. I know you don't need an Eastern class to have eastern flavor, but since we are running Gestalt it seems like I ought to be able to fit it in somewhere.

Hi all, I'm going to be in an Eastern Flavor gestalt (no multiclassing or PrC) game and I wanted to check and see if anyone has recommendations.

Existing builds are

gestalt Samurai (warrior poet archerype with Order of the Songbird) / Sorcerer (maestro archetype) - Flavor: Artistic Noble daughter

Gestalt unchained monk / druid - Flavor: Brother of the Perfect Garden Spiritual Advisor

And the last one is what I'm asking for advise on. Here is what I have considered so for

A: Gestalt Samurai (sword saint archetype) / Arcanist (blade adept archetype) - Flavor: Kensai/blademaster

Problem: Blade Adept archetype is messy with confusing abilities about arcane pool and so on.

B: Gestalt Magus (Kensai archetype) / full BAB or Full caster class - Flavor:Kensai/Blademaster

Problem: if I go full caster then BAB will fall behind the Noble daughter (who he would be responsible for protecting) and if full BAB class why bother with the high int no armor approach of the Kensai, which is a problem because I want the PC to have high int to compliment the raw charisma of the Noble daughter and Wisdom of the Monk.

C. Gestalt Ninja / wizard - flavor: Spymaster

There aren't really any problems with this build. It's a sick combination except a bit squishy and can't do the Kensai thing.

D. Gestalt Ninja / fighter - flavor: Kensai

Problem: no spell casting, but since other two members get full casting don't really need it. But here again, run into the Intelligence compliment problem.

Thoughts?

Sintog wrote:

Graceful warrior: Was the clause about not changing weapon properties for any other effect intended to stop you from double weilding katanas?

No, it means they aren't made light weapons for other things, most notably TWF penalty and handedness. So glaive and naginata are still two-handed weapons, and dual wielding katanas has the full penalty.

I guess Isabelle wanted to proactive stop idiots from over-applying the "as if they were light weapons" effect.

Sintog wrote:

Poetic Inspiration: Is the Songbird considered an ally within 30ft to benefit from the ability?

Unless you are deaf, yes. "You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible."

Sintog wrote:

Vital Strike is a bit confusing, as you have to give up your extra attacks to achieve the extra damage, so while it appears the specific ability trumps the feat description it's another mechanics conversation I would need to have with the GM.

Normal: You can activate Vital Strike only when using the attack action. With Chrysanthemum’s Blooming: You can activate Vital Strike only when using either the attack action, or the Spring Attack feat.

I don't see the confusing part. Note that Improved and Greater Spring Attack only modify the base feat (unlike for instance Improved and Greater Vital Strike), and thus you can use Vital Strike (and later Improved VS) with those feats if you have Chrysanthemum’s Blooming.

If I understand correctly, your interpretation is that with both feat trees you can effect multiple vital strikes as part of an improved/greater spring attack. That's debatable as vital strike specifies, "you may make one attack at your highest base attack bonus." It is thus not crystal clear to me if the "one attack" clause is waived, and if it isn't, how the "at your highest base attack bonus" clause interacts with "The second attack made this way is made at your full base attack bonus – 5." Which trumps the other? It's a mechanics discussion with your GM (or at least would be with my GM).

By full penalties you mean that wielding a katana in your off hand does not qualify for "If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each."

I think I would house rule it like this;

1. Remove from flourish Chrysanthemum’s Blooming: The warrior poet gains Vital Strike as a bonus feat and can apply its benefit when using Spring Attack. If the warrior poet is at least 16th level and has Improved Vital Strike, she can apply that feat’s benefit instead. The warrior poet must be at least 11th level to select this flourish.

2. Remove from flourish Exodus of Jinin: As long as the warrior poet is wearing light or no armor and carrying no more than a light load, her land speed increases by 10 feet. A warrior poet can select this flourish up to three times. 

3. Remove from flourish: gain another flourish at level 9 and level 13

4. Remove Battle Dance (Ex): At 6th level, the warrior poet gains Spring Attack as a bonus feat. At 12th level, she gains Improved Spring Attack as a bonus feat, and at 18th level, she gains Greater Spring Attack as a bonus feat. The warrior poet does not need to meet the prerequisites for these feats.

5. Add Spring Heeled Dance (Ex): At 6th level the warrior poet gains Spring Attack as a bonus feat. At 9th level she gains Spring Heeled style as a bonus feet and can assume this style as a free action whenever she uses her challenge ability as a swift action. At level 12 she gains Spring Heeled Sprint as a bonus feat. At level 13 she gains Spring Heeled Reaping as a bonus feat. At level 18 she gains a bonus combat feat.

First let me say what a fantastic archetype. This thing just oozes flavor. If have two samurai in the party and one is a Songbird they are completely different animals. That's a win as far as I'm concerned. This archetype reminds me of the best Japanese/Asian inspired fantasy I've come across.

I understand we can't get official rulings but I was wondering...

Graceful warrior: Was the clause about not changing weapon properties for any other effect intended to stop you from double weilding katanas?

Poetic Inspiration: Is the Songbird considered an ally within 30ft to benefit from the ability?

Respectfull feedback on mechanics

The challenge mechanic is a bit cumbersome, in that it is modified by both order of the Songbird and warrior poet. The bonuses to AC and Save from Songbird advance at a different rate from the challenge ability itself.

The end result is still fantastic. Just I wish there was a simpler way than looking up three different pages, and calculating two different rates of progression for a single ability.

Vital Strike is a bit confusing, as you have to give up your extra attacks to achieve the extra damage, so while it appears the specific ability trumps the feat description it's another mechanics conversation I would need to have with the GM.

I kind of wish the progression of spring attack and the option for vital strike would have transitioned into spring heeled style feats instead, with Spring Heeled Sprint complimenting the movement bonus (for 120 movement before haste if selected three times!) and the full bonus on both attacks from Spring Heeled Reaping along with the +2 attack from the Spring Heeled Style letting you sink in power attack and/or combat expertise for extra damage and/or extra AC. Not a big deal, as that option is available anyway through normal feats, but the style looks to me a better compliment to the Skirmisher than spring attack tree + vital strike tree.

Coridan wrote:

Little rule gem we never noticed before in our group, p562 of the core rulebook says weapons with Weapon Enhancement Bonus Equivalent can overcome certain DR types. +3 overcomes cold iron/silver, +4 adamantaine and +5 alignment based.

Does a +1 Keen Flaming Longsword overcome cold iron/silver DR? Or is it only a +3 Longsword

Only actual enhancement bonus counts, so only the +3 longsword. It's certainly a good place for a house rule, though.

I disagree for three reasons

1. Mythic Adventures Glossays says:
"DR/Epic: A type of damage reduction, DR/epic can be overcome only by a weapon with an enhancement bonus of +6 or greater. Weapons with special abilities also count as epic for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction if the total bonus value of all of their abilities (including the enhancement bonus) is +6 or greater."

That suggests the design philosophy for overcoming DR with a magical weapon is that the total enhancement bonus of the weapon rather than just it's numerical enhancement bonus is calculated.

2. The table notes "Weapon Enhancement
Bonus Equivalent." What else would they be referring to with the word equivalent, particularly when considering point one.

3. I have seen some argue no, because of a clause (I don't have handy) that the total enhancement bonus is counted for pricing, but not for attack and damage. The flaw here is that this argument has nothing to do with the issue at hand; neither attack or damage modifiers are being considered in if a weapon with the equivalent of a +3 bonus can overcome DR.

Well let's look at this from the more likely scenario, a cleric taking Improved Critical for touch spells. The cleric at least can qualify for that +8 BAB long before the wizard can, and right about the time he does, gets access to harm (plus all the cause spells).

And rather that look at weapon like spells, let's examine the wording for touch spells in combat

"Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. "

Now we don't see the word "weapon" here, but we do see that melee touch attacks fall into a category of other attacks that are all considered weapons able to qualify for improved critical;

“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed.

If "armed" does not mean having a weapon, I'm not sure what to make of it really. What else would you be armed with that is not a weapon and does not provoke AoO? I think I would default to the definition of "armed" from a dictionary (as Paizo does not define the word to my knowledge): "equipped with or carrying a weapon or weapons."

Let's say you somehow manage to get a cleric high enough level to cast harm and pick up sneak attack somewhere along the way.

You manage to flank, succeed on your touch attack with harm and deal enough damage with the spell to kill it, but harm stops that from happening leaving the adversary with 1hp. Now you add sneak attack.

If I remember correctly, sneak attack damage for spells is of the same type as the spell. Does it also follow the same restrictions? Does the sneak attack damage bring the affected creature below 1hp?

Dust Form, and other spells/effects granting incorporeal form.

"An incorporeal creature moves silently and cannot be heard with Perception checks if it doesn’t wish to be. It has no Strength score, so its Dexterity modifier applies to its melee attacks, ranged attacks, and CMB. Nonvisual senses, such as scent and blindsight, are either ineffective or only partly effective with regard to incorporeal creatures."

If you want to be really sneaky, just ditch your physical body.

Teleport works too

One other thing to keep in mind:

PRD wrote:

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.

Therefore, a human (medium-sized creature) could not wield a large-sized Two-handed Sword, as this would change the weapon designation beyond the three allowable.

How does this interact with the katana? Do you need exotic weapon to wield one handed profeciently before you came wield +1 size category in two hands?

Casting the spell is identical to Ward Shield. Same casting time, target, duration, etc

Spell Level 5: Based on the observed pattern protection from evil lvl 1, protection from technology level 2. Circle of protection evil level 3, circle of protection technology level 4. Antimagic Field 6, antitech field 7. So Ward Shield 4, Tech Shield 5.

Benefit 1: The shield grants it's bonus to AC against attacks from technology sources (e.g. laser rifles and the like)

Balance Note 1: Not apples to apples. Ward Shield grants SR 10 + CL vs similar things like magic rays. To my knowledge, there is no Technology Resistance (TR) to work similarly. On the other hand the SR mechanic doesn't have a lot of modifiers and is usually just 1d20 + CL (and spell penetration if you've got it), whereas attack roles have all kinds of modifiers that can be added.

Balance Note 2: The campaign this will be in uses the feat tax rules, which means that someone with Shield Focus will gain an additional +4 against ranged attacks and with this spell that bonus would apply here.

Benefit 2: +5 bonus to reflex saves against technology sources requiring a reflex save (like bombs).

Balance Note: This looks apples to apples to me

Purpose of Thread: I'm playing Iron Gods, but am still pretty low level. Before I approach my GM with this new spell to research, I would love to get feedback from the greater community to help iron out problems I didn't foresee.

Feat suggestion: Combat Reflexes. Lots of stuff gets reach. Monstrous physique and Giant forms are, as noted already, nice options for weapons and combat reflexes makes them better.

You might also might add improved familiar as a good feat. Tiny creatures that are polymorphed get +4 Str -2 Dex on top of what the polymorph spell gives. The only improved familiar I've looked at is the Imp, a tiny creature that starts with a 10 Str, and with size bonus + polymorph tiny bonus + enhancement bonus can add up to something respectable. I would guess there are other familiars, improved or otherwise, that are similarly attractive.

Aeric Blackberry wrote:

In fact, it is quite an issue for the spells because you need some piece of the creature whose form you try to assume as a material component.

It is also common sense. No master wants a player repeatly shapechanging in a creature that does not exist in his campaign.

Does the material component cost anything?? No? So the standard component pouch contains what is needed to use the spell. Complete 'non issue' by core rules. If 'common sense' means ignoring the rules, I guess we have different definitions.

The vast majority of the guides online won't be nearly as much use to those players forced to play with overly controlling type GMs. They are based on the RAW of the game, imposing more limitations is something the authors cannot predict. Using the actual rules of the game can be relied upon across the board, then you can do whatever tweaking needed on your end.

The RAW workaround is for the GM is to assign a price for something like a Eurayle scale. Realistically, something like that is rare and would have value both in terms of risk required to get one, and their value to monstrous physique casters. I would guess, RAI that requirement is there specifically so GMs have an in game way of controlling access to such potent options. I mean, if you can pull off a full attack against a CR10 dragon (DC 18ish save vs. Fort +11, with cumulative +2 DC / hit) you could one shot it for one spell (Dex damage is nasty against dragons).

That isn't likely to happen of course, Dragons are smart and capable and chance of a level 10 PC hitting a CR 10 dragon six consecutive times is pretty unlikely. This is just to illustrate the point. If my GM said, well Eurayle scales go for about 3 gold on the open market, when they are for sale... I'd get it. Especially after he saw me use it in action and told me your supply of Eurayle pieces is exhausted.

Mounted Combat uses your immeadiate action, which uses up your swift action on your next turn. Meaning if you use this ability you can't use it more than once per turn, and that you can't use it next turn, nor can you use anything else that requires a swift or immeadiate action that turn either. Couple that with now your spending thousands of gp to be able to possibly avoid 1 attack every other turn and never getting to use your swift or immeadiate actions for something else. It's a trap ability that sounds good but isn't really.

You can do it every turn unless I'm missing something. It expends your swift action for your next turn. When your next turn is over, and someone attacks your mount, you can then use another immediate action to try and negate it. And at higher levels, you can snag trick riding to do it twice / turn. Getting a high ride bonus for the purpose of avoiding attacks against your mount seems well worth it, especially considering that an attack against your mount is not an attack against a member of the party and boosting skills is a lot cheaper and easier then AC.

Moreover, if there was a parry skill you could use in the same way to parry a blow against you with a feat, I think it would see widespread adoption. #my2cent

You could...buy a warhorse or similar. I know, not magical enough.

You could summon a monster. It only lasts rounds/level of course and you'd probably have to ride bareback.

As mentioned above, MP II on a familiar works. Centaur was just the first thing to spring to mind, there's probably other forms & possibly better you could polymorph a familiar into.

Warhorse is fine. Getting the warhorse in and out of dungeons is what concerns me. For example, our current dungeon requires us to swim under disease infested water for a few rounds and then climb up the side of a cliff. A war trained giant Gecko could maybe do this... Not sure how well it would react to the bad water though.

I'll have another look at the summon monster lists. I probably don't need to control it in battle as I do that magically, and any attack that hits the summoned creature instead of a PC is advantage gained, so a -5 penalty to rise is not terrible.

*Slaps forehead: Trick Riding feat! Not until level 9, but that solves the expensive saddle problem.

I got with my GM and he allowed a War Saddle (called out specifically to fit odd mounts and change shape) to combine with a polymorphic pouch (as a saddlebag in the war saddle), at a cost of 12,500 (5,000gp war saddle + 5000 x 1.5 polymorphic pouch).

Expensive, but it solves the problem.

Now I'm looking at mounts I can use between level 5 (mounted Combat) and level 9 (Improved Familiar consular imp). At first I thought phantom steed, but a strict reading of the rules might make it unsuitable;

1. It is not combat trained. I don't know that a quasi real Phantasm feels fear, and as it does not have an intelligence, wisdom or charisma I might be able to successfully argue that spending a move (or on failed ride check full) round action to control in combat is unnecessary. I guess I'll wait and see on that issue.

2. The spell specifies it, "does not fight." Which probably means ride by attack is fine. But might rule out charging. Charge rules specify that an attack may be performed at the end of the charge, meaning it's possible that the phantom steed can charge but does not make the attack as part of the charge. Or does not fight could mean does not charge either.

Polymorph familiar gets you a size small animal only, though with varying abilities as you gain caster levels, and it only lasts a minute/level. There are other polymorph spells of course and with share spells you can cast them on most familiars. Still, if your plan requires that spell you might want to reconsider and if not it's possible that a different spell might get around the problem by not being a type which merges all the equipment - if you can cast monstrous physique II then centaurs don't have equipment merge into them, and are obviously a shape suitable for riding for example.

I don't know that polymorphic pouch itself would work, but thank you so much for pointing the item out! This item provides a RAW example of a polymorphic wonderous item that does not meld. It's a bit unfortunate the pouch does not exactly correlate to a bag of holding type I or type II for easy identification of how Paizo priced the magic ability of not melding, but at least it gives me a starting point to discuss with my GM.

Again, thanks so much!

Polymorph familiar gets you a size small animal only, though with varying abilities as you gain caster levels, and it only lasts a minute/level. There are other polymorph spells of course and with share spells you can cast them on most familiars. Still, if your plan requires that spell you might want to reconsider and if not it's possible that a different spell might get around the problem by not being a type which merges all the equipment - if you can cast monstrous physique II then centaurs don't have equipment merge into them, and are obviously a shape suitable for riding for example.

Right you are. I thought at level 7 the small restriction was removed, but on another read through I think yours is the correct interpretation.

Beast shape II and monstrous physique II are both level 4 spells, and I like pounce and tigers more than centaurs, but certainly a valid option.

Okay so I'm in a mostly rules as written (RAW) game, with the sole exception that players are gestalt. I'm rocking a cleric/Wizard and after a bit of research have discovered that a high base attack bonus for the master + polymorph familiar plus level 7 to get beast shape ii with the polymorph familiar spell means that riding an imp improved familiar polymorphed into a tiger (a creature specifically called out in RAW as suitable for riding) could actually be formidable in combat (str 10 start, +4 poly rules for starting at size tiny, +4 str from spell, +x from other buffs. Anyway, all those mechanics I have worked out.

The problem I'm running into is a saddle. And it is frustrating. Mount gives you a mount and a saddle for 2hrs/level. I can conjure armor ala instant armor. There is even a magic saddle in RAW that specifically says is made for unusual creatures and resizes to fit magically, but, like all other equipment would meld into the body when the polymorph familiar spell is cast.

The only thing I can think of besides carrying the right saddle around and then putting it on the creature (which I can't find rules for but in real world I guess takes about a minute) is to make a wonderous item granting a +5 ride bonus to offset the penalty for bareback.

Does anyone know a better way to solve the saddle problem, such that I can cast the spell and mount with saddle in the same turn?

Edit:
"Items that provide constant bonuses and do not need to be activated continue to function while melded in this way (with the exception of armor and shield bonuses, which cease to function)."

A saddle is neither armor nor shield, and the War Saddle does give a constant +5 competence bonus to ride. The +5 competence bonus is clearly still in effect, but does that "contue to function" clause also apply to the saddle offsetting the bareback penalty?

If I were splitting hairs, I'd say it's plausible. My gut says no.