Rubila

Snowlilly's page

Organized Play Member. 2,226 posts (2,265 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character. 4 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,226 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Random and amusing thought:

A few weeks ago there was an extensive argument where people argued at great length that improvised weapons were not "weapons".

Does that mean you can kill swarms with improvised weapons? Or do we use whichever rules interpretation is least favorable, reversing position whenever the previously used argument suddenly offers an unintended advantage?


John Murdock wrote:
we talk about whirlwind special attack of the air elemental, not the feat, which say you do damage equal to your slam damage like trample

The whirlwind special attack is a different matter.

Ask yourself:

1. Would an enhancement bonus to a creatures slam attack grant a damage bonus to that creatures whirlwind attack?

2. Is the air elemental making AoE slam attacks or using slamming as a proxy to gauge the strength of an unrelated ability?

3. Is a tornado a weapon?

Answering these questions is another exercise in common sense (refer to linked developer posts stating common sense is both assumed and required). Arguments can be made either way for #1 and #2, #3 is definitely a no. (At least in context. Alchemists fire is, technically, used as a weapon, but is not considered such in context.)


Brain_in_a_Jar wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Common sense would seem to dictate that an extraordinary ability that doesn't say it is a weapon, or that it is using a weapon, is not a weapon.
SKR wrote:
Because the game doesn't have a rule for everything, because it assumes the players have common sense to know that you don't need rules for everything.

1. Trample specifically calls out to use slam damage.

2. Slam is a natural weapon.
3. Similar abilities, also named Trample and derived from the same combat maneuver, specify the damage dealt comes directly from a natural weapon.

Common sense: A natural weapon is named in the ability. Similar abilities specify the damage is dealt directly by the natural weapon. Lacking a statement specifying otherwise, we infer that the natural weapon named as the source of damage is being used to inflict the damage.

I guess the same holds true for Dragon Roar and Whirlwind then as well?

Even though Dragon Roar bases damage off the user's unarmed strike, damage is specified as coming from the roar itself. It is no more a weapon based attack than the spell Stone Call. The same is true of Efreeti Touch. Unarmed Strike damage is used as a baseline, but the actual damage is dealt by an AoE energy attack. Unlike trample, you don't physically strike the opponent with your natural weapon(or unarmed strike). You are using the scaling stat as a gauge for how potent the energy unleashed by the monks alternate usage of is.

Whirlwind attack definitely involves striking your opponents with the wielded weapon.

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

This is the problem with your common sense over what the rules actually say argument. Your common sense and my common sense are apparently different. Which is why we should adhere to the rules in the rules forum.

But I'm done for real this time. No point in arguing with people who claim that the rules say things that they quite literally don't.

While providing an entire page of developer comments stating this is exactly what is both intended and required for the rules to function.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Honestly, a lot of attack rolls and saves are ones I wouldn't care to preface. Especially if I have a good idea of the outcome. Spellcrafting a doom spell means I'm not going to be thinking about rerolling. Spellcrafting a destruction spell would. Likewise, I'm not wasting a reroll on attacking a goblin mook, but I might for the antipaladin that is mowing through the party.

You don't know if it's Doom or Destruction until you succeed on your spellcraft check.


Yes, this heals undead.

Yes, this is broken if you have allies that heal from negative energy.


Imbicatus wrote:

Spell Resistance applies to everything that has SR: yes, regardless of whether it is harmless or not. In order to not apply, by RAW you must spend a standard action to lower your SR for one round.

SR is a double edged sword, and it can hurt you as much as it helps you.

Spell Resistance wrote:
A creature’s spell resistance never interferes with its own spells, items, or abilities.

Spell resistance make it more difficult to receive beneficial spells from others, it in no way impedes a character's ability to cast upon himself.


Melkiador wrote:

Who said anything about circumventing. I just want to know what happens when you put armor on an eidolon. It says, it "interferes with the summoner's connection to the eidolon", but doesn't actually tell you what that means. So, if I take a helpless eidolon and put armor on it, does it get unsummoned? Does its body magically slide out of the armor?

I mean, if they wanted to limit the armor of eidolons, why not just say, "The eidolon cannot benefit from armor worn". That'd have the same effect without creating weird and goofy side-effects.

DM fiat.

There are no explicit rules.


Mage Armor is not worn, it is an effect.

Against spells that would place armor on another entity, the eidolon is not a valid target. As such, it may not be targeted by these spells.


Touch spells with multiple charges dissipate if you cast another spell prior to using all charges.


Grizzly the Archer wrote:

I haven't played Pathfinder in about 2 years but every now and then I'll take a look at some of the new books that come out. What are some of the more powerful builds out there now?

I figure Zen Archer Monk and the pounce barbarian are still near the top. I'm looking for some more ideas for a few builds so I don't know what's the hype right now, especially with all the supplements and books that have been out.

Any help and assistance would be greatly appreciated.

It's more about the player than anything else.

Most classes can break the game if a skilled enough player puts the effort into it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samasboy1 wrote:
The word "enemy" isn't really a mechanical term.

The words "enemy" and "opponent" have very mechanical effects when used in the descriptions of many spells.

E.g. Invisibility. Try telling your DM, "I don't consider the people I just hit with my Fireball to be opponents, so my Invisibility spells does not break."


Astral Projection include a temporal stasis effect on the targets.


A biped eidolon can have a mount.

It cannot take the mount evolution.

Also: tauric is a base form, which interestingly enough does not qualify for the mount evolution.


KingOfAnything wrote:
Why does the text of blur get to override the text of mirror image?

Because Blur can prevent the triggering condition of Mirror Image from occurring.

If I never get hit, Mirror Image rules are never invoked.


No, for the same reason that you cannot destroy images with a Fireball.

Mirror Image wrote:
Spells and effects that do not require an attack roll affect you normally and do not destroy any of your figments


Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Common sense would seem to dictate that an extraordinary ability that doesn't say it is a weapon, or that it is using a weapon, is not a weapon.
SKR wrote:
Because the game doesn't have a rule for everything, because it assumes the players have common sense to know that you don't need rules for everything.

1. Trample specifically calls out to use slam damage.

2. Slam is a natural weapon.
3. Similar abilities, also named Trample and derived from the same combat maneuver, specify the damage dealt comes directly from a natural weapon.

Common sense: A natural weapon is named in the ability. Similar abilities specify the damage is dealt directly by the natural weapon. Lacking a statement specifying otherwise, we infer that the natural weapon named as the source of damage is being used to inflict the damage.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

Here is the RAW you asked for:

Quote:
If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. If it is a figment, the figment is destroyed. If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss.

If a target is missed due to concealment, then the attack is not a hit.

If a target is missed due to concealment, then the attack does not 'miss by 5 or less'.

How do I support the last statement? If an attack misses by 5 or less, that means if you add 5 to the attack, it would be a hit. If an attack misses due to concealment, adding 5 to the attack would still be a miss.

There are your RAW-backed facts.

You have to account for all rules applicable to the attack, not just the rules for one specific effect taken in isolation. You forgot to include the RAW for concealment, which is applicable in this instance.

Quote:
Concealment gives the subject of a successful attack a 20% chance that the attacker missed because of the concealment. Make the attack normally—if the attacker hits, the defender must make a miss chance d% roll to avoid being struck.
If the concealment roll is successful, the target is never struck and the trigger condition for Mirror Image is never met.
Er, yes, that's what I've been saying. If the target is missed because of blur, an image doesn't disappear.

That is what I have been stating. I even quoted both segments or RAW earlier.


Jurassic Pratt wrote:
I could literally apply that to everything. The rules don't say that I can't make my sword out of cheese and have it do normal damage.

Thus the parts about applying common sense.

If you're trying to make your sword out of cheese, it is something you most likely lack even a passing acquaintance with.

Quote:

What we have here is an Ex ability that is not called out as a weapon. So its not a weapon unless something says otherwise. It's an Extraordinary ability that does damage. Plain and Simple.[/quote[What we have is an EX ability that references a natural weapon for damage resolution.

In other, very similar rules, it is explicitly called out that an attack is made using the named natural weapon.

While it is not explicitly stated as a natural weapon, the point of the thread I linked was:

fretgod99 wrote:
There is a trend in a lot of this commentary. And that trend is that the rules are not written as explicitly and all-encompassing as you seem to think. There is grey area. There is room for ambiguity. There is room for inference. And not only is there room for inference, but the designers of the game expect us to do so. The rules are written expecting us to sometimes have to draw conclusions about rules that aren't explicitly stated. Obviously, that's not always ideal. Despite that, the alternative is far worse
And I think I'll be leaving this thread now. Because apparently we're not allowed to use rules in the rule sforums. Just our own opinions on how things work.

We are using rules.

We are also expected, per the many developer posts I linked to a few minutes ago, use common sense.


Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
Both can be overcome by invisibility purge its a level 3 spell.

Fair enough.


Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
That's a feat called trample that is not related to the Extraordinary Monster Ability Trample. They don't even reference each other.

Both were mentioned for completeness and that fact that there are differences in resolution is noted.

Both the feat and the Universal Monster Ability are derivative of the Overrun combat maneuver and are resolved in a similar fashion, save where notated differently.

One of the differences is that the feat resolves as a hoof attack vs. as a slam attack for the UMR.

Both hooves and slams are natural weapons.

One does not resolve as a slam attack actually. One does damage equal to a slam attack. There is no attack roll or mention of it actually being a slam attack.

I believe most of the quotes in this post are relevant to your position.


John Murdock wrote:
Pratt, he is saying that why should we let a swarm be immune to weapon damage if we take common sense since its easy to squash multiple insect with a bludgeoning weapon especially if there are thousand in one square

Real world physics are not modeled in this game system.


KingOfAnything wrote:
Why do you think swarms are immune to weapon damage? If you are going to use 'common sense' to say that trample is weapon damage, you should use your 'common sense' to realize a swarm isn't immune.

If "common sense" were common, threads on this forum would be very short.

Most responses here are heavily biased with even basic rules of English rewritten or ignored to support arguments when standard readings fail to support the championed position.

Forget anything that required linking together two or more rules and having anyone agree on the correct interaction. It's not going to happen. Most people are only capable of focusing on a single rule or paragraph at a time, to the exclusion of everything else. Try using three or more rules or effects to reach a conclusion and the thread typically melts down as people violently reject anything they are incapable of following.


Jurassic Pratt wrote:
That's a feat called trample that is not related to the Extraordinary Monster Ability Trample. They don't even reference each other.

Both were mentioned for completeness and that fact that there are differences in resolution is noted.

Both the feat and the Universal Monster Ability are derivative of the Overrun combat maneuver and are resolved in a similar fashion, save where notated differently.

One of the differences is that the feat resolves as a hoof attack vs. as a slam attack for the UMR.

Both hooves and slams are natural weapons.


John Murdock wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:


How on earth does trample include STR damage if it isn't weapon damage?

Trample uses a natural weapon (hoof).

As such, it uses all the modifiers to damage that would apply to your mounts hoof. It is also subject to most of the limitations, with the exception that the damage is applied to an area when using trample.

Yes, it uses a weapon to do damage.

It's weapon damage.

its not a weapon damage

''targets of a trample take an amount of damage equal to the trampling creature’s slam damage + 1-1/2 times its str modifier''

that's what the trample universal monster rule say so its not a weapon damage it use the natural weapon of the creature as a base to say how much damage it does

Trample is defined in more than one place.

Trample wrote:

While mounted, you can ride down opponents and trample them under your mount.

Prerequisites: Ride 1 rank, Mounted Combat.

Benefit: When you attempt to overrun an opponent while mounted, your target may not choose to avoid you. Your mount may make one hoof attack against any target you knock down, gaining the standard +4 bonus on attack rolls against prone targets.

In this case, it is clear that an attack is being made using the trampler's natural weapon.

In the case of the Univeral Monster Rules, the Slam natural weapon is used instead of a hoof and specific rules are added for success and avoiding damage.


_Ozy_ wrote:

Here is the RAW you asked for:

Quote:
If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. If it is a figment, the figment is destroyed. If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss.

If a target is missed due to concealment, then the attack is not a hit.

If a target is missed due to concealment, then the attack does not 'miss by 5 or less'.

How do I support the last statement? If an attack misses by 5 or less, that means if you add 5 to the attack, it would be a hit. If an attack misses due to concealment, adding 5 to the attack would still be a miss.

There are your RAW-backed facts.

You have to account for all rules applicable to the attack, not just the rules for one specific effect taken in isolation. You forgot to include the RAW for concealment, which is applicable in this instance.

Quote:
Concealment gives the subject of a successful attack a 20% chance that the attacker missed because of the concealment. Make the attack normally—if the attacker hits, the defender must make a miss chance d% roll to avoid being struck.

If the concealment roll is successful, the target is never struck and the trigger condition for Mirror Image is never met.


Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

Mythic invisibility explicitly calls out all spells for detection of level 1 and 2 so glitter dust and fairy fire are still out.

I think invis purge would work, but basically nothing else.

There is no Mythic Greater Invisibility.

Mythic Invisibility + Undetectable allows you to overcome things like Glitterdust, but stops working if you attack.

Greater Invisibility + Undetectable allows you to attack with impunity, but can be overcome with Invisibility Purge, etc.


_Ozy_ wrote:


How on earth does trample include STR damage if it isn't weapon damage?

Trample uses a natural weapon (hoof).

As such, it uses all the modifiers to damage that would apply to your mounts hoof. It is also subject to most of the limitations, with the exception that the damage is applied to an area when using trample.


Diego Rossi wrote:


So 10,000 creatures in a 10' * 10' square. About 100 in each square feet.
An elephant feet is about 2 square feet. 200 dead gnats every time it step. 4-5 steps to pass through the swarm area, so about 1,000 death vermin.

Trampling animals don't have small feet (note that, rule wise, a horse can't trample). So when something that is decidedly larger and more powerful than a fly-swatter pass over them it should have some effect.

You can disrupt an entire 10'x10' swarm by applying damage to a single 5' squire.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:


If the images are blurry, they enjoy the same level of concealment as the caster.

They do not.

The caster IS blurry. The actual location is at point A. He's kinda blurry and an attacker might be mistaken in thinking He's at B and swing for B instead (about 1 time in 5)

The image LOOKS blurry. The image is distorted, it is pulled out like a funhouse mirror, but the image isn't blurry. It's faking it. The image looks like it's at point A it IS at point A, but in order to make itself look blurry it has to actually be in point B to make it look like the caster. If the funhouse mirror makes you look blurry , anywhere you hit a blur you're hitting the funhouse mirror.

1. The images are visual only illusions. Looks are the entirety of the images existence. Since the images are doubles of the caster, if the caster looks blurry, so does the image.

2. Concealment is a visual only effect. If something meets the visual requirements of concealment it is concealed.

Not that this changes the fact that an attacker is required to successfully hit his opponent prior to checking for Mirror Image. A condition that is not met if the attacker misses due to concealment.


19 people marked this as a favorite.
ShroudedInLight wrote:
102: Adding class levels to anything, seriously nothing quite screws with a player like an already frustrating monster with class levels.

Adding class levels to monsters is one of my preferred methods of balancing encounters.

It amazing how much fun it can be to add a could of swashbuckler levels to a succubus.

And dress her up as a pirate.

And use my valley girl accent.

.

.

My players requested I not do this again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:


And that's still doing nothing to address the counter argument that blur is making the images blurry when their target is the caster

If the images were not blurry, they would not be doubles of the caster. They would be visually distinct.

If the images are blurry, they enjoy the same level of concealment as the caster.

Mirror Image states the images are doubles; there is no visual distinction between caster and image, i.e. the images must become blurry for the rules text of Mirror Image to be maintained. The same holds true for all other scenarios, e.g. displacement, fog, dim light.

Mirror Image wrote:
This spell creates a number of illusory doubles of you that inhabit your square. These doubles make it difficult for enemies to precisely locate and attack you.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:

.

Step 2: point out in RAW where concealment granted by a targeted spell is treated differently than concealment from environmental conditions in regards to miss chance.
Thats your problem. You are granting concealment from a spell to something that is not the target of the spell. Show me where that happens, "Raw"

You are granting concealment to the character. Mirror Image is not checked until after you resolve if an attack hits or misses.

.

.

More directly:

Mirror Image wrote:
This spell creates a number of illusory doubles of you that inhabit your square. These doubles make it difficult for enemies to precisely locate and attack you.

The images are all duplicates of the casters.

Duplicate, in this context, means visually identical.

Concealment is a visual effect.

If the character is concealed (blurry, displaced, in dim light, etc.) so are the duplicates. They would not be identical if they were more, or less, visible than the caster.

This is also why Invisibility does not work with Mirror Image. The effects of the spell duplicate on the images, i.e. they are invisible as well. If the effects of the spell did not duplicate on the images, you would be left with images to attack, but no character. We know this scenario cannot be true.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:


The roll for concealment occurs after the attack roll and prior to inflicting damage.

Citation?
Concealment wrote:
Concealment gives the subject of a successful attack a 20% chance that the attacker missed because of the concealment.
Mirror Image wrote:
If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment

Per Mirror Image, you do not check the target (real or image) until after you resolve if the target is hit or missed. If you miss (successful concealment check), you never meet the conditions to trigger a check vs. Mirror Image.


Ferious Thune wrote:

I think you've got those backwards. You have a .1 chance to hit rolling once and a .0975 chance to hit at least once rolling twice.

You are giving up the .0025 chance that you hit twice, but that's included in the .0975 chance that you hit at least once already.

It's difficult to get .95^2 with a single roll.

And yes, the 1/400 chance is included in the .0975 (The chance for one or more successful attacks.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:
toastedamphibian wrote:

Eh.. okay, less snarky attempt.

You can kill a mosquito with a backhand. Or break its wing, or blind it. At that scale ratio the difference between dead and injured is not particularly relevant. Even if you miss, the turbulence of your attempt will frequently cause it to fall.

Even if only 1% of the creatures impacted by a trampling elephant are killed, many more will fall under its feet, and others will be knocked from the swarm and scattered. Plenty of justification for narratively allowing a trampler to contribute to the dissolution of a swarm, fkying or otherwise.

I have a mosquito in my room right now. I've hit it several times with my hand. It does nothing. .

Mosquitos hard to kill


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:

]

The character become blury, the images copy the character.

Not in dispute. But the image isn't actually blurry. The image is altering itself so that it looks like you do blurry. The images quasi existance in space is where it actually appears to be.

Quote:
If you roll => target's AC and fail to hit the target due to concealment (the attack roll is never against an image), nothing was hit. Not the target, not an image, nothing.

That doesn't work. The images aren't concealed. Blur and displacement don't work on "you and your illusions" they only work on you. you can't miss them from concealment, so you only roll to see if you miss from concealment if you're swinging at the real mccoy.

Step 1: ask yourself how your argument plays out in dim light.

Step 2: point out in RAW where concealment granted by a targeted spell is treated differently than concealment from environmental conditions in regards to miss chance.


_Ozy_ wrote:

Likewise, you roll for concealment if 'the attack is successful'.

So, we can't roll for mirror image until we know that the concealment fails, and we can't roll for concealment until we know that mirror image fails.

Hooray! Invulnerability! ;)

A successful attack = rolling >= the opponents AC

Hitting your opponent = physically connecting.

The roll for concealment occurs after the attack roll and prior to inflicting damage. Concealment stops a successful attack roll from physically connecting.


Scientific Scrutiny wrote:

The spell description does say that it has to be an object you can see. If we take that to mean see the object in its entirety, then that sets a hard limit as the visual frame within 400 ft. +40 ft. per level.

To the optics copter!

Are we going to argue mountains cannot be seen because they are too big?

Makes you wonder what all those trees are growing on ...


Isonaroc wrote:
13. Rappan Athuk

My favorite dungeon.


Ferious Thune wrote:
As came up, tactics is the other suggestion that can help. Flanking, finding a way to make the opponent prone, or in the case of a Magus, if you're having trouble hitting, you can truestrike, or you don't have to spell combat every round. In general, I think you're better off using spell combat for the extra roll, but if you're ever in a situation where you only hit on a 19 or 20 on the die, you're slightly more likely to hit once if you only attack once.

If you normally only hit on a 19-20, you are better off eating the penalty and rolling twice.

1-.95^2 = .0975 miss chance
1-.9 = .1 miss chance.

You also get a .0025 (1/400) chance of hitting on both.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:

It never really defines trample as an area of effect attack, but rather an effect that targets a specific number of creatures, i.e. the creatures in its path.

Not sure.

"the creatures in its path" is not a specific number, it is a specific location relative to the trampler.


Ravingdork wrote:
If I remember correctly, the defender only rolls for concealment when he would otherwise be successfully hit in the first place.

Correct. But you only roll for Mirror Image if the attack actually hits the target.

Mirror Image wrote:
If the attack is a hit

.

This extends beyond just spell effects that grant concealment, e.g. fog, dim light, etc. Mirror Image does not, for example, suddenly negate environmental effects that grant concealment.


Grandlounge wrote:
Potion or ward of reduce person is a great buff to ac and accuracy that has a net zero effect on damage when using Dex to damage.

A net increase to DPR.

Same damage/attack but you hit more frequently.


Zarius wrote:

AC 20 at level 1, oracle:

18 dex, plus racial bonus (elf, Kitsune, halfling etc) to tap it to 20.
Armor of Bones from the Bones Revelation.
Light Shield.

Total cost, 3 gp (9 for steel).

You could up it to 23 AC with a heavy shield, size mod, AND a kit (if your GM will let you stack a kilt on the Armor of Bones.)

Also, OP? You're a Magus. Your spells aren't completely useless in battle. And you should, HOPEFULLY, have some dex or str... If you're a dex/int build trying to use melee, grab a rapier and take Weapon Finesse. :P

There is a huge difference between characters and NPC's.

Scenarios very rarely use optimized builds.


Lady-J wrote:
why are you fighting a white dragon at level 1?

There is this one scenario, the 3rd in an arc.

Character's using that as their first arc would encounter the white dragon at level 1.

Hopefully players don't skip the first two scenarios in the arc and show up to the fight with just starting gear.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
An illusion cannot be blurred by another illusion. The illusion can look blurry because you are blurry, and you can be displaced, but by definition the illusion IS what it looks like. If you hit the blurry elf shaped illusion to the left of the elf, that is the image, you've hit the image, you pop the image.

The character become blury, the images copy the character.

If you roll => target's AC and fail to hit the target due to concealment (the attack roll is never against an image), nothing was hit. Not the target, not an image, nothing.

If you are successful with your attack against the character, including any additional rolls for concealment, you then check to see If an image was hit or the intended target. This is the final roll (baring immediate actions, etc.).


Kileanna wrote:
It never gets completely useless, but when you get to fight enemies with true sight, scent, etc. Or enemies that don't need to mke attack rolls, like spellcasters. Then Mirror Image becomes pretty useless. Having high skill rolls so your character knows when an enemy won't be affected by your Mirror Image is really useful.

It just means you have to invest in something that makes True Seeing less reliable.

The spell Non-Detection, for example.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Now, if you have blur up, do your mirror images also get a 20% miss chance? ;)

If a character has both Mirror Image and Blur or Displacement the effects stack.

First you roll to see if you actually hit the character (concealment), then you check to see if it was the character or an image that was hit. A miss due to concealment does not destroy an image.

Blindness / closure of eyes is it's own thing and negates all of the above.


avr wrote:

Isn't that going to be dependent on at least 4 attributes? Wis and Int for casting and the VMC, Con because you want to survive melee, Dex or Str to fight with (& at least some dex if you go strength-primary). Since most offensive spiritualist spells rely on saves you need a fair bit of wisdom.

Assuming that you use dervish dance then the ideal race has bonuses to dex & wis and penalties only to strength or charisma. This means vanara, grippli, undine, dual-talented human or garuda-blooded aasimar.

Once you have weapon finesse and dervish dance then you could go for a combat maneuver, or just keep getting feats to improve your main combat ability. Weapon focus & greater WF, maybe the crane style line work for the latter. Toppling spell may be useful, there are a few force spiritualist spells.

Go with a Dervish Dance build, don't need to invest in strength. Scimitars are already an optimal weapon for spellstrike, might as well take full advantage.

Plumekin Aasimar is a good racial choice.

VMC is a tough choice, you're eventually giving up a feat for spellstrike, which you already have.


Yes, feats granted by items count towards prereqs. If you the item, you lose usage of all feats that require the prereq.

For "as if", it comes down to the specific wording.