Thaliak's page

While it doesn't address the strength concerns that some players have with prepared casters in general or Wizards in particular, I've enjoyed both Wizards I've played in part because they allowed me to explore the spell lists. As a spontaneous caster, I would have felt obligated to pick spells that looked strong. With prepared casting, I could try spells that seemed weak or situational, then drop them the next day if my theory proved correct.

Sometimes spells I thought would be strong, such as Mud Pit, Confusion and the Level 8 version of Phantom Prison, proved unimpressive or inappropriate for the party. In other cases, spells I thought would be unremarkable, such as Phantasmal Calamity, ended up being fun and powerful. Phantasmal Calamity may do less damage and have less flexibility than Chain Lightning, but it targets a different save and has a brutal critical failure effect. I thought the critical failure effect would never come up, but since the spell only makes sense against swarms of low-level enemies, it occurred frequently enough to be satisfying.

Wizards do have to spend gold learning spells to experiment, but I don't think that's a huge concern beyond low levels because of how quickly wealth scales. The 70 gold required to learn a fifth-rank spell may be significant at Level 9, but by level 11 or 13, it's nothing. And Wizards who want to focus on experimenting can take Magical Shorthand to reduce the cost.

To be clear, I'm not saying that Wizards or other prepared casters are stronger than spontaneous casters. However, I enjoyed playing them even in campaigns that rarely involved scouting because they let me try spells I'd otherwise ignore. At tables where optimization is unnecessary, that's a welcome benefit. Turning into a phoenix to burn a troll or heightening Hallucination to send little Cupids after embodiments of hatred may not have been optimal moves, but they still make me chuckle.

Wizards have at least two feats that can affect saves: Irresistible Magic, which reduces the status bonus to saving throws that some enemies have, and Knowledge is Power, which can impose a -1 Circumstance penalty to the next saving throw an enemy makes if you critically succeed on a knowledge check about that creature. I haven't had the chance to try the latter, but the former comes up occasionally.

Having said that, I'll reiterate the advice Dubious Scholar has given to focus on spells that have a meaningful effect even on a successful save (e.g., Laughing Fit, Revealing Light, Roaring Applause, Slow and Synesthesia) or that target multiple enemies (e.g., the Level 5 version of Command and the Level 6 versions of Roaring Applause and Slow). Critical failures and failures will come up, and sometimes they can decide a fight on their own, but enemies succeed on saves frequently enough that it's best not to gamble on failures unless you know the enemies are a lower level than you.

Only push and pull effects can trigger an AoO, other forced movement does not. While water does have three impulses that include push a possible outcome, the water junction 5' move is not one of them.

I thought no forced movement could trigger reactions. From Archives of Nethys' Forced Movement page:

When an effect forces you to move, or if you start falling, the distance you move is defined by the effect that moved you, not by your Speed. Because you’re not acting to move, this doesn’t trigger reactions that are triggered by movement.

Nethys hasn't updated to the Remaster yet, but I doubt this rule changed. The text goes on to say, "If you’re pushed or pulled, you can usually be moved through hazardous terrain, pushed off a ledge, or the like. Abilities that reposition you in some other way can’t put you in such dangerous places unless they specify otherwise." I suspect that's the distinction between push and pull that prompted the idea pushes and pulls can trigger AoO.

I'm curious how much use other players have gotten out of moving enemies five feet. I can see the value in a party with melee characters who use reach weapons and have Reactive Strike, as a push can force melee enemies without reach to step toward their target. A push might also enable an allied spellcaster or archer to move without provoking a Reactive Strike.

If the Kineticist's melee allies don't use reach weapons, I imagine Water's push will be more situational and sometimes counterproductive. Fortunately, it's optional.

Is there someone that takes skilled though?

Of the 12 characters I've played, eight have been humans with the Skilled heritage. The exceptions were a Druid who wanted the Gnome ancestry feats that allow talking to animals, an Elven Rogue in a campaign where elves played a central role in the story, a Duskwalker in a hack and slash campaign about fighting undead, and an Ancient Elf Monk who wanted to combine might and magic from Level 1 and didn't have access to the Magus.

In one case, the Skilled heritage allowed the character to take a feat he otherwise wouldn't qualify for. For the other characters, I took it because I like skill increases. If I don't need to use free archetype feats to realize a character's concept or patch weaknesses, I'll spend them on archetypes that boost skills. I doubt I'm the only one who enjoys versatile characters.

Incidentally, half of my characters have had Intelligence as a primary or secondary stat. "A sharp mind can overcome anything" is a big part of the fantasy I'm looking for when I play tabletop RPGs. I'd still consider Intelligence weaker than every other attribute and would love to see it buffed in a future edition.

But be wary of granting too many skill increases for Intelligence. Go too far, and it'll be too easy for characters to step on each other's toes, especially in large groups that use the free archetype variant.

I'd add Girzanje's March, a buff spell that provides bonuses to attack rolls, Fortitude saves and most Will saves. I had trouble justifying it before getting Effortless Concentration as a Bard, but once Effortless Concentration comes into play, it's like casting Inspire Courage and Inspire Defense at once without needing a Performance check to get a bonus beyond +1.

Reddit user AquelePedro is working on a list of changes. Right now, it includes ancestries, skills, skill feats, general feats and some classes. The roadmap suggests AqueloPedro eventually plans to do spells.

YouTuber BadLuckGamer has published several videos on YouTube about the changes the remaster makes to classes and spells. While he misses some details, the videos are thorough and concise, especially if you increase the playback speed.

So, just checking my reading, but now a ruffian rogue can sneak attack with bombs as long as the damage die is d6, correct? What if its 2d6? Seems like it should as the die size is still d6... My ruffian was looking at multi-classing to fighter or something to be able to throw dread ampules if needed.

To my understanding, any Rogue can sneak attack with bombs, regardless of die size. Sneak attack states:

When your enemy can’t properly defend itself, you take advantage to deal extra damage. If you Strike a creature that has the off-guard condition (page 445) with an agile or finesse melee weapon, an agile or finesse unarmed attack, a ranged weapon attack, or a ranged unarmed attack, you deal an extra 1d6 precision damage. For a ranged attack with a thrown melee weapon, that weapon must also be agile or finesse.

Throwing a bomb is a ranged weapon attack, so it qualifies for sneak attack regardless of how much damage the bomb deals. The limit on damage die sizes in the Ruffian racket is irrelevant, because it only applies to weapons that don't qualify for sneak attack using the criteria in the base feature.

Incidentally, shooting a Barricade Buster is also a ranged weapon attack. If you dream of rolling D10s, master the art of Unconventional Weaponry and recruit a friendly Monk, Barbarian or Fighter to grapple enemies, then strike them precisely from 20-40 feet away. This bad boy may only hold 8 rounds, but if an enemy isn't dead after eight shots, you've got bigger problems.

These posts have been extremely helpful. Thanks.

In the Player Core, the short description for Telekinetic Maneuver, which appears on pages 305 and 310, says it can "Disarm, Reposition, Shove, or Trip a creature telekinetically." The spell description on page 363 omits Reposition.

When I played a Wizard in Outlaws of Alkenstar, I ended up spending most of my feats on the Loremaster, Alchemist and Rogue archetypes so I could excel at knowledge checks or throw bombs as a third action. I no longer have access to the character sheet, but if I remember correctly, the only Wizard feats I took were Reach Spell, Widen Spell (which came from the Metamagic thesis and only saw use once or twice), Nonlethal Spell and Quicken Spell (which I enjoyed).

When I theorycraft Wizards, the other feats that stand out to me are Conceal Spell; Convincing Illusion, which encourages Wizards to invest in a non-save stat and requires them to be within 30 feet of the target; Spell Penetration, one of the few ways I'm aware of to increase the chance enemies fail saving throws without an action; Advanced School Spell, though only for illusionists and diviners; Clever Counterspell, which will rarely come up but should be amazing when it does; Shift Spell, because watching enemies move out of a zone only to find themselves back in it is hilarious; Effortless Concentration, which is available to many casters; Second Chance Spell, though only if I'm playing an enchanter; and two of the Level 20 feats: Metamagic Mastery and Spell Combination. All of these feats say "I truly understand magic" or "I cast this particular type of spell especially well."

At low levels, I also like Cantrip Expansion. With the right campaign and GM, a flying familiar might be fun. However, if my real world goal for the character is to explore familiars, I'll likely play a Witch.

In general, I find the low-level Wizard feats less exciting than the ones available to many classes. Are the low-level feats the main issue for others as well? If so, do you have any ideas for feats that would fill the gap?

Personally, I'd love to see Wizards gain a way to sustain spells that is similar to Cackle. I'd also love early ways to specialize in particular types of spells, but I'm having trouble thinking of ways to do that at Level 2 or 4. Perhaps ward-focused Wizards could get a low-level reaction that weakens enemy magic. Think something like:

Disruptive Gestures
You gain the Recognize Spell skill feat, and at Level 7, the Quick Recognition skill feat. When you use Recognize Spell, treat a success as a Critical Success. If you critically succeed, apply the bonus to all allies affected by the spell.

The system is balanced enough that I can build what I want without worrying about overshadowing someone or feeling useless. There's no need to hold back in a group of newbies or reject my favorite ideas because they won't keep up with experienced players' favorite builds. I can have fun whether I'm building the ultimate combat monster or the singer who spends two ancestry feats. five skill feats, and two class feats learning languages because I like the cover artists who translate songs from anime into English.

A session zero still matters. I've had games where I felt redundant because I brought an Athletics-focused Summoner to a table that also included an Improved Knockdown Fighter and a Wildshape Druid who took Assurance (Athletics) to trip as his third action. I've had my investment in Blessed One lose its charm when a Champion joined the party in the middle of a campaign. And I've stepped on a player's toes by playing a Bard in a group that included a Cleric who also wanted to buff.

But relative to 1E, I'm far less worried that I'll make the game less fun for someone else or feel frustrated because I misread the group. And when I do discover that I made a mistake, it's usually easy to fix with retraining or a conversation with the GM.

Thaliak wrote:

For me, building characters feels less satisfying. Because 2E is so tightly balanced, the characters rarely look powerful on paper. It's hard to see how strong a Fighter is if I focus on its attack bonus, which is just two points higher than a typical martial character's. And the Rogue? Before feats come into play, almost any character can match it in Stealth or Thievery as long as they're willing to invest in Dexterity and dedicate skill increases and items to those skills.

I still enjoy brainstorming characters, but only if I approach it in a different way. When new rules dropped in 1E, I'd ask myself, "How can I use these new toys to create a character who feels busted?" In 2E, it's more, "Does this character sound fun to play?"

Personally, I find that to be absolutely liberating.

I don't have to go looking for feats and character build options that create a broken powered character in order to keep up with the others at the table. I can instead build to a concept and know that the character that I create will be fun and playable.

It also means that I have more freedom of choice in class. If I want to build a stealthy character, I don't have to play a Rogue or Ranger. I can play a stealth Thamuaturge or lockpicking Witch.

Most days, I find it liberating as well. However, this thread is about changes that took a while to get used to. When I first started playing 2E, it frustrated me that no matter how many options I poured over or how much research I did, I couldn't find any options that felt above the curve. The few times I thought I had, I'd missed a rule prohibiting whatever combo had me excited.

I'm glad the game doesn't require optimization, because although I enjoy it, I like spending time with people who don't. The promise of balance was part of what got me interested in 2E. But even so, it took me a while to understand and accept some of the implications.

Have you played a Fighter ?

+2 to hit (and thus to crit) and AoO for free from the start make it a beast of a class.

I have! I only played a Fighter for a few levels, but I've seen five others in play. You're right that Fighters can be beasts, particularly once Disruptive Stance, Combat Reflexes and other high-level feats come into play.

But none of that mattered to me when I started playing. I'd build a Fighter, a Rogue and a Wizard, then compare their numbers and walk away disappointed. If I built a master of weapons, a seasoned diplomat, or a walking textbook in 1E, they'd be leagues ahead of other characters in their areas of expertise. That isn't the case in 2E.

For what it's worth, I play 2E more than I did 1E. My post wasn't meant as a criticism but more as an observation that for people who enjoyed character building in 1E, 2E might take some getting used to.

I'd love it if players could tie Innate spells to Intelligence (for Arcane or Occult) or Wisdom (for Divine and Primal) rather than Charisma. It feels odd to me that an elf who takes Otherworldly Magic to represent time studying the basics of magic uses Charisma rather than Intelligence to cast.

Like the new Unique Patron ability for the Familiars.

What do you think some of those will be?

I don't know how likely this is, but I'd love the ability to use the familiar to position other players. I'm picturing an imp moving next to an enemy, then swapping places with an ally to set up Whirlwind Strike or ensure a Champion reaction can trigger.

If moving the familiar becomes an important part of the Witch's kit, I hope the Witch gets ways to boost the familiar's durability or evasiveness, such as a familiar power or feat that prevents familiars from triggering Attacks of Opportunity.

I enjoyed taking this survey. I was worried that it would be overwhelming, but dividing the changes into categories helped keep them digestable.

I'd love it if rogues got martial proficiency by default or through a Level 1 feat, but I think I understand Sanityfaerie's concern. I play a monk in one of my games who occasionally has no way to use his last action. Since he fights with his fists and feet, it's always bugged me that he should be carrying a shield. I've resisted the temptation to do so because it looks ridiculous to me, but only barely.

On the other hand, I'm glad it's possible to build a sword and shield monk to represent a gladiator or a fighter so skilled he doesn't need armor. I'm not sure I have a way to address optimization pulling characters in directions I find unpleasant without barring concepts others find exciting.

As an aside, it's possible rogues have a bespoke list of martial weapons as a signpost for new players. The list includes the rapier, shortsword and shortbow, options that are strong and compatible with Sneak Attack.

The limited list also makes ancestry feats that grant proficiency more interesting. I've considered playing a dwarf, an ancestry I usually dislike, almost entirely for Explosive Expert, a feat that provides access to bombs and guns.

As others have stressed, PF2E is a teamwork-focused game. It promotes cooperative play in several ways:
1. The dice always matter. Even a Fighter, the most accurate martial in the game, will appreciate the -2 penalty to an enemy's AC from flanking. Against a strong opponent, it might boost the chance of a successful hit from 55% to 65%. Against a boss, it's even more important.
2. Characters have abilities that are primarily useful to other people. For example, one of the games I play in has a Ranger who can identify monsters when he marks them with Hunt Prey. He can trigger some of the weaknesses he learns about, but the Druid and Magus are the only ones with the tools to trigger others.
3. Many characters have abilities that are significantly stronger when used on others. The Cleric could cast Heroism on himself to boost his accuracy, but since Heroism takes two actions to cast, he'll generally only benefit from it once that round. If he buffs the Fighter instead, the Fighter might be able to make two attacks with it on his turn and one more through an Attack of Opportunity.
4. Abilities often have riders that benefit the party. For example, one of my games has a polearm-wielding Fighter with Improved Knockdown, a feat that allows a hit to deal damage and knock someone prone. Since the enemy will provoke an Attack of Opportunity when it stands up, Improved Knockdown is often worthwhile even if the Fighter is the only one who benefits. But in our party, it has the side effect of allowing the Magus and the Summoner's Eidolon to get an Attack of Opportunity as well while flat-footing the enemy for the archer Ranger and the Rogue.
5. Some beneficial abilities don't compete with other actions. For example, a Gunslinger with Fake Out and no other reactions can use it every turn as long as at least one gun is loaded to give allies a circumstance bonus on attacks. That circumstance bonus starts at +1 but eventually reaches +4.
6. Recovering from getting knocked out can be costly. When someone gets knocked unconscious, they fall prone, drop any items they're carrying, and lose any stances they've entered. For a character with a single weapon, getting back into combat can take two actions: one to stand up and one to retrieve the weapon. For a character with a second weapon, a shield or an important stance, the action cost goes up to three. This gives the party an incentive to prevent damage through defensive buffs and battlefield control or to remove it with healing.
7. In-combat healing is strong. This is especially true of the two-action version of the Heal spell, which heals 1d8+8 per spell level by default, enough that it frequently negates an entire round of damage. Soothe, Battle Medicine and the various healing focus spells aren't as strong, but I can tell you from experience that they're still powerful.
8. As Pixierose pointed out, martials and casters both need to come up with useful third actions. A Fighter could spend all three actions on attacks, but since the third attack will be at -10, it often makes more sense to flank with the Rogue, Demoralize the enemy to debuff it, Recall Knowledge to help the Wizard, or Raise a Shield so the Cleric will need to spend fewer actions healing. A Sorcerer could spam the one-action spell Shield after a standard two-action spell, but if they're unlikely to be attacked, it might make more sense to Demoralize an enemy or boost an ally's attack with the one-action spell Guidance.

I find optimizing and theorycrafting in 2E far less satisfying than it was in 1E or D&D 3.5. As Sanityfaerie mentioned and you've discovered, the payoff for optimization in 2E is much lower than it is in other systems. I miss coming up with characters who can base every skill they care about off one stat and one-shot enemies, but I enjoy my time at the table more. It's satisfying to overcome tough opponents and a streak of low dice rolls through cooperation and tactics.

As long as the monk has the Monastic Weaponry class feat, they can use Flurry of Blows with melee monk weapons.

By default, Flurry of Blows only allows monks to make two unarmed strikes. However, Monastic Weaponry allows monks to "use melee monk weapons with any of your monk feats or monk abilities that normally require unarmed attacks." Flurry of Blows is a monk ability, so if a monk has Monastic Weaponry, they can flurry with a Bo Staff or any other melee weapon with the monk trait, regardless of how many hands it takes to wield.

Thanks for writing the guide. It was an enjoyable read, and I appreciated the frequent pictures.

The current guide reads:

Double-Dipping Weaknesses

It is possible to double dip a weakness, sort of. If your attack already trigger’s a monster’s weakness, you can instead choose to give it a personal antithesis instead. So, if fighting a Troll and you have a flaming weapon already, you can instead choose to give it a personal antithesis, and trigger both its fire weakness and it’s ‘you’ weakness.

I don't think this is correct. Personal Antithesis "imposes a custom weakness" on a creature, and the rules for calculating damage say, "If more than one weakness would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable weakness value."

A good addition for a Thaum Guide would be what kinda scrolls and Talismans are good to get for the tome and talisman feats.

Potency Crystal is useful, even if you get a +1 weapon soon at this point the extra damage is very nice.

Owlbear claw is also great below level 5 especially if you go with a flickmace. In case you DONT go for weapon implement it is useful even longer since in that case you dont gain crit spec at level 5

Beyond that other good ones are jade cat, snapleaf, Fear gem, though those seem more situational then the early ones.

If you're willing to pay for the formula, a Retrieval Prism might be worth using to draw a combat-relevant scroll, such as See Invisibility. If the party includes a Gunslinger, an Energized Cartridge would let them capitalize on any weaknesses Esoteric Lore uncovers.

The Mind Smith was spoiled during PaizoCon. You can find the text here and a discussion about it on Reddit.

The only arcane witch is the Rune patron. Their Hex Cantrip is to discern secrets which the witch casts on themselves to get a bonus to recall knowledge, sense motive or seek. This lends itself to a recall Knowledge build.

Consider rewording this to emphasize that Discern Secrets can be cast on whichever party member has the highest bonus in the relevant skill. For example, if the enemy is undead, the witch could cast it on the party's cleric to enable them to immediately roll Recall Knowledge with Religion.

The only divine witch is the Fervor patron with Stoke the Heart. It's a broadly useful damage buff that works best on things that attack often like two weapon Fighters or Rangers. I’ve gone for a weapon here as this witch could do with another option.

It might be worth pointing out that Stoke the Heart's damage bonus also applies to spells that hit multiple targets, such as Electric Arc and Fireball.

I've enjoyed playing alongside a Summoner who uses Trip and Grapple to generate free attacks and occasionally negate an enemy caster's spell. With Wall of Stone and Slow, she can provide battlefield control when we're likely to be overwhelmed. Her summons support that role, for they absorb hits that would have otherwise gone to player characters and occasionally pick up and drag melee-focused combatants away from the party. The party is a small, so that's often enough to reduce the enemy's effectiveness by a third or a fourth.

I'm thinking about playing a Summoner in the group's next campaign, but since I've already seen a strength-based, maneuver-focused Eidolon in play, I'd like to do something else. Have people had good experiences with Dex-based eidolons, especially ones who take the line of feats that give Eidolons casting?

I've been wondering if Druids lack Cantrip Expansion because they have access to solid focus spells and animal companions. Perhaps the designers thought, "Druids don't need Cantrip Expansion because they have plenty of other ways to spend a turn (or contribute outside combat) that don't require spell slots."

Thanks to a post Gisher made in another thread, I now know that druids are the only full casters without Cantrip Expansion. That's disappointing! I'm assuming they lack the feat because of space constraints, not thematic concerns, but I suppose it's possible druids believe two extra cantrips would unbalance nature and refuse to engage in such savagery.

Because so many casters have the feat, I assumed druids did as well and gave it to the cleric/druid I'm playing in Strength of Thousands so I'd have a higher chance of exploiting weaknesses. With Cantrip Expansion gone, my slots will generally go to Electric Arc and Ray of Frost. That isn't a concern from a power standpoint, but I enjoyed occasionally casting a cantrip other than Electric Arc.

The Magus I'm playing with often opens with Mirror Image into Arcane Cascade. As the group's Cleric, I love that the player takes time to cast a defensive buff, because:
1. It lets the tankier characters form the initial frontline, which means they're more likely to be attacked; and
2. Once the Magus draws attention, it reduces the chance I'll need to heal her at the same time I'd like to heal someone else.

If the Magus falls, I'll likely need to spend two actions to heal her. Thanks to Kip Up, she only needs one action to get back into the fight now, but at lower levels, it'd take two: one to pick up her weapon and one to stand, which would often provoke attacks of opportunity. I haven't done any math, but starting slow to prevent that seems reasonable to me. It's also satisfying to see Mirror Image take attacks that would have otherwise been crits.

Having said that, we've rarely had enemies start so close to the party that we need to kill them immediately. We have been outnubmered and overwhelmed, but in those situations, battlefield control and area damage seem more useful than a Spellstrike. I suspect more aggressive tactics might work for a different party with higher damage output than a Cleric, a Summoner, a Magus and the most-likely-departed Monk and Champion can produce.

I wish there were more General Feats. I suspect almost all my characters will end up with Toughness, Fleet, Canny Acumen, Incredible Initiative or Untrained Improvisation. These feats are strong, and I'm glad they exist, but I'd love to see other options at high levels, when I'd otherwise be picking the least appealing option from that list.

Of course, General feats can always become Skill feats. That's helpful, especially for characters who want multiple skill feats that are gated by proficiency. It can also be useful for realizing character concepts at low levels. For example, I've had fun theorycrafting translators who take Multilingual several times and hunters who take Additional Lore for their most frequent adversaries.

Additional Lore might help. It grants a new Lore skill rather than upgrading an existing one, but the new skill is automatically increased to Expert, Master or Legendary as soon as the character hits the minimum level for those increases. As a Skill Feat, Additional Lore can be taken in place of a General feat.

1. An adventure path that uses automatic bonus progression, because I'd like to see the rule in play but would rather not create extra work for my GMs, who both run adventure paths (including one I think ABP would be a poor thematic fit for).
2. A Wisdom-based caster or martial who has a different flavor than the Cleric or Druid, because I want more options when the party already has someone strong, quick, smart and charismatic;
3. More Sorcerer bloodlines and Eidolon types, especially ones that provide access to the Occult spell list, my favorite;
4. A gish that incentivizes self-buffing or battlefield control rather than striking; and
5. An equivalent to Sentinel for Unarmored Defense, because it's hard for me to imagine people walking around in armor in tropical climates or cities, and as much as I love the Monk and Soul Forger, I'd like to experiment with other concepts.

Like Dimity, I've enjoyed healing. In one of my groups, I'm playing a Cleric with the Blessed One archetype because the group needed in-combat and out-of-combat healing. Reversing critical hits with the two-action version of Heal and patching up cuts and bruises with Reach Spell into Lay on Hands has been far more fun than expected. It's always appreciated, and because it doesn't require a save and has a high floor, the two-action version of Heal almost always works.

I've also enjoyed roleplaying a character who has so much faith in Desna's favor that he'll stride into melee to provide flanking despite a low AC. Clerics have decent hit point growth and so many casts of Heal that I can afford to make risky plays.

I'm still looking forward to retiring the character when the campaign ends, and I joke that I'd like the party to let him die so I can create a support character with more battlefield control spells, flashier buffs and better cantrips. But if the Cleric makes it to 20, I'll be happy.

I have a gripe. Unlike the Bard, Druid, Sorcerer, Summoner, Witch and Wizard, Clerics don't get Effortless Concentration, a distinction they only share with the Oracle and Magus. Thematically, this makes sense to me. Clerics are people who receive power as a gift from another force, so they might have less practice sustaining spells than classes more focused on casting.

But mechanically, it's a shame! After 16 levels of spending every other turn casting the two-action version of Heal, I'd like to cast Spiritual Weapon or Spiritual Guardian and whack some dragons and demon lords.

On the bright side, this decision does give me something to look forward to if I decide to play a Divine Sorcerer or Summoner.

1. By RAW, Additional Lore has to apply to a new lore! Why can't I spend a Skill feat to upgrade my background lore if it's something my character still cares about and wants to develop? I guess I'll pick up a background with another Lore I don't care about so I can get the one I like at Level 2.
2. Deadly Simplicity is a Cleric feat instead of a feat anyone (or perhaps anyone with proficiency in martial weapons) can take to boost (insert thematically appropriate Simple weapon here) so using it feels like less of a sacrifice.
3. Clerics only gain Expert proficiency in their deity's favored weapon. If I dislike that weapon and plan to Strike, I need to pick a different deity or take archetypes.
4. Unless you want to grow scales, there's no archetype for "I'm so badass I can fight unarmored and still achieve an AC of 5 + Proficiency!" Only Monks, mages and characters whose game lasts long enough for them to boost their dexterity to 20 get to walk around in tropical climates without wearing leather or metal.
5. Slings have limited support. The Gunslinger works with Crossbows, but not Slings? How am I supposed to turn a halflinghuman with Unconventional Weaponry and higher strength into the ultimate rock twirler?

With Complex Simplicity, an Air Repeater can become a revolver. At level 7, the wielder learns to craft silver bullets for werewolves and vampires. At Level 8, taking Manifold Modifications for Blunt Shot adds rubber bullets to the arsenal. At level 15, more aerodynamic bullets increase the revolver's range or stopping power.

With Entangling Form, any weapon can gain the ability to trip or grapple. Personally, I like to picture a nature-oriented inventor wielding a wooden staff he's so in tune with he can telepathically command it to grow and wrap around enemies. Level 7's Tangle Line could represent particularly long growth, while Level 15's Extensible Weapon could represent the staff getting larger as it ages. Alternately, perhaps the wielder is simply better at judging how far he can extend it without weakening it.

Have you ever wanted to play a wizard–I mean, inventor–who uses a wand to fling magic at enemies? Take the aforementioned Air Repeater and slap Complex Simplicity on it to boost the damage! If you ever need to reload, fluff it as gathering ambient magic into the wand.

When you're outnumbered, use Mordenhan's Hall Clearer–I mean, Megavolt–to thin the enemies' ranks. If the survivors decide to flee, stop them with Deep Freeze or one of the spells you've doubtless gained from your study of more traditional magic.

Using Bless with Magic Evolution makes sense. When I looked for other emanation spells that might be more powerful if they came from the eidolon rather than the summoner, I came across Reaper's Lantern, which can enfeeble undead characters or halve the amount of healing living creatures receive. I doubt that's worth spending a Level 8 feat on even in undead or cleric-heavy campaigns, but it might be thematic for a psychopomp or other herald of death.

So is Sepulchral Mask, which has a small chance to reduce enemies' Will for one round.

From an optimization standpoint, I'm not sure what to do with Greater Magical Evolution. My gut thought was, "Since the eidolon will be close to enemies most of the time, you should look for a powerful touch spell that lacks the incapacitation trait and treat the eidolon as a more action-efficient version of Reach Spell." I didn't find any. The closest I came was Shockwave, which generates a 15-foot cone that can knock enemies prone on a failed save and renders them flat-footed even if they succeed.

I imagine the eidolon could also get utility spells that you expect to cast frequently but don't want to commit spell slots to, such as Alarm, and in a desert campaign, Create Water; long-lasting buffs, such as Longstrider, which gives a +10 status bonus to speed for eight hours; short-range buffs, such as Blur; and counters that are more useful for the eidolon than the summoner, such as See Invisibility.

Edit: I missed that Greater Magical Evolution scales to give slots beyond 1st and 2nd level. That might open some more interesting options.

The summoned creature gets to act immediately. From page 195:

Summoned

A creature called by way of a conjuration spell or effect
gains the summoned trait. A summoned creature can’t
summon other creatures, create things of value, or cast
spells that require an expensive material component
or special focus. It can take only 2 actions on its turn,
and can’t take reactions. Otherwise, it uses the standard
abilities for a creature of its kind.
When you finish casting the spell and when you spend
an action to Concentrate on the Spell, the summoned
creature then takes its 2 actions. After its actions, you
continue with the rest of your turn. You can direct a given
summoned creature only once per turn; Concentrating on
a Spell for a summoned monster more than once on the
same turn doesn’t give that monster any more actions. If
you don’t Concentrate on the Spell during your turn, the
creature takes no actions, assuming it isn’t dismissed due
to the spell having a duration of concentration.
Summoned creatures can be banished by various spells
and effects and are automatically banished if reduced to
0 Hit Points, or if the spell that calls them is dismissed.

You could argue that the text in Summon Monster overrides the general rule, but because it's parenthetical, it seems more likely to be an incomplete reminder of how the rules work.

I'm not sure I like the idea of tying class feat effectiveness to skill proficiency. One of the theoretical strengths of the current feat paradigm is that it separates combat capabilities from narrative capabilities. This means wizards or fighters can focus on stealth, crafting, or diplomacy rather than arcane lore or athletic prowess based on their desired role and backstory. If combat capabilities depend on skills (outside combat maneuvers, which are generally weak), that freedom goes away, a shame given how few skill increases most classes get.

Having said that, boosting feats based on skill proficiency would make increasing proficiency more exciting. I can see value in that, but the developers would need to work to make sure the skill-powered feats are appealing but not mandatory. Otherwise, optimizers will feel constrained by the system and non-optimizers will underperform to the point of frustration.

Xenocrat wrote:

It's not uncommon for Paizo to use terms in their rules a way that are wrong or even directly contradictory to their real world meanings.

Like Inflammable (same thing as flammable), Bolstered (supported) and Sea Legs (the ability to walk on a moving ship). All are being used incorrectly in the playtest. And I'm still annoyed by he Dragoon in Ultimate Combat being some spear user that does silly spin and jump attacks and not a proper mounted, firearm using infantry. That same book even introduced the Dragon pistol that they were named after, but misused the name anyway.

I suspect Ultimate Combat's Dragoon is a reference to Kain, a character from Final Fantasy II (or IV, if you prefer) who could jump off-screen to land a delayed but more powerful attack.

I assumed it was intentional. The Dappler likes to keep people on their toes. If they know he's a "dabbler" up front, they'll expect a wide variety of tricks, but if he introduces himself (or herself) as _THE_ Dappler, they'll assume he's amazing at...something. While they're wracking their brain and critically failing their Society (Recall Knowledge) checks trying to figure out what that something is, he can:
1. Fascinate them with bardic music;
2. Pickpocket them with Rogue-like skill;
3. Pretend that the carpet counts as natural difficult terrain so he can count them as flat-footed with Ranger-like power;
4. Smack them with his fists or a nearby chair with a Monk or Fighter's might;
5. Charm them with magic drawn from his blood (because he's a master of Charisma, clearly) or a well-decorated tome (because he's also a genius); or
6. Smite them with Druidic lightning!

The Dappler is a man of many talents. He doesn't always play Pathfinder, but when he does, he does it well.

On a more serious note, I wish classes or multiclass feats had more built into them. When I multiclass, I often feel like my base class provides nothing more than a few +1s and a hitpoint pool, because I have so few feats left over for base class feats.

On a more relevant note, the Dappler should have class feats that allow him to temporarily gain training or greater expertise in a skill, provide stances that change the attribute governing an activity in exchange for a penalty, or allow him to break the level cap on multiclassing feats.

Tusk, that is incorrect. Page 7 of the Multiclass Archetype document gives us:

BLOODLINE BREADTH

Prerequisite: Basic Bloodline Spellcasting
Your repertoire expands, and you can cast more spells of your bloodline’s tradition each day. Increase the number of spells in your repertoire and
number of spell slots you gain from sorcerer archetype feats by 1 for
each spell level other than your two highest spell levels.

Personally, it doesn't bother me that sorcerers have less flexibility than wizards. If I'm taking Sorcerer Dedication over a prepared caster dedication, it's likely because I enjoy spontaneous casting, value Charisma more than Intelligence or Wisdom, or want the skills the Bloodline provides. I've also considered taking it to give a martial access to the Demonic bloodline's life-draining bite.

Having said that, I find Bloodline Breadth's progress extremely slow. It feels silly to spend a feat at 8th level for a single Level 1 spell slot when I could get an action I can use every round. But that is true for the prepared casters as well. I wish all the breadth feats gave more slots, but they can't give too many or dabblers would overshadow full-class casters.

I agree that it would make sense for multiclass sorcerers and bards, like their full-class counterparts, to be able to swap out spells as they level.

Perhaps Monks will have a class feature similar to Studied Resonance that allows them to key their focus points off Wisdom. If it's optional, Dragon Style adherents could stick with Charisma to give their intimidation-based feat more punchkick.

I'm disappointed to hear the survey responses pointed toward mandatory magic weapons rather than inherent damage dice growth. However, I can understand the desire for magic weapons to be powerful. As much as I dislike in theory the connection between items and effectiveness in combat and with skills, it does make finding treasure and shopping more fun.

People often say it's possible to keep item acquisition fun by making magic items interesting, but that often comes at the cost of complexity in the form of item-specific actions, situational bonuses, and charges. Although I'm only building Level 9 characters, I'm already at a point where I want to ignore the one-a-day powers attached to certain items, such as the Phylactery of Faithfulness's augury effect, and the situational bonuses attached to others, such as the Staff of Evocation's +2 circumstance bonus to identifying evocation magic. If all items had such bonuses, using them (and creating comprehensive character sheets) would be a headache.

Having said that, I hope the core books ship with official variants that provide the expected bonuses not through magic items but through leveling or gold-gated training. That wouldn't help in organized play, which is where I'm most likely to play. But it would make running the game easier on GMs who like low-magic settings, use a slow format such as play-by-post, or want to tell stories where handing out magic items wouldn't make sense (such as a poor town being invaded by man-eating ants or an enemy nation that takes a 'quantity over quality' approach to equipping its troops). Such a system might also help players understand the bonuses the base system expects them to get through items at specific levels.

"Highest spell level you can cast" only includes spell slots from the archetype for which you're taking the Breadth feat. Take a look at Wizard Dedication:

You can cast more arcane spells each day. Increase the spell slots you gain from wizard archetype feats by 1 for each spell level other than your two highest spell levels. For example, at 8th level you could prepare two level 1 spells, one level 2 spell, and one level 3 spell.

The "from your wizard archetype feats" is meant to apply to everything, including "your two highest spell levels." The example supports this interpretation, for it lacks any explanation of what happens if you're able to cast higher spell levels because of your class or another multiclass chain.

I want to say "I don't mind a few damage dice, because if they ever become overwhelming, I can pull out my phone and have it do the math for me." But unless I'm looking up spell descriptions, I prefer not to have my phone out during games for fear I'll succumb to the temptation to check my e-mail, Facebook, this forum, the Star Wars: The Card Game forum, and...you get the idea.

(Besides, I only got a smart phone recently. Even in the modern era, I don't think they should be assumed.)

That makes me want to say "I'd prefer fewer dice so I don't feel tired at the end of five consecutive combats." But while that may be true in a given session, it'd make character progression feel slow. I may not want to roll six dice for every hit at Level 20 (or 11 dice if I play rogue, before considering runes), but I'm glad I get to roll two dice instead of one at Level 5.

So, do I like dice? No! But yes.

While creating a sorcerer who specializes in hunting undead for a one-shot that requires us to be members of the Esoteric Order of the Palatine Eye, I initially thought it would be a good idea to select Ghostly Weapon so I could give my more martial allies the ability to bypass the damage reduction on ghosts. Unfortunately, the spell can only target non-magic weapons. Since it is a third level spell, by the time a player gets it, they're likely to have access to potency runes, which make their weapons magical and therefore ineligible for Ghostly Weapon.

Looking at the Bestiary, casting Ghostly Weapon might still be worthwhile in corner cases. The damage resistances that Ghostly Weapon bypasses range from 5 to 10, which means a d4 weapon would need a +2 rune for its average bonus damage to match the weakest resistance and a +4 rune for its average bonus damage to match the strongest.

Of course, that's a d4 weapon, which few players will use. A d6 weapon would only be 1.5 damage behind the weakest resistance with a +1 rune or 3 damage behind the strongest resistance with a +2 rune, and a d8 weapon would only be 0.5 damage behind the weakest resistance with a +1 rune and 1 damage behind the strongest with a +2 weapon.

Even if the resistances were stronger, Ghostly Weapon should still be able to affect magical weapons. It's silly to picture a spellcaster saying, "That's an undead, boy! Put away your grandfather's magic sword and draw your backup so I can give you the power to strike our foe effectively!"

Please let Ghost Touch affect magic weapons. If I'm spending a third-level spell slot to make someone else more effective, it needs to make them noticeably more effective. Especially since the spell's one-minute duration means I'll likely need to go into melee or take Reach Spell to grant its benefit.

I was surprised as well, but keeping the penalty makes sense to me. If characters could make every attack at their full bonus, they'd rarely use any of the other actions.

Like many, I dislike tying damage progression to runes rather than skill. While I enjoy finding and acquiring powerful items, I'd prefer to pretend to be a character who survives through skill, not wealth. There's also a fair chance I'll only play Pathfinder 2E through forum games, which move so slowly that it's easy for characters to outlevel their equipment.

Tying damage to runes also takes away unarmed combat's advantages in politically-oriented games. For example, I love building monks who act as assassins or bodyguards. I can't imagine them saying, "I'm sorry, my lord. I know you're in danger, but I need a moment to wrap this cloth around my hands before I can strike down your foes, for only when they feel the smooth touch of silk are my fists truly mighty."

I'd prefer not to tie weapon damage to proficiency unless there are ways for casters to increase their proficiency in a variety of weapons. I like gishes and have a hard time imagining a seasoned adventurer walking into a dragon's lair or even a bandit's camp without a backup weapon.

Cyrad and I had a discussion about the archetype in the Product Discussion thread for Heroes of the Streets in which I tried to address his concern about combining battlefield control spells with ranged attacks as follows:

Cyrad, I'll admit it's a strong ability. However, as I tried to say in my original post, I don't know how much stronger it is than a Bard with a high enough Inspire Courage bonus to turn two or three hits into misses while casting [battlefield control] spells. In combat, the Bard may be even stronger, as those hits will come from martials who have damage-boosting class features and can invest more in strength than a Magus who needs strength, dexterity, and intelligence. Out of combat, a Bard should definitely outdo a Magus.

I could be off base. I'm not the most experienced player [and I'm new to PFS], and the game where I'm playing an Eldritch Archer [in] is already ridiculously overpowered [it's a gestalt game where we get a feat every level and roll stats using house rules that all but guarantee several stats above 16]. But I'm looking forward to seeing what the archetype can do.

I appreciate your honesty, Thaliak. Though, damage isn't just my concern. Archery and crowd control spells are some of the strongest combat contributions in the game. Giving the action economy to do both at the same time without putting much risk is insanely powerful.

For what it's worth, there already are several ways to combine movement-agnostic damage, the primary benefit of archery, and crowd control. Any caster can do it with Dazing Spell, summoning or combo spells such as Snowball and Blistering Invective. Summoners, Sylvan bloodline Sorcerers, Druids, Hunters, Sacred Huntmaster Inquisitors, Spiritualists, and any caster who is willing to invest feats in Nature Soul, Animal Ally and Boon Companion can come close through their companions.

Having said that, I agree that Ranged Spell Combat will be powerful. I just don't think it's strong enough to warrant too much concern unless the Magus knows what he's doing in a party with an otherwise low optimization ceiling. That will be a problem with almost any class, including the base Magus.

I still think my arguments are valid, so I'm reposting them here. If the other options that allow casters to combine damage and battlefield control are allowed in PFS, why ban the Eldritch Archer?

Part of the argument seems to be, "There is so little risk! This guy can do everything that the Magus can do, but he doesn't have to put himself in danger." I have four responses to that:
1. This is true of other classes as well. The aforementioned Bard doesn't need to be within five feet of an enemy to provide Inspire Courage while casting Glitterdust, Confusion and Silent Image.
2. If the Eldritch Archer demonstrates that he is a big threat, most enemies will try to counter him. In the case of intelligent enemies, that could mean focusing fire to take him out quickly, getting him into melee where he loses much of his power, or hitting him with spells such as Glitterdust or Dominate Person.
3. As Sebastian already mentioned, the Magus may be protecting himself at the expense of his allies. Unlike the normal Magus, he won't be providing flanking bonuses or standing between the enemies and the witch.
4. Other classes do it better. For example, the aforementioned Summoner has the freedom to spend points and feats boosting his spell DCs while offering a source of damage that can flank, guard the squishies, provide a second chance at critical rolls such as Perception and Spellcraft, and use wands if needed.

I suppose people could say, "Thaliak, you're comparing the Eldritch Archer to Summoners, one of the strongest class in the game even in its unchained incarnation. I don't want more options of that power level in PFS!" I don't agree with that sentiment. If I'm unfortunate enough to end up at a table where everyone cares only about power, I'd like to at least see several different character concepts rather than the Murder-Pounce Summoner, the One-Trick Zen Archer, and the Superstitious Two-Hand Barbarian I've seen or read about on the boards.

If I'm fortunate enough to end up at a table with people who try to build reasonable characters and share the spotlight, an Eldritch Archer would be a great ally. If the player notices he's steeling the spotlight, he has several options:
1. He can dial back by casting cantrips or buffs.
2. He can switch to a role that isn't covered. At a table with a wizard who focuses on battlefield control, he can prep damage spells. At a table full of melee monsters and ranged reapers, he can focus on battlefield control instead.

Of course, if his allies' dice go cold, he's still a Magus. When the enemy boss has his axe raised to finish off the prone fighter, the Eldritch Archer can pull out all the stops and kill the enemy before he can deliver the finishing blow. I think I'm okay with that.

The Eldritch Archer has at least five minor downsides. He:
1. Has to have his weapon to cast spells without making concentration checks;
2. Can't use Spell Combat or Spell Strike with melee weapons;
3. Can't take a penalty while using Spell Combat to gain a bonus to concentration checks to cast defensively;
4. Loses access to archetypes that modify Spell Combat or Spell Strike; and
5. Loses Use Magic Device as a class skill.

Remember, without an Arcana that is only available at level 12, Ranged Spellstrike's range is capped to the range of the spell. That might force the Eldritch Archer closer to the front lines than most archers would prefer to be.

Alternately, it could encourage Eldritch Archers to focus on battlefield control spells rather than burst damage. If so, the Eldritch Archer might be comparable to a bard, which can contribute damage through move action performances on the same round it casts spells.

Illusions have a few problems:
1. People disagree on how they work, so if you frequently change GMs, your performance might be inconsistent.
2. Many of the Illusion spells require concentration.
3. Any character with ranks in spellcraft can identify the spell as you cast it, so they might not be effective against enemy spell casters.
4. Certain spells, such as True Seeing, negate illusions
5. Almost all Illusions allow Will saves.

But if you're creative, illusionists can be versatile and powerful. More importantly, because their signature spells are so open-ended, they're a blast to play.

The first problem is one you can deal with easily if you're in a home game. If your GM likes to reward creativity and focus on fun and story rather than strict adherence to the rule, you'll be fine.

If you play in Pathfinder Society and have a new GM each week, talk to the GM before you play to make sure his thoughts on illusions line up with yours. If case they don't, bring backup characters.

In either case, consider reading Rules of the Game: Illusions and its second, third and fourth parts. It was written in the 3.5 days, but it's probably the closest thing we've got to an official guideline on how to interpret the rules governing illusions.

The Need to Concentrate
But what about the reality that the signature illusion spells–Silent Image, Minor Image, and Major Image–require concentration if you want the effect to persist for more than a few rounds? This may not be much of a problem, for the rounds built into the higher-level spells might be enough in combat and it's unlikely you'll need to maintain concentration on more than one illusion outside combat.

If you dream of creating two illusions at once, a certain race with a knack for illusions has access to Effortless Trickery, which lets you concentrate on illusion spells as a swift action. If you don't want to be a gnome, you can play a human, half-elf, half-orc or Aasimar with the Scion of Humanity alternate racial trait and take Racial Heritage to qualify for Effortless Trickery.

If your concept calls for another race and you're comfortable playing a Bard–an amazing class with a spell list full of illusions–you can use the Spellsong feat to concentrate on an illusion as a move action by spending rounds of bardic performance. A Skald might be able to take the feat as well, but before you play one, make sure its buffs will be useful for your group.

Of course, you could always play a Wizard or School Savant Arcanist to make your "concentration" illusions last a number of rounds equal to half your level after you stop concentrating. In general, I prefer Arcanists for ease of play and their ability to boost the DCs of spells with Potent Magic. However, Wizards get access to the Resilient Illusions arcane discovery, which can make your illusions harder to disbelieve.

If mastering magic in all its forms isn't your cup of tea–or if you share my aversion to classes with 2 skill points a level–consider an Occultist with an illusion implement. They get a power that mimics Minor Image and lasts a round a level, or a minute a level once you hit 7. If that isn't long enough, the gnome favored class bonus can increase the duration by a minute a level (which means a gnome Occultist's implement-spawned figments persist for a minute and six seconds at level 1, a feat no other class can match).

If your GM dislikes Occultists or considers psychic magic inappropriate for his campaign, an Inquisitor with the Relic Hunter archetype can steal most of the Occultist's tricks. Personally, I love the idea of an Inquisitor who uses illusions to make the stories of his faith come alive.

Have a given you too many choices yet? No? Well, if your game allows Variant Multiclassing, you can pick any class with the right spells on its list and still add half your level bu taking the Wizard multiclass variant and choosing Illusion as your school!

If you don't want to concentrate yourself, get a familiar with the School Familiar archetype and have it concentrate for you.

Dealing with Spellcraft (by concealing your casting)
All of these strategies are great when you're facing uneducated fighters and thugs. If you trap them in a fake maze of stone or block their arrows with fake fog, they'll assume you cast the appropriate spells and react according. But what do you when you encounter someone who can use spellcraft to identify your spells and has enough common sense to think that whatever just appeared might not be real?

I know of three ways to prevent people from identifying your spells. The first is Spellsong, which I've already mentioned. In addition to letting you concentration on a spell while performing, it enables you to pass off your casting as part of a performance by spending a round of Bardic Performance and making a Perform check opposed by viewers' Sense Motive or Perception checks.

The second is Secret Signs, which allows you to conceal a spell by making a Sleight of Hand check if that spell only has somatic components. Most illusions have verbal components, so to benefit from the feat, you'll need Silent Spell in addition to Secret Signs.

The final option is Cunning Caster, a feat from the recently-released book Heroes of the Street that allows you to conceal your spellcasting with a Bluff check. Unfortunately, there's a catch: You get a huge penalty to the Bluff check if the spell has a material, somatic, verbal or focus component. All of the image spells have focus, verbal and somatic components, so you'd be making the check at a -12 penalty.

But don't worry! If you're a psychic caster, you use Thought and Emotion components rather than Verbal and Somatic components, so you would only take a -4 penalty. If you're a Mesmerist, a class billed as a master of illusion and enchantment spells, you'll even get a bonus to your Bluff checks equal to half your level and non-spell abilities that count as illusions!

If starting at people to make them believe your illusion isn't your thing, the Psychic, Occultist, and even Medium have access to illusion spells and psychic casting. So do Sorcerers with the Psychic Bloodline, Magi who take the Mindblade Archetype, and Investigators who become Psychic Detectives.

Of course, you could always hide your illusion-crafting the old-fashioned way: Turning yourself invisible and casting a Silent or Psychic spell. I gather there are people who would argue that doesn't work, but I think most GMs would allow it.

Dealing with True Seeing (otherwise known as "having a backup plan")
But what do you do when you roll a 49 on your Bluff check to hide your spellcasting as you conjure a fearsome dragon, only to have the enemy cleric cry, "Fool! I have True Seeing! That is nothing more than an illusion!" You could study the nuances of Shadow Conjuration or its brother Shadow Evocation to replicate a Conjuration or Evocation spell, but those spells can be a pain for the GM to adjudicate.

I hate to say this, but it might be time to show off your other skills. Illusions are amazing in the right hands, but sometimes they're not the right tool for the job. Make sure you have others at your disposal.

Or walk up to the Cleric, laugh, and say, "See this!" Then cast Color Spray and watch as he drops his mace and his holy symbol (we'll assume he rolled a 1 on his Will save).

Stopping Successful Saves
Speaking of saves, you might have noticed that most illusion spells allow a Will save. You could take Spell Focus to increase your illusion DCs, but that is often unnecessary. The spells that make illusionists fun, versatile and powerful only allow a save if someone interacts with them. If you create illusions people won't want to interact with, such as walls of flame, they might never get a save.

Having said that, there are ways to increase DCs that are unique to illusionists and enchanters. The most obvious is playing a gnome. The second is the Resilient Illusions Arcane Discovery, which I've already mentioned. The third is the Mesmerist's Bold Stare ability, which allows you reduce the Will save of single enemy by two and eventually three. The final option is the performance granted by the Negotiator Bard archetype, which eventually reduces saves against charm, figment, glamer, and shadow spells by -4.

One other thought: If you play an illusionist, consider investing in Knowledge skills. Being able to ask your GM what goblins fear more than anything before you decide what to create can be priceless.

Does anybody have anything on the Skald? Please and thank you.

The Urban Skald replaces the standard raging song with one that can grant a morale bonus to strength, dexterity or constitution that starts at +2 and caps at +6. Unlike the regular raging song, it does not impose a penalty to AC or keep people from using Intelligence, Dexterity or Charisma-based skills. However, it provides no bonus to Will saves.

The Skald also replaces Song of Marching with Infuriating Mockery, which makes it harder for one or more targets to defend themselves or cast spells. He loses Dirge of Doom for Humiliating Defamation, which isolates a single target from its allies, disabling its teamwork feats and forcing it to save against friendly spells.

Finally, the Urban Skald loses medium armor proficiency and damage reduction but gains a scaling bonus to AC when adjacent to two or more allies.

If you don't care about the bonus languages from Cosmopolitan, consider using the Additional Traits feat from Advanced Player's Guide.

Perception: Eyes and Ears of the City (religion)
Diplomacy: Ease of Faith (faith)
Sense Motive: Suspicious (social)
Perform: Unknown (but as noted above, you'll rarely need Perform)

Remember, Enchanters get a +2 bonus to Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Bluff that increases by 1 every five levels. The 8th-level power could also help you or the Bard land spells.