Tom Sampson's page

You have been overlooking the Pageant of the Peacock masterpiece, which allows the Bluff skill to account for a considerably large number of skills. It is this performance which causes the Bard to pull ahead so decisively of the Investigator's amount of skills in practice. It is also a way for the Bard to outdo the Investigator at Knowledge skill checks, although the Bard could also improve his Knowledge checks with spells.

And I would agree that the Bard should dump STR. As for dumping WIS, that normally only harms Perception, not Sense Motive, as Versatile Performance allows the Bard to replace Sense Motive with what is effectively a Perform skill check. As for Perception, the Bard has many spells to improve its Perception bonus (Tears to Wine, Heightened Awareness, Heroism, and Acute Senses come to mind). The Empericist Investigator is likely quite a bit better at the Perception skill, but the Bard is nevertheless more than adequate for the task.

With regard to social encounters, there are more social skills than just Diplomacy and Bluff. There is also Sense Motive, Disguise, and Intimidate. I should also like to note that a Bard can raise his Bluff score to absurd heights using spells (such as Glibness) and that the Bard additionally possesses other spells well-suited for social intrigue that the Investigator does not. Overall, the Bard is the superior class for social encounters.

As for the inspiration dice, I find them somewhat overrated. They are certainly useful, but ultimately it is only a maximum of a +6 (or +8, with the Amazing Inspiration talent) bonus. And there are many ways to obtain large bonuses to skill checks.

Overall, the Bard outperforms the Empericist Investigator on skills, on Knowledge checks, and on social encounters.

Bards do not have access to heal, restoration or any spells that bring back the dead. That means they cannot deal with ability damage, ability drain, negative levels. Nor can they deal with insanity or some of the other things heal can remove. The investigator also lacks the ability to bring back the dead but can handle everything else. The bard is also a spontaneous caster with very limited number of spells, if they take all the condition removal spells that leaves them very few spells for other purposes.

He does have access, through the UMD skill. And the Investigator only obtains Heal at level 16. If he would like to produce a Heal before then, he too would need to use a scroll. And on this note, a Bard with the Songhealer archetype can also produce a Heal as a bardic performance at level 14, for whatever it's worth. A simple wand of the Lesser Restoration spell only costs 750 gp, which is inexpensive enough. A scroll of Restoration is the primary added cost for a Bard, but you would be paying the component cost either way. The Bard is perfectly capable of providing this sort of healing.

As for the Bard's spells known, we are discussing a Bard that eschews combat, so that would free up a large amount of spells for healing and other purposes. The amount of healing spells needed is not that onerously large. It is also possible to use a Mnemonic Vestment or Ring of Spell Knowledge.

And the Skald can simply cast all of these spells, including spells that bring back the dead, through his Spell Kenning class feature, without needing to use any of his spells known. He can even scribe his own scrolls of these spells.

Bards also do not get trap finding, nor do they get disable device as a class skill.

This is a strange argument. It only holds true if we are overlooking the use of archetypes and other options, but surely these options are available. I have already explained above how the Bard or Skald can obtain this capability.

As you said the bard’s primary stat is CHA, Investigators get the same number of skill points, but their primary stat is INT which means they get a lot more skill points than the bard. The Empiricist archetype and a couple of traits mean the investigator use INT for almost all skills. This means the investigator only really needs to boost his INT and can ignore or even dump the other mental stats. Which gives a higher bonus and more skill points. The investigator also gets inspiration so that he can add the inspiration dice to the skill check in addition to all other modifiers. With the right talents the investigator can make it so he gets to use inspirations without having to spend the inspiration points on most of his skills. In many cases the investigator can spend a single point of the skill and have a +8 bonus and roll a 1d6 in addition to the d20. The bard is a good skill monkey and has a decent spell list but cannot fully fill all the roles this character would need to do.

The Investigator does not have Versatile Performance which effectively increases the amount of skills per level a Bard has nor the Pageant of the Peacock masterpiece which allows a Bard to substitute Bluff checks for all Intelligence checks and Intelligence-based skill checks while also providing a +4 bonus to Bluff checks. As such, a Bard can actually very much exceed an Investigator's amount of skills in practice.

Furthermore, the Investigator not have the Bardic Knowledge class feature. He can, however, match a Bard's Lore Master feature with his Eidetic Knowledge talent. The Bard is also not lacking for spells and other means to enhance his own skills that the Investigator is not able to use. The Bard is also better at social encounters than the Investigator.

The investigator also gets studied combat and studied strike. That means his combat ability will be better than the bard, but since this is “baked into the class” it meets the criteria of the OP.

I fear this is somewhat of a digression when we are specifically discussing characters that are not built for combat and as you well know, the total contribution to an entire party's combat ability from an Inspire Courage performance can exceed that.

So, not only will he be a better healer, trap finder and skill monkey, his combat ability will be better.

I would dispute all of this, frankly, except perhaps being a better healer (unless we are discussing Skalds). The Empericist Investigator would be a somewhat better trap finder, but the Archaeologist Bard likely still has it beat. But my point was not even that Bards are better, only that a Bard is fully capable of providing all this when you initially indicated that only an Investigator would be able. The Bard is very much the quintessential jack-of-all-trades that excels in out-of-combat utility, so I was a bit surprised you had overlooked it. That is all.

At minimum the character will need to be able to fill the roles of face, healer (with all condition removal), trap removal (including magical traps), and skill monkey (including all knowledge skills and scouting). In addition to the above requirements the character needs to be able to survive the combat without any help from the party. If one of the other characters needs to protect this character that will reduce that character ability to contribute to combat and now the party is in even worse shape.

The only class I can see that might pull this off is a human empiricist investigator. They will need to have the infusion talent so they can use their extracts on others, and a few other talents to allow them to use inspiration to boost their skills without needing to spend inspiration points. They would also need the trait student of philosophy to allow them to use INT instead of CHA for Diplomacy and Bluff. Between the archetype and the trait, he can use INT on all parts of Diplomacy, but can only use Bluff to lie. Precise Treatment will get INT to heal. Focused Study will give him skill focus 3 times instead of any one feat. That will help with the skills that are not INT based. With INT being his highest stat and getting 6 skill points per level and the human extra skill point he should have lots of skill points. Studied Combat and Studied Strike will give him some combat ability even with no other resources are used for combat.

Since UMD will be INT based the character will be able to use scrolls and other magic items for spells that are not on his list. This is going to be how the character will be able to bring a dead character to life.

Heroism is going to be very useful for this character as it lasts a long time and gives a bonus to all skills, attacks and save.

I'm surprised you did not think of the Bard. It is a natural at this, as I'd alluded to before. Its healing magics are a touch lacking but it still possesses a good number of healing spells and the Use Magic Device skill, which utilizes a Bard's preferred ability score. The only real issue is that it does not have trapfinding or disable device as a class skill, but the former can be solved with an archetype or other option and the latter can be solved with a trait. The Bard is one of the best skill monkeys and party faces, a rather good scout, and a serviceable healer, especially with UMD.

By the same token, the Skald is even better as a healer, but it does not have an archetype that obtains trapfinding, so you will have to use variant multiclassing with the Rogue class or the Monitor Obedience feat, with Imot as the deity, to obtain the ability. There is also the spell Aram Zey's Focus, but its duration can be impractical.

If the caster level bonus from Magical Knack would cause your total caster level to exceed your hit dice, even if that happens as a consequence of also having other caster level bonuses, Magical Knack does nothing, unfortunately. The RAW does not have a "bonus stacking order" that allows you to say "magical knack is done counting whether the caster level exceeds your hit dice and you can apply other caster level bonuses to take it further now." Instead, all it cares about is whether this bonus raises your caster level above your hit dice, and that caster level would include all caster level bonuses. It is a very reasonable house rule to have Magical Knack be applied first and allow other bonuses to carry it beyond your hit dice, however.

It is also worth noting that, as written, the Bard's Inspire Greatness performance, which provides 2 additional, temporary hit dice to affected creatures, would allow someone with caster level equal to their character level to nevertheless raise their caster level by 2 through the Magical Knack trait.

There is, however, some RAW hair-splitting that can allow Magical Knack to stack with effects that allow you to cast as though your caster level were higher (since those effects do not technically constitute caster level bonuses or increases), for an effective caster level exceeding your hit dice. A GM may nevertheless rule otherwise, of course.

Inspire Courage is a buff that affects the entire party including most summoned creatures. The bonus to attack and damage are competence bonuses so will usually stack with almost anything. If the bard is using inspire courage, he is buffing the party even if he does nothing else.

In 3.5 the bonuses for Inspire Courage were morale bonuses, as befits the name "Inspire Courage." Pathfinder changed it precisely because the lack of stacking was a strike against Inspire Courage. And yes, this would of course be buffing the party. But if Inspire Courage is your sole contribution, it is nevertheless a lacking one, unless you have performed some potent optimization.

So, you are suggesting the OP plays a poorly played character? Anyone doing that is likely to be kicked out of most games.

I am not suggesting it at all. If anything I am cautioning the OP that this sort of noncombatant play would be poorly received in a game of Dungeons & Dragons and that there are other systems better suited for playing characters that do not do combat. The Bard that only inspired courage throughout combat was nevertheless a rather capable party member outside of combat and still these sorts of characters were maligned. These D&D derivative games are simply too combat-focused and offer less depth for combat-less adventures.

The Orc bloodline does have a decent bloodline power: Fearless (the 3rd-level bloodline power). The armor bonus is good, the fear immunity is better, and the removal of light sensitivity is minor but still pleasant to have. You are right that the bloodline feat selection is worse, but if you are trading your first bloodline feat away for a bloodline mutation, the second bloodline feat arrives at level 11 and the third at level 15 where the Sorcerer really does not need any help, and Great Fortitude and Toughness are both serviceable feats. The capstone is often irrelevant but at any rate the Orc Sorcerer could easily trade it for an alternate capstone, such as Flawless Mind for a +8 bonus to charisma or Unique Bloodline for a second bloodline's arcana and 1st, 3rd, and 9th level powers.

As for the Draconic bloodline, I would regard Dragon Resistances as its one good bloodline power. The breath weapon is only usable once per day and best traded, just as with the Orc bloodline. The wings are indeed useful, more than the Orc's power of giants, but they arrive so late that flight is already a solved issue by this point. And the Draconic bloodline capstone I would also trade away the same as the Orc's for either Flawless Mind or Unique Bloodline. By level 20 you should already have good answers to sleep and paralysis regardless, the blindsense of 60 feet also loses nearly all of its value when you could have already cast Echolocation for 40 feet of blindsight starting at level 10, and at these levels there are other ways of obtaining fire immunity in a pinch through the Sorcerer spell list if need be. The aforementioned alternate capstones would be far superior.

It is not for nothing that I find the Orc bloodline to be the better option.

Tom Sampson wrote:

I believe it used to be popular for Bards to be played this way, which is why the Bard class itself was unpopular for a time. The Cleric class also has a tendency to occasionally be played as a pure healer in the back rather than a combatant which is also somewhat frowned upon as it often does not mesh well with the party's needs in such a combat-driven game, though the Cleric does at least heal the party that is now being more injured for lack of a combatant.

Personally, I believe this noncombatant form of play is better suited for systems other than Dungeons & Dragons and derivatives.

The Bard is one of if not the best buffing and support class in the game. The OP specified he was not talking about buffing and supporting the other characters, which leaves out the bard.

It does not leave out the Bard. The form of play I was referring to is a Bard that does little to nothing in combat. It sings its single inspire courage bonus and otherwise spends its turns "plinking away" or being generally useless in combats, since in 3.5E many a Bard would not cast spells while inspiring courage.

You are correct that a well-played Bard is a potent support class, but I am referring to a Bard that is frankly not being played well.

If he is going to go for a sorcerer focused on doing damage with his spells Orc bloodline is a poor choice. The bloodline gives you the Orc subtype including darkvision, but also gives you light sensitivity. Most of the bloodline power are designed to boost your melee combat, which most sorcerers avoid. The bonus vs fear and latter immunity to fear is not bad, but those are usually will save which is the sorcerer’s good save. Half the bloodline spells also do not do any damage.

The draconic bloodline would be a better choice. They get the same bonus to damage on the spells but are not restricted to fire. The bloodline powers are more useful especially the breath weapon and wings. The bloodline spells are not damaging spells but are for the most part useful. The main concern is getting all three form of the dragon spells. The capstone is also much better.

The solar bloodline is also a good choice especially in an undead heavy campaign. It gives a bit of healing and condition removal which is always useful. The bloodline spells in a normal campaign are ok, but in a campaign with a lot of undead they are incredibly powerful.

I beg to differ, and am surprised at your contrary recommendation. I strongly believe the Orc bloodline to be the superior option. Allow me to explain why. The Orc bloodline obtains its bonus to all damaging spells, whereas the Draconic bloodline must choose a single element (and the Solar bloodline necessarily selects for fire). This is a major advantage of the Orc bloodline over both of the options you mentioned.

The negatives you list are also minor (aside from the bloodline spells, perhaps). Light sensitivity is a minor issue as it only renders the Sorcerer dazzled (which is a -1 penalty to attack rolls) and only when in bright light. For a Sorcerer, this sort of penalty is unlikely to prove a significant impediment, especially as most damaging spells do not even use attack rolls to begin with, and the Fearless bloodline power will even remove light sensitivity at level 9 regardless. As for the bloodline powers having a melee focus, you should simply trade away the 1st-level bloodline power, 7th-level bloodline feat, and 9th-level bloodline power (keeping the 3rd-level bloodline power, as it is quite decent) for all three bloodline mutations to further improve damaging spells. Ergo, the melee focus of a bloodline power you are choosing to trade away does not actually matter, and the bloodlines you recommend would similarly trade away their bloodline powers.

As such, the Orc bloodline's benefit here is simple: all your damaging spells are considerably more effective, regardless of element, whereas the bloodlines you recommend only provide the very same bonus for a single element, rendering them more circumstantial. The Orc bloodline also provides darkvision and fear immunity which the other bloodlines do not.

If you are looking to have an easier time or do damage with spells, I would recommend the Sorcerer over the Psychic. For damaging spells, the Orc bloodline together with the Blood Havoc bloodline mutation would give the Sorcerer quite an advantage.

I believe it used to be popular for Bards to be played this way, which is why the Bard class itself was unpopular for a time. The Cleric class also has a tendency to occasionally be played as a pure healer in the back rather than a combatant which is also somewhat frowned upon as it often does not mesh well with the party's needs in such a combat-driven game, though the Cleric does at least heal the party that is now being more injured for lack of a combatant.

Personally, I believe this noncombatant form of play is better suited for systems other than Dungeons & Dragons and derivatives.

Tom Sampson wrote:

The Wizard only feels like he is a step ahead on odd levels. On even levels, the Arcanist typically feels superior to both the Wizard and Sorcerer as a best-of-both-worlds spellcaster

A 6th level Wizard can have four different 3rd level spells and six different 2nd level spells at their disposal. An Arcanist gets one and two respectively; you are so far behind the Wizard here that it's not even funny. In combat a Wizard will often just have the right spell prepared and can cast them immediately, while your Arcanist will have to take a move action to pull out your spellbook, a full-round action to quick study, and then two rounds later you can cast the right spell. Most of the time you won't have the luxury of doing that, and will just have to cast whatever you have prepared right now. Even when you do have time to Quick Study, very often you are just going to be studying a staple spell that a Wizard would have prepared or a Sorcerer would have learned. In these cases, you're waiting 2 rounds and spending valuable action economy and reservoir just to match the baseline of Wizard or Sorcerer. There are many common circumstances where Quick Study is the worst of both worlds. And when we specifically compare against the vast repertoire of a 6th level Wizard, you're going to be the worse far more often than you are the better of both worlds.

This is a bizarrely idealized circumstance for the Wizard. In your scenario, the Wizard is evidently entering the encounter with all of his 3rd level spells intact, all of them are different spells, one of them will happen to be the right spell to solve the encounter (and thus whichever spell(s) that turn out to be ineffective will not weigh him down), the Arcanist's 3rd-level spell will happen to be invalid, 2nd-level and 1st-level spells will not suffice to address the encounter at hand, the Arcanist didn't simply enter combat with his spellbook in hand, and while the Arcanist uses his move action to draw his spellbook he will not be using his standard action to cast something useful. Realistically speaking the Wizard will not have all 3 of his 3rd level spells during an important encounter and runs a risk of having prepared the wrong spell in which case 2 rounds will not even be enough for a Wizard to remedy this issue. The guessing game is the primary difficulty of Wizards.

Meanwhile the Arcanist can either attempt to switch his spell with the Quick Study exploit in combat or he can simply use his 3rd level slot(s) to cast a 2nd level spell if need be, which will often also prove effective. If the Arcanist has an arcane bond, he can also spontaneously cast any spell within his spellbook regardless of whether or not it is one of his spells prepared. If the party scouted out the foes or dangers ahead of time, the Arcanist can even quietly use quick study to switch his spell to better prepare for the encounter by taking 6 seconds (1 round) of time before combat has even begun. If the Arcanist has the School Savant archetype, he can even have an additional spell prepared for every spell level he is capable of casting.

Outside of combat, a Wizard can just leave slots empty to be prepared later in the day, something they can afford to do because they have more spells slots than you to begin with and don't need to consume spells. With Fast Study, it doesn't even take them very long.

This is indeed a strength of the Wizard and a good decision, but not really an advantage compared to the Arcanist, who could also leave spells unprepared in order to perform partial spell preparation later in the day while remaining even less burdened by the issues of leaving a spell unprepared because he can use all his spell slots regardless.

As to the comparison with Sorcerer, if the Sorcerer really wants to prioritize spell flexibility above all else they can afford a Ring of Spell Knowledge type II by 6th level, giving them essentially a better version of Quick Study for 1st and 2nd level spells. The Arcanist is only at an advantage with 3rd level spells, of which he gets only three per day, and is just plain outclassed at 1st and 2nd level spell slots. The Arcanist definitely has his advantages here; he's got much better flexibility at his highest spell level, and the Sorcerer spent a lot of money to replicate a better version of Quick Study. But that is the reality of the situation, any Sorcerer willing to splurge has access to a better version of Quick Study.

I believe we've discussed this before. I would not call it a better version of Quick Study because the Sorcerer is ultimately limited at 4th level spells when using the Ring of Spell Knowledge and will typically be unable to cast his 2 highest spell levels with a ring and only fall behind further from level 14 onwards and would need to wear additional rings if he wishes to flexibly cast more than one spell at a time in this fashion, unlike the Arcanist who can simply swap all his spells. All this wealth expended will also put the Sorcerer behind when it is time to purchase a lesser metamagic rod for the quicken spell metamagic. What you recommend are certainly good purchases but the Arcanist is nevertheless significantly advantaged here even when the Sorcerer is using them and the Arcanist needs far fewer system mastery tricks to be so advantaged.

Age categories are typically not appropriate for PC's, but the same applies to Wizard and Sorcerer.

Age categories and their bonuses to mental ability scores are fully intended for use by PCs. That is likely a major reason why they carry such increasingly vicious penalties to physical ability scores. They are simply unpopular because of those penalties. Allow me to cite the relevant rules on age from Pathfinder Core:

You can choose or randomly generate your character's age. [emphasis added] If you choose it, it must be at least the minimum age for the character's race and class. Alternatively, roll the dice indicated for your class on Table: Random Starting Ages and add the result to the minimum age of adulthood for your race to determine how old your character is.

With age, a character's physical ability scores decrease and his mental ability scores increase (see Table: Aging Effects). The effects of each aging step are cumulative. However, none of a character's ability scores can be reduced below 1 in this way.

When a character reaches venerable age, secretly roll his maximum age and record the result, which the player does not know. A character who reaches his maximum age dies of old age sometime during the following year.

The maximum ages are for player characters. Most people in the world at large die from pestilence, accidents, infections, or violence before getting to venerable age.

You are of course correct that the same applies to the Wizard and Sorcerer but so long as you have enough or more than enough spells you are fine either way for your encounters. That is also a major reason why this sort of comparison is increasingly less important at higher levels where there are more than enough spells to address all your needs regardless, assuming you are not simply in the habit of trying to solve all your problems with only your highest levels of spells, anyway.

At any rate, playing a character with all the added frailties of old age might not be the most fun for someone new to spellcasters.

Dasrak wrote:

One of the biggest advantages the Sorcerer has over the Arcanist is spell slots. The Arcanist is really tight on spell slots, and is only made even tighter by its reliance on Consume Spells to fuel its hunger for reservoir. A 6th level Arcanist with 22 Intelligence has 13 spell slots total, while the Sorcerer with 22 Charisma has 19 spell slots.

I'm assuming some of those slots are reserved for bloodline spells?

I'm still unpacking how the sorcerer's spells per day work vs their spells known.

The books say a sorcerer's spells known are not affected by their charisma.

Example: At level 12, sorcerers have a single 6th level spell they know, and have enough spell slots they can use it three times (before modifiers), correct?

Spells per day and spells known are wholly separate mechanics. The Sorcerer does not have any spell slots reserved for bloodline spells. Bloodline spells are just bonus spells known that can be cast with any spell slot. The Sorcerer's charisma score indeed does not affect their spells known, only their spells per day. And yes, a 12th level Sorcerer only has a single 6th level spell known. Oracles are more advantaged in this respect, as they obtain their mystery spells at the same level they obtain a higher level of spells known.

I dont know why everyone is bringing up wizards, Wizard was never on the table, I'm pondering Arcanist or Sorcerer, No interest in Wizard...

Ah, noted. I would honestly just recommend playing an Arcanist with at least 20 int then. It's the easiest to use. The Blood Arcanist archetype will already enable you to get ordinary Sorcerer bloodlines if you want, in which case the Arcane bloodline is a decent choice, using an arcane bond as an Arcanist would treat the contents of their spellbook(s) as the spells they know, meaning you could use your arcane bond to spontaneously cast any spell in your spellbook even if you haven't prepared it. Incidentally, the additional spells known bestowed by the arcane bloodline's 9th level power ("New Arcana") would for an Arcanist instead become additional spells prepared of that level. ("Feats and other effects that modify the number of spells known by a spellcaster instead affect the number of spells an arcanist can prepare.")

The Arcanist has two major advantages for spellcasting: First, it can change its spell selection daily and even change a spell mid-day, perhaps even mid-combat, with a single full round action by using the Quick Study exploit. Second, it can expend arcane reservoir points to raise a spell's caster level or spell DC, especially when using the Potent Magic exploit. These advantages tend to make the Arcanist the easier and more effective choice.

The Wizard only feels like he is a step ahead on odd levels. On even levels, the Arcanist typically feels superior to both the Wizard and Sorcerer as a best-of-both-worlds spellcaster. But on odd levels (half of the game), the Wizard is indeed very much superior.

In addition, the 6th level Arcanist with 22 intelligence would have 15 spell slots, not 13. It would be effectively 16 spell slots if the Arcanist also has an arcane bond, such as through the Blood Arcanist archetype or even just a bloodline development exploit or the Eldritch Heritage feat. If you prefer, you could also have your character be at an older age for the improvement to mental ability scores and as such a 6th level arcanist could possess from 24 to 26 intelligence, which would also ensure more spell slots in addition to higher spell DCs. The Arcanist could also purchase scrolls (or even scribe them by obtaining the Scribe Scroll feat, perhaps through the Item Crafting exploit) and activate them in a pinch.

Magical Knack increases your caster level by 2 for all intents and purposes, unless your caster level would exceed your hit dice. That includes the damage dice on fireballs and lightning bolts. The only thing the increase in caster level does not count for is progressing your spells per day for spellcasting.

And on a side note, you do indeed get your dodge bonuses and deflection bonus added to your CMD.

There is actually no restriction keeping a Paladin from worshiping Cayden Cailean so this is perfectly viable, so long as you do not violate your code of conduct by engaging in lawlessness or dishonorable conduct anyway. Remaining within one alignment step of the deity is for Clerics mostly. Worshiping Rovagug on the other hand would almost certainly cause the Paladin to fall as that would generally qualify as an evil act. You would need a very good reason to persuade a GM otherwise when it comes to worshiping evil deities and in the case of Rovagug you are unlikely to succeed.

Frankly, I do not think Arcanists require any charisma at all and can safely dump the entire ability score. If Fiendish Proboscis is not banned, the Arcanist effectively has an unlimited arcane reservoir simply by draining himself. Otherwise, a single Extra Reservoir feat largely suffices to improve an arcane pool at the very early levels where you would not wish to reduce your spell slots regardless. And the single spell slot you can sacrifice would later further improve the matter, as would a Consume Magic Items exploit in a pinch. The Arcanist does obtain some benefits from a charisma score of 14, but it is rather unneeded.

The Arcanist can also obtain the bloodline arcana and all the bloodline powers of a Sorcerer bloodline through the Blood Arcanist archetype. By and large, the Arcanist is simply superior to the Sorcerer (Razmiran Priest archetype notwithstanding).

The advantages of the Sorcerer are the additional spells per day, wildblooded bloodline options (Sylvan is particularly powerful in this respect, especially when paired with a Boon Companion feat and when it is empowered with magics of the Sorcerer class using the Share Spells feature), or archetypes (such as Razmiran Priest). The Mnemonic Vestment robe and Paragon Surge spell of the Half-Elf race (typically used to obtain an Expanded Arcana feat to obtain a new spell known whenever required) are also often used to narrow some of the gap with the Arcanist. The Sorcerer also has more spells known than the Arcanist has spells prepared, but given that the Arcanist can change his spells prepared with ease, the Arcanist still has it much better on this front.

I can recommend a Vivisectionist. As an Alchemist, it has quite a bit of potent buffing and utility powers and its archetype ensures it can do damage with daggers from level 1 by using sneak attack. It will, however, have to maneuver into flanking positions for sneak an awful lot.

I'm also surprised to see that people are overlooking the Ranger. This can actually avoid using a high dexterity score and simply make a strength-based two-weapon fighting build as the ranger combat style ignores feat prerequisites. A tad unusual, but it does do quite a lot of damage from level 1, especially if one were to use kukris with their prodigious critical threat range. The main issue will no doubt be armor. You will want to use a mithral full plate at higher levels (especially if you can have a Wizard or other spellcaster Fabricate it for you at a third of the cost), but for the most part you will likely simply be using a breastplate. The Ranger class has large number of skills and its spell list also readily lends itself to non-combat purposes. The skills are especially potent if you take urban as your Favored Terrain and perhaps use a trait to add Sense Motive to your class skills. The urban terrain is often the best for Stealth and Perception and perhaps even Survival for tracking (very Sherlock Holmes - and I think you could actually use a masterwork magnifying glass as a masterwork tool for +2 to tracking checks) when it comes to non-combat uses of skills. I would recommend the Oread race, using Crystalline Form, Granite Skin, and Ferrous Growth, but frankly any race with a +2 bonus to strength would be good.

Tom Sampson wrote:

Diego Rossi asserts that a GM could rule a free action limit for holding a weapon with your light shield hand and transferring it back for a proper weapon grip, but while this is technically true, in practice it is not done as it tends to rather undermine the entire point of light shields if the GM is presenting such severe limits on free actions whenever you try to hold something in the hand wielding a light shield.

While normally I would not limit the ability to hold a weapon with the light shield hand, I am more dubious when we are speaking of a polearm or a long spear.

The light steel shield description says: "A light steel shield’s weight lets you carry other items in that hand", and the heavy steel shield says "A heavy steel shield is so heavy that you can’t use your shield hand for anything else." The wooden versions refer to the steel versions' text, keeping the same limit.

So, apparently, the weight carried by your shield arm matters (but your strength doesn't, go figure).

But you and I know full well that if a player were to come to the table with a character using a heavy wooden shield made of darkwood (which weighs half the normal weight), we would not rule that they can now carry other things in their shield hand just because their heavy wooden shield weighs the exact same as a regular light wooden shield. So the weight-based explanation is largely treated as flavor text rather than any source of mechanical guidance, really. I simply regard a heavy wooden shield as being physically a tad larger with a larger grip to boot and that is why the hand is no longer free to hold other things.

And besides, the average combatant using shield brace would likely have a strength score of 18 or higher at which point their monstrous strength would no doubt facilitate grasping such large objects easily, if we're looking for verisimilitude. That is also the reason why I am not troubled by the notion of grasping an entire polearm with a prehensile tail.

That, and the encumbrance of a two-handed polearm or spear, makes me think about imposing more stringent limits on switching the grip between hands in this specific situation.

The maneuver you propose is even worse, as you are letting go of the weapon while keeping it upright with your elbow, then gripping it again and having it ready to attack, all through free actions.
You need to take a specific feat (Quick draw) to do something similar as a free action when the weapon is in a scabbard, which is designed to keep the weapon in a readily accessible place. A weapon kept upright by the elbow of your shield arm is way less accessible.

Realistically speaking you are just dropping the butt of the pole to the ground and passing it to your left hand except instead of holding it with your left hand you just fold your shield-arm against your chest and grasp the spear or polearm that way. It's not a particularly difficult maneuver and it would still be more readily accessible to your weapon hand than a sheathed weapon in a scabbard since you would only need to open your shield arm and grab the pole to hold it in your weapon hand again.

You can always hold a two-handed weapon in one hand. It is only wielding a weapon that requires both. Shield Brace does not change this. But, if you are wearing a heavy or tower shield, one hand will be fully occupied by the shield and the other hand would likely need to hold the weapon. If you need a free hand on top of that, then if you are using a light shield, you can still carry items in the same hand as your shield and could therefore simply transfer the weapon to your shield-hand and drink as normal. Diego Rossi asserts that a GM could rule a free action limit for holding a weapon with your light shield hand and transferring it back for a proper weapon grip, but while this is technically true, in practice it is not done as it tends to rather undermine the entire point of light shields if the GM is presenting such severe limits on free actions whenever you try to hold something in the hand wielding a light shield. However, a light shield is typically unpopular for this purpose regardless as you could simply use the buckler with an Unhindering Shield feat instead, which allows you full use of your shield-hand while retaining the benefits of the shield. As such, if you are using Shield Brace, I assume you will be using a heavy or tower shield.

In that case, you cannot hold a weapon in your shield-hand, but seeing as these weapons are spears and polearms, you could declare that you will be holding the shaft of the spear with your shield-arm's elbow while dropping the butt of the spear or polearm to the ground. This is not an unreasonable maneuver, but it would likely mean, however, that you receive no shield bonus to AC while doing this because your shield-arm cannot move so as to intercept blows while you are essentially folding your shield-arm to your chest and thus bracing your spear/polearm with your shield and elbow to remain upright and stable against your torso as you quickly repurpose your weapon's hand. There are no firm rules to state one way or another whether or not you can do this, but it seems a reasonable enough action to me. You would need to ask your GM, however, to see if they would permit it.

Other than that, you would likely need a prehensile tail or similar to hold your weapon while you drink/cast/etc. Typically, switching an object from a hand to your prehensile tail and vice-versa is a free action, much like switching an object from one hand to another.

There is also the Glove of Storing for such needs, but it costs 10,000 gp and is therefore usually a last resort.

Azothath, what you are presenting is a house-ruler's sort of reasoning. Your initial position is that the feat did not consider any sort of restriction when omitting them (which is, if anything, confirmation that it lacks such restrictions), so you have taken it upon yourself to introduce these restrictions because you believe it should have them so you are essentially producing your own update/errata to the feat so that it incorporates these unconsidered restrictions (which is essentially a house rule). The core of your "sensibly conservative" ruling, then, is "I have an issue with it letting you do [x] as written and I don't think it should let you do [x] even though the text enables and does not contradict doing [x] so I am not letting you do [x]" which is neither a Rules As Written nor Rules As Intended sort of reasoning but more the house ruler's "rules as I consider balanced" line of reasoning. So to me, this all looks very much like a house rule, rather than any rules interpretation stemming from the feat itself.

Mysterious Stranger makes the interesting point that a spell cast through False Focus does not have the actual material component and asserts that therefore spell effects based on material components would not function. This line of reasoning has some merit to it, but I lean more to Belafon's side of the argument, because I think this is undermining and subtly contradicting the text "you can cast any spell with a material component costing the value of that divine focus (maximum 100 gp) or less without needing that component" by causing the player character to nevertheless need that expensive component of 100gp or less in order to cast the spell as it would work with a material component of that cost, at least if you are casting spells with effects based on their components. It has a certain ring of a "the text says yes but sometimes yes still means no" line of reasoning in my view, which is why I do not share this interpretation. It creates a conundrum as follows:

Player: "Can I cast pellet blast with False Focus?"
DM: "Yes."
Player: "Does False Focus let me cast a spell with a component cost of 100gp or less without needing the component?"
DM: "Yes."
Player: "So I can cast pellet blast that would require an adamantine bullet component cost of 100gp using False Focus instead?"
DM: "Yes."
Player: "Do I get the benefit of the adamantine bullet component?"
DM: "No, because you didn't use the adamantine bullet component. You need the expensive component for that."
Player: "So if I want it to work with the 100gp component cost that is within range of False Focus in order to make the spell function as it would with a material component costing 100gp I still need the actual component?"
DM: "Correct. You need that component."
Player: "Even though the feat explicitly says I don't need the component to cast a spell with that category of component?"
DM: "Correct. You don't need the expensive component to cast the spell with that expensive component but you do need the expensive component if you want to cast the spell like you would with the expensive component."
Player: "So for all practical purposes, I cannot cast this spell as I would with a component cost of 100gp unless I use the actual component?"
DM: "Correct. Thanks to False Focus you can cast it with a component cost of 100gp without needing the component but practically speaking you cannot cast the spell with a component cost of 100gp with the False Focus feat because you do need the expensive component anyway."

I hope this explains why I find this rules interpretation somewhat doubtful as being in line with the RAW or RAI of the feat.

I will have to disagree somewhat with Azothath. The False Focus feat states "By using a divine focus as part of casting, you can cast any spell with a material component costing the value of that divine focus (maximum 100 gp) or less without needing that component." Nowhere does it claim or imply any sort of restriction that this feat only applies to the basic material component cost or that it does not cover additional, optional, or alchemical components. Therefore, such a restriction does not exist. It would indeed not cover foci, however, as foci are not the same as material components.

As such, this feat does indeed allow you to cover cover any total component cost up to 100gp without needing that component. Since these are indeed material components used to cast a spell and the feat only cares about the final, total cost, you could use it to replicate the effect of any 1st-level or 0th-level scroll to apply to Parchment Swarm. The same would apply for Contingent Scroll. Personally, I do not think using a 5th level spell to replicate 1st-level or 0th-level spells is a particular issue either, truth be told.

However, not every GM would be keen on this sort of usage so it may be better to ask your GM. Some of them would likely houserule some restrictions on these interactions.

It refers to the caster level of the class that gives you the Void school powers, so ordinarily your Wizard class's caster level. As such, a Wizard 1 / Summoner 19 would only have a caster level of 1 for the Void school powers.

If you instead obtain it as a variant multiclass power, I would treat it much like features received from feats, so 20 levels of Cleric would give you a caster level of 20 for the Reveal Weakness school power, and should you use a bead of karma you would even have a caster level of 24.

I would recommend archery. It will require some feats to become strong but it should be quite potent as it comes into its own and you could use a light crossbow at first where your strength penalty will not hinder you while your inspire courage improves the damage.

As for having the spells to keep up with only being casters, at higher levels Bards do have enough spells for this, especially if your Bard has very high charisma and thus benefits from bonus spells and higher spell DCs.

Well, you can use it with Flesh to Stone.

That would mean that a swashbuckler can use any weapon including a bow for Opportune Parry and Riposte to parry an attack.

Certainly, if you don't mind using it as an improvised melee weapon. You may end up taking a -4 penalty for that, however. But there are ways to use it proficiently as an improvised weapon (such as the Catch Off-Guard feat) or as a regular melee weapon (such as the Bowstaff spell or Empty Quiver Style feat).

Nothing prevents you from making an AoO with a weapon you are attacking with. If it did you could not make an AoO against a foe moving out of their square once you had been attacked.

I'm not saying you can't perform AoOs with weapons that are used to attack that round. This is more of a personal common sense ruling but if you are mid-swing attacking with your sword and at that moment the defender's parry provokes an AoO I think using your sword that is still being parried to take that AoO is a bit too ridiculous. You can still take AoOs with it the rest of the time.

As I have already explained, there is no need for whip mastery feats in order to use Opportune Parry and Riposte with a whip. By RAW, there is no requirement detailed whatsoever for a threatened area when performing the deed's mechanics nor is the act of parrying (or riposting) an actual attack of opportunity. However, the Whip Mastery feat would still be advised so that you do not provoke AoOs with your whip when parrying or riposting (but I would grant that attacking enemy cannot take an AoO when you parry him because he is already busy making an attack with his weapon, unless that foe can attack with another weapon (and limb) for his AoO).

To be frank, it is inventing threatened area restrictions for parrying or riposting that would be a houserule.

It is also true that the Opportune Parry and Riposte deed does not require a light or one-handed piercing weapon to be performed and can indeed be performed with any weapon. Mysterious Avenger indeed does not change anything here, but it is also not needed to use the deed with a whip in the first place.

Setting aside the argument about whether whips are any good (I actually happen to think whips are quite decent weapons, for what it's worth), the answer is yes, you should be able to use Opportune Parry and Riposte with a whip.

First, Opportune Parry and Riposte is its own ability. It is not an expanded attack of opportunity (or AoO for short) mechanic. There are plenty of abilities and items that perform their action "as an attack of opportunity" but Opportune Parry and Riposte does not. It simply consumes an AoO use and then tells you to make the attack roll as if you were making an attack of opportunity. Note that it says "make an attack roll [emphasis added] as if she were making an attack of opportunity" and not "make an attack as if she were making an attack of opportunity." Only the roll is affected by effects that apply to attacks of opportunity. The attack itself is not. Not to mention that for parrying a melee attack the enemy's weapon itself is trying to make contact with you, so a threatened area test need not apply (and there is indeed no requirement for a threatened area stated in the ability). You could parry even if you have no threatened area to speak of, so long as your weapon is capable of making the attack.

Second, it says that you can make an attack against the creature whose attack you parried as an immediate action (the "riposte"), provided that creature is within your reach. This part of the ability is definitely not an attack of opportunity (and does not receive any attack bonuses you might have for attacks of opportunity, unlike the "parry") and specifically states you may attack the target so long as he is within your reach, which is not the same as your threatened area (which it could easily have stated instead), and therefore you can indeed take this attack with a whip, regardless of your threatened area.

As such, you can indeed both parry and riposte with whips regardless of threatened area, as neither the parry nor the riposte require a threatened area.

And I may as well add that while the Opportune Parry and Riposte deed does not require the weapon to be a light or one-handed piercing melee weapon, there are many other class features that would not work with the whip (as it is a one-handed slashing weapon). You will need to use the Slashing Grace feat or Mysterious Avenger archetype to make them apply.

Regardless of how insensible the result is, he does indeed get a reflex save for half damage if the spell hits. Your GM might, quite reasonably, houserule that the saving throw is unneeded if you hit with a spellstrike weapon attack, but by RAW the spell only hits if the attack hits, has the enemy save for half damage, and loses all secondary targets.

If this is not to your liking you can have your Magus use the Loremaster prestige class to use the Secret of Magical Discipline feat and use spell combat with Harm for much greater damage.

Generally speaking, waking up in this fashion would result in a surprise round where the players' party is surprised. However, depending on Perception checks (yes, you can make Perception checks in your sleep, but this increases the DC of a successful Perception check by +10) some of them might notice and wake up also. You could have one player (the one with the knife at the throat) wake up for free because the assailants are shaking that person awake to make their threats, but this is assuming you are directly starting a combat encounter. If you're waking up the party for a dialogue of making threats and whatnot, the entire party could wake up before combat starts, in which case there is no surprise round. But then again, it's possible only the person shaken awake wakes up and no one else does while talking before combat begins. It might actually be interesting to see what the players do while the villains speak.

As for readying actions outside of combat, this is generally allowed, especially for a thing like a discussion with someone at gunpoint/knifepoint/etc. The readied action and reason for playing things out round-by-round (unless the rounds will just consist of readying the same action continuously) just needs to make sense.

Question 1: Does it matter if said effects were caused by non-magical means, items, supernatural abilities, etc?
Not unless it explicitly says so. Otherwise, it applies to all fear effects, whether it be an intimidate skill check or a spell.

Question 2: Also, would the level of fear matter? Or do the remedy spells not care, as long as whatever they're curing has the fear descriptor?
Only if the restriction is stated explicitly. There are some effects that explicitly bestow immunity to the Shaken condition or similar, in which case they only apply to those forms of fear, but if it just says "fear effects" then it applies to anything and everything that is a fear effect, unless the text specifically adds restrictions. So usually, such things apply to all levels of fear effects and even things that are regarded as fear effects but do not apply the usual shaken/frightened/etc conditions, such as the They Know spell or an NPC acting friendly because of an intimidate check. If it is an immunity, it would even apply to Phantasmal Killer.

By RAW, no, but the RAI on the Bully archetype appears to be clear on this. Since 13 int is more a prerequisite of the Combat Expertise feat that is inherited by the combat maneuver feat, it is likely intended that when Power Attack substitutes for Combat Expertise, the 13 str (and 1 BAB) requirement substitutes for the 13 int requirement. As such, the sensible ruling would be to replace the 13 int requirement.

I would also like to point note that you can have an animal companion use the Dirty Fighting feat which will count as 13 int and Combat Expertise (along with counting as 13 dex and Improved Unarmed Strike) for the sake of improved maneuver feats and any feats that have an improved maneuver feat as a prerequisite. So that is another way to let your animal companion take these feats.

If you want game mechanics that can handle advanced physics simulation I think you're better off playing GURPS.

Incidentally, the Brazen Deceiver has quite a lot of synergy with the Pageant of the Peacock bardic masterpiece.

In addition, if you want you could be a Cleric and sacrifice a domain for the Clandestine inquisition. You could even use the Veiled Illusionist prestige class. I should like to caution you, however, that being able to roll twice on Disguise is likely not as valuable as having a much higher skill bonus to begin with.

For a more unusual class, I could also recommend the Medium. The Medium does not receive any special bonuses to disguise (it does have the Disguise Self spell and derivatives, however) unless you channel the Marshal or Trickster spirits but it does use Charisma as its spellcasting attribute and it has a way of shifting around its class features and playstyle depending on what role it wants to embrace for the day.

How often you can change the spell in the ring is not a matter of debate, unless you are seeking to houserule things. There is no restriction in the text that you can only change the spell in a Ring of Spell Knowledge a limited number of times per day, and that clearly indicates you can change the contents at will. Since the action is not specified, it defaults to a standard action. This is no different from a Ring of Invisibility and the same standards apply.

I would also note that the ring is not the same as the Paragon Surge spell. The Paragon Surge spell is far broader in its uses than just expanding spells known with the Expanded Arcana feat and unlike Paragon Surge the ring is limited to low level spells where you are unlikely to ever afford a ring with which to cast your highest spell level—unless you are playing a Bloodrager or similar, which is generally not the sort of spellcaster we worry about.

And on a sidenote, personally I would indeed permit a player with the Scribe Scroll feat to write spells in a spellbook, but that is a houserule. There is a whole thread on that subject here and I think most GMs would honestly permit players without a Spellbook class feature to write spellbooks, but you do have to ask your GM as this is not how the rules work.

And to answer the original question, yes you can have other player characters with spellbook class features write spells into your spellbook. They would essentially be borrowing your spellbook and scribing a new spell into it as if it were their own spellbook. Since you can obviously scribe spells into an acquired spellbook as well as sell or gift spellbooks, it would not be a problem to have someone borrow your spellbook, write a new spell into it, and return it to your possession.

A spell written into a spellbook would indeed constitute a written version of the spell and enable the use of a Ring of Spell Knowledge. This works. The only question is why you are bothering to invest in your own spellbook when you could borrow a party member's spellbook for your ring.

Per the general interpretation*, worshipers of Desna still need to be Neutral Good, Chaotic Good, or Chaotic Neutral to get any mechanical benefit, while a Paladin (Divine Hunter) needs to be Lawful Good.

That is not a rule in Pathfinder, at all. There is a significant difference between being a Cleric of a deity and being a worshiper. Just because Clerics are held to more strenuous alignment requirements does not mean that general worship similarly necessitates it. The Paladin has no such requirement within its code of conduct.

Even the Grey Paladin archetype doesn't work for Desna's faithful as they still 'must still follow a lawful good, neutral good, or lawful neutral deity.' Desna is just too much of a free spirit...

This would not be the first time Paizo has written content that misremembers the rules. The Prone Shooter feat (which has since received an errata) infamously removed the penalty for shooting crossbows while prone when no such penalty existed, for instance. And there is a disconcerting amount of content that does not appear to realize how bonuses to attack already apply to combat maneuvers.

*Please note that if you ignore the cleric's 'alignment must be within one step of her deity's, along either the law/chaos axis or the good/evil axis' alignment restriction because the Paladin's entry doesn't explicitly state it, then Baphomet, Deskari, and Nocticula are also completely valid options for a paladin's worship...

Honestly, the inability of mixing Paladin and Desna's Fighting Technique is probably the only reason the technique got published in the first place. lso, note that this specific technique is the only one that is not PFS legal, presumably due to its sheer power.

Worship of those deities can still cause you to fall as a code of conduct violation for evil or dishonorable conduct, unless you have a suitable explanation that your GM accepts.

I should also note that the latest FAQ on the subject of stacking ability score modifiers (which is in reality a rules change) indicates that if you use the Divine Fighting Technique, a Paladin cannot stack the bonus to attack from his charisma bonus that comes from Smite Evil as that would be double-stacking an ability modifier from the same ability (the rest of smite evil would still stack, however).

Why not play a Bard if you would like to be a backrow damage dealer with support and healing using Desna's Shooting Star? You can use up one versatile performances to gain Divine Fighting Technique for Desna's Shooting Star and another Advanced Versatile Performance to gain Weapon Focus. With the Varisian Tattoo trait, your character will be proficient with starknives.

But the primary issue here really is that PCs are not sufficiently differentiated from NPCs, and that is the primary purpose of NPC classes vs PC classes as well as level differences between PCs and NPCs.

I think d20's problem was treating PCs like something other than NPCs with no in game justification, unlike the way that Scion and other games do.

Like sure, have your heroes able to fend off armies, but because they're demigods, not just because the players have been playing awhile.

I believe this problem is more specific to Pathfinder. NPC classes exist for a reason, but in Pathfinder content they aren't used so much. And not only are NPCs commonly using PC classes, but it is also more common to feature high level NPCs. As such, in PF the primary differences between a player character and an NPC tend to be ability scores and wealth.

If you had a setting where the average level 12 spellcaster was an Adept and the average combatant was a Warrior, the in-game justification becomes much clearer.

By the way, there is no arcane spell failure chance for arcane spells without somatic components, so the Still Spell metamagic feat would also work for casting in armor.

By the way, on the subject of the question of whether the Bag of Holding would burn with a Wall of Fire using the Phoenix bloodline, I may as well point out that when the bloodline arcana is used, the spell explicitly deals no damage, so the cloth bag would indeed be unharmed.

It likely happened in the Adventurer's Guide book.

The Pathfinder Savant or Loremaster (by way of the Secret of Magical Discipline feat) prestige classes would both work for that.

In your case there is the Signifer Armor Training feat. Ask your GM if he will allow you to activate the feat as a free action (the benefit the Hellknight Signifer prestige class offers Arcane Armor Mastery), which is not RAW but seems like something you should be allowed with this combination of feat and prestige class.

I would grant out that Phoenix bloodline would work with Wall of Fire, as given the phrasing of "any fire spell" I believe the intent of "targets" here is simply "affected creatures" rather than any specific targeting mechanism.

I don't believe I would rule that it needs a full volume for Wall of Fire to be castable as I would ordinarily permit any player who wishes to cast Wall of Fire in a room with a 10 foot high ceiling to do so and have the ceiling block the effect from extending beyond 10 feet high.

I suppose I would allow the healing wall of fire inside a bag of holding provided that you first place a sufficiently flat surface to cast it upon in there.

There are indeed no rules that make this a definitive "no."

Even in a campaign that is not that heavily focused on undead it is a way to keep lower-level spells relevant. By having this option, I free up some of those other options for use on tougher foes. How often is a 1st level spell of any use once you get to 15th level or even above 9th?

All the time? Spells like Silent Image and Obscuring Mist are quite handy even at higher levels. A Bard's Saving Finale is also commonly used at all levels. Divine Favor is only one extend lesser metamagic rod away from lasting 20+ minutes at levels above 9th, meaning you could cast it before well before combat and still have it last long enough for multiple battles. Casting it 3 times makes for 1 hour of Divine Favor. Heightened Awareness is another popular spell. There are plenty more that see use.

Marcella, the entangled condition is a bit special. As it says in Pathfinder Core:

Entangled: The character is ensnared. Being entangled impedes movement, but does not entirely prevent it unless the bonds are anchored to an immobile object or tethered by an opposing force. An entangled creature moves at half speed, cannot run or charge, and takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and a –4 penalty to Dexterity. An entangled character who attempts to cast a spell must make a concentration check (DC 15 + spell level) or lose the spell.

If you use Winter Grasp (where the damage is radiating from the now ice-encrusted ground) with Rime Spell (causing the frost to cling to the target and inflict the entangled condition), it is clear that the bonds causing the entangled condition are anchored to the ground, so no movement is in fact possible. Everyone would be effectively glued to the ground.

You really don't need that. By the time you have 11+ caster levels you would have plenty of ways to do high damage without offering your foes a reflex saving throw and Searing Light would still be one of your weaker options.

Searing Light's damage is extremely circumstantial. Most of the time it's frankly a bad spell and you would rather cast Snowball, perhaps intensified. If you are facing undead you would likely rather cast Intensified Burning Hands where this fire-maximizing blaster does 10d4+40 damage in an AoE than Searing Light which would do 10d8+20 damage to a single target.

Flame Strike is, to be quite frank, largely useless. I believe you are underestimating the sheer amount of fire damage a Crossblooded Sorcerer specialized in blasting does. If you have Flame Strike, you have 11 levels of Sorcerer, so your caster level would be 13, assuming you have Bloatmage Initiate and Varisian Tattoo and yet no further sources of additional caster levels by now. An Intensified Fireball - which is a 4th level slot - would do 13d6+52 damage, or 97.5 damage on average. Flame Strike - as a 5th level slot - would also do 13d6+52 damage. If an enemy happens to have 40 fire resist, which is an absurdly high resistance, Fireball and Flame Strike would both do 57.5 damage, the same amount, because the half of Flame Strike's damage that would be fire damage is still more damage than the fire resistance of the target. It is only when you are casting against fire immune enemies or your enemies with more than 20 fire resistance (assuming no use of Blood Piercing) pass reflex saving throws that Flame Strike might perform better, but if you are casting against fire immune enemies, Flame Strike is still a highly undesirable choice of spell to be casting because you lose half of your damage when you could have been casting Cone of Cold or Burst of Force. In other words, there is no compelling use for Flame Strike. The higher damage cap is the only real perk and that is only meaningful when you need the damage cap of an Intensified Flame Strike (bear in mind that Blood Intensity has a higher damage cap should you need it), but even then you might favor a spell like Fire Snake where you can more freely shape the path in which it does damage.

Blood Intensity and Blood Piercing do have limited uses but they are still very useful, even if you use the Intensified Spell feat, because it can save you that increased cost or provide a higher cap in a pinch, especially if you also use other metamagics, and so you are distinctly better off for having them.

In the end the Sorcerer would make a better blaster but the Blood Arcanist would still be decent in a pinch, but the Arcanist would still suffer for its lower damage and fewer spell slots when blasting. It is really a question of whether you want superior and more frequent blasting or superior utility.

Most of the single-target spells I mention are first level spells. You could also just focus on AoE spells if you prefer and use the Selective Spell metamagic (which is available as a rod and won't require 10 levels that way), which allows you to exclude a number of targets equal to your spellcasting ability modifier (charisma in this case) from AoEs. There are ways to make this work without having to use up all your spells known.

There is no need to take the Solar bloodline. If you'd taken the Draconic bloodline as a second bloodline for your Crossblooded Sorcerer you would have Mage Armor, Resist Energy, and Fly as bloodline spells.

When it comes to changing damage types, first, as I have mentioned many a time by now, you can simply cast a different spell that does a different type of damage to begin with (Lightning Bolt, Ball Lightning, Snowball, Intensified Corrosive Touch and later Acidic Spray, Burst of Force, Cone of Cold, Lightning Arc and then Cold Ice Strike and Chain Lightning). This costs no resources whatsoever, aside from spells known and you can trade spells known for different spells of the same spell level at 4th level and every even level thereafter once you have a better spell for your needs. But really you should already have spells like Battering Blast at this point, which are very unlikely to be resisted. And if you truly wish to use a Lesser Metamagic Rod of Elemental Spell it is cheap enough and the Sorcerer could use the Blood Intensity bloodline mutation instead of Intensified Spell. This is not a real disadvantage. The sorcerer is not really losing damage here.

Look, when it comes to utility, the Arcanist obviously has the Sorcerer beat, but when it comes to blasting, the Sorcerer has the Arcanist beat. And the Sorcerer can still develop some tools to ensure he is capable of utility magics. Furthermore, being a Half-Elf is not exactly a detriment to the Sorcerer, not when it offers a bonus to charisma, the best spell, and access to the best favored class bonus. You could also forego the Crossblooded archetype and improve your spells known if you wish. Your fire spells will suffer for it, but your versatility will benefit from the amount of spells known.