kronovan's page

Many thanks for the reply. Yes I'd noticed Paizo's Bestiary 2 looked to have monsters that suited the Midgard setting. There's also references to some of its monsters in Kobolb Presses' Streets of Zobeck Gazetteer. I do own the Bestiary 5 PDF, but haven't spent much time with it, so I'll give it a better read.

Something I should have probably mentioned, is that I'll be hosting 2 of my players via the Fantasy Grounds Virtual Tabletop software app. So any other bestiaries I buy will need to also be purchasable as digital, downloadable content for that VTT. All the Paizo bestiaries are available and I've noticed that Tome of Horrors and the Mythic Monster complicatios are available too. the Monsters of Prophyra series and Freeport bestiary aren't though.

I do own Kobold Presses' Tome of Beast and Creature Codex for 5e in both print and PDF, but I'm afraid I'm just not savvy enough with PF1E monsters to convert them.
Is there an online web or downloadable app that can help with that conversion?

I have the Midgard Bestiary for Pathfinder 1E, but I'm wondering if anyone here who's familiar with the Midgard setting could comment on which of the Paizo bestiaries best compliments and expands it?

I'm looking to run a campaign beginning in Midgard's central city of Zobeck. I plan on using some of what's in the Zobeck Gazetteer and the Streets of Zobeck and Tales of the Old Margreve campaign books. So there'll be a lot of campaigning in the Crossroads region. If the campaign runs long enough though, they'll also be opportunities for the player to adventure into the Rothenian Plane, Wasted West and the Duchy of Dornig/Domains of the Princes.

Unless Kyle magically reappears, I do not think the information about working on a second edition is accurate. That may be what he put in a while ago, but it appears that Kyle has retired from working on this program. Thankfully Snapshot has taken up the mantle, but I believe Snapshot is working exclusively on the PC version. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that Snapshot.

Thanks for the reply - not the news I wanted to hear, but c'est la vie. Sounds like I'm out of luck on ever having the 3d6 Initiative work; too bad someone hadn't noticed that option not working on the Android version before Kyle retired. Regardless, I may still use CM by just using the manual dice roller for the 3d6 rolls. Since my son runs the PC version -all of which I paid $0 for- on his laptop for his Pathfinder campaign, I'm content to treat the roughly $5 I paid for the Android version as a donation to the cause. ;)

I'm wonderimg if anyone else is able to successfully use the "3d6" option for initiative with the most current Android 1.04 edition? Whenever I enable that option, Combat Manager crashes the moment I click the roll initiative button. I can manually roll 3d6 in the dice roller, just can't do the same for initiative. Otherwise, every other feature of the app works fine.

I'm using it for an RPG that uses 3d6 for initiative, so having that feature work will save me from doing a lot of single rolls in the dice roller.

I'm also somewhat curious about the status of the Android edition? I saw on the Google Play store, that the creator is working from scratch on a 2nd edition, but I'm wondering if some bugs might get fixed in the interim;I.e. is an Android 1.05 version a possibility?

Have the Leopard grapple him and growl in his face, if nothing else, the half hour pause in the game whilst everyone checks what the damn grapple rules are give you enough time to figure out what to do next :)

Lol & ouch! :-p

Many thanks to everyone for the feedback. Your comments and suggestions have been great food for thought.

An incident came up in the private campaign I'm playing in, in which a party PC attempted an unarmed strike against my PC - they missed. Their reason was that they didn't like the way I was interacting with a NPC, claiming I was being disrespectful and too conniving. Considering I'm a SotB Druid spec'd for melee with a Leopard companion, I was surprised they'd even consider such an action. Especially since we're all level 2 and the party member attempting the strike is a Wizard with nothing more powerful than magic missile and a marginal AC even with their Mage Armor cast.

Without going into too much detail, the NPC who I was interacting with had disrespected and made an unsolicited and inappropriate proposition to my PC in an earlier encounter, so it wasn't like my approach was unwarranted. I'm also a neutrally aligned worshiper of Gozreh, so it also wasn't really acting OOC.

The player is young and fairly new to PF, so my approach was to let it slide. That was a bit tricky with my companion though, as I had to fudge things a bit around it not noticing the attempted strike. My leopard is weapon finessing with a very good attack, so it's unlikely it would have wiffed. I did explain to the player it was a foolish move and that it could have had bigger consequences than they thought. I'm not a 100% they really heard me out though. My PC is also the only healer in the party, so there's the potential consequences of that too.

Well I'm receptive to feedback on how I play and open to constructive criticism, I'm not planning on making big changes to my play style in this campaign, as I don't feel I'm really playing my Druid OOC and other players aren't having a problem with my style. I really haven't been confronted with a party member acting like this in years, so it was a bit of a curve ball tossed my way. I'm wondering how others would have handled this situation; avoid the retaliatory attacks as I did, or retaliate with your PC and companion?

My only comment would be to make sure the players have the same option to benefit from this, give them the same bonuses for free in addition to any class bonuses if they are on their own familiar ground, otherwise you are just giving the monsters a bonus on a whim.

For sure, I'd go with that - makes perfect sense.

Another question that's come up for me is how the gp values in the Treasure Values per Encounter table in the CRB are handled. Does evey PC in the party receive the amount ot treasure listed in the appropriate column, or is that amount divided up evenly amongst the party.

BTW Many thanks to everyone who replied. :)

The terrain listing in the monster stat block is really just for flavor, to help with building an immersive world, or if you need an appropriate encounter on the fly.

Well, despite the fact that I'm prebuilding them, my encounters are more or less intended to be inserted into an adventure on the fly.

Food for thought, but one thing this discussion has got me thinking about, is whether I might houserule that monsters have a bonus to perception and stealth when in their home terrain. I should probably mention that I have a fairly ecology-aware party, with most of the base monster ID'ing knowledge skills of nature, arcana and dungeoneering being held by at least 1 PC. The one missing is knowledge-planes, but the 6th player is talking about rolling up an Inquisitor. As well, I'm allowing the 3PP Noble Wild book with this campaign and one of my players is rolling with a Panther PC.

So with that in mind, would allowing a bonus such as +1 or +2 to perception and stealth to monsters tilt the playing field too much in their favor?

With further thought, unless the creatures the characters are running into are specifically in the middle of migrating or have been recently displaced, they can and should be considered to be in a terrain where they, themselves, are relatively comfortable. In that sense, a monster is never really considered to be in 'unfavorable' terrain. After all, the characters are generally going to the creatures, not the other way around.

Well this was my thought around it, with my leaning to those with an "any terrain" description as not ever being in favored terrain. Mark brings up an important point though, does that terrain actually give a beneficial/competitive edge in any encounter?

I guess that raises a further question: is there any implied rule that a monster in it's home environ/terrain gets any type of bonuses, similar to the ranger's favored terrain?

There's obviously some givens to that such any enounter set in water terrain where the PCs will be up against monsters with a swim speed. Or PC's climbing a cliff in mountainous terrain where they're up against monsters with a climb or fly speed. If it's implied that the GM should be automatically applying certain bonuses to monsters in their favored/home terrain, then I'm cool with that. I just haven't come across any text or rule stating that.

I've started to create some fairly some generic encounters that I can insert into a campaign where appropriate. I've been using the CRB, GM and 3 bestiary books, but a few question have come up - especially around the area of terrain which doesn't always seem consistent across all books.

I've noted the text in the encounter creation section of the CRB that mentions that the CR for the encounter should be increased by 1 for the purposes of PC XP, if the terrain favors the monsters. I've been basing the encounters type of terrain on the 11 types that are present in the list of the Ranger's favored terrain, since there's 2 rangers in my party of PC's. Meanwhile the 3 bestiaries give a more granular break-down of those types of terrain. While the adventure gen table in the GM are based on much more general terrain types.

The question I have is: are monsters with a terrain type of "any terrain" ever considered to be in their favored terrain?

If they aren't; are monsters with a more granular temperature description for their any terrain environ considered in their favored terrain where appropriate; i.e. if I build a encounter set in a Cold setting/location, are monsters with the "Any Terrain - Cold" environment considered to be in favorable terrain?

Then there's a question around the adventure gen tables in the GM book. Those adventures types are broken down as Dungeons, Planar, Urban, Water and Wilderness. My initial thought was that planar would correspond to the Ranger's "planes" terrain, urban to "urban", water to "water", and Wilderness to any of the others with the exception of maybe cold. The Dungeons adventure section seems an exception as the table description clearly identify them as associated with terrain types other than "underground". The problem with most of those adventure sections random gen tables is that the monsters in them seem to be of different terrain types.

So that brings up the question: for the sake of easy encounter design, should I just treat any monster rolled on those tables as being in their favored terrain, or should I take the trouble to reference their terrain listing in the bestiary?

I typically wouldn't bother with this type of detail when creating an adventure, but the 2 rangers in the party pay attention to and expect this type of detail. And I'm willing to accommodate them to some extent as they're good role players; especially how the lay of the land effects the RP of their PC's.

I'm sure more questions will arise as I get further into this, but this is a start. If any GM's here who've built some encounters could provides some answers to my questions, it'd be greatly appreciated.

thanks for the reply. I fugured there was a hierarchy to it. So would my Magus' +1 enhancement from their arcane pool allow them to overcome DR 5/Magic.

What effect does my 2nd level Magus' +1 enhancement from his Arcane Pool have on overcoming DR? I read through this earlier thread, but it left more questions unanswered than answered for me. The last PFS adventure I played in, the GM ruled that my PC's arcane pool bonus had no effect on overcoming DR on a monster that had DR 5/Cold, but I'm wondering if that was correct?

One VERY important thing about Spell strike some people keep forgetting is -

Spell strike has NOTHING to do with CASTING of spells.

Yeah, that was what I was trying to say in my last post when I was contrasting it to an Arcane Bonded weapon, but I didn't say it well. Spellstrike is really just a supernatural ability that allows the Magus to deliver a touch spell as a free melee attack instead of a free melee touch attack.

I don't see the Arcane Bonded Weapon example JJ was discussing in that thread the same as Spellstrike. An Arcane Bonded Weapon lets the Wizard cast ONE particular spell from their spellbook, independent of the spell slots they've prepared for the day. Whereas Spellstrike ONLY allows a Magus to use a prepared touch spell and deliver it through a weapon as a free melee attack in place of the standard free melee touch attack. To me those are very different things.

As to the rest of what's discussed in that thread, I already have a 5th level TWF Dwarf that wields a throwing axe in his off-hand, so not much that was discussed was new info to me.

Cap. Darling wrote:

Shimesen wrote:

SKR has said that if a free hand is used to do something in a round, even if grasping a THW is a free action, that hand has been occupied for the round and cannot then be used for something else such as wielding a THW. There's an FAQ on this exact thing. Searce FAQ for magus and you'll find it.

That is Spell combat. The issue at hand here is Spellstrike. You can do Spellstrike with a two handed weapon.

It remains an issue for spellstrike because You need a free hand to cast spells that require a somatic component. And because casting a spell IS a standard action, you need that hand free for the whole action.

I read through all the FAQs and found nothing in regards to what Shimesen mentioned. As well, this excerpt from one of the Ultimate Magic FAQ questions, leads me to believe that two-handing is allowable:

Magus: Can a magus use spellstrike (page 10) to cast a touch spell, move, and make a melee attack with a weapon to deliver the touch spell, all in the same round?...

...On a related topic, the magus touching his held weapon doesn’t count as “touching anything or anyone” when determining if he discharges the spell...

Based on what you're saying even two-handing a one-handed weapon while using Spellstrike wouldn't be allowable. Spellstrike makes it very clear that the melee attack is a free action and the spell is delivered through the weapon. It might just be me, but what you're both claiming doesn't sound like RAW or RAI. Shimesen, if you have a link to anything SKR said about this, I'd very much appreciate it if you could list it.

I have a Magus with an Elven Curve Blade as well, and in my Rise of the Runelords campaign, there is a dwarven Magus with a Dwarven Waraxe who gave me the idea in the first place. (Gods help the poor bastard he crits with that thing.)

Not to mention that the Elven Curve Blade does as much standard damage as that Dwarven Waraxe, but has a 18-20 crit range. ;)

I forgot to mention earlier, but many thanks to all those who answered this.

The Elven Curve Blade or any two handed weapon is never a good weapon for a Magus. (leaving the freak shows out and assuming a normal two armed biped for our purposes) To give up spell combat, means you might as well chop your arms off.

Yup, well aware of that and that's why I'm also planning on carrying a Rapier. ;) That said, having just taken a TWF Ranger to 5th level, I'm not completely sold on TWF with it's -2 penalty to the primary hand. I realize some touch spells will help with the primary hand attack penalty, but I'm also not trhilled with the idea of having to position myself within 10' of my target to safely cast and then 5' step to make the Spell Combat attack.

I've searched and read through a number of threads here on spellstrike -even one that mentioned 2-Handed weapons- but I'm still not clear if this is doable. I have a Weapon Finessing Elven Magus that wants to use the Elven Curve Blade with his spellstrike (su). I'm well aware that this weapon wouldn't be possible to use with Spell Combat, so I'm not looking for feedback on that.

It's clear from the descriptive text for Spellstrike that the melee attack is a free action similar to the way the delivery of a melee touch spell is. From my understanding of it, it's possible for a Magus to cast their touch spell, move and then deliver their melee weapon attack all in 1 round. Many of the touch spells my Magus will be using have a somatic component, so my Magus will need to have 1 hand free. I've read that the act of grasping a weapon with 2 hands is a free action, but I'm not sure about the rules around temporarily holding a 2-handed weapon with only 1 hand. So....what my question is:

Can a Magus with a 2-handed Elven Curve Blade initially have 1 hand off their weapon to cast their touch spell, then grasp the weapon 2-handed, move and make their melee attack all in the same round?

If, however, he is dual wielding a pair of wapons (two short swords or two kukri's etc.) and has the double slice feat so that he gets his full strength bonus to each of them and is not using power attack, and both weapons are the same quality (+1, +2, etc.) then I don't see a reason he would have to declare which is which. This is, however, likely not the case - so yes, he should declare which is which...

He did have double-slice, but he also had different weapons; PC was an Elf with small Elven curve blade in M-H and short sword in O-H.

[Edit] Actually Chemlak, the player's PC had TWF and they were only making a M-H and O-H attack. The player agreed that what they were doing isn't allowed when your'e making a multi-attack due to having a secondary BAB. They felt it could only be performed when making a full-round TWF attack against the same target after having declared that both the M-H and O-H would be used - hence they were rolling 2xd20's.

He doesn't have to declare the order, but each d20 roll still goes with one attack...he can't just roll both dice at once, then use the highest for his primary and the lowest for his offhand.

Which is really what he was doing.

Attacks are always rolled one at a time conceptually even if you roll them all at once for time savings...

OK, well that's what I thought, but when I tried to find something in the rules that clearly stated that I couldn't find it?

You don't have to declare roll order for TWF attacks although generally people do them in order. However you do have to specify the weapon being used to make an attack before rolling either way. You can't pull shenanigans and just roll then pick what attack is what.

What if the player has declared they will absolutely be making their M-H and O-H against the same target and then rolls 2xd20?. Do they need to declare which 1 is for what hand before making the rolls?

A situation came up yesterday in our private campaign when a player made a TWF attack for which he declared the primary and offhand attacks against the same target. He claimed that because he had already declared he'd be making a full attack with both weapons, he didn't need to declare the order of the d20 rolls. That didn't sound right to me, as I recalled something in the full attack section of the combat chapter that stated you had to declare it. So I looked it up, and to my surprise the rule does seem to only demand the declaration/order when making an multi attack when a PC's BAB allows it; i.e. BAB +6/+1. Here's what the rules state and I highlighted the only section I could find about roll order.

Full Attack

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.

If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.

Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.

I looked up the rules under the TWF'ing section and the TWF Feat and nothing in those states the roll order must be declared. This really constitutes a "take the highest of the 2" for the primary attack IMO. I've always declared which weapon my rolls apply to in PFS play for my TWF Ranger, before actually making the roll. Surely there's some other section of the CRB that states the need for declaring a roll order - is there?

I noticed this in the description for the Fly skill:

"A creature larger or smaller than Medium takes a size bonus or penalty on Fly checks depending on its size category: Fine +8, Diminutive +6, Tiny +4, Small +2, Large –2, Huge –4, Gargantuan –6, Colossal –8."

So I guess the question is, do Gnomes and Halfings qualify as small creatures under the details for this skill and therefore get the bonus?

Thanks for the reply LazarX. It still might be worth it, considering what I'm planning.

Does this extraordinary ability...

Magical Talent (Ex): A magician gains a bonus equal to half his level on Knowledge (arcana), Spellcraft, and Use Magic Device checks. This ability replaces bardic knowledge.

..increase with overall character level or just with Bard class level?

My multiclassing idea for this involves another class as the favored class, so I'm not sure if that has any bearing on it. Which sort of brings up another question:
Does a Bard have to take Performance as a skill?

I'd be using this PC in PFS play, so I'll have to play it by the book.

Nefreet wrote:

In PFS there is no requirement.

It would be impossible, going from table to table, and GM to GM, to know what animals your Druid is "familiar" with.

It's a sensible restriction in a home game, and can really foster some roleplaying and create the idea to travel to distant worlds for the sake of learning about foreign fauna, but for PFS it's just not realistically doable.

PFS is house ruled. RAW, there is a requirement, which is adjudicated by the GM.

This is sort of my concern and why I was asking for clarity, because I've noted a GM at 1 of our tables asking a Druid to make the roll. Since I didn't know much about Druids at the time I wasn't exactly sure of the details of it. If the roll isn't required in PFS play, then at least 1 of our GM's isn't aware of that. As to what animals a player is familiar with, I was assuming it would be handled like trained skills for a companion and documented in the conditions gained section of the adventure/scenario sheet.

Either way, aren't I better off assuming I'll be asked to make the roll and ensuring I have a decent enough Knowledge(Nature) to make it?

And less common animals (such as dinosaurs) would require a higher base DC.

Would that require a roll against 10+CR, or would it be something even more difficult?

Thansk for the replies.

My Druid will be used in PFS play, so I do need to follow the RAW on this or at least the RAI. Yep, I did see that sentence in the text under Wild Shape. I was thinking the DC would be similar to the generalized roll for monsters, but I can see where a common animal Could equate more to the 5+CR DC for a common monster.

I read a guide recently that focused on a companion controlling and wild shaping Druid. The guide mentioned that Knowledge Nature is critical to the build as it effects the different animals the Druid can change into. I'm wondering how this comes into play.

Does the druid have to make roll a Knowledge Nature check against a DC of 10+Animal's CR; the same as any PC would if they wanted to identify some specific aspect of an animal?

also, does the fighting you do have to be melee?

an elven druid gets free weapon prof- longbow, bonus to dex. Aso, being ranged means you dont have to worry (as much) about con and high AC as (hopefully) your animal companion / team will be holding the line for you.

on the other hand, ranged combat does require quite a few feats to work, but you could get by with as little as PBS and precise shot.

Just a thought

Good suggestion Zedorland and I had considered it. The biggest problem I can see with it for a beast master Druid is that the the companions most commonly have Trip as a follow on CMB and that's really a detriment instead of help to a ranged fighter. There are the poisoning companions in the APG, but they didn't seem as good as the better companions in the CRB. To be honest I'm not that impressed that Paizo hasn't included grab with more of the companions.

As well, I already have an Elven Magus, so I wasn't looking to create another Elf PC. I also have a Gnome Sorcerer with decent DEX, both Point Blank & Precise shot and with a S%#! load of rays, so I wasn't feeling an itch for another ranged specialist. ;) I was really looking for a Druid that could build some synergy with a companion that can trip, and melee seemed the best for that.

"You get the 2 starting traits in PFS play, so I'm thinking at least 1 would be Adopted to get the Humans' bonus feat."

Remember that you get the Human BACKGROUND racial trait (e.g World Traveler or Scholar of Ruins). You do not get a human RACIAL trait (extra feat, etc)

I was going by what was actually stated by the trait in the APG:

"Adopted: You were adopted and raised by someone not of your actual race, and raised in a society not your own. As a result, you picked up a race trait from your adoptive parents and society, and may immediately select a race trait from your adoptive parents' race."

And then what was listed under the Human racial traits heading.

"Human Racial Traits
...
Bonus Feat: Humans select one extra feat at 1st level."

So does Bonus Feat somehow not qualify for that? I checked the APG FAQ and there's nothing additional listed for Adopted. Is there some section of the CRB or APG that I missed?

[Edit] Nevermind, I reread the Traits section of the APG's New Rules chapter and I see where I made my mistake. Adopted is a Basic-Social trait that qualifies a PC to take a trait belonging to another race within the "Race Trait" section of that chapter. As well, the heading in the core race sections is entitled "Racial Traits". Knew it had to be too good to be true. Good thing I didn't make this mistake with any of my other PC's. ;)

Not much of a problem any ways, as I think I can do the STR combat Druid build with only 1 starting feat.

The druid spell list is ok. It is not something I would focus on unless your going for a caster build. As they have enough buffing spell that you can fill you spell list with that work better for a combat focused build.

So in your opinion is 16 WIS enough? I wouldn't be willing to go below that, as a min of 16 in the key ability for a primary caster is sort of a personal rule for me. I know 16 gets me all of my spells, as being a PFS Druid it's unlikely I'd play past level 12. I know I can get to WIS 18 easily with a Headband of Inspiring Wisdom +2, but that would mean me still missing bonus spell slots for my last 2 spell levels.

Don't dump strength even with dervish dance. You'll suck in wildshape forms.

Yep, the STR approach is looking better to me the more I consider it. The Armor Class is a challenge, but there's also the option to wield a Scimitar and shield. Casting would be challenging at level 1, but with BAB 1 at level 2, the shield or scimitar can be freely swapped away as part of a move action.

Edit: Dervish dance is a feat available to anyone.

Really, which book is it in? I'm very interested in checking this feat out, but I can't find it in any of my books or in the PRD.

You're perhaps thinking of Dawnflower dervish, a bard archetype that gets that for free.

Nope, I was thinking of the Dervish Dancer archetype for Bards that's listed in the Ultimate Combat book.

[Edit] As well, why would I want to go this route anyways, when I can achieve the same result with Weapon Finesse + Martial Weapon Proficiency(Rapier). I couldn't particularly care less whether its a Rapier or Scimitar since both crit and damage the same. Another bonus with the Rapier route is I can get it a level 1, don't have to waste skill points on a skill I'll never use and it's lighter which could be nice with a STR challenged DEX fighter.

Alternately, take Weapon Finesse, throw 2 ranks into Perform (Dance) and take Dervish Dance. Druids start proficient with scimitars and you would be able to use your Dex modifier for both attack rolls and damage. Keep your Dex up and you benefit for AC, To Hit, and Damage.

Cool idea, but isn't Dervish Dance an archetype only available to Bards? Unless you're suggesting I dip into 1 level of Bard, which is something I wouldn't be thrilled about doing. As well, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Scimitar excluded from being used with Weapon Finesse? Otherwise it'd be a no-brainer to go DEX combat with Weapon Finesse, but from what I've read the best weapon a Druid can finesse is the Sickle.

Cool calagnar - close to what I arrived at. Just now reskinning my Asimar to a STR build I came up with:

STR 16
DEX 14
CON 13
INT 10
WIS 17
CHA 8

I had Toughness along with Skill Focus(Handle animal) as the 2 feats that they take via the Adopted(Human-Bonus Feat)starting trait. I definitely want my Druid to be a decent caster, hence my keeping WIS @ 17. I'd like to drop that to 16, but to be honest I haven't done much reading up on Druid spells yet and don't know how many have saving throws or DC concerns. If they do, my plan would be to bump it to 18 at level 4.

It wouldn't be that great a hitter in combat, but I figure a companion with trip might help with that and a MW weapon & belt of STR +2 at around mid level 4.

Interesting idea calaganar - hadn't considered skill focus for Handle Animal. I can definitely see where that would free up some points and make a STR combat build more possible. The problem at my PFS tables is that it's often the case that no player has a social skill which makes dialog heavy adventures a real challenge at times. Whereas, with 1 exception all of my PC's have a social skill. I was hoping to leverage the higher CHA for Diplomacy. As well, I already have a Ranger and Magus that have CHA as a dump stat, so I was hoping this time for a PC that didn't have that limitation.

That said, an Asimar with the Grand Lodges' Insider Knowledge trait does start with Diplomacy as a class skill and a +3 bonus when u figure in the trait and the Asimar's Skilled racial trait. That's not a great Diplomacy, but not terrible either.

[Edit] Just out of curiosity, what was your starting WIS stat?

As a druid there is not enough point to do every thing you want. As you need Str, Con, and Wis. And dumping Dex removes most of your AC as a Druid. Something has to give. Social skills. Are the one thing you can give up with little effect to

Ah, I see where you're coming from & many thanks for the replies. Just to make things clearer, I include Handle Animal as a social skill. The only other social skill this PC would have is diplomacy.I wouldn't be happy with this build to soley rely on my animal companion's bonus skills or struggle with a nerfed Wild Empathy - definitely want to be able to train my companion. So dumping CHA really isn't an option; hence my leaning towards an Asimar that's a DEX based for combat.

A good starting place is the question, "What books do you own?" Knowing what you have available to play can either open up or lock down a lot of doors for a query like this.

I own the CRB, Adv Players Guide, Adv. Races Guide, Ultimate Magic and PFS Field Guide.

Will this be a play from level one build or a start higher with GM credit?

Starting from level 1

Just use a Scythe and play like most barbarians. Build up HP over AC. This is how most druids play due to the armor restriction. They can do a good job in melee with the scythe until they can wild shape.

I'd already considered something like this, but I really want decent social skills too. That sort of build seemed to rule it out.

As the subject line states, I'm wondering if such a build is viable. I should probably get my biases out of the way, by saying I don't think Rangers are particularly good animal companion masters for PFS play.

Druids on the other hand seems much more viable as an animal companion master, mostly on account of them getting it from level 1. Problem I can see with the Druid though is the very poor weapon selection and no combat-related sa's sp's or ex's, which makes them seriously challenged for any martial capability. Then there's the issue of their defensive spells, which seem to only come at level 3 with barkskin. I can't imagine a Druid that does melee or ranged combat that isn't DEX based. They're not ever going to be good damage dealers, but at least they might be able to hit often (along with their companion) and have decent defense.

The problem though is it seems they really have to burn a minimum of 2 feats from the get go to achieve any fighting ability. From my read of them, you either have to go Point Blank + Martial prof. or Weapon Finesse + Martial Weapon prof. - it would be ideal if the latter could be Weapon Finesse+Exotic Weap Prof., but they start at BAB 0. Might just be me, but finesseing a Sickle seems down right pathetic and chucking a spear of flinging a sling seems about equivalent. You get the 2 starting traits in PFS play, so I'm thinking at least 1 would be Adopted to get the Humans' bonus feat.

Then there's the issue of ability stat distribution. If I was going to attempt anything like this I'm thinking I'd go with the Asimar for their +2 in WIS and CHA and no negatives. My problem I have though whenever thinkings stats, is I'd still want a decent number of skills, so I'd want to keep INT at 10. I'd also like to exploit the CHA for Diplomacy, since that's often lacking at the PFS table I play at - easily doable with a Grand lodge trait. I also much prefer playing balanced as opposed to min-max builds.

I guess most importantly I really like the flavor of a nature-focused PC that works synergy with their animal companion and spells to fight in combat. Throw is a few social skills with Humans and Animals and that's icing on the cake. It's a character type I could see myself having fun RP'ing. Of course, like any PC, I'm not going to enjoy it if it end up being seriously nerfed.

I realize the Druid is considered broken by many, so I'm not really looking for feedback that just confirms that opinion. Any thoughts on whether such a build is doable and what sort of starting stats and feats would work would be appreciated. As well, if there's any other class that does it better I like to hear about it. One caveat; I'm not looking to create a Summoner - we have enough of them at the society tables I play at.

Many thanks for all of the replies. After I posted I did check the FAQ and see the HP entry and the others for animal companions. Now I just need to figure out what kind of Druid I'll roll. Every time I look at their weapon selection and combat related special abilities though, I shy away.

I've been considering a Druid and I'm wondering how the 2 d8 Hit Dice that a starting AC gets are handled in terms of calculating HP.

a) Do they use the same system as a player character; i.e. 8+CON bonus for hit dice 1 with 5 + CON bonus for every other hit dice?

b) Or do they use something similar to the Bestiary; i.e. 5+CON bonus for hit dice 1, and 5+CON bonus for every other hit dice as well?

c) Or is it yet something different than a & b?

Thanks Diego and Xaratherus for confirming/clarifying. The last paragraph in the PDT through me, but I can see it was as I originally thought.

As an aside: It'd be interesting to do a Magus\Cleric cross-class, with Broad Study for Cleric, because as written you could then take a full attack action while using Cure spells on an ally adjacent to you.

Yeah that definitely opens up a lot of possibilities, not to mention that the Cleric spells aren't subject to failure from armor. I was strongly leaning in the direction of making my Magus a Hexcrafter and a big attraction to that was the Witches' Healing Hex, but this does sound like it might be better and you don't have to sacrifice Spell Recall.

Up-thread, PDT posted that for the purposes of "Magus spell list" it must be cast from a spell slot provided by your Magus class. Can't really get any more official than that, it's a Paizo FAQ now.

There's not really any wiggle room here: Unless you take the appropriate arcana, a Shocking Grasp from your Wizard levels isn't prepared in a Magus spell slot, and therefore can't be used with...

Argh, I missed the 2nd page when I read through the posts. I can see where broad study has been clarified now - my mistake. This wording in the PDT reply does still raise questions for me:

(Other magus abilities may modify what spells can be used with spell combat. For example, the broad study magus arcana explicitly states the magus can use spell combat to cast spells from the selected non-magus spellcasting class.)

Does that means spells from other classes that are prepared in a Magus Spell slot? If that isn't the case, then broad study IMO is a useless magus arcana.

I think for a beginning Magus it's both a) Magus Spell List and b) Magus Spell slots. However, there are things that can change that.

First off the Magus spell list can be expanded in 2 different ways;
1) by taking the Spell Blending magus arcana the Magus can expand their list by including Wizard Spells.
2) by taking the Hexcrafter archetype the Magus adds any 6th level or lower spell with a descriptor word of "curse" in it to their list.

Spells: A hexcrafter magus adds the following spells to his magus spell list: bestow curse, major curse, and all other spells of 6th level or lower that have the curse descriptor.

The wording in Spell Combat does say "Magus spell list", but it's not a static list when either of those 2 options are employed.

Secondly, the Magus can start casting spell from other spell slots for which they're multiclassed by taking the Broad Study magus arcana at level 6. However, any spells used from an arcane class that are subject to arcane spell failure also apply to the Magus' use of them. I read through all the posts here, but I still can't see how the writers would include Broad Study if the intent wasn't to allow for spell slots from other classes to be use with Spell Combat or Spellstrike.

I think that the broad study arcana could be useful. That arcana let you use another spell list other than yours magus spell list for spell combat and spellstrike, but don't let you ignore arcane Armor failure.

+1 to what black storm said.

So another +1 to Storm on that.

Kronovan, do you never intend on purchasing a magic weapon?

Yes I am, but I have't even played my Magus PC in a single PFS adventure yet. This is a new character and it'll take some time before I can purchase a magic weapon.

You are assuming something: you are assuming that the Core rulebook, produced in 2009 will have a specific rule pertaining a class printed in the 2012 Ultimate Magic rulebook.

Instead you must follow the steps of the rules keeping in your mind the order in which the book were produced.

Core rulebook, 2009 - a weapon masterwork enhancement bonus and a weapon magical enhancement bonus don't stack but overlap.
Ultimate Magic, 2012 - a magus using a arcane pool point can give a (magical) enhancement bonus to a weapon, and that bonus can be added to existing enhancements...

I think you missed the part of my OP where I stated I've read a number of threads where a rule in the CRB is referred to regarding this. Here was my actual commment:

Ok, so I've read a number of the the threads here regarding this topic and in a number there's the mention that as per the rules in the CRB, the arcane pool bonus doesn't stack with the MW weapons attack bonus.

That meant I truly did some searching and found a series of threads - I wasn't pulling this out of thin air. Of course based on that I made the assumption that there was a rule in the CRB that would supersede the Magus rule in the UM - why would so many previous posters claim there was if there wasn't. What I clearly WAS NOT assuming was that there was a CRB rule that stated the stacking was allowed.

Kronovan, you might want to reread your own OP:

kronovan wrote:

Ok, so I've read a number of the the threads here regarding this topic and in a number there's the mention that as per the rules in the CRB, the arcane pool bonus doesn't stack with the MW weapons attack bonus.

That's what we've been responding to.

Or, at least, that's what I was responding to when I said earlier that you will find no such rule in the CRB.

No disagreements there Nefreet - you did respond to my actual question. To be honest though, it was only Xaratherus that really pointed to a section in the CRB when he made this statement.

...I think there's a bit of a contradiction here. The text on masterwork weapons states that the bonus from MW is subsumed by a magical enhancement...

Which is what I was mostly asking for. The rule is in the CRB on page 149 and I even quoted it in 1 of my posts. I appreciate all the discussion, so many thanks to you and everyone else that replied. This has allowed me to see that there's a contradiction in the RAI in the CRB and RAW in UM regarding the stacking. I'm using my Magus in PFS play, so I'll point this out to our Venture Captain for a ruling.

Xaratherus wrote:

Now you could get two a round if the GM allowed your character to take the Quicken Spell-Like Ability feat.

Except that the examples provided in the OP are not spell-like abilities.

The Sorcerer's Elemental Ray, which was in the OP, is a spell-like ability.

It looks like others ha e said what I was trying to say better. Basically the op asked for a core rulebook rule that allows the arcane pool thing to syack with the mw bonus. I was basically trying to say there isn't one.

Actually I said nothing of the sort. This is actually what I said:

Ok, so I've read a number of the the threads here regarding this topic and in a number there's the mention that as per the rules in the CRB, the arcane pool bonus doesn't stack with the MW weapons attack bonus.

And I even restated it later here:

Which brings me back to my question; where in the CRB does it state that adding a +1 enhancement to a MW weapon erases the existing +1 attack bonus? As I stated in my initial post, I only found such a rule in the Magic Weapon spell text.

You assumed incorrectly that I was looking for a CRB rule that allows the arcane bonus to stack with the MW bonus, and you did that after accusing me of making an illogical assumption. Suggestion - try actually reading what someone is asking for before replying.