tomorrow's page

Yeah, brain-slip on (C). Though (D) really is the crux question. I guess putting it another way:

How do Ecclesitheurge treat spells from its secondary domain list for the purposes of item creation/spell completion/spell-trigger?

1. Are all of their deity's domain spells effectively added to their class list?
2. Are none of their deity's domain spells, except the ones permanently from the primary domain spell list, added to their class list?
3. Do the spells considered added to the class list change along with the secondary domain spell list selected each day.

OR

4. The above cited threads are incorrect and domain spells are not considered part of the cleric's class spell list for the purposes of item creation/spell completion/spell-trigger.

Have I asked a silly question or tricky one?

I commented about the Ecclesitheurge with daily variable secondary domain spell lists and Scribe Scroll in another thread, but I am now scratching my head more about it. Using search-fu I found some other posts about Clerics making and using spells granted by domains:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mzdz?Scrolls-and-Domains#14
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2meka?Cleric-domain-spells-scrolls-and-wands

The indication seems to be that despite some semantic wording over whether or not Domain spells are part of your class list for the purposes of the three conditions of activating scrolls, a Cleric with the appropriate Domain is supposed to be able to both create and use divine scrolls of that Domain. Granted there does seem to be dissenting opinions on this in general.

Ecclesitheurge seems to muddy that water even more though. Because the secondary domain spell list is variable from day to day.

So does their ability to create and use spells from this variable list also vary? (i.e. the domain spells are only part of your list when you choose to have access to them and not part of your list when you choose not to) Or can the Ecclesitheurge just scribe/use a scroll of any domain spell his deity offers... whenever? (i.e. if you have access to the Domain at anytime, for the purpose of things that require you to have one of its spells as part of your list, its there, even if inactive) Can he never scribe or use scrolls (UMD aside) from his secondary domain? (i.e. If the domain spell is not permanently added to your list at all times, its not considered part of your list at all)

Take hypothetical Sir Cleric von Clericpants is devoted God MacGod of the Clan MacGod, who has domains of Fire, Void, and Darkness.

If Sir Clericpants has Darkness as his primary domain and Fire as his secondary domain on Day 1, can he:
a) Scribe a scroll of Burning Hands? [from Fire, whose list he has today]
b) Use a scroll of Burning Hands? [from Fire, whose list he has today]
c) Scribe a scroll of Silent Image? [from Void, whose list he doesn't have today but could]
d1) Use a scroll of Silent Image? [from Void, whose list he doesn't have today but could]
d2) Does it matter if he himself scribed the scroll on Day 0 when he was using the Void domain spell list as his secondary spell list (provided that the answer to "a" indicates that he's even capable of doing so)?

How would "Pyxes of Redirect Focus" and the Scribe Scroll feat (or Craft Wand/Staff for that matter) work with an Ecclesitheurge?

Would the Pyxes allow the Ecclesitheurge to swap a spell from their secondary domain spell list for the day with a spell from the primary domain prepared in a normal spell slot? (once per day)

What about scrolls/wands/staves... can an Ecclesitheurge scribe/craft an item for spells with his variable secondary spell list? Would he be able to use scrolls he scribed himself on days when he does not chose to have a secondary domain spell list that includes the spell so scribed?

I'm almost sort of feeling like the Ecclesitheurge is an old school 3.5ed throwback in that is good if you are looking prestige out as soon as you can due to it being so front-loaded (not so much so as like 3.5ed Wizards and Clerics... but more prestige friendly than usual for Pathfinder, IMHO).

You don't lose higher level domain slots/spells when you prestige out so long as you pick a full casting prestige class. Your primary ability is versatility about what spells you can have each day (plus being able to prepare as many instances of your primary domain spells as you have regular slots). This isn't affected by prestiging out, as far as I can tell (which to me makes you more prestige class friendly than a standard cleric). Your bonded holy symbol beyond remaining cleric long enough to be able to enchant it (like level 3 in most cases) does not appear to be hampered by prestiging out either (again, prestige class friendly). So that leaves channeling (which you've already took a hit to, so if you don't prestige out, its still worse than normal) and domain powers (not all of which are terribly hit by prestiging out, or are really that great to begin with).

Ecclesitheurge sort of feels like its meant to be a prestige class foundation. I mean, what does an Ecclesitheurge realy lose by prestiging into "Insert Full Caster Prestige Class Here"?

Actually, why the primary stats don't match up... alchemist and synthesist summoner could be an interesting combo with the alchemist discoveries are the ones that add stuff to their bodies. The guy could be part undead, with a outsider worn like a second skin, and a magical beast inside his body, and all sorts of other weirdness (a composite creature) but with maybe a permanent disguise effect making him look not only normal but Adonis like (along with high Charisma of course).

Probably not the most power gamer/rules lawyer combo - but they synergize well for pure freak factor.

It occurs to me that if the OP likes more than one of the options presented her they could potentially have multiple bad guys instead of only one, using the genetically engineered messiah idea. He could have gestalt exemplars of the dominant races - human, dwarf, elf, gnome, halfling, and orc as acolytes for encounters before the party is actually at the big bad's level. So the gestalt mechanic can remain relatively unique (not everything is gestalt) but the players/GM can still play with it on both sides of the conflict before the eventual endgame as it were (assuming an endgame is even what the OP is aiming for, as opposed to more of a sandbox thing).

The "Orc Acolyte" for example, could be the suggested Scarred Witch Doctor/Barbarian (or whatever), but perhaps level appropriate for the PCs to encounter earlier than then when they're ready to take on the big bad.

I don't know if its been mentioned, but Unbreakable Fighter is pretty darn good for static defenses. At level 20, you're immune to all mind-affecting effects, paired with some of the Oracle capstones (Dark Tapestry would eliminate critical hits and sneak attacks; also acid for what that is worth), associated curse (lame - fatigue/exhaustion; or wasting - sickened/nauseated and disease), and other stuff (magic items, whatever crazy racial traits the genetically engineered guy has)... you could have a pre-epic endgame big bad that just plain shrugs off many of the PCs go-to de-buffs and attacks.

Of course some of the Oracle capstones come with built-in fake-out endings... where after the heroes have won and are celebrating victory, the bad guy just returns in a new form (for example - Occult - comes back as a ghost - heroes beating the big bad's body doesn't cut it... they need to take out his soul too). But such considerations only really matter if the party is going to be having their "final showdown" at or around level 20.

For the purposes of just having a decent mount, I don't know if I'd go all three feats. The -3 class level mount isn't "that" bad, especially if you're a Sohei can are adding additional stuff to it too.

I mean, if your a Sohei or Dragoon, what are your options?

1. If its allowed in your campaign, wait until 7th level or higher to get Leadership and have a Pegasus/Griffon/whatever that can gain class levels and serve as a mount.

2. Dip 4 levels of Cavalier and take a feat, get a horse, dog, pony, or wolf

3. Take 2 to 3 feats, get a horse, dog, or wolf.

4. Get a Death's Head Talisman and have some sort of undead mount (assuming an evil or at least very tolerant campaign setting).

5. Max out your UMD, have your wizard buddy regularly make you scrolls of Phantom Steed.

ericthecleric wrote:

I'm pretty sure with the gestalt rules, that you are not meant to use hybrid PrCs like the Eldritch Knight.

You would be correct.

Are there official pathfinder gestalt rules? I remember under 3.5 gestalt advised against allowing combination-type prestige classes. The gestalt rules stated that GM's should prohibit it, but it wasn't outright banned or strictly against the rules.

Synthesist Summoner X || Anti-Paladin 2/Dual Cursed Oracle X (with Magic Knack trait to make up for the two CL loss on Oracle) - might also be a neat combo with Misfortune, Fortune, and probably the Lore or Nature mysteries. Just to have something different, if this is going to be a high-level villain, I'd go with either the Legalist or Wrecker curses as the primary curse.

With Legalistic, just goad your players into making boasts or other statements to the villain that they can't possibly follow through on, and they are in a world of hurt. Secondary Curse, Tongues maybe?

With Wrecker, each and every attack with a manufactured weapon risks that weapon turning to dust in response. And all you have to do is not carry hold any items in your hands. Secondary curse, Haunted maybe? Misfortune to nerf a successful save.

Sorcerer /Oracle - Charisma does most of the walking depending on the Bloodline/Mystery you choose. Spontaneously cast all sorts of spells. A Charisma is a good stat thematic for a genetically engineered "perfect specimen" type of villain, as is having access to both arcane and divine magics.

Zen Archer / various - Zen Archer multiclasses well and gestalts well too, Druid, Cleric, Sorcerer (Wis-based archetype), Inquisitor, Ranger all match well up pretty well.

Fighter / any feat starved martial class/semi-martial class - adding in fighter feats and weapon training. Not sure that's campaign villain worthy though. I have a hard time imagining an primary villain whose not at least some kind of caster (unless they are immune to practically all caster tricks somehow). Though a Fighter (possibly Lore Warden) / Bard (Dervish of the Dawn or Dervish Dancer) or Scimitar-focused Magus sounds interesting.

I've been giving this subject some thought (for an NPC though, not a PC) and for a pure fighter competent character I lean towards a human dragoon fighter with the Fast Learner/Improvisation/Improved Improvisation trio of feats.

Dragoon because it makes you a two-handed fighter which isn't particularly feat intensive (allowing for the above mentioned feat line), and it has a special ability that makes lances both reach and non-reach for AoA. Which given the recent FAQ on two-handed fighting and off-hand attacks if pretty useful. Plus your weapon training has improved damage but still counts as weapon training for the purposes of gloves of dueling, which is awesome when you get to higher levels. And you keep Armor Training 1, which means you should be able to reduce its penalty to skills to at or near 0... and you since still have access to armor training, you should still get its negation of movement reductions in armor too.

Fast Learner/Improvisation/Improved Improvisation has you pretty well set for skills. Assuming you only go the bare minimum of Int 13 to acquire the feat, you will have 5 skill points per level for skills you want to focus on (one of which probably being UMD) and +4 to all skills you don't bother with and all skills are useable untrained. So you have at least +5 for all craft and knowledge checks and you use them as if trained in them.

Just somewhat random thoughts though... as I haven't actually put together said NPC as yet.

Derp, forum search fail. Apparently this is already debated.

"Emulate a Class Feature: Sometimes you need to use a class feature to activate a magic item. In this case, your effective level in the emulated class equals your Use Magic Device check result minus 20. This skill does not let you actually use the class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature. If the class whose feature you are emulating has an alignment requirement, you must meet it, either honestly or by emulating an appropriate alignment with a separate Use Magic Device check (see above)."

Okay, I assume that if an Oracle invested enough skill points into Use Magic Device, this would typically circumvent the only-if-you-have-the-appropriate-mystery restriction on Rings of Revelation and Soothsayer's Rainments, correct?

For example, if your a Time Oracle and you have a Ring of Revelations (Nature's Whispers), if you make a Use Magic Device check of 21, you have access to that Revelation (as an ongoing effect, you'd have to make another check 1 hour later).

If this is true, does this mean that with appropriate Use Magic Device ranks an Oracle X/Arcane Savant 1 (a.k.a. Pathfinder Savant) can effectively/safely use Rings of Revelation and a Soothsayer's Rainment which impunity to cherry-pick/mix-and-match whichever Revelations they want regardless of Mystery?

Evangelist Cleric of Ragathiel (Destruction/Rage domain/subdomain) with the Flagbearer and Eldritch Heritage (Imperious) line of Feats, along with a Courageous, Furious Longspear with the Banner of the Ancient Kings affixed to it (aka Sir Edward of Izzard, the Imperious Flagbearer).

"We stole countries with the cunning use of flags! Yeah, just sail around the world and stick a flag in."

Necromancy can have varying flavors. Lots of classes other then wizards have necromancy flavored archetypes. Plus you have just plain ole spell selection and roleplay flavor.

You can have pain effect masters.
You can have fear effect masters.
You can have nature defilers/druids gone bad.
You can have negative energy specialists.
You can have zombie/skeletal horde masters.
You can have seekers of unlife who specialize in mixing transmutation with necromancy to one day become undead creatures.
You can dessication focused mummy/dry lich style necromancers.
You can have vampire lord types who mix enchantment with necromancy.
You could try to revive the old Uttercold Necromancer theme by mixing in cold and negative energy usage.

I've been running Optimistic Gambler on my Evangelist Cleric of Ragathiel(Destruction w/Rage Subdomain) and yeah, we've been reading it as any EFFECT that includes a morale bonus (of any kind) being extended 1d4 rounds.

Hmm... does this ability work with improvised weapons... and if so, can we combine an acid flask with a gnome companion wielded as an improvised cudgel?

I've considered using the ability to combine alchemical effects with nets, haven't tested it out yet though.

Am I missing something with regards the "smart kitty" issue? I just don't see how it applies to Celestial Servant. Again, as this feat doesn't just allow your animal companion to become smart or even just add a template to it (which would still leave it an animal subject to the limitations of being an animal), but rather outright changes its type and thus removes the limitations inherent to the previous type (i.e. that of being merely an animal), why would buffing its intelligence not override the normal trick rules.

Not to be too silly... but a horse is a horse, of course, of course, unless of course that horse is a magical beast.

Again, if I've missed someone clarifying this, I apologize.

Well, just to play devil's advocate, it is possible that the template not automatically making the creature a magical beast anymore is exactly the reason the feat creator separately spelled out that the feat caused that change too.

Perhaps extending a little too much faith there, but it is possible.

Squee Stagskull wrote:

Celestial servant gives the celestial template, and ALSO makes it count as a magical beast. Take one of your skill increases for the AC, increase it's intelligence, and it gains a language known, and shouldn't require tricks (it's a sentient magical being that you can talk to...). The feat says you CAN still use handle animal on it, not that you HAVE TO.

Since you can talk to it, and it can understand you, and is inherently loyal to you, couldn't you just say "hey kitty, lower your SR a second"?

I'm going to dig around and see if I can find it, but there was a dev clarification that even if your animal companion has an INT of 3 or better, it is still an animal and requires Handle Animal checks to convince it to do things. So raising your Animal Companion's INT does not obviate the need for Handle Animal checks, it changes the dynamic a bit. If anything, I'd say it'd be even harder to talk your cat into attacking a dragon if it had a level of sentience, since it can actually understand exactly what a bad idea that is.......

***EDIT*** And here is the PFS take on it, which is pertinent to the conversation at hand-

Smart Kitty: If you have increased your animal companion's intelligence score to 3 using various means, then great! You can now have your companion learn any feat it can physically perform, and it can put ranks into any skill. What this increase does not accomplish, however, is any advantage in commanding your companion whatsoever. It's still the same DC 10 to handle and DC 25 to push. It may still only learn six tricks plus your druid bonus tricks. However, for every point of Intelligence it gains above 2, that is three more tricks it can learn. A smart animal will have more versatility without needing to rely on pushing.

But your not talking about an animal anymore with Celestial Servant, its not just a "smart kitty", its a magical beast, it is categorically not still an animal. And Celestial Servant only says you MAY still treat it like an animal for Handle Animal and such, not that you have to do so. If you don't need to use Handle Animal to ask an intelligent 3 or higher magical beast to do something, then you don't have to use it ask a Celestial Servant to do so.

I'm not sure the SR thing would be that big of an issue. You don't necessarily need to push an animal/magical beast to lower its SR. If its friendly towards you and knows/trusts you, it should probably of its own accord accept spells the same as it would accept pets and food from you. It lower it SR to accept spells from you isn't something you should need to command.

Tricks let you command an animal to do something it would normally do. For example, you don't have to use the "Come" command constantly just to make sure your animal companion follows you around. For the most part, if is your companion it will do so of its own accord. You only have to use "Come" when for some reason the animal isn't doing so normally.

Same with other commands, your companion can attack things without you issuing the "Attack" command. If it happens to be sleeping outside and a rat wanders by, it will likely attack, kill, and eat the rat without you ever even knowing about it... unless you've specifically trained it never to do such things.

Its a GMs call, but I have a hard time believing a druid's companion won't normally accept their masters spells without being commanded to do so first... again, anymore then they wouldn't accept food or attention from their master.

Edit: And if your GM is being harsh, I suppose since we're talking about magical beasts, you could buy/make a cheap INT enhancing collar to push its INT above 2 and not worry about trick at all anymore.

But that still doesn't change the fact that when you flurry with a bow, you are making a full-attack action (a flurry) with a ranged attack/bow.

That's not really the distinction I'm making the distinction I'm making is the flurry says it is "MADE AS A", not merely that it is treated or resolved as a full-attack action. That isn't saying flurry is "like" a full-attack action, it is a saying flurry IS a full-attack action. Those feats specifically call out working with a full-attack action, which flurry unequivocally indicates that it is.

As for the Sohei/Zen Archer comparison, alright, what you're saying now is narrower than saying Zen Archer creates/clarifies a general rule for the whole game. You're suggesting the text of one archetype implies an oversight/error in the text of another. That is a reasonable assertion, but not a certain one (nor even as certain as you imply). Zen Archer and Sohei are very different Archetypes, so much so that assuming a limitation for one was always intended to be a limitation of the other is still kind of a stretch (not meritless, but a stretch without further support/evidence).

Tarantula, could you explain your logic. Your quotations seem to lead to the opposite conclusion then what your are suggestion.

You "make a flurry as an full attack action", you add attacks with Rapid Shot/Manyshot when you perform a full attack action with a ranged attack/bow respectively. If you flurry with a bow, you are performing a full-attack action with a ranged attack/bow. Fluffy does not say its is merely "treated as a full-attack action", it say you "make" (i.e. perform) it as full-attack action. Using flurry is a full-attack action, plain and simple. Is see no conflict there. You make flurry attacks as a full-attack action. If you are making them with ranged attack/bows, the feats should apply.

Now, Zen Archer does seem to indicate that perhaps RAI (debatable, but I could see the argument) you aren't supposed to be able to combine Rapid Shot/Manyshot with Flurry, there is not anything RAW supporting that. Moreover, it is illogical to say that a limitation written specifically for a single archetype is a actually meant to be a clarifying rule for the entire game, especially when it contains no language indicating that it is. That is not a reasonable assumption at all.

Near as I can tell, without accounting for Patron Spells/Bloodline Spells or the use of the Still Spell feat, no somatic component spell list for Witch or Sorcerer seems to be:

Witch
0 - Light
1 – Command
2 – Blindness/Deafness, Steal Voice
3 – Lover’s Vengeance, Screech, Spit Venom, Suggestion, Tongues, Vision of Hell
4 – Communal Tongues, Dimension Door, Lesser Geas
5 – Contact Other Plane, Damnation Stride, Teleport, Truespeak
6 – Geas, Ice Crystal Teleport, Mass Suggestion, Unconscious Agenda
7 – Greater Teleport, Phase Door, Power Word Blind, Teleport Object
8 – Irresistible Dance, Mass Charm Monster, Nine Lives, Power Word Stun
9 – Power Word Kill, Teleport Circle, Wail of the Banshee

Sorcerer/Wizard
0 –Flare, Light, Sotto Voce
1 – Chastise, Feather Fall, Flare Burst, Hold Portal, Liberating Command, Lighten Object, True Strike, Ventriloquism,
2 – Blindness/Deafness, Blur, Bouyancy, Darkness, Knock, Steal Voice
3 – Displacement, Dweomer Retailation, Lover’s Vengeance, Suggestion, Tongues, Vision of Hell
4 – Communal Tongues, Dimension Door, Emergency Force Sphere, Lesser Geas, Shout,
5 – Contact Other Plane, Damnation Stride, Echolocation, Mass Lighten Object, Planar Adaptation, Teleport, Truespeak
6 – Geas, Ice Crystal Teleport, Mass Suggestion, Unconscious Agenda
7 – Greater Teleport, Phase Door, Power Word Blind, Resonating Word, Teleport Object
8 – Irresistible Dance, Mass Charm Monster, Nine Lives, Power Word Stun
9 – Fiery Body, Interplanetary Teleport, Mage’s Disjunction, Power Word Kill, Prismatic Sphere, Teleport Circle, Time Stop, Wail of the Banshee

If that helps anyone with builds. Of course basic utility cantrips are still available for both too, as arcane spell failure just means occasional additional castings before said cantrips work.

Well, that simply appears to not be true, given the example of spells that allow ranged touch attacks.

Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn (see FAQ below for more information.)

What you're saying implies that only spells that include ranged touch attacks count as making ranged attacks, which I can find nothing at all supporting.

A ray spell allow you to make ranged touch attacks as part of the spell, Telekinesis (violent thrust) allows you to make ranged attacks as part of the spell. If the ranged touch attack made as part of a ray spell counts as a ranged attack that provokes an AoO independent of the casting provocation, then it follows that Telekinesis (violent thrust) would too.

Edit: To be clear, I actually hope what you're saying is correct, as I like HotA (I play a lot of games that don't go higher than lvl 4-6). I'm just not seeing it.

Okay, you didn't answer the question.

I'm not reading how hurling items with Violent Thrust doesn't count as making ranged attacks either, other than the fact that the weapons/objects thrown don't originate from you (not sure that defeats them still being ranged attacks, but RAI I could see that implying that AoO due to ranged attacks being made shouldn't apply to violent thrust attacks)... which isn't the case with HotA.

It is a ranged attack, even if it didn't have the line saying its treated as a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, the fact that it is an damaging attack made at range requiring an ranged attack roll means its a ranged attack. I have a very hard time seeing how "Hand of the Acolyte" is not a ranged attack.

Does anyone know of any example of a damage attack, made at range, that requires a ranged attack roll that isn't a ranged attack?

Technically the Cleric can use Channel 2 more times per day (3 + Cha Mod, versus the 1 + Cha mod of oracle) but I digress: Oracle is a good class. I don't think it's strictly better but it's certain more flexible when it comes to non-spell abilities, while the Cleric is more flexible with spells.

Oracle is probably my second favorite class next to Witch. Oracle is the only way to make a true "elementalist" character that engages in physical combat, as opposed to the wizard who just does spells.

Well, an Oracle should certainly have a higher Cha score, both initially and long term, than a Cleric, and thus a cleric really can't channel more times per day generally.

I agree with others that punishing a party because you don't like the party make-up is silly, and frankly bad DMing at its worst.

Creating custom match-ups to show them the error of their ways is both rather presumptuous and honestly proves absolutely nothing at all. You're the friggin' DM, you are GOD (with a capital G, O, and D), no matter how well/poorly a party constructs itself you can always rig the deck to humiliate them at will. That teaches nothing except that your a jerk and that they need to find a new DM.

Just play the game normally, if the players have erred and not having enough front liners is really an issue, the players will learn something, if you're wrong and under normal play it isn't an issue, then I suppose you'll have learned something.

Abusing your DM omnipotence to simply craft a a no-win situation results in nothing positive and proves nothing except demonstrating what everyone should already know... if the DM competes with the players, the DM wins.

Oops, I'm wrong on the supernatural ability thing, given the rule on casting ray spells defensively. Given that, I would say that Hand of the Acolyte would provoke. Sorry for the 360 on this.

Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn (see FAQ below for more information.)

FAQ/Errata
When you cast a spell that allows you to make a ranged touch attack (such as scorching ray), and an enemy is within reach, do you provoke two attacks of opportunity?

Yes, you provoke two attacks of opportunity: one for casting the spell and one for making a ranged attack, since these are two separate events. (Note that at spell that fires multiple simultaneous rays, such as scorching ray, only provokes one AOO for making the ranged attack instead of one AOO for each ranged attack. It still provokes for casting the spell.

I think I'd say no. Distracting actions provoke attacks of opportunity.

Using your standard action to make a ranged attack provokes an attack of opportunity. Using Hand of the Acolyte is using your standard action to activate a supernatural ability that results in an attack that is treated like ranged attack with a thrown weapon.The action undertaken, not how the attack is treated dictates whether other not an AoO is provoked.

Supernatural Abilities (Su)

Using a supernatural ability is usually a standard action (unless defined otherwise by the ability's description). Its use cannot be disrupted, does not require concentration, and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

If you have a supernatural ability to say, cast ray of frost, casting ray of frost in this way cannot be disrupted, does not require concentration, and does not provoke attacks of opportunity, regardless of the fact that normally casting ray of frost would do/require all those things. The same should hold true for Hand of the Acolyte. Even though the attack is treated as a ranged attack from a thrown weapon, the action taken is still using a supernatural ability which does not provoke AoO.

I wasn't meaning to imply that the ability is remotely optimal. I was just noting that damage increasing feats (ranged ones) do apply to Hand of the Acolyte attacks (at least as far as I can tell). I personally haven't given a lot of thought to optimizing it in any particular way.

Actually, I believe both Point Blank Shot and Deadly Aim would apply to attacks made with Hand of the Acolyte. Which isn't major, but I believe they should work with the ability.

Reading these boards always makes me feel like I must game with some of most sadistic DMs ever, because when it comes to combat tactics, the opponents level of expertise is always pretty much limited to the DM's own, pro-rated by the amount of prep and planning they get before encounters. I have actually seen giant spiders seemingly using complex traps, not to mention inexplicably targeting casters first, not using standard attacks versus high AC characters, webbing melee characters so they can't close, deftly avoiding getting flanked by the rogues. Friggin' genius spiders.

Also, it has to be admitted that some aspects of stats and skills (particularly related to their combinations) just don't make convincing sense, because it is just an intentional abstract game system.

I wouldn't put more weight on a low Intelligence than the basic mechanics do. If you have a 7, you have a -2 penalty to raw Intelligence checks and untrained intelligence based skills. The difference between you with a 7 and the "average" guy with a 10 is reflected in say the odds of making untrained Knowledge check (or even a trained one for that matter). The disparity of his intelligence coming up in-game is dependent upon the nature of encounters calling upon intelligence.

As for roleplay, since D&D and Pathfinder divide up mental prowess amongst three stats in an only semi-obvious fashion with only vague parameters its not really possible to lay down hard and fast assessments. Its even unclear trying to use the stats as guidelines for rp'ing because the stats are vague enough in application that the exactly same array could represent vastly different ways to roleplay a character.

If a guy has Int 7 and Cha 18, maybe he never sounds unintelligent at all but when tested (when he actually has to roll Int tests) he is often actually wrong, or maybe he does sound unintelligent but is likeable anyway, or maybe yada-yada-yada. Throw in Wis X and the situation gets even murkier. Does a decent Wis mean said guy is wrong less often because he's better at knowing when not to blindly guess or is clever enough to make statements broad enough that they can't really be totally wrong?

I still think it needs more clarification. If the Reflexive shot rule said "you threaten the same squares into which you can make unarmed strikes" it'd be obvious that it uses unarmed strike threat range. But it's the "you still threaten" that says it's not supposed to work that way.

Even so, it seems utterly impossible to read the ability as allowing you to threaten any square you can make a bow attack into. I mean, there is not a single word in the text even implying that, and that would be a huge change... it would be the entire point of the ability if it were true, so the fact that it doesn't speak a word to that at all, kind of speaks volumes.

Hayato Ken wrote:

I believe the level 3 stuff zen archers receive let them threaten with bows.

The 3rd level Zen Archer feature is Point Blank Master, which allows the archer to shoot while in melee without provoking an attack of opportunity.

Now, since Zen Archers have improved unarmed strike, they threaten adjacent squares without needing a melee weapon. They don't threaten with the bow: they threaten in spite of carrying the bow.

Logically, a non-Zen Archer ranged character could accomplish the same thing with a cestus or a boot blade or (my personal favorite) a Halfling sling staff.

Yep. Likewise, most thrown weapons tend to also function as melee weapons, so if you have Quick Draw (which any thrower will have), you should basically always be threatening too (just remember to use a free action to draw an additional throwing axe or whatever after you fling the ones you've used to attack).

Would it? I thought that Enlarge Person does not affect missile damage (because the arrows shrink once fired). Does making it permanent change this? I don't recall reading that. Or are you suggesting just buying and using a large bow after acquiring permanent Enlarge Person? I suppose that would work, though to match Improved Snap Shot's threatened area, you'd still need another 5ft. reach enhancement from something.

Well, if you're going for a statement, be varied and verbose. Plus all the wizards aren't likely to be carbon copies of each other casting all the same spells.

Describe the peasants and knights being caught off-guard initially as the wizards diviners had been remotely monitoring their movements well in advance of the battle. Then have some of the wizards raising/shaping walls of earth entrapping and/or cutting of the knights away from the peasants or vice-versa. Have illusionists and enchanters sowing confusion and discord amongst the peasants and knights (illusions amongst the rank and file, enchantment pushing the opposition leadership) resulting in massive friendly fire deaths. And of course, Cloud Kills (from conjurers riding Phantom Steeds or otherwise Flying), Fireballs (from evokers hanging back as artillery, maybe even casually blowing away any siege weapons the peasants may have managed to hobble together), anything broad in scope and visually memorable. Throw in some necromancers raising/controlling the corpses of early fallen to maim and massacre the poor souls who survived the first wave. Maybe throw in a few mentions of some otherwise good attacks or volleys of arrows from the peasants and knights being utterly neutralized by a handful of dedicated abjurers (a mass of many but also unfortunately mundane arrows descending upon some of the wizards only to plink-off due to a communal protection from arrows having already been cast upon the group).

The horror of wizards isn't just that one of their spells can annihilate the cannon-fodder but that many of their spells can and that there is simply SO MUCH they are capable of, especially when working together and in great numbers. Sure, the wizards could just use some basic area effect dps to massacre the common ilk, and if you could pull off like an a-bomb kill-everyone-in-one-move spell, that would probably even be good enough, but otherwise if the wizards want to make a statement that basically leaves everyone in fear of their kind for generations... they are going to want to make more of show of it. Make onlookers and poor schmuck survivors tell tales of how it was like fighting gods, they never stood a chance... its impossible to ever win. That may not be true, but its certainly the legend/cautionary tale the wizards would want being told to kids by their parents at night.

I imagine with some mason hirelings to take it apart piece-by-piece, enough stone to flesh spell applications, and a lot of time on your hands, a human could eat a castle or at least most of a castle.

A note: Lunge doesn't work for AoOs. It only lasts during your turn.

The point about Enlarge Person being less hampering for a Zen Archer than your typical archer holds, however. You lose 1 to-hit, 2 AC and 1 AoO, but you gain damage and threaten out to 10 ft. with your bow, while a standard archer loses the same things AND another 1 to-hit (total of -2), and doesn't get the extra threatened space, which is irrelevant if they have Improved Snap Shot, but that's 2 feats needed to get there.

Yep, thanks for the correction. I breezed past the part where the benefit ends at the end of your turn rather than until your next turn like the penalty does.

I'm still not sold that the Enlarge Person spell is worth this though because of how mighty composite bow work and that you'd still be losing at least one AoO from Combat Reflexes (and you should already have fewer than other archers), but maybe if it was made permanent?

I'm not sure I'd even say at 9th level, when you get reflexive shot that a Zen Archer Monk is really inferior to a Weapon Master (composite longbow) Fighter [which everyone seems to use for Fighter archers].

--------------------

At ninth level, human Zen Archer provides 7 archery focused feats (13 total feats, 14 if you count IUS), with the prerequisites waived. They also get flurry (two extra attacks in addition to full BAB attacks, and one more if ki is used), Improved Unarmed Strike (and better unarmed damage), Wisdom to AC plus (though no armor), Fast Movement, Slow Fall (possibly swapped out Qinggong stuff), Ki Pool, Ki Arrows, High Jump (possibly swapped out for Qinggong stuff), Wholeness of Body (possibily swapped for Qinggong stuff), Reflexive Shot (similar to Snap Shot feat), 4+Int skills (Perception on the class list)/level, 8+con hp/level, all good saves, medium BAB (except when flurrying which is full BAB, but that doesn’t help with feat acquistion).

Feat-wise: The Zen Archer gets Improved Unarmed Strike (for what that's worth), Perfect Strike (9/day), Point Blank Master, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization for free. They will usually take Deadly Aim, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, and Improved Precise Shot. That leaves 5 feats for customizing, though they only have +6 BAB to meet prereqs and the feats Rapid Shot and Manyshot are not useful to them (and thus somewhat preclude feats with them as prereqs).

Threatened Squares - They could get 15 ft. reach (and thus threatened area) with multiple AoO via the Combat Reflexes, a magic item that extends reach 5ft (I'm sure there's at least one), and having a means of getting the Enlarged person spell cast on them regularly (may permanently?), as the loss of Dex doesn't hurt them as much as other archers and being large actually has a benefit for them. However, they obviously won't have as many AoO as fighter archers and they will have some AC issues. Not sure I'd say this worthwhile... just possible.

---------------------

At ninth level, a human Weapon Master (composite longbow chosen weapon) provides 5 combat feats (11 total feats) without prerequisites waived, +2 CMB/save bonus versus stuff that takes weapons away, +2 attack and damage with composite longbows, the ability to reroll attack, crit, etc. 1/day, +2 AC vs. composite longbows, access to fighter level prereq feats, full armor access (but it slows your speed as you gave up armor training), 2+Int skills (meh skill list)/level, good fort saves, and full BAB (helps with some feat acquisition).

The Weapon Master will usually take Deadly Aim, Point Blank Master, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Manyshot, and Snap Shot, Weapon Focus (composite longbow), Weapon Specialization (composite longbow). That leaves 2 feats for customizing.

Threatened Squares - They could have both Combat Reflexes and Improved Snap Shot, to make multiple AoO in a 15 ft. threatened area but they won't always, since they only typically have only the two feats free (and lots of folks like to get Improved Precise Shot asap). But if they do, they will seemingly be better at it than a Zen Archer.

----------------------

Aside: I just noticed that in PFS games, not counting IUS and other proficiencies, Zen Archers retire with more feats than Fighters (15 vs. 14 if human) with no pure fluff feats but potentially all being combat feats applicable to their chosen style of combat - archery (and that's not factoring in many of their abilities which mirror feats). Fighters are more than just the guys with the most combat feats in Pathfinder, but it still feels weird to see another class lap them in combat feats (at least in PFS).

It's not too weak, its essentially Snap Shot (sort of) without needing the prerequisites (one of which does nothing for you) and for free, it's just not all that and a bag of chips. It's less great because there is the fact that without some house ruling, you are stuck at Snap Shot equivalence (and even with house ruling, you may not have the BAB and Dex scores to take the subsequent feats anyway). Making it even less great still is the fact that since Wis rather than Dex is your attack stat, you aren't going to have as many AoO via Combat Reflexes as other archers even if you put some effort into having an okay Dex score.

That said, its still a not too bad. It still lets you AoO with arrows from your bow rather than with your fists/feet (or whatever else you might have) and since most/possibly all of your feats will likely be involved in boosting your bow attacks (the Weapon Specialization you get for free, Point Blank Shot which you obviously pick up, Deadly Aim assuming you activated it, etc, etc, etc...) that means your AoOs will be better with it than without it. It's an improvement, its just not OMG.

Likewise, again, there doesn't seem to be anything terribly vague in the feat. It lets you make AoO with arrows from a bow. The rules for AoO and threatened areas are otherwise unchanged. For clarity sake, it even points out you still threaten areas within your unarmed strike reach. Which, again, isn't necessarily 5 ft. If you extend your unarmed reach, you extend your threatened area.

My understanding is that Reflexive Shot allows you to make attacks of opportunity with arrows from a bow. It does not change the fact that you still only threaten squares into which you can make a melee attack (though it uses the words unarmed strike). It does not change the rules of threatened squares to "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack or attacks with arrows from a bow."

However, as noted before, if you can expand your melee (unarmed) reach, the ability clearly allows you to make attacks of opportunity with arrows from a bow within that expanded threatened area.

The fact that the ability uses the words "reach with unarmed strikes" rather than "reach with melee attacks" seems to just imply that you can't benefit from the reach properties of a melee weapon (a glaive for example) when making attacks of opportunity with arrows from a bow. You can only make such attacks within your own reach.

The only real benefit I see from the ability is that it allows you to get roughly the equivalent of Snap Shot without having to take the Rapid Shot feat (which is basically useless for you anyway) or meet its other prerequisites.

Again it doesn't say you threaten "with" anything, it says you can make AoO with arrows from your bow and you still threaten squares you can reach with your unarmed strikes.

It defines the squares you threaten (not squares you threaten with specific attacks)... those that you can reach with your unarmed strike. The squares you threaten are the squares you threaten.

You italicized the relevant section. "The monk still threatens squares he could reach with unarmed strikes..."

I suppose it could have been clearer with the word "only" inserted before the word "threatens", but it really doesn't matter. The ability does not grant an expanded threatened area or a threatened area unique to your arrows, so even without the "only", you're normal melee threatened area is all you have regardless.

Strictly speaking, anything that would expand your reach with unarmed strikes should also expand your reach with arrows from your bow once you have this ability... which is kind of weird conceptually, but whatever. So, from that perspective you are not universally limited to only threatening within 5 ft, you're limited to what the threatened area you have for your unarmed attack happens to be.