Pathfinder Player Companion: Arcane Anthology (PFRPG)

I can confirm that the Puppetmaster archetype can select ANY bard spells, even ones that require use of bardic performance.

Needless to say, this archetype mixed with VMC bard is a build I am creating as we speak.

That sounds fantastic. I've always liked the Bard Spell List, but I like Int-based casters. Finally I can have both! I love your VMC Bard concept as well. Thanks for the info! :)

On re-reading, I think Arrowsong's Lament limits the number of spells you can 'learn' after all. Towards the end of the writeup it says;

"You can add up to one spell per spell level that you have selected with this masterpiece to your list of bard spells known each day."

Presumably that means that if you had learned the 1st thru 4th level versions of the masterpiece then you could add up to four 4th level or lower spells known per day.

Minor nitpick on this book, I'm not a big fan of he spreads rolling over pages. I really like the 2 pages to a concept model that the Player's Companion line normally uses. I completely understand why this book is the way it is, but I find it a bit more awkward to peruse. I'm not sure if the sections could have been split up to keep (for example) all of the spells on one page spread, archetypes and new class features on another, and intro and spell books together. It would have helped, in my opinion.
But that's just a minor thing, all things considered.

COULD we have kept it to only 2-page spreads? Yes, of course. But some of the content would have been cut to fit everything neatly and to ensure every spread had its own introduction. And it would have taken so much longer there's a decent chance the next Player Companion would have had to be designed to include a good deal less innovative material, to ensure it could be developer, written, copyfit, and laid out in a compressed schedule.

Where topics more naturally fill 4-page or 6-page spreads, my preference is to use spreads of those lengths rather than artificially chop it into only 2-page chunks.

That said, I value everyone's feedback, so if other people feel strongly on this subject one way or the other, I'd love to hear about it.

COULD we have kept it to only 2-page spreads? Yes, of course. But some of the content would have been cut to fit everything neatly and to ensure every spread had its own introduction. And it would have taken so much longer there's a decent chance the next Player Companion would have had to be designed to include a good deal less innovative material, to ensure it could be developer, written, copyfit, and laid out in a compressed schedule.

Where topics more naturally fill 4-page or 6-page spreads, my preference is to use spreads of those lengths rather than artificially chop it into only 2-page chunks.

That said, I value everyone's feedback, so if other people feel strongly on this subject one way or the other, I'd love to hear about it.

I figured it may have reduced content, and I'd never ask for that. Like I said, it's a minor thing, I just find the 2 page spreads easier to read. And way easier to find what I'm looking for when I go back to a players companion looking for something for a character.

Do you find the Rules Index useful, or no? Serious question, I'm always trying to make the books as useful as possible.

Do you find the Rules Index useful, or no? Serious question, I'm always trying to make the books as useful as possible.

I'm answering this too, since I'm guessing you're looking for wider feedback than just Eric. ^_^

I haven't checked over any of the Rules Indexes since Dirty Tactics Toolbox, but I know that one was missing a bunch of stuff. Have you been double-checking it for omissions?

Other than that... I don't use it much, but I don't mind it either. The half-page of art is nice, and I'm not sure what else you'd use the space for.

Do you find the Rules Index useful, or no? Serious question, I'm always trying to make the books as useful as possible.

I find them useful, though omissions, when they have occurred, were a little annoying. That said it does not reduce the usefulness of the rules index as a concept.

The only time I use the rules index is when I am going back to an old companion trying to find a half-remembered ability (i.e. 'is this the one with the XYZ?'). Even then I end up having to page through the whole thing half the time. An index for all books (e.g. online) would be much more useful... finding content WITHIN a given book is nowhere near as big an issue as finding WHICH book the content is in.

Also, the one page 'Introduction' in this book was vastly preferable to the usual 'For your character' section describing the types of content in generic terms. You could probably do without either, but the 'Introduction' at least provides 'background flavor' that might spark some ideas. The 'For your character' blurbs were just too short and nebulous to do much more than take up space.

As to page layouts, definitely content over presentation. Indeed, sometimes the books with each section a fixed length end up seeming like some sections were padded to get up to the specified size while others had to be trimmed to fit. I really wouldn't care if a section went two and a quarter pages.

What does the Rogue lose for being an Eldritch scoundrel?

What does the Rogue lose for being an Eldritch scoundrel?

I'm surprised you weren't here for the child of Acavna and Amaznen. ^_^

Perhaps a developer could chime in, but how exactly does the 18th level part of the Arrowsong Minstrel's "Arrowsong Strike" ability work? It says you can make multiple attacks from a multi-target spell when using a full-attack action, but is the spell cast as part of this action? I assume it's intended to work like the Eldritch Archer's ranged spellstrike+spell combat. Though the archetype gets spellstrike but not spell combat, so the only way I could see it working is with quickened spell followed by a full-attack.

Do you find the Rules Index useful, or no? Serious question, I'm always trying to make the books as useful as possible.

I can say that I've never really looked at the index.

I buy PDFs, if the index / ToC linked to the locations I would use them more.

I'm surprised you weren't here for the child of Acavna and Amaznen. ^_^

that archetype is against my religious beliefs.

Kalindlara wrote:

I'm surprised you weren't here for the child of Acavna and Amaznen.

that archetype is against my religious beliefs.

I can respect that. ^_^

I use the Rules Index! Besides, I often like the art that accompanies it.

i use the rules index

Rules Index is a bit more useful than the table of content for me.

Archives of Nethys are quite behind on updates at the mo.... I dont suppose anyone can post up a list of new spells/feats/traits could they? Just the names would be great.

Archives of Nethys are quite behind on updates at the mo.... I dont suppose anyone can post up a list of new spells/feats/traits could they? Just the names would be great.

Start reading on page 3--that's where all of that begins.

The Eldritch Scoundrel gains spells as a Magus. Does that include cantrips? I find it confusing that spells and cantrips are sometimes treated as separate class features and sometimes as a single class feature.

Hehe. That isn't the most consistent thing, and I know that so I should have been clear. Sorry.

Yeah..the scoundrel casts spells on the same progression as a magus, including cantrips. But he draws spells from the wizard list.

I really dig that dude. He gets things done.

Hope you're all enjoying the book!

What does the Rogue lose for being an Eldritch scoundrel?

The scoundrel onlt gets 5d6 sneak attack over his progression, and half the normal rogue talents. In addition, he only gains uncanny and improved uncanny dodge if he spends a rogue talent slot on them. He loses armor proficiency and only gets 4 skill ranks per level.

In exchanges, he gets decent spellcasting and replace trap sense with a n internal alarm that registers nearby magical traps.

Hehe. That isn't the most consistent thing, and I know that so I should have been clear. Sorry.

Yeah..the scoundrel casts spells on the same progression as a magus, including cantrips. But he draws spells from the wizard list.

I really dig that dude. He gets things done.

Hope you're all enjoying the book!

Thanks for the clarification, Steven. It's a great archetype. It fills a niche that I had hoped the ACG would fill with a hybrid.

Very nice to get a beguiler/5e-type arcane trickster finally (beyond bard, I mean).

Archives of Nethys are quite behind on updates at the mo.... I dont suppose anyone can post up a list of new spells/feats/traits could they? Just the names would be great.

Hm, in that feat list, is Spell Denial any good?

Hm, in that feat list, is Spell Denial any good?

I don't really think so... Basically, pick a school of magic, you get +2 to your saves against spells of that school. You can take it multiple times to get more schools. Might be worthwhile if enchantment spells are kicking your ass or something, maybe?

If Archetypes can now grant full spell-casting,
it just seems ridiculous to insist they can't alter HD, BAB,
or alter existing (base) spell casting progression...

Anyhow, the "mismatched spell list/actual spell level progression" approach
now seems to have made a few showings now, interesting to see how it impacts things,
and how it impacts design balance depending on the specific implementation,
e.g. warpriests using 6lvl progression with full Cleric list,
Hunters get 6lvl progression using best of Ranger/Druid but Ranger doesn't extend to 6th level, etc.

Anybody know of Feats/PrCs which require casting "Wiz/Sorc" spells?
Interesting if there is, and would Eldritch Scoundrel still qualify even if they don't have an obvious path to go beyond 6lvl spells.

If Archetypes can now grant full spell-casting,

it just seems ridiculous to insist they can't alter HD, BAB,
or alter existing (base) spell casting progression...

Can they? Sure.

Will they? If they ever come out, I would imagine that you would see more archetypes that lower HD and BAB, rather than improve them. Design-wise, it is easier to reduce HD and BAB to justify newer things then to take away stuff to justify gaining them. From what I understand from my conversations with David and Steve, that sentence basically defines the designing of the spellcasting fighter and rogue archetypes in this book.

Some people are never satisfied Mister Augunas.

** spoiler omitted **...

Cheers mate much app

Some people are never satisfied Mister Augunas.

Eh. I personally believe that it is through pushing the boundaries of what the d20 system can do that Pathfinder can (and probably will) stave off that 2nd Edition reboot that, like, four people are clamouring for.

Because really? Who wants their ENTIRE stock of books rendered obsolete? Give me more Unchaineds, but don't nuke us all! D:

If Archetypes can now grant full spell-casting,

it just seems ridiculous to insist they can't alter HD, BAB,
or alter existing (base) spell casting progression...

So...there was design space available for some badass to tinker with the basic chassis of the game like you're talking about.

Until Stephen Rowe and the Four Horsemen got ahold of it. Now it's written and waiting for a certain event to get out there to the public.

Soooooon.

Ashram wrote:

Hm, in that feat list, is Spell Denial any good?

I don't really think so... Basically, pick a school of magic, you get +2 to your saves against spells of that school. You can take it multiple times to get more schools. Might be worthwhile if enchantment spells are kicking your ass or something, maybe?

Is it a combat feat? Would be a good thing to Martial Maneuver into if you're up against a Runelord or something.

Luthorne wrote:

Ashram wrote:

Hm, in that feat list, is Spell Denial any good?

I don't really think so... Basically, pick a school of magic, you get +2 to your saves against spells of that school. You can take it multiple times to get more schools. Might be worthwhile if enchantment spells are kicking your ass or something, maybe?

Is it a combat feat? Would be a good thing to Martial Maneuver into if you're up against a Runelord or something.

Alas, no, Painful Blow is the only combat feat in the book. The rest are all typeless.

Alas, no, Painful Blow is the only combat feat in the book. The rest are all typeless.

Hmmm....I know for a fact I typed all of my feats.

*knew that Steve always typed his*

There seems to be a misalignment of the Enlightened Bloodrager archetype. The replacement ability is to add several feats to the feats available at 6th, and other even levels. However. the ability states that it replaces Damage Reduction, which happens at 7th Level, and other odd levels. Is this correct? - Dr seems like a lot to give up for feats without actually gaining additional feat slots.

Most of the new Alchemist formula are actually invalid as they target objects. Alchemist formula must target a creature and that creature is always the drinker of the Extract/Infusion.

Yeah that's popped up before, such as with invisibility alarm, deathwine, empower holy water, and so on. They make sense thematically, but violate the raw of how extracts work. Such sections should have special notes about how alchemists can use them, which I am now watching for specifically.

Lots of interesting stuff in this book, especially pleasing considering the signal to noise ratio in other recent paizo offerings. Thank you authors.

Anyway, I didn't see if this has been brought up yet but one of the Preparation rituals for The Last Azlanti's Analects (Level 15 Universalist) on page 6-7 that I thought solved a big tax problem (especially for certain feat starved builds).

Efficient Creator

I'm assuming you roll a relevant Craft skill instead of Spellcraft (armorsmithing for magic armor, leatherworking for bags, alchemy for potions, etc), but I was wondering if anyone had some thoughts on the matter?

I know it is an Arcane focused book, but any thing that a druid or hunter can access in the book?

there are Prayer Books that give divine casters access to preparation rituals like the ones wizards get from spellbooks

And there are meditation books for spontaneous casters of any type.

If Arrowsong's Lament does what I think it does (sacrifice a spell known of a given level, or a feat, and spend 3 rounds of bardic performance and 1 hour of meditation at the beginning of the day to choose to 'know' any one bard spell of that spell level for the day), that's pretty cool.

Eldritch Scoundrel and Child of Acavna and Amaznen are pretty awesome, and really stretching the boundaries of what Archetypes have been allowed to do, so far. I love the idea, particularly of the Eldritch Scoundrel, as I've long wanted a sort of Gray Mouser-esque Rogue-with-a-dash-of-Magic-User.

The Magaambya stuff, as should be no surprise, is some of my favorite stuff. Magaammbyan Initiate is cool, but the Enlightened Bloodrager is just awesome, and opens up some new options for the parties that want to run without a Cleric (in specific) or 9-level casters (in general). I've long toyed with the idea of a party of Ranger, Paladin, Bard, Magus, etc. 'martial casters,' and the Enlightened Bloodrager adds some more healing potential to the mix.

Interesting stuff all around!

Lots of interesting stuff in this book, especially pleasing considering the signal to noise ratio in other recent paizo offerings. Thank you authors.

Anyway, I didn't see if this has been brought up yet but one of the Preparation rituals for The Last Azlanti's Analects (Level 15 Universalist) on page 6-7 that I thought solved a big tax problem (especially for certain feat starved builds).

Efficient Creator

** spoiler omitted **

I'm assuming you roll a relevant Craft skill instead of Spellcraft (armorsmithing for magic armor, leatherworking for bags, alchemy for potions, etc), but I was wondering if anyone had some thoughts on the matter?

I think you have something backwards here. That ability allows you to use the magic item creation rules to craft MUNDANE things. Specifically you use the half-cost clause of magic item creation and you can make up to 1,000gp worth of an item a day, unless you choose to take a +5 to the DC to fast craft it as that is another clause of magic item creation. Considering it says, "You otherwise follow all of the rules and options of magical crafting" and that you're spending a magical boon to create mundane items, I'd say you could use Spellcraft as the final crafting check, or you could use the relevant Craft skill.

Arrowsong's Lament does exactly that, Set. Alternatively, you could learn a Sor/Wiz spell of 2 levels lower, IIRC. Sadly, this does nothing to remedy the lack of Spell Kenning to gain Cleric spells for Bards... I just love the idea of a Bard casting Searing Light! Somehow Skalds can do it (albeit with a full-round casting) but not Bards...does not make any sense to me.
Perhaps we need a Masterpiece that remedies that, too?

Most of the new Alchemist formula are actually invalid as they target objects. Alchemist formula must target a creature and that creature is always the drinker of the Extract/Infusion.

Wasn't the consensus on that simply one would just pour the extract on said object? Yeah Paizo should have made some sort of extra sentence or two in the errata to make this more obvious, but I believe it's obvious enough, no?

Drake Brimstone wrote:

Most of the new Alchemist formula are actually invalid as they target objects. Alchemist formula must target a creature and that creature is always the drinker of the Extract/Infusion.

Wasn't the consensus on that simply one would just pour the extract on said object? Yeah Paizo should have made some sort of extra sentence or two in the errata to make this more obvious, but I believe it's obvious enough, no?

Option 1: Someone not experienced with the Alchemist thought it would be nice to add them to some new spells in a low volume player companion. Unfortunately, it's a screwup that doesn't work with the rules, so Alchemists obviously can't actually use these spells.

Option 2: A completely new, never before seen mechanic that completely changes the way Alchemist extracts work was incorporated into a low volume player companion, but only by inference, not any actual rule changes.

I think the obvious thing is that Option 1 is what happened here.