Pathfinder Player Companion: Arcane Anthology (PFRPG)

3.80/5 (based on 4 ratings)
Pathfinder Player Companion: Arcane Anthology (PFRPG)
Show Description For:
Non-Mint

Add Print Edition $14.99 $7.49

Add PDF $10.49

Add Non-Mint $14.99 $11.24

Facebook Twitter Email

Throw the Book at Them!

If knowledge is power, then the eldritch secrets presented in Pathfinder Player Companion: Arcane Anthology represent significant sources of potential might! From magus and wizard spellbooks to alchemist formula books to mystical options for bards, bloodragers, sorcerers, and witches, this volume presents tomes of spells and uncanny knowledge written and recorded by Golarion's mightiest arcane casters. In addition to new spells and secrets of spell preparation found in spellbooks such as the collected Analects of Aroden, the Wisdom of Jatembe, and the Runes of Wealth, this Player Companion also includes archetypes, feats, and character options for PCs of nearly every character class. Inside this book, you'll find:

  • Rules for copying preparation rituals into new spellbooks, and ways for every spellcaster to use such rituals through prayer books and meditation books.
  • Archetypes for spellcasting traditions inspired by the fallen god Aroden, the legendary Old-Mage Jatembe, and a nearly forgotten runelord of greed.
  • Dozens of spells, ranging from handy low-level options such as expeditious construction and heckle to the powerful 9th-level mass Last Azlanti's defending sword.
  • New traits and character options, including alchemist discoveries known as anointings that transmute the inherent properties of any weapon or suit of armor.
  • New feats, including some inspired by the Ten Magic Warriors of Mwangi legend that allow characters to bond with ritual masks to hide their names and identities and enhance their spells' power.

This Pathfinder Player Companion is intended for use with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game and the Pathfinder campaign setting, but can easily be incorporated into any fantasy world.

ISBN-13: 978-1-60125-814-4

Other Resources: This product is also available on the following platforms:

Hero Lab Online
Archives of Nethys

Note: This product is part of the Pathfinder Player Companion Subscription.

Product Availability

Print Edition:

Available now

Ships from our warehouse in 11 to 20 business days.

PDF:

Fulfilled immediately.

Non-Mint:

Available now

Ships from our warehouse in 11 to 20 business days.

This product is non-mint. Refunds are not available for non-mint products. The standard version of this product can be found here.

Are there errors or omissions in this product information? Got corrections? Let us know at store@paizo.com.

PZO9465


See Also:

Average product rating:

3.80/5 (based on 4 ratings)

Sign in to create or edit a product review.

Nice concept, meh execution

3/5

I like that they tried to give some meat to the idea of books of magic qua books, but didn't think any of the actual results were amazing. GMs can probably get some use out of the premade spell books to spice up treasure they give the party, if that's what you want. I found the spells pretty mediocre to bad. Some (e.g. Celestial Healing) have rightly been aggressively mocked throughout the forums. A couple of the archetypes are interesting ideas, but as usual for the large majority of Paizo archetypes they aren't actually worth taking.

I will, however, offer some moderate praise for the Runes of Wealth section. I did enjoy that one.

If you're looking for a good magic supplement and are budget constrained, try the Magic Tactics Toolbox instead.


Loved it!

5/5

Plenty of goodies for bards--and that is my admitted bias--including an archetype reminiscent of the Arcane Archer but with a style all its own. There is also a Masterpiece than partially satisfies the frustrating lack of Spell Kenning for Bards.
Force Sword may be the spell you were looking for if you did not want to spend money on the ghost touch property. I love it--and because of the above mentioned Masterpiece, Bards can use it!
That's not even the tip of the ice berg. If you are fan of the arcane, you should have plenty of reasons to pick this up.
If you're looking for anything Occult, this isn't the place--Arcane Anthology is very aptly named.


Eh...

2/5

So, I was kind of hoping that this would be something *other* than just another bunch of spells. Yeah, a lot of them are cool (and if you're just looking for a bunch of spells, more power to ya'), but frankly, there's nothing all that special here.

Maybe I'm being a buzzkill, but the fluff was lacking, and I'd been hoping it would've focused on alternate casting, magical traditions, or (long shot I know) maybe some content for the Occult classes (specifically, the seriously lacking Kineticist). Again, while for the price, the spells weren't horrible, but after stuff like the Weapon Master's Handbook, and the Ranged/Melee/Dirty Trick handbooks, this is seriously weak-sauce.


Slick rules content matched with tightly-themed fluff

5/5

I feel that the more recent Player Companions have been hit or miss. Arcane Anthology is one of the hits.

Most of the new spells are ones I want to use. I dig the new rules for copying preparation rituals--they're not too overpowered and generally well-balanced for the cost, plus they lend much-needed flavor to what would otherwise just be a list of spells. The new prayer and meditation book rules also give options for more scholarly-minded casters who are members of classes that don't traditionally use spellbooks.

I especially like the Magaambya content--all of it. The new bloodrager and arcanist archetypes are on point.

All in all, a good marriage of rules content with interesting setting information, perfectly bundled.


401 to 439 of 439 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slithery D wrote:
Barachiel Shina wrote:
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.

As I mentioned a few posts up, there is precedent for this. But some guidance on exactly how it works is clearly clawed for.


Ashram wrote:
Grue wrote:

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.

While it was past my bedtime when I read this entry and my reading comprehension may have been off, after re-reading it again, barring the author popping up and clarifying, I think my first interpretation still stands. Reading the first line...

You can spend this boon to use the magic item creation rules to create items with the Craft skill for one day."

Is very wonky using your interpretation considering these are the magic item creation rules. While the author doesn't use the word MUNDANE, next line he separates out that while you are now using a Craft skill you don't pay the normal 1/3rd as you would when using that skill and now pay 1/2 market.

"When doing this, your material costs are equal to half the final value of the item crafted (rather than the normal 1/3 of the cost for using the Craft skill. You can craft items with a cost greater than 1,000 gp by expending this boon over successive days, in the same way magic items with a cost over 1,000 gp can be crafted over multiple days."

Which brings us to the last line and the word 'all'....

You otherwise follow all the rules and options for magic item creation.

While it is possible this could have been written a bit better if the intent was for example...

Spoiler:

"You may spend this boon to accelerate the daily progress to make a mundane item of an appropriate type to 1,000 gp a day while using a Craft skill. When doing this, your material costs are equal to half the final value of the item crafted (rather than the normal 1/3 of the cost for using the Craft skill. You can craft items with a cost greater than 1,000 gp by expending this boon over successive days, in the same way magic items with a cost over 1,000 gp can be crafted over multiple days. The creator may adjust this progress (and Craft DC) as found under the magic item creation rules."

Granted, I may be mistaken on intent with the definition of 'all' when it comes to 'otherwise follow all the rules and options for magic item creation when looking at it (and the the paragraph's first line as well), but that's an error on the editing and writing side rather than on the reader end, if the author's meaning was otherwise.


Yeah, I agree. Its wording could definitely use a clarification.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am hoping for some clarification on the Sword Binder Wizard archetype. They have to choose a sword as their Bonded Object and they get proficiency with that sword. But it seems that there is no clear definition of "sword" that I can find.

The following are definitely swords because they are identified as such in the wording of their descriptions: butterfly sword, cutlass, double chicken saber, double walking stick katana, estoc, falchion, gladius, greatsword, katana, longsword, pata, rhoka sword, scimitar, seven-branched sword, shortsword, shotel.

There is also a group of weapons that are not specifically called out as swords in their descriptions, but which have "sword" in their names: bastard sword, nine-ring broadsword, sword cane, temple sword, tri-point double-edged sword, two-bladed sword. Some, like the bastard sword, are clearly swords, but I'm not sure about others like the tri-point double-edged sword.

There is a third group that I think would be considered swords in the real world, but aren't labelled as such in game: elven curve blade, falcata, rapier, sawtooth sabre, urumi.

It would be great if someone who worked on this book could let me know which weapons were intended to count as swords for this archetype.

Liberty's Edge

Gisher wrote:

I am hoping for some clarification on the Sword Binder Wizard archetype.

It would be great if someone who worked on this book could let me know which weapons were intended to count as swords for this archetype.

I dunno, but probably the same or similar to the list for the Swordtrained Tengu racial trait and the Sword Saint samurai archetype.

The Tengu at least includes a partial list, but it was set when the race was first introduced and there have been a lot of swords (e.g. Katana) added since then.


Agreed. The Sword Binder could use some clarification. A Wizard weilding a Falchion? Katana? Falcata? Greatsword? Some of that sounds like too much, but I would really like the originator to weigh in on that...


CBDunkerson wrote:
Gisher wrote:

I am hoping for some clarification on the Sword Binder Wizard archetype.

It would be great if someone who worked on this book could let me know which weapons were intended to count as swords for this archetype.

I dunno, but probably the same or similar to the list for the Swordtrained Tengu racial trait and the Sword Saint samurai archetype.

The Tengu at least includes a partial list, but it was set when the race was first introduced and there have been a lot of swords (e.g. Katana) added since then.

Unfortunately the Tengu Swordtrained trait grants proficiency with 'swordlike' weapons rather than 'swords.' It isn't much use here since separating the actual swords out of the swordlike weapons is precisely the thing I am trying to do.

I followed your link to the Sword Saint archetype, but I didn't see any list of weapons.


Fourshadow wrote:
Agreed. The Sword Binder could use some clarification. A Wizard weilding a Falchion? Katana? Falcata? Greatsword? Some of that sounds like too much, but I would really like the originator to weigh in on that...

As I mentioned, the falchion, katana, and greatsword are all specifically called out as swords in their descriptions (UE). The falcata though...


Ashram wrote:
Yeah, I agree. Its wording could definitely use a clarification.

If the author meant non-magical instead of magic items, otherwise when the entry tells me to use 'all' of the magical creation rules and options it means all:-). If the author meant only non-magical creations, there's tons of ways that entry could have been written to make that intent perfectly clear. Barring the author posting a correction or errata changing the wording, I think it's pretty evident what the preparation ritual does. It changes a feat tax into a skill points tax.

If it is your interpretation, it's a pretty useless preparation ritual considering the book is roughly in the WBL range of a caster that can have the [url=http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/f/fabricate]Fabricate[/link] spell. With the spell (a core book spell which should be in the list any devoted crafter, magic or mundane) a caster can use a craft skill to instantaneously make an item using the usual 1/3rd cost in raw materials.


Ashram wrote:
Yeah, I agree. Its wording could definitely use a clarification.

If the author meant non-magical instead of magic items, otherwise when the entry tells me to use 'all' of the magical creation rules and options it means all:-). If the author meant only non-magical creations, there's tons of ways that entry could have been written to make that intent perfectly clear. Barring the author posting a correction or errata changing the wording, I think it's pretty evident what the preparation ritual does. It changes a feat tax into a skill points tax.

If it is your interpretation, it's a pretty useless preparation ritual considering the book is roughly in the WBL range of a caster that can have the [url=http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/f/fabricate]Fabricate[/link] spell. With the spell (a core book spell which should be in the list any devoted crafter, magic or mundane) a caster can use a craft skill to instantaneously make pretty much any mundane item using the usual 1/3rd cost in raw materials.


So any chance that Celestial healing's 1 round/ 2 levels was a typo?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gamerskum wrote:
So any chance that Celestial healing's 1 round/ 2 levels was a typo?

I certainly hope so. Otherwise, it is a very nerffed spell from the get go.

Scarab Sages Developer

Gamerskum wrote:
So any chance that Celestial healing's 1 round/ 2 levels was a typo?

None.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Gamerskum wrote:
So any chance that Celestial healing's 1 round/ 2 levels was a typo?
None.

Why...it sounds *awfully* tempting to keep on using Infernal Healing...

How delightfully evil!

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
djones wrote:
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Gamerskum wrote:
So any chance that Celestial healing's 1 round/ 2 levels was a typo?
None.

Why...it sounds *awfully* tempting to keep on using Infernal Healing...

How delightfully evil!

You heard it here first, Asmodeus had one of his sketchy LN associates create celestial healing (and make some coin on the side selling dubiously sourced angel blood) to 'prove' that evil is just flat out better!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Gamerskum wrote:
So any chance that Celestial healing's 1 round/ 2 levels was a typo?
None.

Why create something so incredibly demonstrably weaker that requires a level 20 caster to get the same benefit as a level 1 caster?

Seems like you just wanted to troll us fans of celestial-themed characters to be honest.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.


HWalsh wrote:
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Gamerskum wrote:
So any chance that Celestial healing's 1 round/ 2 levels was a typo?
None.

Why create something so incredibly demonstrably weaker that requires a level 20 caster to get the same benefit as a level 1 caster?

Seems like you just wanted to troll us fans of celestial-themed characters to be honest.

If it was as good or better than Infernal Healing, what incentive does the Arcane caster who desperately need to cast a healing spell *right now* have to use Infernal Healing?

He can either stick to the straight and narrow and use Celestial Healing, or get more bang for his buck...at the expense of his soul getting just that little bit more tarnished...and go with Infernal Healing.

Asmodeus knew what he was doing with that spell, I tell you.

My goodie-two shoes White Mage Aasimar Arcanist though, she'll be sticking with Celestial.


Ross Byers wrote:
No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.

Yes, this.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Trolling those who chose silly angels and worthless purity over pure death and real money is always in style.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
djones wrote:

He can either stick to the straight and narrow and use Celestial Healing, or get more bang for his buck...at the expense of his soul getting just that little bit more tarnished...and go with Infernal Healing.

Asmodeus knew what he was doing with that spell, I tell you.

It's even worse than that.

Infernal Healing can't cure 'good' damage, such as that caused by many good outsiders.

So... one of the few times you would want to use Celestial Healing over Infernal Healing? When you are fighting good outsiders. And as an added bonus... their blood is the material component you need for the spell!

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Gamerskum wrote:
So any chance that Celestial healing's 1 round/ 2 levels was a typo?
None.

I totally get that Celestial Healing should be worse than Infernal Healing, but it's so much worse that it's basically a waste of text as written...

Dark Archive

CBDunkerson wrote:
djones wrote:

He can either stick to the straight and narrow and use Celestial Healing, or get more bang for his buck...at the expense of his soul getting just that little bit more tarnished...and go with Infernal Healing.

Asmodeus knew what he was doing with that spell, I tell you.

It's even worse than that.

Infernal Healing can't cure 'good' damage, such as that caused by many good outsiders.

So... one of the few times you would want to use Celestial Healing over Infernal Healing? When you are fighting good outsiders. And as an added bonus... their blood is the material component you need for the spell!

I was wondering about what is ethical way of getting blood for the spell :D


Terminalmancer wrote:
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Gamerskum wrote:
So any chance that Celestial healing's 1 round/ 2 levels was a typo?
None.
I totally get that Celestial Healing should be worse than Infernal Healing, but it's so much worse that it's basically a waste of text as written...

Yea, it is basically on the list of spells that will almost never be used. If you're high enough level to actually get good healing out of Celestial Healing, you may as well just summon an outsider who can cast Heal on you to get some real celestial healing!

Liberty's Edge

CorvusMask wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
djones wrote:

He can either stick to the straight and narrow and use Celestial Healing, or get more bang for his buck...at the expense of his soul getting just that little bit more tarnished...and go with Infernal Healing.

Asmodeus knew what he was doing with that spell, I tell you.

It's even worse than that.

Infernal Healing can't cure 'good' damage, such as that caused by many good outsiders.

So... one of the few times you would want to use Celestial Healing over Infernal Healing? When you are fighting good outsiders. And as an added bonus... their blood is the material component you need for the spell!

I was wondering about what is ethical way of getting blood for the spell :D

I wonder if the decendents of celestials could be used as a substitute. Maybe ask for a blood donation in exchange for some aid to their endevours or as a favour being repayed.


Is the Nameless One a reference to the villain from the D&D cartoon from the 1980s?

Dark Archive

137ben wrote:
Is the Nameless One a reference to the villain from the D&D cartoon from the 1980s?

Could also be Planescape Torment reference. Or just "Being Nameless is really cool name" :P

Contributor

CorvusMask wrote:
137ben wrote:
Is the Nameless One a reference to the villain from the D&D cartoon from the 1980s?
Could also be Planescape Torment reference. Or just "Being Nameless is really cool name" :P

Being Nameless is just really cool. No references intended. (If you want to connect dots, however, go for it!)


There seems to be a bit of confusion regarding Full Pouch, and I'm throwing in my hat on it.

There's obviously the question of whether the new item is actually supposed to be weaker, since the spell says "Saves against the new alchemical item’s affects use the original item’s save DC or the save DC of this spell, whichever is higher."

The other thing that's confusing me is the list of what the spell can't affect:

Quote:
The object must be an alchemical item, but not a dose of disease, a poison, a magic potion, or another type of consumable item.

What exactly constitutes a "consumable item" for this? Diseases, poisons, and magic potions obviously do, but what else does? Do alchemist extracts count? What about items like alchemist's fire, smokesticks, or tanglefoot bags? The vast majority of alchemical items are consumable in some way, whether they're a single-use thrown item or a single-use ingested item like antitoxin.

Silver Crusade

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Gamerskum wrote:
So any chance that Celestial healing's 1 round/ 2 levels was a typo?
None.

Well what was the point of making a useless spell that will never get used?

It heals 1 point at level 1. 2 at level 3, I mean c'mon that ridiculous it's worse than a cantrip. (Not counting the unlimited casting thingie)

Silver Crusade

Tharasiph wrote:
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Gamerskum wrote:
So any chance that Celestial healing's 1 round/ 2 levels was a typo?
None.

Well what was the point of making a useless spell that will never get used?

It heals 1 point at level 1. 2 at level 3, I mean c'mon that ridiculous it's worse than a cantrip. (Not counting the unlimited casting thingie)

Cantrips don't heal.

Sovereign Court

CBDunkerson wrote:
djones wrote:

He can either stick to the straight and narrow and use Celestial Healing, or get more bang for his buck...at the expense of his soul getting just that little bit more tarnished...and go with Infernal Healing.

Asmodeus knew what he was doing with that spell, I tell you.

It's even worse than that.

Infernal Healing can't cure 'good' damage, such as that caused by many good outsiders.

So... one of the few times you would want to use Celestial Healing over Infernal Healing? When you are fighting good outsiders. And as an added bonus... their blood is the material component you need for the spell!

Yep... mind blown here... both infernal and celestial healing seems pretty evil to me. LOL (although celestial healing blood requirement can be swapped for holy water for the good guys I guess... and the good guys have less of a healing problem due to channeling positive energy... clearly infernal healing is just a patch to fix the 'bad guys have no healing' problem... due to a certain recent evil party AP... :P I don't really want to start seeing wizard PCs running around with healing...)

Sovereign Court

Tharasiph wrote:
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Gamerskum wrote:
So any chance that Celestial healing's 1 round/ 2 levels was a typo?
None.

Well what was the point of making a useless spell that will never get used?

It heals 1 point at level 1. 2 at level 3, I mean c'mon that ridiculous it's worse than a cantrip. (Not counting the unlimited casting thingie)

Not ridiculous for a morally upstanding wizard who wishes to stabilize automatically when in a jam... i.e. when he's facing foes he *knows* will get the better of him.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Tharasiph wrote:
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Gamerskum wrote:
So any chance that Celestial healing's 1 round/ 2 levels was a typo?
None.

Well what was the point of making a useless spell that will never get used?

It heals 1 point at level 1. 2 at level 3, I mean c'mon that ridiculous it's worse than a cantrip. (Not counting the unlimited casting thingie)

Not ridiculous for a morally upstanding wizard who wishes to stabilize automatically when in a jam... i.e. when he's facing foes he *knows* will get the better of him.

But with the *1 round* casting time, he's not going to be using that while in battle - that just guarantees he'll get killed. The short duration means that in any battle where it last s long enough to come into play, he'll be facing things that will easily chew through his wizard HP and be much more likely to send him to -CON.

Sovereign Court

Terminalmancer wrote:
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Gamerskum wrote:
So any chance that Celestial healing's 1 round/ 2 levels was a typo?
None.
I totally get that Celestial Healing should be worse than Infernal Healing, but it's so much worse that it's basically a waste of text as written...

I think Infernal Healing is a patch for Hell's Vengeance, who may be a real challenge for many partys heal-wise (clerics don't get cure spells spontaneously, and well, they're also evil, and in some partys may not have the whole 'teamwork' thing down; by adding Infernal Healing they've added a measure of survivability for a large amount of people...)

Sovereign Court

shaventalz wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Tharasiph wrote:
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Gamerskum wrote:
So any chance that Celestial healing's 1 round/ 2 levels was a typo?
None.

Well what was the point of making a useless spell that will never get used?

It heals 1 point at level 1. 2 at level 3, I mean c'mon that ridiculous it's worse than a cantrip. (Not counting the unlimited casting thingie)

Not ridiculous for a morally upstanding wizard who wishes to stabilize automatically when in a jam... i.e. when he's facing foes he *knows* will get the better of him.
But with the *1 round* casting time, he's not going to be using that while in battle - that just guarantees he'll get killed. The short duration means that in any battle where it last s long enough to come into play, he'll be facing things that will easily chew through his wizard HP and be much more likely to send him to -CON.

I've seen some wizards buff while invisible in the past. Granted, it's not really a combat spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Infernal Healing was published in 2011. It's not a patch for Hell's Vengeance.

Sovereign Court

Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
Infernal Healing was published in 2011. It's not a patch for Hell's Vengeance.

I stand corrected. I missed that (along with most spells from ISWG to be honest). I first came aware of it via the Hell's Vengeance Player's Guide... (which recommends it... wink wink ;) )


I have to say that I wasn't blown away by this book when I bought it. I recently had the chance to start playing a bard with the Arrowsong Minstrel archetype from this book and I have to say that I absolutely love it so far!

So kudos to whomever the developer was for that archetype. I love the story and theme behind it and am really impressed with the versatility of the archetype. I am about to add my first bardic masterpiece with the Arrowsong's Lament and can't wait to see how it opens the class up.

401 to 439 of 439 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Product Discussion / Pathfinder Player Companion: Arcane Anthology (PFRPG) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.