HaraldKlak's page

Seems to me like a commoner would never reach 20th level without having branched off into an adventurer class. How would a farmer get the xp needed to even reach 6th or 10th?

Perhaps he was cursed with a long life and lived 500 years. Even then...

But it's a fun topic.

Actually he is just the common sort of farmer, who have been plagued with rats on his farm. Not enough to call adventurers to clean up, and he doesn't have a cat. But there is always enough of them, for him to kill 5 rats in solo combat each day.

I prefer the players to include a narrative description, as in the example. However my experience with PF is that it tend to end up in mechanics-speak.

Perhaps I am just bitter (or presently enamoured in other systems), but to me PF-combat is so mechanics heavy, that you - as a player - loose interest in contributing to the narration. Especially since your narrative creativity does not affect the mechanical system. At the end of the day the fighter in the example is not going to do anything else the shave off X hit points from the monster, no matter how cool the describtion.
So when you end up at combat that is taking one or several hours, and you are only going to use the couple of actions that are viable choices, just stating your actions mechanically is a lot faster and easier.

While other systems implement the narrative control into the mechanics (for both GM and players), or incorporate the narrative development in every aspect of the game, I've yet to see flavor trumph mechanics in a PF game.
This is not to rant against PF, or to suggest that flavor doesn't have its place in the game, but while the system has a lot of strengths, this, IMO, is not one of them.

Short answer: No.

Slightly longer answer: Nope.

Long answer: Not a chance.

Others have said it already, put my main problem with the Stormwind Fallacy, isn't that it is untrue, but basically that it is too simplistic to be of much use. As a generel statement "Role-playing and optimization isn't mutually exclusive" is correct, and furthermore "Role-playing and optimization is not different ends on the same scale" is important as well.

That said, it is commonly misused in defense of optimization as a statement of: "Optimization does not affect role-playing". This is less true, as our approach to the game, most certainly affects the type of game we are going to play.

The whole discussion becomes rather moot without having a consideration of "What is RP?", or more specifically what play style or creative agenda do we strive for. When we do delve into this, it becomes quite clear that mechanical optimization has an effect on the game we play.
Ron Edward's GNS Theory is a pretty great point of reference, despite disagreement on his Big Model as a basis for game design.

Mechanical optimization strongly promotes a Gamist creative agenda, as it focused on being efficient at overcoming challenges. On these boards we fairly often heard the comment "If the GM can't challenge optimized characters, he is doing something wrong". This statement pretty directly defines the game as Step On Up, where the primary task of the GM is to create a game that can challenge the mechanics of the character (often with combat encounters as a significant component).

On the other hand, optimization tend to clash with the other creative agendas, whether it is the game created by the GM, and/or wanted by the other players.
As the main focus in a Narrativist creative agenda, is the conflict itself and difficult choices made by the characters, rather than moving toward an end goal, the efficiency of the optimized character is counter-productive as it focus on an entirely different aspect of the game. Going further down this line to a Story Now game, where the story happens at the table without being pre-planned or even having a plot, optimization has no place (Although, this is not a kind of game that PFRPG is good at, or supposed to be).

With a simulationist creative agenda, there is a more aesthetic focus on the genre, character, and world we currently play. Players focus on making credible characters, and how these characters react to the world around them. Here optimization can be seen as problematic, because it might not 'theme' (as seen by one or more) or fit aesthetics of the game world. Playing an optimized character who covers all his weaknesses, might not work well in a game that is about "heroes struggling to survive". Sure, the GM can up the challenge to create a struggle, but then we moves the focus of the game to the gamist agenda.

And here we have arrived at the cause of friction, which underlines the whole "role-playing vs. roll-playing"-debacle. And now is a good time for disclaimer that the creative agendas can be used to different degrees, and combined to some point, but I'll deal with extremes as example.
The simulationist player and the gamist player focus on different aspects of the game in the creation of their characters, and in adressing the game. And both of them calls out to the other "You are going it wrong" (As we see so often on these boards).
Ultimately none of them are wrong, but they are trying to pull the game in different directions, that might not be able to co-exist.
As for myself, I can enjoy all the types of game (as well as board games or card games), but it starts to ruin the fun, when this conflict arises.
For example, in our current Call of Cthulhu game, I want to play "how does an FBI agent respond to seeing supernatural phenomena and getting psychic powers herself", while another player wants to play "How do I enhance my new-found magical abilities, so we more efficiently can deal with the unknown threats around us".

The Stormwind Fallacy falls short, because it fails to address that optimization supports one kind of roleplaying, conflicts with another, and is largely incompatible with a third. Even more so, as it simply become a defensive position for one side in (mostly) unnuanced discussion.

A bit more text here than intended, but I guess I couldn't keep it down to two cents.

Barbarians are able to be built in a way where they can resist level appropriate magic as well as wreck stuff in melee, notably being able to pounce at level 10.

How can other 'martial' melee classes be brought up to the level of this iconic Barbarian?

I am not sure, I think they should.

Baselining a game aroung a few mechanical optimal choices is a very bad idea, since it enhances the notion that 'the best choice is the only choice'. Furthermore adding more options that are just as strong, simply add power creep, as a single combination of choices will always be slightly better than another. At the end of the day, it suggests a game of 3 or 4 choices, in which we don't really need all the options we got today.

I might be stretching you question a bit above, but I do think that a Superstition Beast Totem Invulnerable Rager is a bit too specific - and too top tier - to be the basis for balancing other martial options.

IMO the main problem with martials, is the lack of options besides full attacking. Pounce wouldn't be that great, if we had better uses of a standard action.
Playing a martial (and combat in generel) would be more fun (subjectively) if it had more to it than simply rolling the same dice each and every round.
As it is, the alternatives to full attacking and dealing a lot of damage, is not simply subpar, but so vastly below in effectivity that they stop being a part of the game. And if we want to do something else, it require a degree of specialization that makes us into a one-trick pony, simply repeating that action over and over again.

Fabricate alone makes it a nice feat: any 300 GP or less mundane item whenever you want it instantly and forever, you can just use it to make money from nothing (make 300 GP of stuff and sell it. Way less than just selling a casting of a 5th level spell, but much easier to find buyers), stockpile the stuff (make 300 GP of iron ingots out of non-existant 100 GP of iron ore), have any meal you want (not just the taste of one!) with a wave of your hand (you can feed 1000 men common meals, make 600 non-perishables, or have 300 people pig out). The sky is the limit.

Actually Fabricate doesn't work.

The spell "convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material".
While False focus could remove the need for a material component, it doesn't change the fact that the spell effect is changing something into something else. It is a transmutation spell, not a conjuration (creation) spell.

Comments welcome, but understand that I already know this is not for everyone.

To comment upon the contract, I'll start up with stating the obvious that respecting a social contract is very important in role-playing, as well as any meaningful social interaktion.

That said, most often this social contract is implied or verbal, and works very well that way. If it does not, stating it and committing to it through a written contract might be a useful tool. I've not had the need for it myself, but can respect that others might.

As for your contract, I have a few comments to make:

Group contract rather than player contract
Probably the most important change, I think you should make, is that it is a contract between the group, rather than something the players make with the GM (you).
This means that it should also include words on the GM commitment to the game. 'What do you promise to do, to make the game fun for all?'.
It also means that the commitment from the players should be towards the group as a whole, and IMO that any decision pertaining to dropping players, should be made by the group. Otherwise it is simply a formalized version of 'My game, my rules'.
As such the contract help support the common goal of creating a fun game, where all of you need to take responsability.

Expand upon the creative agenda
Since you have a written contract for the game, I think it is important to include more comments on 'what kind of game are we playing?'. If you play 'Player-vs-GM survive the dungeon of doom' or 'RP-drama exploring the existential dilemmas of being cats in a world of horses', then that should be stated as a guideline for all to follow, and adhered to (to some degree, as games of course can evolve).

You do have one clause toward to game style, which is 'no-PVP game'. This is very reasonable, and important if the group (or some players) commonly engage in PVP action.
That said, I personally don't care for some of the details you've included. Stating how the relationship between the characters must be, feels unnecessary, and a bit stifling to me. I would respect a no-PVP rule, but prefer to fit my character to it myself (whether common goal, debts, friendship, or something else).

Attendence
This is one of the major challenges to a rpg group. And while it is important to have players commit to the game (unless there is reasonable excuses), you should make sure that you contract work in that way.
Making it 'show up, or you might be thrown out' might take the responability away from the player, who might think "I face the consequence, so it is my choice".
Instead I'd return to the group contract, as a means to a common goal. Attendance is important because it affects the game of everyone in the group. People should understand that it has an impact if they don't show, and hopefully learn to take responsibility.
To reach that end, I think it is necessary to reach a point where everyone is 'stakeholders in our game' rather than 'consumers of the GMs game.'

Ultimately, I wish you all the luck, and hope your solution work for you and your players.

...

If you know what general areas of the game appeal to each of them, you may be able to match like minds and cut down on the potential friction.

Putting the upperclassfolk who really enjoy combat mechanics together with the players who also really enjoy combat. RP types with RP DM's. So on and so forth.

...

I believe the suggestions toward conscripting new GMs is definately the way to go, MendedWall.

IMO one of the great things of being new (and old) to role-playing is trying new things.
For newer players, there is a good chance they've only encountered a single play style. And while they might enjoy (or love) the action-packed dungeon crawl (an example) they know, it shouldn't be the basis for lumping them into a box titled 'dungeon crawl'.

So what I am getting at, is that while it is necessary that you 'force' some of the players into being GMs, it might be important that you loosen the reins afterwards to let them develop with other newish players. Of course you can and should be availiable for good advice (as well as running your own game), but it is fundamental that they start to take charge of their own games and the club as a whole.

Depends on the situation..

You want to 'move one way, then move the opposite way'?
I'll look to my rule book, and tell you to make a DC20 flight check, because you are making a 180 degree turn.

You want to 'move one way, turn 90 degrees and move in that direction, then turn 90 degrees and move some more'?
Hmm.. my rule book doesn't describe it specifically, but that certainly seem like two seperate fly checks at DC 15 to me.

While the wording of the ability is a hard cap of +5 total on the item, in my opinon it makes it next to useless.

As a +2 equivalent bonus, it might be worth it if it could give a +5 increase on top of the existing bonus. In that situation, it would work well against difficult enemies, but slightly below in other circumstances.

That said, it might be good that it doesn't see use, given that it requires the player to recalculate bonusses each and every round.

The AoMF would have a magical aura equivalent to a +5 weapon or item. It would use the +3 as a bonus to its saves vs breakage just like other items.

But, for the purpose of overcoming DR, the +3-+5 enhancements are on your hands/feet. And for the initial 2 attacks, your +3 enhancement to the item is in effect,Only the greater one is applied. So, at the 3rd attack, it could be either one. at the 4th attack it changes to the Furyborn effect for +4 and +5 enhancement.

Shogahin

I disagree with part of this.

Furyborn (like bane and furious) specifically states that the weapons 'enhancement bonus increases'.

As such, it stacks with the normal enhancement bonus. And becomes a +4 bonsu after the first attack, and a +5 bonus after the second attack.

It doesn't change the hard cap of a +5 enhancement bonus, since this is written into the furyborn ability.

All in all, the attacks become:

1: +3
2: +4
3: +5
4: +5
5: +5
...

4 Winds Fantasy Gaming have made rules for prosthetics, you can them here.

There are both magical and mechanical variants. So of them are a bit strong, imo, but it would surely be a place to find inspiration.

To answer some of your questions:

4) I my opinion, it should be rather costly to have it function as a shield (especially if counts as a free hand anyway). While it might be wood or metal, the arm have other functions. Having swords and axes bash away on it, would likely ruin it, unless it was properly reinforced.

5) Depends on the campaign, but mostly I tone down the magic, so I wouldn't be too keen on a magical prosthetic from the start (though a good story can often sway me). I would however be glad to incorporate it, if you started out with a regular prosthetic (or simply just a single arm).

6a) Spellcasters might not be readily availiable to cast (most likely not given it is a lvl 7 spell), so there si a market for alternatives.

6b) Even so, most people can afford the spellcasting. So there is a market for simple, commonplace prosthetics. Some of these artisans is going to refine their craft to the point, where magic is being infused to craft the best prostetic the world have ever seen!

6c) Don't sweat it. The economic system is best at regulating the economics of the game for PCs, not the world around them. We don't see magical streetlights in every city, or have the world cured of dangerous diseases, just because the rules make it easy.

Jeanette Cerange

A young, impressionable girl from a family of lower nobility.
At a tournament Jeanette laid her eyes on Aerodus, and was instantly smitten, as she saw the wind in his dark hair.
That night she spoke to him, and while it was short conversations, she knew their hearts and souls were intertwined. He held a distance, but she understood the pain behind his eyes, and longed for the day when she would ease it.

Although their encounter had been brief, and his words few, Jeanette's feelings spilled out of her, and she told her family of their love. Jumping at an opportunity to marry off their third daugther, her parents sent marriage contracts straight away. Jeanette's happiness was complete.

Days turned to weeks as she waited in her window for his reply. With eager at first, growing to unease as timed passed by. Until the last day, when the dreadful news arrived. He was shunned into exile, hunted by everybody in a scheme to ruin their love.

Life turned grey and bleak, and the madness of lost love to hold of Jeanette, as she threw herself from window, and embraced the hard ground below.

As she rose again the next night, she set out to find him again, and be with him - in life or afterlife.

----
The Sorrowful Lover CR 4
Human ghost aristocrat 4
CE Medium undead (augmented humanoid, incorporeal)
Init +5; Senses darkvision 60 ft.; Perception +18

DEFENSE
AC 17, touch 17, flat-footed 15 (+5 deflection, +1 Dex, +1 dodge)
hp 42 (4d8+24)
Fort +6, Ref +4, Will +6
Defensive Abilities channel resistance +4, incorporeal, rejuvenation; Immune undead traits

OFFENSE
Speed fly 30 ft. (perfect)
Melee corrupting touch +4 (4d6, Fort. DC 16 half)
Special Attacks

STATISTICS
Str —, Dex 12, Con —, Int 10, Wis 11, Cha 20
Base Atk +3; CMB +3; CMD 20
Feats Dodge, Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Toughness
Skills Fly +6, Knowledge (history) +6, Knowledge (nobility) +6, Perception +13, Sense Motive +8, Stealth +9; Racial Modifiers +8 Perception, +8 Stealth
Languages Common

SPECIAL ABILITIES

Corrupting Touch (Su)
By passing part of its incorporeal body through a foe's body as a standard action, the ghost inflicts 7d6 damage. This damage is not negative energy—it manifests in the form of physical wounds and aches from supernatural aging. Creatures immune to magical aging are immune to this damage, but otherwise the damage bypasses all forms of damage reduction. A Fortitude save halves the damage inflicted.

Rejuvenation (Su)
In most cases, it's difficult to destroy a ghost through simple combat: the “destroyed” spirit restores itself in 2d4 days. Even the most powerful spells are usually only temporary solutions. The only way to permanently destroy a ghost is to determine the reason for its existence and set right whatever prevents it from resting in peace. The exact means varies with each spirit and may require a good deal of research, and should be created specifically for each different ghost by the GM.

What is not to like? You get higher spell level, AND shorter duration...

You are correct that it doesn't make sense. When they started making the communal spells, they probably missed that Water Walking already have multiple targets.

If it is the most broken caster you want, I'd like to present you to my friend, Alfred the Awakened.

The build is simple (and cheesy as hell):
0) Take a lvl 20 Nature Oracle.
1) His level 20 ability allow him to change his type to animal (takes 8 hours).
2) Target yourself with poison/spells that drain your intelligence to 1 or 2.
3) Now he is a valid target for the Awaken spell, which he is able to cast himself. This is maximized, just because he can (2000gp and 24 hours).
3b) Result is: +3 cha, and +2 HD, and changed type to magical beast.
3) Return to step 1, and repeat.

Spending 400.000 gp (about half wbl) in this manner, gives you a total of: +600 charisma, and +400 hd, which in itself grants 200 feats, +300 BAB, and 100 stat increases.
Needless to say, you are going to break the game, whether through spells DCs above 300, more spells than you can spend each day, or insane to-hit bonuses and +78 damage from power attack alone. Unbeatable saves, hit points that could easily reach 10K, and your cha bonus to dex, are making sure that he is never in any real danger. Through feats and spells we make sure to be able to reroll any saving throw that end up a natural 1.

Cheesy? Yes, sir.

(You can even combine it with blood money to avoid the cost of the awaken spell, but that is unnecessary at the moment).

I don't see why anyone's bothering calculating damage per round at level 12 with no magic items. Nobody fights with no magic items at level 12.

It is simply a baseline for mechanical build comparison, not a simulation of actual play.

Any DPR contest is determined by the parametres set up. AC being a very important one, determining whether builds that can get very high attack bonuses shine over those who get very high damage bonuses.

'No magic items' surely has an impact that favors certain builds. In the most extreme cases builds as the goblin gunner, who is allowed to spend about 20K on non-magical firearms, while others cannot buy a +1 weapon. But generelly it has a bias towards full bab classes who can easily get the to hit, as well as significant damage bonuses. Without magic items single-hitters has an advantage over full-attacker, since the latter would benefit from to-hit bonuses on iterative attacks.

But the point is, no matter what, in a DPR contest, the outcome is always biased from the parametres we set up. AC, amount of rounds, flanking or not, size of opponent, availiability of magic items and buffs, and very importantly the character level chosen, all affect which builds can get the highest DPR.
They are never a representation of actual game play, since that - luckily - isn't static.

What would happen if you re-tooled the game to nerf down the insane amounts of damage that you can do with high level abilities, and eradicated hit die so that your HP was simply your Constitution score? The idea here is to make a gritty feeling system that makes you seriously weigh the situational pros and cons of getting into combat, because a critical hit can be an instant kill. A game where a lowly goblin thug can kill an experienced knight if he lets his guard down.

But mostly this is just a thought experiment, so let's hear your thoughts.

As I see it, you aren't suggesting a re-skin of pathfinder. You are suggesting a different game.

Making it work would require you to rewrite the entire game. Changing the hp, would require you to change the damage score of everything, included any spells that deal damage directly or indirectly.
Making these changes to hp and damage, puts an altogether different importance on AC and to-hit bonusses, which need to be adjusted as well.

My suggestion, is that you take a look at Savage Worlds as an alternate system. Having a set amount of HP (3 for main characters, 1 for minor characters), and exploding dice, so the lowly goblin might just succeed against all odds, sums up to a system that might give you what you want. Being simple and easy-to-learn as well as relatively cheap, makes it something you could try out without to great an investment on you and your players.

The arguments for physiology on needing food, air or a brain for the troll to regenerate, doesn't hold up.

Trolls are very clearly described as being able to regenerate from almost nothing: "even the smallest scrap of flesh can regrow a full-size troll given enough time".

This doesn't make any sense if we impose the starvation, thirst and suffocation rules upon the, while decimated to a small scrap of flesh. Clearly they cannot eat, drink and breathe without the internal organs to do so.
On that basis, could we choose to rule that they never get back up due to damage incurred from lack of either air or food? I guess we could, but that would go against everything that is specifically stated about regenerating trolls.

No.

RAW: "They cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning". Cannot die is just it, not through any means (unless you disable their regeneration first).

That said, hit points lost due to starvation and thirst is not regenerated unless the creature get food or water. As such, a regenerating creature unconcious from starvation or thirst is not coming up on its own accord.

1) The people at the bar does not detect as evil, unless they have 5 HD, or are clerics/antipaladin to an evil god. I'd guess that most common bar patrons isn't that high level. Maybe they were, but then there is probably something going on at that place (and his cause might be more just than it first seem).

2) The punishment wasn't too hard, a temporary penalty isn't bad. However I wouldn't have sentenced him with 'conspiracy to commit mass murder' (which in my book would result in a death penalty or very long incarceration). It would probably be 'drunk and disorderly', trying to pick a fight in a bar in a crazy manner. The sentence was fine though.

3) I wouldn't allow a sudden change of class/aligment. And the fact he did it, screams 'I feel wronged for the punishment, not being able to play my paladin as destroyer of all being evil'.
If it happens again, you should take the talk with the player this point, telling him how you see paladins and acceptable behavior, and working with him to make the event an interesting experience for his character to develop from.

4) When he feels wronged, and changes his character in an extreme way, a player is very likely to become disrupting to the game, which was the case.
It is very difficult to get to a good place from there, unless you talk it all out. Getting someone to put a curse/spell on him, to alter his behavior, is just enforcing his feeling of being told what he can and cannot do.

Overall, I don't think it is a question of CdGs or not. They can be fine, if it makes sense, especially something like death knell, which actually assists the bad guy.

As a player (and GM) however, having too many character deaths have a negative impact on the game. It doesn't necessarily make it gritty, as some suggest, but rather introduce that narrative speed bump, where some new character needs to be incorporated, despite the fact that they (and the rest of the group) might be streched for motivation to join forces. Especially after several character deaths we get to the point where none of the original group (or just a single PC) is alive, and actually have something investion in the overarching plot.

And my experience is that the second, third and fourth character made, tends to be more mechanics and less background story, when people get unsure, whether they die the next game or not. As a player, I don't think it does me or the game anything good, when I am primarily thinking of backup characters between games, giving me that itch to try something else rather than enjoying what I've got (But that is mainly right now at the height of my record, with 12 character death so far, at lvl 13 in Way of the Wicked).

1) Remember that the controlled rage is optional (unless there has been a faq I am unawere of), so you don't loose anything from this class ability, given that you can use the standard rage.

1b) Controlled rage could loose the extra hit points when raging (by dropping the con bonus), but given that these extra hit points is what kills you rather than incapacitate you, some might like it.

1c) Controlled rage allow you to choose between dex, con and strenght, allowing for dex-based barbarians. On top of this they gain a quite nice dodge bonus instead of fast movement.

So the archetype adds a lot of options, which the standard barbarian doesn't have. Without loosing too much.
I merges nicely with invulnerable rager archetype, on top of this.

As far as spellcasting goes, I'd don't think it is intended to allow for spellcasting. Generelly barbarians and their archetypes isn't build to accomodate being spell casters, which they are not.
I think there should be something a lot less circumstantial to suggest otherwise.

Brown Mold, you say?

I like the two main qualities:
1) Fire brought within 5 feet of brown mold causes the mold to instantly double in size.
2) The temperature is always cold in a 30-foot radius around it.

I am so going to destroy the elemental plane of fire with a small patch, making it a temperate paradise (or rather cold paradise) with my Way of the Wicked character (Note to self: Write an extreme hatred towards the elemental plane of fire into character backstory...)

It depends a lot on the situation.

1) The enemy uses it: Cool, let's do this.
2) The enemy sunders it: Erm, okay. So he wastes time to weaken us in the long run, instead of doing something to make him survive? Why is that again? If he expect to survive, wouldn't he keep the bow? It might make sense, but only in very rare circumstances.
3) The enemy runs away with it: Could be cool, BUT: Do they tend to run away? What are their purpose of attacking in the first place? If they want to run to save their own lives, why didn't he before the bow was on the ground? Again, I can only see a few circumstances where it makes sense for the NPC to do so.

In any case, as a GM, I would use it as a distraction, or secondary goal, in an encounter, not as a way to remove loot from a player.
So someway taking the lamb with his bow might be cool, if he notices, and has a real opportunity to catch the culprit. This might be a hard choice between helping his allies, and stopping someone getting away with his bow.
If he doesn't get the opportunity to do something about it, the GM might just make the bow magically vanish. Not cool, not fun, just punishment.

Why is crafting so special compared to the rest of the things our characters do with our feats and class abilities?

"If I have to pay for your crafting, why shouldn't you pay me to get healed?"

"Buff spells? Sure, but we have to break out the spell casting services prices."

"Breath of life? Honestly, guys, it is never going to benefit me directly, so I want that 50*CL every day you want me to prepare it."

"Hey mister wizard-man? See dat bit ogre commin chargin' us? Me want lotsa gold to stand in da way!"

All in all, charging trusted friends for services, easily opens up a can of worms. While crafting seems more reasonable than most of these examples, the fact is that most players/characters make choices, use ressources, and take actions that benefit the entire group, and not just themselves.

If it is meant as an introduction, I would steer away from doing it above lvl 5, perhaps going to lvl 10 if they should have a chance to try a good grapple-build.

I'd basically do it as the classical bar/saloon fight. You've got your unarmed combat, your grapples and bull rushes, good use of the scenery for dirty tricks and improvised weapons, and importantly you've got a lot of unarmed people, so the maneveurs can be done without AoOs.

A Samsaran Barbarian/Wood Oracle/Rage prophet is the highest I can manage right now.

Going with hamatula hide and fiend totem, and casting water shield + thorn body (from mystery) + fire shield (being samsaran) + defensive shock (being samsaran), with a caster level of 15 (through leveling and/or traits+feats), he get a retaliatory damage of:

3d8+3d6+6d6+55 or an average of 100 on the first attack, falling to 79 when the defensive shock is depleted.

Pretty mean, eventhough some of the spells has short duration. But most monsters in melee is going to die before they kill you.

If we have unlimited wealth, we could use a couple of rings of immolation to get fire shield without using a standard action.
And I'd probably spend gold to get coldfire wrappings, eventhough I expect it won't stack with fire shield as a spell. But it is nice to have in a pinch, since it is activated with an immediate action.

Yes and no.

As Alistus said, it doesn't grant you any racial traits or physical appendages not described in the feat.

So Tail Terror doesn't work, as it allow you to attack with a tail, you do not possess. Mother's Gift grant you +1 to attack and damage of claws you already possess, it doesn't grant you claws.

Others however, such as the Catfolk Exemplar feat, grants natural attacks, to the parent race even if they didn't possess them. As such your Racial Heritage human is catfolk enough to grow claws by taking the feat.

Based on the description of Syrania, I don't really see her as a Satan type.
She seem more bent on whole sale destruction a la Galactus (although a more pleasing appearence), than subtle corruption of mankind.

But given that her thing is using lies and deceit to further her goals, I'd primarily use her as such, if she was to meet the players.
Although it should be avoided to make the easy "your trusted NPC/Quest-giver betrays you in the end"-plot, it would seem like the way she would interact with them.

Part of her seems to be about anything other than the face-to-face confrontation. As such, she would surely have one of her stronger minions (or possibly someone else's) in place, as the apparrant mastermind. She will possibly play the part of the stereotypical innoncent child the heroes must sacrifice to stop the ultimate evil (of course she has measures set in place to survive said sacrifice). And while the sacrifice might stop the current predicament, the act itself have set new plans in motion.

If she inevitably is confronted by the heroes (and only now I am trying to answer your question...), I could see her acting different ways. As an ultimate evil, she is probably arrogant as any evil mastermind. But she might just as well try to convince the heroes of the merit of her plans (real or imagined).
But that is highly determined by her actual motivation. She hates all sentient beings and wish to destroy it. Why is that?

P.S. Mechanically, I think you should find skill points to give her a great sense motive bonus. Cunning and guile, especially when making elaborate schemes based on other people reactions, is all about knowing your pawns.

I would probably change it around a small bit, and let the trials, including a fight against an avatar of Gorum, lead up to him becoming a champion/general of Gorum instead - becoming a minor deity of sorts.
Thus granting him a chance of reaching his end goal without disrupting the expectations of the power of gods in your game world. And it gives you a bit more ownership of the narrative, while accommodating his ideas.

I wouldn't change their alignment based on a single action.

Just state that this sort of behaviour is evil in your book (and the current game). Continuing such actions will make it very difficult to uphold a good alignment.

This way they get to react to your inputs, and be active in how their characters is going to develop alignment-wise.

Calling your Eidolon could be a very risky affair. If it dies, it really dies. While you can use a true ressurection to bring it back, if that isn't an option, it is lost for good. And in that case, the summoner has no way of getting a new one.

Regarding the magic circle, you could simply give the eidolon a manufactured weapon to remain useful. Even if it is based on natural attacks, an evolution surge could give the needed limps.

On the shield ally question: I don't think it is supposed to affect itself. It might be dismissed by the fact that "it is not within its own reach". Admittantly, it is not the best argument ever.

I a sorry to say that it doesn't work, because:
A) It only works with conjuration (summoning) or (creation) spells.
B) It only works with sorcerer and wizard spells.

The reason for the absurd cheap price on the hide of a colossal dragons, is caused by the brothers Gribblehoot, the enterprising halfling twins, who made a fortune on a simple business idea.
The story of the adventure that set them on their destined path as unparalleled leather merchant is too long to recant here, but the important bit is when they got hold of an unlucky colossal dragon through Magic Jar.
Keeping the beast enslaved indefinately, they produces huge amounts of scales each day, as the possessor shed them using Skinsend. Through regenerative magic - a ring as far as I know - they got to repeat the process over and over again.
Though they made a lot of gold at first, the market eventually got flooded. Thus today, the scales of a colossal dragon cost only slightly more than price it takes to transport it between cities.

Positive energy blood? My first thought was that it should heal creatures attacking you with natural attacks.

@Thaliak: Great break down of the options.

The only suggestion I can add right now, is that it might be appropriate to add animate objects to the character. While not strictly telekinetic in nature, it could easily be flavored as such.
A group of permanently animated objects might even serve as the cannonfodder of the encounter.

From the FAQ:

Pounce: If have this ability (page 302), can I make iterative attacks with weapons as part of my full attack?

Any melee attack sequence you can perform as a full attack is allowed as part of the charge-pounce-full attack. For example, a barbarian with the greater beast totem rage power gains the pounce universal monster ability and could make iterative attacks with manufactured melee weapons as part of her charge-pounce-full attack.

—Sean K Reynolds, 02/21/12

To me, this heavily suggest that haste remain in effect, given that (while the charge is not a full-attack attack) the ability refers to it as a full attack (unlike spell combat).

I hate dinosaurs in fantasy games.

I hate catfolk (Yet, played one to be a filty, mangy specimen of the species).

I hate eastern stuff in generic fantasy games.

I hate the abundant amount of archetypes that makes any slight character consideration into a mechanical optimization nightmare.

I love mechanical optimization.

I hate backwards compatility.

Power Word Kill: 1) The pinnacle of magic, able to kill anyone, who die of the next full attack. 2) The longest word in the world, requiring nine pages of a spell book, yet is easily pronounced in 6 seconds.

Time Stop: 1) A spell you want to try, but never get to use. 2) A spell frequently used to stop the flow of the game, and remove the false illusion that our RPG is a cooporative event.

Circular Argument: A valid argument. Often used in internet discussion, making your statements true, since it is a Circular Argument.

One legal application that might be fun (and a little disturbing) is a Coaxing Unnatural Lust...

I agree that it doesn't seem like a great deal.

While a lot of 1-st level monsters has difficulty hitting AC 19, remember to increase their chances through charging and flanking.

Based on what you've said, the character doesn't seem like one that is going to break the system. If his wisdom is low, his offensive spellcasting is going to be weak. With a low cha he is not going to channel that much.
While the cleric might make a decent tank, his AC is going to be lower than a comparable fighter. And his melee offense is going to be significantly lower.

I think this is fairly easy to accomplish using the vehicle rules. It makes a bicycle difficult to use in combat, as you need your actions to be control it. Although you can continue onwards as a move action, and use a standard action for something else, you'll need precision.

Chariot, Light

These two-wheeled vehicles are often used for racing or as the platform for a single archer racing though the battlefield at high speeds.

Something like:

-------

BICYCLE
Medium land vehicle
Squares 1 (5 ft. by 5 ft.; 5 feet high); Cost ??? gp

DEFENSE
AC 10; Hardness 5 (or more based on material)
hp 30 (14)
Base Save +0

OFFENSE
Maximum Speed: twice the speed of the pulling creature;
Acceleration: the speed of the pulling creature(s)
CMB +1; CMD 11 Ramming Damage 1d6

DESCRIPTION
Propulsion Muscle (pulled; 1 Medium creatures)
Acrobatics, Profession (cycling)
Forward Facing: toward the front of the vehicle
Driving Device: Handlebars
Driving Space: the most forward square of the chariot
Decks 1

SPECIAL:
The rider counts as both driver and pulling creature. A medium creature can ride a medium bicycle
The bicycle does not ignore difficult terrain.
Going uphill counts as difficult terrain (half max speed, half acceleration)

Whenever the rolls are made in secret, the spell explicitly calls that out. From Spell Turning, for example... "From seven to ten (1d4+6) spell levels are affected by the turning. The exact number is rolled secretly."

So, whether it makes sense or not, the wizard knows how long he has.

After digging around, I found out that this is incorrect.

From the magic chapter on duration:

... If a spell's duration is variable, the duration is rolled secretly so the caster doesn't know how long the spell will last.

So unless anything specifies that the caster know the duration, he does not.

What I'm saying is that it is a character choice. If your character already has the appropriate ability scores (and remember that these increase as you level) then training yourself to cast time stop (and assorted reality hacks, aka spells) is no more difficult than training yourself to be able to attack with a +17 BAB.

I've got a hard time envisioning that as a character choice rather than a player choice.

Class, BAB, and ability scores are all game-mechanical terms, rather than in character considerations.

You have the likes of:

- Food creating powers (Create water, Create food and water, the druid one): Makes an important aspect of survival a moot point.

- Transport powers (teleport, communal flying powers like wind walk or eagle aerie): Introduces fast travel more or less. Makes the dangers/opportunities of travel more or less disappear.

- Shelter powers (Rope trick, and the various hut/mansion spells): Makes sleeping in dangerous locations unproblematic. Adds to the "Survival is unneccesary".

- The magic rogue powers (invisibility, knock, trapfinding spells): Significantly decreases the need for the rogue.

- Information gathering powers (scry/speaking spells/commune and the like): Changes the investigative scene significantly.

What are you saying? There aren't any telephones in Golarion. You could use any number of spells to do the same thing, though.

Is it so? Who are you to tell everybody else that telephones in Golarion is WRONGBADFUN?! :-p

So my sworn enemies are trapped in a pit, you say?

This sounds like the perfect time for a monologue on my evil scheme!

Umm, guys, the original post is a year and a half old...

I think there is a much more important question here:

Does helping you fight an evil dragon and cult, change the alignment of the nazis?

So a paladin is not allowed to touch him/herself, but is allowed to touch other good creatures (his mount?)

The way I read that sentence, I thought we were heading into a discussion on the intimate details in the paladins code...

But to answer your question, yes, Bestow Grace must be cast on someone else.