Michael Sumrall's page

PossibleCabbage wrote:

No. Attacking with weapons to do damage is never overpowered.

I disagree with this. Especially when you have teammates. One solid hit from a high damage martial can end an enemy caster. Especially in APs.

When your martials are teleporting around the map killing multiple opponents before they get the chance to react, the casters become redundant.

Touch of Fatigue should have been on the magus spell list.

It's just silly to not include the one wizard cantrip that actually does something detrimental as a touch attack.

Spells like Aboleth's Lung and Skinsend were never intended to be weaponized.

I keep a gentleman's agreement with my players. If they don't attempt to weaponize spells like this, I won't weaponize them against the players.

Melkiador wrote:

N. Jolly wrote:

So y'all hear about Legendary Games doing this with the codename Corefinder?

I had not, but I'm interested to see what they do with it. I tried looking for more information, but couldn't find anything official. There were just claims it was mentioned in a Discord.

Well, let me go grab the info for it:

Quote:

COREFINDER - This is Pathfinder Refined. It retains the core structure of Pathfinder 1st Ed and is intended to be generally backwards compatible with it, in particular on the GM side, so that existing PFRPG monsters and adventures can be used without the need for massive revisions. It has a lot more room for innovation and redesign on the player side when it comes to classes, feats, and spells. This is an edition that distills the very best of Pathfinder 1E - it fixes the broken, clarifies the muddy, purges the chaff, condenses the redundant, reins in the OP, improves the lame, and polishes what's already good.

It also has a second purpose, which is to extract the core essence of Pathfinder 1E to its Core (hence the Corefinder name) in a way akin to the 1980s Rules Cyclopedia for the BECMI series of D&D modules, and it will present genre-free core for the rules that can be adapted to any genre, PLUS a Corefinder Fantasy module that incorporates magic, magic items, and all the trappings of a traditional PF/D&D-style game. Whether we publish these as separate books or an omnibus is more of a logistical question than anything else, but we would like to have the root Corefinder able to be adapted to different genres and styles.

Personally, I would be really happy with just giving Pathfinder a comprehensive glossary and standardized rules terminology.

Get rid of 99% of the ambiguity where Pathfinder uses a half-dozen different terms to describe the same thing and then never FAQ when those slight variations in wording create years-long arguments over what does and does not work together.

The only real solution is for Paizo to actually support their products and FAQ these issues.

With no new content being published, this is a golden opportunity to resolve all these old issues with a comprehensive series of FAQ, including the RAI behind each decision.

Paizo won't do it, simply because they see no reason to support their own products. Some of these questions have been frequently asked for over a decade without being addressed. This is how much Paizo cares about their games.

[Since the 5ft-step rules don't care about move actions, but rather that "you move no actual distance", they could cast the spell, but not move as part of it ("up to"). If the spell forced the caster to actually move, they couldn't cast it, just like you can't use the charge action after taking a 5ft-step. your speed, while terrain simply counts as more distance than normal.

Interesting how you are willing to rewrite spell effects without anything in the spell itself implying that it would be affected by the caster’s other actions in the round.

Would you also rule that if I 5’ stepped off a cliff I would not fall, since no other movement is permitted? Why or why not. That movement would be a direct result of the character’s actions. If he would fall, what in the RAW permits a character to benefit from this form of extra movement while blocking spell effects?

Since it's not a teleportation effect, it's actual movement. "If you move no actual distance in a round (…), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action." CRB pg. 181 You do move an actual distance, so no 5-ft-step.

How do you resolve your position if the caster takes their 5' step before casting the spell?

It is a spell, not a move action, so there is no RAW prohibiting the caster from casting the spell after taking their 5' step.

The really powerful lich uses something more abstract for his phylactery. Like the color blue.

You would have to be Kumagawa Misogi to kill him >:-)

The fewest is 0, an unarmed fighter does not need weapons.

Beyond that, any answer is going to depend on the character and how it is built.

Some GMs might be tempted to reduce the amount or value of the treasure you acquire to offset this and keep your overall wealth in line with the Character Wealth by Level table. Unfortunately, that has the net result of negating the main benefit of crafting magic items—in effect negating your choice of a feat. However, game balance for the default campaign experience expects you and all other PCs to be close to the listed wealth values, so the GM shouldn't just let you craft double the normal amount of gear. As a guideline, allowing a crafting PC to exceed the Character Wealth by Level guidelines by about 25% is fair , or even up to 50% if the PC has multiple crafting feats.

Yes, you can use Abundant Step to teleport to you opponents, attack with FoB, and teleport out, assuming you have the available movement.

“Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful -- just stupid.)”

― Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

Volkard Abendroth wrote:

After builds were posted that had higher DPR than most barbarians, people started complaining that monks were horrible because you could not build a decent unarmed core rulebook monk.

Builds were posted that matched Barbarian DPR, unarmed, without archetypes.

Do you happen to have any such posts saved (or at least page numbers), so you could point me to them? I'd like to see them (just not enough to go through 24 pages).

Post #1

Post #2

Post #3

There are several consolidated build lists in the thread right after post #3

Post #4

I always start my campaigns at level 1.

I find that events transpiring at that level can shape how a character acts and is viewed by the other players for the entire campaign.

Volkard Abendroth wrote:

Kasoh wrote:

Volkard Abendroth wrote:

Agile wrote:

Requirement: This special ability can be placed only on melee weapons usable with Weapon Finesse.

Emphasis mine.

I suppose then it would require the person doing the enchantment to have the necessary feats to make it usable with Weapon Finesse or such person to aid in the creation of the magic item, which isn't an unreasonable requirement. Because the weapon isn't, unless you are such a person.

Most casters don't have Weapon Finesse and cannot use the Agile property on any weapon.

Fortunately, there is no requirement for any weapon property to be usable by the person creating the weapon.

True, but Agile can only be put on weapons that can be used with Weapon Finesse. If the person making the weapon doesn't have slashing grace or whatever, the weapon they are enchanting can't be used with weapon finesse and is thus ineligible for the enchantment.

I was thinking of the scenario of creating an agile longsword or something, not just making a regular agile weapon.

The weapon can be used with weapon finesse, just not by that character.

Just as a medium sized caster cannot use weapon finesse with a small or large weapon, even if they have the Weapon Finesse feat.

Alternately, any one-handed weapon that has an effortless lace applied may be used by anyone with weapon finesse (assuming appropriate size).

If the weapon is wielded by a creature whose size matches that of the weapon’s intended wielder, the weapon is treated as a light melee weapon when determining whether it can be used with Weapon Finesse, as well as with any feat, spell, or special weapon ability that can be used in conjunction with light weapons.

Emphasis mine.

The Effortless Lace has several ways it can be destroyed, none of them which remove the Agile property, which would remain on the weapon.

All you accomplish by arguing the person enchanting the weapon must be able to use it with Weapon Finesse is restrict casters to enchanting weapons of their own size category. No more gnomes enchanting human weapons, no more humans enchanting halfling weapons, etc.

Volkard Abendroth wrote:

Agile wrote:

Requirement: This special ability can be placed only on melee weapons usable with Weapon Finesse.

Emphasis mine.

I suppose then it would require the person doing the enchantment to have the necessary feats to make it usable with Weapon Finesse or such person to aid in the creation of the magic item, which isn't an unreasonable requirement. Because the weapon isn't, unless you are such a person.

Most casters don't have Weapon Finesse and cannot use the Agile property on any weapon.

Fortunately, there is no requirement for any weapon property to be usable by the person creating the weapon.

I disagree. That's not likely to be something that spellpouches would contain. You are making assumptions that aren't in evidence. Do you actually believe some devil somewhere is sitting still for casters to milk them dry of its blood?

A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t fit in a pouch.

You can feel free to houserule in your games, but RAW a spell component pouch includes all spell components without a specified cost.

So what is everyone’s opinion on this? Like to be I get annoyed when people only build towards combat and have zero RP value or power game to the point where they break the game if played by RAW.

Ways I’ve stopped it is by throwing a “bigger fish” at them to remind them they are not demi gods walking around.

Without banning from your table how do some of you keep a game breaker in check.

Problems that are not solvable in combat.

And don't direct all non-combat problems to the one character that decides to build a bardic social god/skill monkey. Specifically address problems and dilemmas to a character and have them solve it.

It’s like saying you can put agile on a long sword because you can use finesse with it if you take slashing grace. But the weapon doesn’t care about how it could be used, but about what it is. And the dagger is a melee weapon. So no designating.

A position I have long held.

There is no weapon property for finesse. There is a baseline feat, followed by an entire series of feats and abilities, and more recent weapons that modify the baseline.

Weapon Finesse is a property of the weapon wielder, not the weapon.

The Agile property states:

Requirement: This special ability can be placed only on melee weapons usable with Weapon Finesse.

What Agile does not state is that it is usable only on weapons with the finesse property, because the property does not exist. No melee weapon uses DEX-to-hit by default.

A long sword is usable with Weapon Finesse. Just not by every character.

Agile would only function if the character using the weapon can use it with Weapon Finesse. Just as Keen only functions in melee and Designating only functions when making a ranged attack.

Volkard Abendroth wrote:

GM PDK wrote:

Volkard Abendroth wrote:

I don't allow keen to work on melee weapons used at range, I don't allow ranged properties to function on ranged weapons when used in melee, etc.

Do you allow the Improved Crit feat to work on melee weapons used at range?

The underlying mechanics of Improved Critical are different.

Improved Critical was never restricted to ranged or melee. It works equally for all weapons, regardless of how the weapons are used or classified.

I think the point was that an expanded threat range is an expanded threat range. And the two don’t stack. So the enchantment doesn’t let you do something you couldn’t achieve with different means.

Not at all. This is not about expanded threat ranges. This is about underlying mechanics and unintended interactions.

The underlying mechanics of Keen and Improved Critical are completely different, even if the end result is mostly the same.

Improved Critical is a self-contained feat with no real crossover on how it interacts with other feats.

Allowing melee only properties to work at range, or range only properties to work in melee, has far more potential for unintended interactions and far more edge cases.

A clean interpretation that is easy to apply consistently and that eliminates both the unintended interactions and edge cases is much healthier for a game.

The same interpretation carries over, for example, to a keen cestus or keen claw blades. Keen does not function on blunt weapons, and will not function when either is used as a Blunt damage.

The DR is going to be very difficult for most melee to get through.

CRB Equipment wrote:

Melee and Ranged Weapons: Melee weapons are used for making melee attacks, though some of them can be thrown as well. Ranged weapons are thrown weapons or projectile weapons that are not effective in melee.

So, that second bolded sentence is vague but you could take it to mean that weapons that are effective in melee are not “ranged weapons”.

But this also supports that a thrown melee weapon is still a melee weapon.

You still run into the problem with chakram, throwing shields, axe muskets, etc.

They are specifically designated as ranged weapons, but usable in melee.

Do you allow Designating to work in melee on those weapons? If so, how is this different than allowing keen to work on a "melee" weapon used at range?

Personally, I only allow weapon properties to work if the weapon meets the prereqs at the time and in the manner of usage.

I don't allow keen to work on melee weapons used at range, I don't allow ranged properties to function on ranged weapons when used in melee, etc.

One simple, consistent ruling that applies equally to everything.

Other DM's may rule differently, and are free to do so, but you run into a lot more corner cases where things have unanticipated interactions.

** spoiler omitted **

Bladebound/Spell Dancer - I'll disagree with you there as well. Arcane Pool doesn't break out the individual pieces in the way something like Bardic Performance does. Both Bladebound and Spell Dancer modify Arcane Pool, which is a single class feature. Remember even adding an option to a class feature and taking nothing away counts as modifying it and means you can't take a different archetype that modifies the class feature in any way.

FAQ wrote:

Archetype Stacking and Altering: What exactly counts as altering a class feature for the purpose of stacking archetypes?

In general, if a class feature grants multiple subfeatures, it’s OK to take two archetypes that only change two separate subfeatures. This includes two bard archetypes that alter or replace different bardic performances (even though bardic performance is technically a single class feature) or two fighter archetypes that replace the weapon training gained at different levels (sometimes referred to as “weapon training I, II, III, or IV”) even though those all fall under the class feature weapon training. However, if something alters the way the parent class feature works, such as a mime archetype that makes all bardic performances completely silent, with only visual components instead of auditory, you can’t take that archetype with an archetype that alters or replaces any of the sub-features. This even applies for something as small as adding 1 extra round of bardic

...

Bladebound does not modify the Arcana class feature, it only replaces one sub-feature. The magi's 3rd level arcana.

This is why Bladebound stacks with Kensai, which replaces the magi's 9th level arcana.

Archetype Stacking and Altering: What exactly counts as altering a class feature for the purpose of stacking archetypes?

In general, if a class feature grants multiple subfeatures, it’s OK to take two archetypes that only change two separate subfeatures. This includes two bard archetypes that alter or replace different bardic performances (even though bardic performance is technically a single class feature) or two fighter archetypes that replace the weapon training gained at different levels (sometimes referred to as “weapon training I, II, III, or IV”) even though those all fall under the class feature weapon training. However, if something alters the way the parent class feature works, such as a mime archetype that makes all bardic performances completely silent, with only visual components instead of auditory, you can’t take that archetype with an archetype that alters or replaces any of the sub-features. This even applies for something as small as adding 1 extra round of bardic performance each day, adding an additional bonus feat to the list of bonus feats you can select, or adding an additional class skill to the class. As always, individual GMs should feel free to houserule to allow small overlaps on a case by case basis, but the underlying rule exists due to the unpredictability of combining these changes.

Okay the Arcane Deed arcana is a more compelling argument against it. To that The only counters are: 1 you had to go through an arcana to get the deed, while hexcrafter gets the Hex directly; and, at least 1 of your Hexes gets full Magus == Witch levels, there is a possible debate on that due to Hex Arcana not having the Magus lv == Witch level wording.

************
I know not to debate Alchemy but: ** spoiler omitted **Also you can always replace multiple parts of an ability without affecting the rest.

It's why Bladebound and Spell Dancer should be able to stack (even if people dont think so).

*************
Btw speaking of stacking, do you all think Eldritch Scion stacks with any archetype that doesn't replace Arcane Pool? And how useful is it really, I'm still not quite sure whether it's worth it or not.

I feel the FAQ was a stealth errata for balance reasons, not a ruling on RAW.

RAI, there is no way they originally meant for the feat to do nothing.

They gave the magus level based precision damage, then realized what that meant for an already high DPR class and nuked the entire thing rather than try to refine it.

I have a hard time seeing occasions where this force shield would take damage. When was the last time you saw a shield-using PC's shield take damage?

Once per round when you would normally be hit by a weapon attack, you can use your shield to block the attack. You must be using a shield in order to use this ability. Subtract your shield’s hardness and hit points from the damage of the attack and apply the remaining damage to your hit points. If the shield takes enough damage to destroy it, it’s destroyed. Otherwise, it gains the broken condition, even if the damage was not enough to give it the broken condition under other circumstances. You can expend one use of mythic power when using this ability to negate any damage dealt to the shield, though you still take any damage that exceeds its hardness and hit points. You can choose to negate the damage after the damage is rolled.

The shield in this case has hardness 30, 180 hp, and can be replaced each round as a free action.

Volkard Abendroth wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Can't hide in a shadow if there is no light to cast a shadow.

This is incorrect.

Hide in Plain Sight does not require a character to have cover, only to be within 10' of the appropriate terrain or condition (dim light in this case.)

The character himself could be standing in the open, in bright light, and the ability will still function.

Volkard you've taken this way out of context.

The original wording of the ability talked about needing shadows to use the Assassin's version of Hide in Plain Sight. I was saying that if there is no light, there can be no shadows, which means no using that version of HIPS.

Even with the revised version saying Dim light, you can negate the ability to use this HIPS by changing the light level to either normal light, bright light, or dark.

So my statement was correct, and the premise is still correct. Changing the light level to anything other than dim light stops this version of HIPS. The old version was actually better because you could carry around a light source to make shadows to hide in. The only way to get rid of a shadow is to make it completely dark (if there is light, it create a shadow). Which means creatures with Darkvision can still see you and your HIPS doesn't work.

I was never ever talking about cover, and I'm not really sure where you made that leap from.

The bolded part is incorrect.

FAQ

All Darkvision does is remove cover. It does not change lighting levels.

The idea of such a person just running a business (other than selling magic services) is a major waste of talent.

Who knows how many wizards have achieved immortality and, after growing weary of the limelight, simply retired to being simple, anonymous shopkeepers, farmers, or wandering merchants?

Even if only 1 every few generations, the number would still accumulate over time. You would have no way of knowing until some idiot bandit or adventurer decided to go pick a fight with farmer Bob and never came back.

I always look up environmental rules and combat maneuvers.

Too many fiddly bits to waste time memorizing everything when I have the books right there.

While an eidolon does count as a summon it is not labled with SP, SU, nor is it a spell.

The Anti-Magic Field rules pertaining to summoned creatures are specific and do not mention SP, SU, spells, or anything else regarding how the summoned creature came to be.

The rules on this are black-and-white and self contained. Since the eidolon is a summoned creature it cannot exist inside an AMF. It winks out until the field moves on or it is dismissed.

The eidolon cannot be sent back to its home plane by means of dispel magic, but spells such as dismissal and banishment work normally.

The eidolon has a specific exemption to Dispel Magic, but in all other ways is labeled and behaves as a product of the Summoning sub-school not the Creation sub-school.

The eidolon requires the continued presence and consciousness of the summoner or it disappears, it disappears if killed, does not actually die if killed, requires 24 hours to reform if killed.

The Creation sub-school, on the other hand, defines exactly how instantaneous magic works. None of the above apply to a created creature.

Loved the breadth and complexity of the rules.

Hated Paizo's spotty FAQ releases the past few years. Especially on long running and high divisive arguments resulting from ambiguously or poorly worded rules. The fact that they stopped issuing FAQ altogether almost a year ago has just made issues worse.

Wanted a revised synthesist. Either as an unchained summoner archetype or as their own class.

Will miss nothing. I stopped buying from Paizo a year ago when Paizo stopped supporting the game with FAQs. All of my purchases over the past year have come directly from 3rd party providers using their websites. I have enough unplayed material to last decades and will continue to use it.

Blind Fight is useless.

Until it isn’t, then it becomes very powerful.

Personally, I tend to take it, and improved blind fight, and bring concealment to the battlefield myself.

I would love to have a hard copy of Kingmaker to go next to my copies of RotR and CotCT.

Not going to happen unless there is a 1e version available. Paizo wants my money, they need to print their books in system I will be using.

Matthew Downie wrote:

At low level, they can still use touch spell cantrips every round, casting them purely for the free melee weapon attack.

Unless I missed something, the base magus doesn't have a touch cantrip, except for Arcane Mark, which will probably get a stink eye from a lot of DMs, if you try to use that for a free attack.

There is a FAQ expressly permitting cantrips. Arcane Mark is the only cantrip the magus gets by default that meets the requirements, though he could add Touch of Fatigue to his class list with a trait.

Benefit: Select one 0-level spell from a class spell list other than your own. This spell is a 0-level spell on your class spell list (or a 1st-level spell if your class doesn’t have 0-level spells). For example, if you are a druid, you could select mage hand and thereafter prepare it as a 0-level druid spell; if you are a sorcerer, you could select know direction as a 0-level sorcerer spell known.

I didn't respond to the rest of your post because making up for my inability to take my own turns by trying to take other players' turns for them is even worse. "Tension and drama" my ass, I've literally never seen a GM use a CDG before combat is over. Killing a neutralized PC when the rest of the party is still very much a threat is an irrational move by the NPC's and really is just your GM being a dick and telling you to reroll your character because they said so.

There are assassin focused no s whose entire combat style is about setting up for the coup de grace.

You would be doing them a disservice by not taking the coup de grace if not taking the chance.

Ryze Kuja wrote:

I think by default, any Gestalt char is already tier 0. Unless you pick Vow of Poverty Monk + Fighter or something literally designed to suck.

Naw most gestault options will only bump a character up a tier or two not make them teir 0, for that you need 2 full casters.

A gestalt of two full casters can only act as one or the other in any given round.

A truly strong gestalt uses the full abilities of both classes every round.

With the Pathfinder rules alone RAW, creatures with Reach cannot attack enemies that are diagonal to them because of the sudden skip from 5 to 15 feet, outside of the Reach weapon's threatened range. Unless as a GM, you're houseruling that the 3.5 rule that makes Reach an exception to the distance rules applies. Of course, exploiting this mechanic could get obnoxious I suppose.

FAQ

10-Foot Reach and Diagonals: I’m confused about reach and diagonals. I heard somewhere online that you don’t threaten the second diagonal with a 10-foot reach but that you somehow get an attack of opportunity when opponents move out of that square, but the Rules Reference Cards show that you do threaten the second diagonal. Which one is correct?

The cards are correct. As an exception to the way that diagonals normally work, a creature with 10 feet of reach threatens the second diagonal. These changes will be reflected in the next errata.

Nondetection blocks any divination magic that gathers information about the person (and gear on the person) it is protecting. This includes spells that that cover an area as well as those that specifically target the protected character.

The provided list is open-ended, not comprehensive. It provides examples, not specifics.

A few options are available:

• (Greater)Ray Shield
  
• Mirrored Armor
  
• Mirrored Shield
  
• Snake Style
  
• Ring of Protection
  

There are many others, I just don't have time to research them at the moment.

Not going to happen. It's 2019, you have all PF spells at Archives of Nethys and d20pfsrd. Compendiums made sense for WotC when D&D was closed content, it doesn't for Paizo.

It's 2019

I stopped giving my money to Paizo when they made it clear they were no longer supporting the game system I enjoy. All of my purchases are now 3pp, through the 3pp's website.

The armor in question is already made (its medium HIDE),

Sell it.

Buy better armor.

I purchase most 3PP directly from the publishers. Paizo products I get through Amazon, though not so much these days.

The stuff I have purchased this year is Frog God Games and Legendary Games mostly, with the occasional product from Kobold Press.

I have a Drivethru account, but seldom use it.

Put me firmly in the camp that a readied move is a perfectly fine counter.

With an additional caveat.

Per the rules you charge to a specific square - the nearest square.
If the character's readied action goes off, the charging character does not get to move to follow you. His action is done. He charges to the specific square. Turn over.

You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. If you move a distance equal to your speed or less, you can also draw a weapon during a charge attack if your base attack bonus is at least +1.

You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can’t charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can’t charge. Helpless creatures don’t stop a charge.

Emphasized the relevant parts.

You do not designate a specific square when you start your charge. You move in a straight line towards the nearest square from which it is legal to attack the target of your charge.

If the target uses a readied action to move, but is still within a legal charge path for the charging character, the charging character continues moving in a straight line towards the nearest square from which he can legally attack.

A character who can take advantage of Wheeling Charge or has some other means to legally alter his path during a charge may be very difficult to avoid with a readied action.

Yes, the flame blade is a weapon.

FAQ

Power Attack and Deadly Aim do not work with touch attacks, they cannot be applied to flame blade or rays.

Temperans wrote:

Wait whats wrong with 40+ AC at the cost of to hit and dmg?

It creates a situation where most of the enemies in the campaign quickly realise they have virtually no chance of significantly hurting the PC, and they might as well all just surrender.

This isn't very exciting.

A GM has to create custom enemies who can hit 40AC, because the high-level NPCs provided by the game usually can't.

The 40AC guy has his time to shine, and his time to fail.

Let him feel invincible against melee opponents, who may choose to go around him once they realize they cannot hit him.

If there is any significant diversity in encounters, other players will have their turn to shine when facing opponents that don't care so much about AC.

It's not even about modifying encounters specifically because the the high AC guy. Encounters should always be diverse and pose many different challenges to the party.

Dragonborn3 wrote:

Moving up to attack doesn't cause harm by itself, nor do casting spells defensively or making ranged attacks if not threatened.

You can also move around threatened areas too, so you can avoid AoOs. There are a myriad of ways to not come to harm and still attack.

Ignoring high value targets that are casting devastating spells however is harmful in fact its a severe health risk to do so.

Taking up arms and engaging opponents at all is potentially harmful. He should full withdraw from any risk.

/s

You are metagaming.

Would anyone be interested in revised printed books or PDFs for 1e, provided it was a significant revision with lots of our issues addressed?

If they addressed all the ambiguities and rules conflicts without affecting compatibility, then probably.

After my wizard killed the DM's favorite NPC, a new rule was implemented that everything had 90% magic resistance.

Same DM different campaign. Uber big bad demands everyone give up their most valuable item or he will kill the entire party (not the first time he's used this tactic). My low INT fighter declares the big bad can have his sword when it is pried from his dead hands. 30 minutes later the fighter is standing over the bodies of the uber big bad and the rest of the party. The DM was more than willing to TPK the group just to prove he was the DM, but miscalculated.

I'm not so sure, the text of the phantom blade class tells how a phantom blade is different than a blackblade and it never alters the text which prohibits Familiars. I think (and I'd be very happy to be proven wrong) that it is therefore as the OP concluded, a phantom blade can't have a phantom or familiar. You get a talking phantom blackblade instead.

A literal reading of the phantom blade rules results in the phantom blade only able to use magus spells for spell combat and spellstrike. The phantom blade does not alter the text of either ability to include spells from the phantom blade spell list.

Or, we can assume the writer was very sloppy in changing the necessary text to work with the phantom blade. If the writer was sloppy with spell combat and spellstrike, they were most likely sloppy with the phantom blade as well.

The spell does exactly what it says, and nothing more, so, no, it don't affect spellcasting.

The "Dead" condition does exactly what it says it does, and nothing more, so, no, it don't affect spellcasting.

Or attacking, or anything else.

Or, we can apply the common sense that the developers have repeatedly stated they assume we will apply while using the rules.

I would:

[list]