Mogart's page

My group encountered an evil wizard and we struck first. The druid of the group cast Baleful Polymorph on him and he Failed his Fort save, but passed his will save.

The evil wizard effectively turned into a frog, but retained his spells, mind, and ability.

My question is this: Druids have to take feats to be able to cast spells in animal form, so it stands to reason that the evil wizard can't cast spells while he is "Frogged."

If you turn an enemy wizard into an animal and he passes the will save but fails the fort save is he totally dependent upon someone else to transform him back into a humanoid to be able to cast? Or can he still cast as an animal despite not having Natural Spell?

They min-maxed their characters, took appropriate traits, have items, and have high wisdom scores.

The next time they get Perception happy I'll start saying fun stuff.

-You notice that the cobblestones in the room are slightly uneven.
-You notice gouges in the cutting board.
-You notice that your companions smell particularly rank today......

Oh wow............

Punish players for not bathing regularly.....punish their characters too.

Do your players have epic perception scores? Rolls of 35+

When a player walks into a room, does he/she demand a perception check upon entry to see everything in the room?

"What do you mean there is an invisible monster standing in the room, my 35 perception roll should have made me fully aware of the monster. I want to attack the monster's square."

Personally I am of the opinion that if there is some sort of invisible creature, the players simply don't get a perception roll until the monster has done something.

Sure if the monster is moving around, doing some sort of activity they should get a roll, but not if the monster is just standing still in the room waiting to attack the players.

Anyone else agree with this or am I being too harsh?

Mogart wrote:

Actually Elamdri, if the swords are 1 handed and he has 4 sets of arms and 4 sets of claws, his attacks are more like.

4 Swords, 4 Claws, 1 bite - Because the Max attack total only applies to Natural attacks.

The natural weapon rules say he must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb. This means if he uses an arm to wield a sword, he can't make an attack with the claw on that arm.

If all four arms are wielding longswords, and his mouth is wielding a mouthpick weapon, and he (somehow) makes attacks with all five of those weapons, he can't also make attacks with the natural weapons that share those limbs.

The arms evolution gives you 2 arms. The claws evolution gives you a pair of claws per set of arms.

Taking arms 4x gives you 8 arms. Thus 4 swords, 4 claws, and the free bite.

Here is an example:

You have an eidolon with 4 arms, 4 claws, and a Bite, and is able to make 5 Attacks. He is also proficient with longswords.

He can do any of the following combinations:

4 Claws and 1 Bite
1 Longsword, 3 Claws and 1 Bite (With appropriate penalties)
2 Longswords, 2 Claws and 1 Bite (With appropriate penalties)
3 Longswords, 1 Claw and 1 Bite (With appropriate penalties)
4 Longswords and 1 Bite (With appropriate penalties)

Actually Elamdri, if the swords are 1 handed and he has 4 sets of arms and 4 sets of claws, his attacks are more like.

4 Swords, 4 Claws, 1 bite - Because the Max attack total only applies to Natural attacks.

Thus if he had 4 sets of claws and no weapons he could only make a total of 5 attacks instead of the 9 mentioned above.

Natural Attacks: "Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack's original type."

If you mean full-attack with manufactured weapons, then drop the weapons so it can use natural weapons in later rounds, then no problem.

This is interesting. What you are saying is that if I am playing a race with natural attacks, claws and a bite, I can effectively do the following combinations.

Use a 2-handed sword then bite.
Use my monk hits as kicks, then claw and bite.
Use a 1 handed sword then claw and bite.

I can effectively let the cheese fly.
It's time to make a kicking/pelvic thrusting/tail whipping monk, which will save my claw and bite attacks for my off hand attacks.

It just seems odd. As odd as a monstrous fighter using all of his attacks with 2 weapon fighting, and then trying to argue that he can take a -5 to his natural attacks and use his claw and bite attacks as well.

I am just curious if there has been any errata on the number of non-natural attacks an eidolon gets per round, or is it still one per held weapon in an arm?

Given that an eidolon is only limited with respect to the number of natural attacks he can deliver, and that every other attack is made at the eidolon's highest attack bonus. I was just curious if a pouncing Quadruped with a ton of (insert 1 handed weapon and appropriate feats) in his hands was still as broken as it once was, or did pathfinder finally change it?

As max attacks only accounts for natural attacks I have seen players try to argue that they attack with every held weapon, and then drop some to attack with claw attacks upon completion of a full round action. Though I would never allow this in a game I ran, it does seem odd to just limit the natural attacks and not limit the total attacks.

The intent as the druid stated is this.

The monk is a half-dragon.

"He caught me in one of his breath weapons and now he has attacked me. I am going to turn him into a frog and keep him as a pet. Eventually I'll have an army of frogs."

I have forbidden my players to be evil in my campaign.

One of my players got nailed with the insanity spell, he was a monk, and fairly powerful. One player who he attacked thought that the best course of action would be to Baleful Polymorph him into a frog.

He failed both saves..........

How does he get turned back?
When he comes back did his mind return?
I would definitely call the act Evil.

The person who cast Baleful Polymorph now wants to keep the frog as a pet............damn Druids........

Honestly, I have always been an all or nothing type, and see the difference between the balance issues inherent in the half-dragon and pixie as splitting hairs. If you aren't going to allow one then don't bother with the others. And if you are worried about balance stick to the player's handbook races.

P.S.-OK, so that sounded more vindictive than intended. If you are worried about balance then play the Core Races until the Advance Race Guide comes out is all I am trying to say.

The characters are only level 6 at this point.

As far as the power differences between a half dragon as versus a pixie.
Half-Dragon
Flies
Natural Armor +4
Ability score boost (Non-ideal stats Mix of Str, Con, Int, Cha)
Immunity to sleep and paralysis
Darkvision

Pixie
Flies
Damage Reduction 10/Cold Iron
Constant effect - Improved Invisibility - Endless Duration
Many spells that can be cast once per day (Cast as an 8th level Caster)
Can fire magic arrows which bestow spell like abilities ~16-25 times per day depending on Cha Score. (Charm monster, Sleep, and Modify Memory)
Low-Light Vision

As a DM I am not at all afraid of ability score boosts, but the prospect of a player casting charm spells 16+ times per day as well as having some of the best defensive abilities in the game is unacceptable.
Spell Resistance

The player came to me and said "I wanna play a Pixie."

If that means a pixie for fluff or a pixie for power I have no idea. The husband of the player said "She doesn't like picking spells," so I am guessing that she wants to play the Pixie as is.

If she just picked a flying Fay I would be fine with it. However, when you add in all of those abilities, the answer is no.

If the pixie was given a week or two of down time, I am not even sure how to launch an attack against a pixie. One permanent image per day that requires a will save to disbelieve. You can effectively make the town of "Rock Ridge" (If you get the reference) and instead of roads dig pit traps for anyone who comes at you.

Since the images are permanent you can populate the town too, as long as you control only 1 person at a time.

I am just of the opinion that the ability to do All of the following is a bit much.

Fly
DR 10/Cold Iron
Cast Charm Monster (Charisma Score X per day)
Cast Sleep (Charisma Score X per day)
Cast Memory Loss (Charisma Score X per day)
Permanent Invisibility even when attacking
Create a host of illusions that are permanent. (Only one time per day, but given a week you can make a whole host of traps. Including a copy of yourself as a humanoid to be a target while you are invisible.)
A 1 in 10 chance to cast Baleful Polymorph 1x a day.

Keeping in mind that this is all before character levels are added.

For a Player this is Candy Land, for a DM this is a nightmare.

The Harmless Pixie

My current stance is no way in hell. Even with a 4 level penalty. I am a firm believer that a single pixie controlled by a creative DM can easily wipe a party out.

I suppose that I missed the DR 10/ Cold Iron too.

In general, I have no problem allowing a player to play a character or race that they want to play, hell I even have a player playing as a half dragon. But I think Pixie is where I will draw the line.

The idea of a player being invisible by default and being able to attack while invisible isn't so bad.

The idea that a player has the ability to cast the following spells 16-20 times per day is freaking terrifying:

Charm: The target must succeed on a DC 15 Will save or be affected as though by a charm monster spell for 10 minutes.

Memory Loss: The target must succeed on a DC 15 Will save or be affected by a modify memory spell (this effect can only eliminate the previous 5 minutes of memory—a pixie typically uses this ability to make the target forget it encountered the pixie so it won't chase the pixie when he flees).

Sleep: The target must succeed on a DC 15 Will save or fall asleep for 5 minutes.

In addition there are the spell like abilities that they get each day.

To quote a horse. "No sir, I don't like it.

Essentially, the whole fight is a horrible comparison with ridiculous rules.

Core rule book no magic items..........

Well........Pathfinder put out supplements to improve classes that already exist.

This is sort of like saying....If I put Bruce Lee in a fight against a US Marine, and took away the soldier's guns.......and took away the soldier's grenades........and took away the soldier's vehicles........and took away the soldier's weapons making this an unarmed fight...........and put the fighters in a 10x10 foot room.

The soldier would stand no chance for victory against Bruce Lee.

If I took a human, and put her up against an Alien, and took away all of her guns, and gave her a sharpened pencil.......The Alien would totally win.

If I took a baby, and put him in a crib. And then I took the big red button that launches all of the nukes in that crib..... the baby would totally destroy the world within 2 hours.

The DM is constraining the rules to prove his point. In a real game, the DM is simply wrong.

Or how about this for fun........

What if the Monk just uses..............wait for it.............Sunder/Disarm and appropriate feats for Dodge Mobility Spring attack.

Even if the fighter has Adamantite everything the Monk can destroy it all in a few hits. Then the fighter is just as naked as the Monk.

ciretose wrote:

Monk has +60 movement. Not 60 total. Base movement is 90.

Right, so the farthest away from the fighter you can possibly at the beginning and end of your move is 45 feet - start your spring attack 45ft away, end it 45ft away. Still within the fighter's charging range. To be outside his charge range, you'll have to end your spring attack at 65ft away or higher, which means you'll have to start your attack from either 25, 20, 15, or 10 feet away from him. Not something you can keep pulling off.

The DM statted the fighter as a Dwarf. Last I checked Dwarves move 20 feet per round.

I wish I was trolling, I really do. This DM is basing a fighter's ability to do damage off of a 11th level dwarf fighter that uses a shield and axe and does 1d8 +11 per hit. He aparently thinks that all fighters are that effective.

Also, my money would be on the 2 vs 1, especially if the monk/rogue are built to disarm/lock down the fighter.

Honestly it all depends on the builds.

A Dwarf Fighter will have a movement of 20, period.

A level 20 monk gains +60 movement. So to be out of the range of the fighter, all the monk has to do is pull off a Dodge Mobility Spring attack combo. The monk literally needs to have 50 feet of movement to win. The Monk's stunning fist ability can permanently blind an opponent if he fails the save. Quivering palm is an instant death hit.
Hell Stunning fist can paralyze a target for 1d6 rounds.

Dodge Mobility Spring attack + Stunning fist

Rinse repeat until the target fails the save, then coup de grace.

Or he is trying to advise other GMs about things that drove him crazy, thus ruining his gaming experience.

Sort of a don't do this thread.

So......if Reincarnation was used how many of the random bits would be brought back to life? Or is that simply the caster's choice.

So..........one of the players in my campaign just died, and the evil member of the group took his corpse for safe keeping for a few days because the group trusted him with it until they could resurrect it. He knew the spell gentle repose.

Well one Frankenstein's monster night later and I am not sure what to do. The body was given the arms of a minotaur, the tail of a lizard, gills, legs and feet of a merfolk. If they bring this thing back to life with a resurrect spell......I am tempted to just have it start screaming until it dies.

Assuming that I allow this "creature" to do more than scream until he dies, I have no idea what stats to give him as he is certainly not just an elf anymore.

Any thoughts?

If it is a magic shop, have a guard that is a Golem.

You can totally deal with this. Have him roll stealth and pickpocket equivalent checks, give him a chance to get caught. If he stays in a town for an extended length of time have security increased in the shops. (Have the security officer be at least a level higher than the ninja wannabe.) It will just be a matter of time until he gets caught.

When he does get caught take appropriate action. Have him thrown into a jail, chained into a dungeon, or if there is a more barbaric society cut off the offending hand and send him on his way.

So I bought a Pathfinder module called "Hungry Are The Dead." The adventure starts with a creature called Bloody Bones.

It is an aquatic undead with 4 tentacle attacks and a claw attack. My confusion is this, as written the creature has both 1 claw attack and rend....

Should I just assume that the creature has more than one claw attack? Or that each tentacle has 1 claw on it? How should this be played?

Having actually played a Summoner in game I can promise you that pounce is not overpowered.

Here is the reason:
Pounce (Ex)
An eidolon gains quick reflexes, allowing it to make a full attack after a charge. This evolution is only available to eidolons of the quadruped base form.

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.

After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.
---------------------------------------------------------
The summation is that you will not be able to charge every time you attack, which means that you will not be able to pounce every time you attack. Also you will suffer a -2 to AC every time you use the pounce ability. When you add to it that you can't charge over difficult terrain, you will likely only be able to pounce on an opponent once a combat if that.

Summoner's can be very versatile as far as disposable minions, but they are not overpowered. If you really want to compare a Summoner to something you should compare one to a Druid with an animal companion, there is a reason my friends will allow me to play a Summoner but not a druid. Frankly I like the idea of casting Elemental Swarm, turning into a bird and laughing as everything goes to hell.

To me what a 7 charisma says is........

Imagine that guy, we all know him. The guy that is beyond irritating in everything he says and does. He may mean well, he may have the best intentions, he may be the nicest person on the planet, but his interaction with others is so abnormally bad that no social interaction seems to go his way.(Remember a 7 charisma is a low ability score and should be interpreted as a hindrance or a penalty.)

Think Steve Urkle from that Family Matters show. Nice guy, best of intentions, but his interactions are so flawed that nobody can stand to be around him.

A 7 Charisma doesn't mean that you will fade into the background, not in the least. If you saw a troll..........you would remember it. A 7 charisma is the whole package, socially inept, perhaps ugly, no people skills, no person manipulation skills.

It could be considered that Sloth from the Goonies had a low Cha, but he was a very likable character, so one could argue against it.

If you make a character with a charisma of 7 you are effectively the Murphy's law of social interaction, for whatever reason you want to give, but it must be balanced; if you are a nice guy then you have to have the face of a Garbage Pail Kid; if you are an Adonis then you have to be as likeable as Prince Geofery from Game of thrones. It all must be in balance.

Let me see.

Fill the bag with 120 cubic feet of scrolls of exploding runes, then flyer bomb a kingdom.
---------------------------------------------------
Fill the bag with 120 cubic feet of dung and bomb an unsuspecting politician.
---------------------------------------------------
Attach a window to the opening of the bag and use the bag as a submarine, just rig up a control system to guide the bag through the water.
---------------------------------------------------
If you are a fan of the dust of dryness, fill the bag with an Ocean's worth of dust of dryness beads to flood an enemy stronghold.
---------------------------------------------------
Fill the bag with skeletons if you are a necromancer, or better yet shadows, for that pocket army feel.
---------------------------------------------------
Use the bag to smuggle people across borders.

Oops, I guess most of this applies to a bag of holding.

Low wisdom scores are something you "as a player" never want to have.

Pathfinder defines the Wisdom score as the following:
Wisdom (Wis)

Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition. Wisdom is the most important ability for clerics and druids, and it is also important for monks and rangers. If you want your character to have acute senses, put a high score in Wisdom. Every creature has a Wisdom score. A character with a Wisdom score of 0 is incapable of rational thought and is unconscious.

So a character with a Wisdom of 1:

Has no willpower - Easily led by anyone (good guys/bad guys)
Has no common sense - Doesn't learn from mistakes and rushes forward without thinking
Is unaware of most things - Is oblivious.
Has no intuition - Self explanatory.

For lack of a better description, he is mentally disabled. Classic examples include.
Sloth from Goonies.
Stimpy the cat from Ren and Stimpy.
Dumb blonde stereotype.
Jane from Saturday Night Live (Gilda Radner)
Ralph Wiggum from the Simpsons
Police Chief Wiggum from the Simpsons

Exploding rune fortune cookies.........Toilet paper.........place it in a rival's spell book......on a loot bag.......On a low hanging tavern sign.......On a customer's receipt........Write it on the ceiling......Attach a scroll of it to a message arrow.......drop it as a flier as you fly over an enemy city.........so many uses for such a simple spell...... If you have downtime there is no better spell.

................MAXIMIZE EXPLODING RUNES..........EXTEND SPELL Exploding runes........Empower Spell Exploding runes..............Sheer awesomeness.

Unless the DM suddenly decides that the illiterate barbarian who can read and understand what a tavern sign is can't read your symbolic runes.

I would argue that you don't have to understand what's written to read it.

You could argue that I suppose. Spanish uses many of the same letter symbols as English. The person may think they can read it, but they will have no idea that the "ll" is considered to be a single entity. So yes, to read something you absolutely have to understand it, at least if you are looking at different languages.

Technically I could read brail, as dot dot dot empty line dot dot dot. But I would have no idea what it was trying to say, and at a glance I might not even know it to be writing, if I didn't know that Brail existed.

If you saw it on a building, would you recognize Morse code or would you just think that someone was making a design?

When this happened in my group, I as the healer stopped healing the entrepreneur until he paid me for each and every spell that I cast in his benefit. I even took selective channeling to exclude him from the healing, as well as the enemies. His character eventually spent more cash on healing potions, restoration scrolls, and other things that the gold flow eventually turned in my favor.

He was also on point because our fighter decided that it wasn't fair for him to adventure without a danger premium. By his logic, every step he took in front of the group in a dungeon was a step closer to his death as he would be the first person hit.

The rogue started keeping the treasure and hidden items that he specifically found, as salvage rights belong to the person who finds it.

The game ran like this for about 4 sessions until the entrepreneur's character died. Not my fault that he didn't want to pay for restoration, heals, and buffs. When he died we started acting like a cohesive group.

The answer is yes unless the effect of the rune comes under the "language-dependent" category.

Now to up the ante. If I am a caster, and I pick up the scroll with explosive runes on them can I recognize the shape of the runes and see that it is a dangerous spell. Much in the same way that you recognize the Burger King sign as you drive by without actually reading the sign.

By that logic only those who can read can get hit by exploding runes, and only those who aren't intelligent enough to recognize the pattern of the runes.

So your only targets for exploding runes are those who can speak the language the magic is written in (Arguably Draconic)without recognizing the pattern of the spell of the exploding runes.

Namely highly literate non-magical beings.

This seems so utterly specific that the spell is useless, unless you dispell it.

This came up in another thread and I am curious about everyone's thoughts.

If you can't read the language that the runes are written in, can you be hit by the rune spell?

Does this make illiterate barbarians immune to all rune spells?

Are there any rulings on this or is this so obscure that nobody has ever asked it?

"Read" does not read as "viewed" to me. And that bat sorta swings both ways - if it means "viewed", what keeps birds, small rodents etc from triggering your protective circle of explosive runes signs?

I would say it depends on the GM. The reason is because depending on who you ask, all magic is written in Draconic.

So if you don't Speak/Read Draconic you can't be affected by any rune spell at all. It is far more fair and frankly a better ruling if you simply say, those who clearly view the runes are subject to their effects.

Or

What about the argument that one of my players used when I was DM-ing.

"I viewed the runes long enough to discern what they were but I didn't READ the runes. Sort of like I viewed the Burger King sign, but I didn't read it. I recognized the pattern and knew it to be dangerous but I didn't READ IT. AND BY RAW I DON'T GET EXPLODED."

My response: "Ka-Boom." (Roll 6d6)

Fly above an enemy city and drop scrolls into the town.

If the DM rules that burning scrolls releases the spell, drop the scrolls down enemy chimneys.

My group has abused this single spell a shameful number of times. Even to a point of setting up the road side politician signs in an outward facing circle around the camp so that we can avoid watches. You don't have to be able to read the scrolls you just have to see the runes.

If you had to read the scrolls barbarians would rule, as would anything that couldn't read.

Why not just use a Fireball for same - or better - damage in a 20' radius, no chance to hit, vastly better range? :P

Last I checked, exploding runes has no save and you can make as many scrolls of it during down time as you want given enough days.

(Not scrolls as in "Scribe Scroll" but scrolls as in I write this on paper as I cast the spell and it is there at very little cost to me.)

As I said, the DM was less than pleased. This isn't the worst thing that we thought up, but it was certainly a bad one.

Another bad one was when the group used a bag of holding as a portable toilet. The DM didn't think anything of it until one of them decided to torture a goblin by tossing him into the bag.

Long story short, it was an easy +15 to an intimidate check to get the information.

When the bag became full, the group used it to poison the enemy water supply........with 1500 lbs of waste.

This is part of the reason that as a new DM the Bag of Everlasting Dung terrifies me.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/a-b/bag-o f-everlasting-dung

Hell.........imagine the look on your player's face when he gets dropped into a dung trap.........Time to make a fortitude save...........Perhaps filth fever, perhaps something worse.

The necromancer also used bags of holding to hold his undead army....... the DM may have cried that day.

When I had a sorcerer, I took exploding runes and made a ton of scrolls. Our rogue covertly slipped into the enemy camp and placed exploding rune scrolls (unrolled) in front of the entrance to each tent, on spears stuck into the ground (sort of like a politician road sign but about 4 feet taller). It would be the first thing that anyone sees when they run out of the tent.

One cry of "We're under attack!!" later caused by ghost sound and the camp exploded. The DM was..........less pleased but he rolled with the punch.

Exploding runes also works well on scrolls attached to message arrows right before attacking. Robin Hood style. The second someone opens the scroll to see what the message is they just see runes in the shape of a middle finger, and they explode.

This also seems like a blow against his alignment too, especially if he is lawful.

Mind control a barbarian, and have him do your monster's job. Or mind control the crowd controller, if he is as optimized as good as you claim, he can crowd control the barbarian, effectively taking 2 of your 6 out of the mix.

Given that there isn't a full Orc race for players to play, I would guess that human feats only apply to humans. Otherwise only really "wonky" half races couldn't take human feats.

Let's Generate some:
Half Orc half gnome - The ugly little bugger.

Half Orc Half Elf - The almost pretty big gal.

Half Halfling Half Gnome - Can we really tell a difference?

Half Drow Half Merfolk - WTF???

Half Drow Half Orc - WTF!?!?!?

Get a wagon and horse or a bag of holding?

When I first looked at this feat I was terrified as a DM. But after reading that it can only be used once per round it really isn't that bad. Also the Snake style feat says that you "can" use this result as your AC, not that you "must". So essentially it is a get out of jail free card for one attack per round. Not bad for a feat.

How about a +1 sword that casts Dimensional Anchor whenever it hits its target. That way the devil can actually die instead of being sent away.

I have seen the same player abuse a decanter of endless water and dust of dryness in the same way.

Early on, he got swallowed by a giant frog and dropped the entire bag of dust of dryness into the frog's stomach. The DM ruled that the frog....lost 100 gallons of water from its body as per the dust of dryness. (20 5-gallon Ozarka water bottles.) When the DM realized the consequences of this ruling the frog crumbled to bones and dust.

The same player was later eaten by a T-Rex, and popped his decanter of endless water. 30 gallons per round shot out (6 5-gallon Ozarka water bottles per round) After much discussion the damage done by being swallowed whole was negated completely after 3 rounds due to the fact that a stomach is essentially a big water balloon. The damage which is done by crushing is negated because the "big water balloon" expands and if it tried to contract it would pop. Damage done by stomach acid would be diluted within a round or two. The poor T-Rex was dazed as 300 gallons of water per minute spilled out of his mouth, the T-Rex drowned after several rounds, and the player saved himself by using an underwater breathing spell.

I look at Necromancers in this way.

The book only says that I can control 4X my hit die in undead, I can create as many as I want. If I want to take down a city all I have to do is animate them. The uncontrolled undead will do the work for me as long as I use the level 1 spell invisibility to undead, or some sort of "Don't hit me." equivalent.

I would like the developers to put a simple sentence next to each ability in the next rendition of Pathfinder. The sentence is just a statement of intent.

This can be added after the fact to the internet postings of their current material.

For example:
Eidolon pounce which differs from Beastiary pounce.
Intent statement: (The eidolon is not supposed to be able to use the rake attack as part of his charge.)

or

Eidolon Rend vs Beastiary rend:
The eidolon rend doesn't limit the number of times that you can rend in one turn. In the Beastiary, the developers felt the need to specify that you could only rend once per round, but as we are using a different rule set for pounce it stands to reason that Rend may be different too. (It isn't different, but this is just an example)

Intent Statement on Eidolon rend: (You can only rend once per round.)

or

Flurry of blows.
Intent Statement: (If using a flurry with monk weapons, you may not use the same weapon for the entire flurry.)

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

A simple statement of intent should end a lot of the arguing that goes on in these forums and make the developer's jobs easier. The website is fairly easy to update and the players on these forums are more than happy to do all of the legwork to figure out where these holes in the rules are. Things that keep coming up as FAQ could be stopped at the source material by simply updating the website.