Protoman's page

Protoman wrote:

Hey Mark, quick questions about kineticist wild talents (specifically with form infusions) that deal with area effects centered on the kineticist.

Back during the playtest you said that the aerokineticist's Cyclone's "All creatures and objects within a 20-foot-radius burst centered on you take half your blast’s normal amount of damage" shouldn't hurt the kineticist itself, but allies should clear out.

Is that still applicable post-playtest? Or is the kineticist considered damaged also now?

What about Detonation from Psychic Anthology? "Flames explode outward from your body, dealing your blast damage to all creatures and objects within a 20-foot radius." Would the pyrokineticist be hurt inside the radius like everyone else? Or because the flames explode away from the body, he doesn't get hurt? Or should it be like the Detonate spell, where it's auto-success on the saving throw for half damage?

Generally, centered on you effects that smack you will mention it, like the detonate spell does. The self-centered kineticist abilities should spare you their wrath, but like most self-centered things, they're not the best with friends.

Thanks for the input, Mark! Puts my mind to ease about picking up Detonation for the pyrokineticist.

I don't think standard actions or move actions specifically state it needs to be done in your turn also. Thankfully, they don't need to because one can only perform actions on their turn besides immediate actions and free action (speak) because those ones specifically state otherwise:

In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.

However, unlike a swift action, an immediate action can be performed at any time—even if it's not your turn.

A 5-foot step is a miscellaneous action that is done on your turn. There are specific cases of 5-foot stepping outside your turn, such as with the Step Up feat, but it turns that miscellaneous action into an immediate action so that it works within the rules. Readied actions also had to specifically state one can 5-foot step and even then readying an action is a special initiative-altering action that essentially let's one delay and finish part of one's turn later, but attacks of opportunities have no such exception granting a 5-foot step.

Right now I'm not even sure if one could put an enhancement bonus on a regular gauntlet.

Darkling36 wrote:

You don't get to keep ammo you find, you can use it during the scenarios and then it goes away. And I highly doubt that we'll regularly be finding enough ammo to not have to buy large swaths of it.

Are you sure about this? General consensus seems to be that you get to keep consumables and minor items. And enemies that use ranged weapons also have ammunition for that weapon in their loot so you will be finding ammo certainly (maybe not regularly).

You don't keep ANYTHING in Society play except for boons or rewards granted in the end of a scenario listed by the chronicle sheet.

You find credit sticks? That credit amount gets added and summed up to the stated subtier/out-of-tier payout on the chronicle sheet.

You find ammo/consumables, they get turned in to the Society at the end of the scenario, the meta-explanation is that the loot is part of pay-out.
You're encouraged to simply use them up in game, cuz you don't get to take it with you when you're done. If they're special, might end up listed on the chronicle sheet to be purchased later.

The spell would need to specify it's targeting a creature type or that it affects a creature type before Android's Constructed comes into consideration:

For effects targeting creatures by type, androids count as both humanoids and constructs (whichever effect is worse).

Other spells allow you to target other categories of creatures or items, such as construct, corpse, or object

Mystic Cure doesn't target by creature type, but by if a creature is living or not. Mystic Cure also has the specific case of level 4 Mystic Cure affecting creatures that died, those creatures are no longer living but would be a specific exception stated by the spell. So Constructed trait doesn't come into play. But androids would still benefit from Mystic Cure because they count as living creatures.

Many spells affect “living creatures,” which means all creatures other than constructs and undead artificially created beings that are not undead or constructs are considered living for this purpose).

Reincarnate would work for androids also in this case for the same reasons.

Mending, specifies it can affect a construct. That's a creature type, so we can then consider Constructed trait. Androids then get counted as construct and humanoid, whichever effect is worst. In this case, humanoid is worse as humanoids don't benefit from Mending, then androids don't get affected by Mending.

Make Whole and Rapid Repair says it targets a construct. Same case with Mending, Androids get counted as construct and humanoid, where humanoid is worse (humanoids don't benefit from these spells) and so androids don't get affected by those spells.

A spell like Charm Person, Dominate Person, Daze, Hold Person all specify they target humanoids. Androids would then again get counted as construct and humanoid, in these cases humanoid is worse so then the androids gets affected by all those negative spells.

Deep Slumber targets living creatures, which androids qualify. It specifies construct types are immune to it, so we look at Constructed and we see androids counting as humanoid is worse and they're still affected by Deep Slumber, but at least they get +2 racial bonus to saving throws against it.

Entropic Grasp says it would work "against a manufactured creature (generally constructs, but not undead), this attack deals 6d12 damage. In this case, android's Constructed the construct type is worse, and they'd suffer the damage.

Raise Dead is iffy. It targets living creatures that died, which androids count. It also says constructs can't be raised by the spell (page 371), so being a construct is worse for androids in this case and they can't be raised. However, Owen K. Stephens states in the forums that androids are a special case and that they can be raised like any other living creature.

It's more like Absalom Station has an abundance of items they're more willing to sell you despite your low level/lack of requisite license other communities would require (level+2).

I'm building Atomic Robo with android soldier (armor storm) scholar theme (physical science: physics) for PFS.

Leverage Wikipedia entry

Basically a gang of thieves led by former insurance investigator pull heists against the corrupt and powerful to help the downtrodden.

Profession (con artist).

What did you think differently about?

Owen's comment about short rest healing of resolve:
The rule is that regaining stamina requires spending a Resolve point and "10 minutes of uninterrupted rest."

My androids will be looking as inorganic and as robot-like as possible until there's robot player races available.

You're not gonna find much discussion (if any) or any FAQ or previous developer ruling on the topic because it's such a clear-cut case. There's no rule, ever, that only first Profession is a class skill. Profession is meant to be an easy class skill for anybody and if one takes a new type of Profession, it's still a class skill.

Just like with Pathfinder with Craft with different specializations or Perform with different instruments, they're all class skills.

Don't overthink it and change rules that's already there, especially for a Society game.

I'll repost what I said in another similar discussion in the Rules forums:

The spell would need to specify it's targeting a creature type or that it affects a creature type before Android's Constructed comes into consideration:

For effects targeting creatures by type, androids count as both humanoids and constructs (whichever effect is worse).

Other spells allow you to target other categories of creatures or items, such as construct, corpse, or object

Mystic Cure doesn't target by creature type, but by if a creature is living or not (also with the specific case of level 4 Mystic Cure affecting creatures that died, no longer living but specific exception stated by spell). So Constructed trait doesn't come into play. But androids would still benefit from Mystic Cure because they count as living creatures.

Many spells affect “living creatures,” which means all creatures other than constructs and undead artificially created beings that are not undead or constructs are considered living for this purpose).

Reincarnate would work for androids also in this case for the same reasons.

Mending, specifies it can affect a construct. That's a creature type, so we can then consider Constructed trait. Androids then get counted as construct and humanoid, whichever effect is worst. In this case, humanoid is worse as humanoids don't benefit from Mending, then androids don't get affected by Mending.

Make Whole and Rapid Repair says it targets a construct. Same case with Mending, Androids get counted as construct and humanoid, where humanoid is worse (humanoids don't benefit from these spells) and so androids don't get affected by those spells.

A spell like Charm Person, Dominate Person, Daze, Hold Person all specify they target humanoids. Androids would then again get counted as construct and humanoid, in these cases humanoid is worse so then the androids gets affected by all those negative spells.

Deep Slumber targets living creatures, which androids qualify. It specifies construct types are immune to it, so we look at Constructed and we see androids counting as humanoid is worse and they're still affected by Deep Slumber, but at least they get +2 racial bonus to saving throws against it.

Entropic Grasp says it would work "against a manufactured creature (generally constructs, but not undead), this attack deals 6d12 damage. In this case, android's Constructed the construct type is worse, and they'd suffer the damage.

Raise Dead is iffy. It targets living creatures that died, which androids count. It also says constructs can't be raised by the spell (page 371), so being a construct is worse for androids in this case and they can't be raised. However, Owen K. Stephens states in the forums that androids are a special case and that they can be raised like any other living creature.

I'm afraid you are incorrect. You can ENTER a threatened area all day and never provoke an AOO. It is only upon LEAVING a threatened area AND taking more than a 5ft step that you provoke. So why reiterate when the rules only look for exiting? They don't care about moving within a threatened area from one square to another. Only exiting.

Threatened AREA and threatened SQUARE isn't the same thing.

Exiting one threatened square (provokes) AND entering another threatened square (doesn't provoke) EQUALS moving within a threatened area (which consists of threatened squares). So moving within a threatened area provokes because of exiting that first threatened square in the area.

I'm concluding you haven't read the Core Rulebook enough and your rules knowledge is unfortunately from mostly reading d20pfsrd.com (while a great reference resource, not ideal for learning to play the game in a holistic manner). I suspected as much from constant referencing to the Actions in Combat table that we all know about because anyone that's read the Combat chapter knows of it and the obstinate lack of understanding of move action does not equal movement in game terms.

I posted the original intention of the Mobility feat with the old Wizards of the Coast info. You're right Paizo hasn't errata'd/fixed/changed that, so Paizo is keeping the original intention: Mobility is for leaving threatened squares. Anything else at this point is you being insistent on your interpretation of rules which hasn't changed in 13 years.

Also you started this thread asking for everyone's thoughts but it's clear you were hoping for a ready agreement to your already-made interpretation of the matter, rather than what others had to say about the rules different to your interpretation.

If you're only going to accept assenting views or developers' response, should have done that in the first place so the usual "don't hold your breath" comments could be made since you weren't willing to accept anyone else's comments, quotes, or rule references.

EDIT: And I feel it's been earned again: <face palm> <face palm> <face palm>

Had to dig DEEP for this reference from the old Wizards of the Coast page:

Because you must threaten your foe before you can make an attack of opportunity, it pays to examine what area you can threaten and when you threaten it.

As noted earlier, you threaten all the squares on the battlefield into which you can make an armed melee attack.

The Mobility feat doesn't stop attacks of opportunity against you when you leave threatened squares, but it gives you a +4 dodge bonus to AC when you provoke an attack of opportunity for leaving a threatened square. A dodge bonus, however, doesn't help you when you're denied your Dexterity bonus against an attack, as you would be when moving past a foe you can't see.

The Combat Reflexes feat allows you to make one extra attack of opportunity per point of Dexterity bonus you have. You still can make only one attack of opportunity for each opportunity that your foe gives you. For example, if you have Combat Reflexes and a Dexterity score of 15 you can make up the three attacks of opportunity each turn. You could make all three of them against the same foe, provided that the foe does three different things that provoke attacks of opportunity. If your foe is a spellcaster and he casts a spell while you threaten him, you can make only one attack of opportunity in response to that spell (even though you are entitled to three attacks of opportunity this round). If, on the other hand, the spellcaster picks up a dropped item, you could make an attack of opportunity against him. If the character then casts a spell, you could make a second attack of opportunity against him. If one of your allies bull rushes the spellcaster and moves him 5 feet, you could make a third attack of opportunity against him. [Protoman's Note: This bull rush example is 3rd edition specific. A bull rushed target in Pathfinder doesn't provoke unless one uses Greater Bull Rush.]

Note that moving out of more than one threatened square during a turn counts as only one "opportunity" for the moving creature's foes (see page 138 in the Player's Handbook). If the character in the previous example moved and left three (or more) squares that you threaten and did nothing else that provokes attacks of opportunity from you, you'd get only one attack of opportunity against him.

<face palms>

Well shaventalz already pulled out the relevant rule that one CAN'T take a feat twice and have its benefits stack unless it specifically states you can. Which Combat Reflexes does not.
"You may make a number of additional attacks of opportunity per round equal to your Dexterity bonus."
You won't be able to pick that up again and have another additional amount of AoO equal to Dex mod to stack with first bunch. That's the very example of stacking that one is not allowed to do by the rules.

And given the fact that some specifically state you can't and others specifically state you can but they don't stack I'd say unless it says you can't you can.

It doesn't work that way. "If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description" is the default rule. Not "if it doesn't say it doesn't stack, assume you can." That's just adamantly doing it wrong; as if saying, "My weapon doesn't say it DOESN'T apply bleed damage. It's a slashing weapon so any living creature I cut with it must bleed."

Your argument of Mobility providing a +4 bonus to AC when moving and provoking AoOs doesn't help your case in any way. One could provoke from MULTIPLE enemies. And movement only triggers an AoO from each enemy once. A person could walk in and out one enemy's threatened area multiple times and only trigger it once. "This feat [Combat Reflexes] does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent."
ALSO, Mobility's AC bonus while provoking AoO from movement wouldn't stack with itself if th feat is taken again, if that somehow comes up.

Everyone always seems to forget the part about movement within a threatened area. You would have to make a very strong case for me to believe that getting up from a prone condition (which provokes an AOO) is not movement within a threatened area. As with things like drinking potions, getting something from a bag, spellcasting(obviously not defensively) etc. The very reason these things cause AOOs is because they are forms of movement that preclude one's ability to defend one's self. Now I've looked on the forums as pertains to this but not one thread even mentions this part. They only focus on movement out of a threatened area.

Standing up from prone is a move action that already provokes. Standing up from prone however is not movement within a threatened area. Movement in game terms is usually moving from one square to another. Thus one is still able to 5-foot step after standing up from prone. Your examples of "drinking potions, getting something from a bag, spellcasting(obviously not defensively) etc" do not count as movement or moving from a square. They count as move actions, of which "move your speed" is an option for a move action. If ANY of those count as movement, then one could not take a 5-foot step in the same round, which is ridiculous. They do provoke because those specific actions state they provoke. But not because they're "movement".

And forums only focus on movement out of a threatened area because that's what the rules ACTUALLY state.

Provoking an Attack of Opportunity: Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing certain actions within a threatened square.

Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action.

Performing a Distracting Act: Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Table: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity.

So it's not simply movement in a square. Shivering or moving one's arms to attack a target is not going to trigger anything. All your examples fall under Performing a Distracting Act that one references the Actions in Combat table, the specific wording of a feature/ability (like with spell-like abilities), and GM rulings.

Owen recently answered this question in another thread:

An android is not armor, so even if they install that armor mod, it has no effect. RAW it would increase their armor's HP and hardness, since that's what the upgrade says it does, but that's fairly silly.

But Android counts as a humanoid or a construct - the worse of the two - for the sake of targeting. If constructs are nonliving, then no, they're not a living creature, and thus not a valid target for the sake of that spell, since it would be worse for them to not be targeted for it.

If the "take the worse effect" is supposed to be for things like dealing more damage or stunning certain specific creatures, and not for buff spells, then why wouldn't things like Mending or Make Whole then work, considering Make Whole in particular specifies it can target any construct creature?

"For the sake of targeting" the spell would need to specify it's targeting a creature type or that it affects a creature type before Android's Constructed comes into consideration:

For effects targeting creatures by type, androids count as both humanoids and constructs (whichever effect is worse).

Other spells allow you to target other categories of creatures or items, such as construct, corpse, or object

Mystic Cure doesn't target by creature type, but by if a creature is living or not (also with the specific case of level 4 Mystic Cure affecting creatures that died, no longer living but specific exception stated by spell). So Constructed trait doesn't come into play. But androids would still benefit from Mystic Cure because they count as living creatures.

Many spells affect “living creatures,” which means all creatures other than constructs and undead artificially created beings that are not undead or constructs are considered living for this purpose).

Reincarnate would work for androids also in this case for the same reasons.

Mending, specifies it can affect a construct. That's a creature type, so we can then consider Constructed trait. Androids then get counted as construct and humanoid, whichever effect is worst. In this case, humanoid is worse as humanoids don't benefit from Mending, then androids don't get affected by Mending.

Make Whole and Rapid Repair says it targets a construct. Same case with Mending, Androids get counted as construct and humanoid, where humanoid is worse (humanoids don't benefit from these spells) and so androids don't get affected by those spells.

A spell like Charm Person, Dominate Person, Daze, Hold Person all specify they target humanoids. Androids would then again get counted as construct and humanoid, in these cases humanoid is worse so then the androids gets affected by all those negative spells.

Deep Slumber targets living creatures, which androids qualify. It specifies construct types are immune to it, so we look at Constructed and we see androids counting as humanoid is worse and they're still affected by Deep Slumber, but at least they get +2 racial bonus to saving throws against it.

Entropic Grasp says it would work "against a manufactured creature (generally constructs, but not undead), this attack deals 6d12 damage. In this case, android's Constructed the construct type is worse, and they'd suffer the damage.

Raise Dead is iffy. It targets living creatures that died, which androids count. It also says constructs can't be raised by the spell (page 371), so being a construct is worse for androids in this case and they can't be raised. However, Owen K. Stephens states in the forums that androids are a special case and that they can be raised like any other living creature.

How about instead of bothering to use the transfer charge cantrip, just plug the new looted battery into energy weapon and just blast away til it's empty.
Also there ought to be a way to know how many charges you got left once the battery's in the weapon, or are we to assume we're expected to count our shots EVERY time?

Hey Mark, quick questions about kineticist wild talents (specifically with form infusions) that deal with area effects centered on the kineticist.

Back during the playtest you said that the aerokineticist's Cyclone's "All creatures and objects within a 20-foot-radius burst centered on you take half your blast’s normal amount of damage" shouldn't hurt the kineticist itself, but allies should clear out.

Is that still applicable post-playtest? Or is the kineticist considered damaged also now?

What about Detonation from Psychic Anthology? "Flames explode outward from your body, dealing your blast damage to all creatures and objects within a 20-foot radius." Would the pyrokineticist be hurt inside the radius like everyone else? Or because the flames explode away from the body, he doesn't get hurt? Or should it be like the Detonate spell, where it's auto-success on the saving throw for half damage?

DO NOT do the "throwing shield" as a free action attack. Especially in PFS. That's a dick move to throw at the GM for something that's blatantly wrong that's taking advantage of bad wording. It's the equivalent of those insisting Shield Master feat gets rid of ALL penalties to shield bashing besides those from two-weapon fighting (such as from Power Attack).

The sane interpretation to the throwing shield rules is a free action to unstrap the shield from the arm so it's available to throw. Such a view won't cause everyone at the table to want to throw heavy and sharp metal dice at the shield-throwing player.

You want things hot enough to hurt someone, use fire blast.

Logic arguments for kineticists break down for every element.

I think the spoilered PFS scenario has some:

I remember folks complaining about having to learn kineticist rules to GM it.

Nonlethal damage immunity would mean the kineticist would be unable to accept burn. If the kineticist can't accept burn they can't do anything that costs burn. So gotta Gather Power for lots of stuff but if Gather Power/Supercharge and Infusion/Metakinesis Specialization doesn't reduce the burn cost to 0, can't use it. Utility wild talents burn costs are also unable to be reduced with gather power so would be useless for a kineticist immune to nonlethal damage.

Second book in an AP would typically be levels 4 to 7.

Magic weapons and armor for the martials. Useful and situational scrolls/wands for wizard and cleric (either of them have Craft feats? would be crazy useful for APs if GM is cool with it). Stat-enhancing belt/headbands. At low to mid levels, the standard individual optimizing equipment would be fine for group survival.

By beginning of 3rd book I vote Boots of the Earth for at least the barbarian (maybe fighter also) for out of combat healing so the single cleric isn't in charge of bringing them from close to 0 back up to full using up all the channels and high level spells if you're wanting to do more than couple encounters in a day. They probably have quite a bit of HP at that point and a drain in resources to bring it up to full fighting shape.

High AC - Low Damage builds are very meh at those levels. I consider them a bit of a waste of space unless dealing with very low intelligence (even 0 Int) creatures that simply attack whatever's in front of them or if specifically written with mindless/dumb tactics. Anything else would move on to easier kills, heck that's even Int 1-2 animal behaviour such as wolves.

Heirloom weapon specifies that you get the "+2 trait bonus on one kind of combat maneuver when using that specific weapon".

Bull rushing opponents by default doesn't use a weapon specifically, and doesn't benefit from any weapon bonuses to attack rolls (enhancement bonus, Weapon Focus, etc) unless there's a specific exception to the default rule, such as a magic weapon quality or class feature (like polearm master's Sweeping Fend ability) that states such. Since the weapon isn't used with the maneuver, it wouldn't work with Heirloom Weapon.

Shield Slam feat would be a specific exception to allow bull rushing with a shield bash, but it also wouldn't work in this case because Shield Slam uses the original attack roll to be compared to the CMD instead of a CMB roll (so it wouldn't benefit from Heirloom Weapon's trait bonus to CMB).

And lastly, tower shields aren't able to be used for shield bashing (CRB Equipment Tower Shield description - "You cannot bash with a tower shield"), it's not listed as a simple or martial weapon (unlike the light and heavy shields and their variants as martial weapons), and if used as a weapon would only count as an improvised one at best. Thus the tower shield wouldn't even be an applicable choice for Heirloom Weapon: "non-masterwork simple or martial weapon".

Witch-hunter.

Will there be a full-construct/robot race for Starfinder? Being able to play a droid (whether it was humanoid/bipedal or more utilitarian like an astromech) in Star Wars is always a highlight.

Androids are cool and all but I like the appeal of construct bonuses (immunities) and penalties (really hard to heal) which the androids lack.

For a regular Pathfinder equivalent, there's the Wyrwood race. Story-wise their race background sounds like it could totally be used for a battle-bot space arena gladiator race that rebelled and gained their own independence and star systems like other droid races in Sci-Fi literature.

Will there be a Construct race for Starfinder? Being able to play a droid (whether it was bipedal or more utilitarian like an astromech) in Star Wars is always a highlight. Androids are cool and all but I like the appeal of construct bonuses (immunities) and penalties (really hard to heal) which the androids lack.

Not officially, no rules stating if unconscious/dead bodies taking up space or slowing anyone down. That's up to DM and would definitely be considered annoying.

Figure out which squares actually went on, maybe have player put a number on each square he went on. Then count it up as per normal movement, making sure to do diagonals correctly 5 ft-10 ft-5 ft.

What about Blinded Blade Style line of feats to have blindsense/blindsight and scent to avoid surprise from invisible creatures? Or gotta suffer the surprise attack, then after combat starts spend the swift action to pinpoint the location of the invisible creature?

Is it widely accepted that you get 1.5x Str on two-handed weapons while flurrying? That seems like something that GMs would be quick to shoot down.

It is accepted for unchained monks to get 1.5x Str on two-handed weapons because the unchained version of flurry specifically does not share the chained version's text "A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands" and specifically stated by one of the developers as an advantage of unchained monks:

Interestingly, there have also been a fair number of posts about weapon monks being buffed too much by Unchained monk (they get 1.5x Strength damage now in flurry)...Overall, Unchained monk buffed both weapon and unarmed from the basic monk in different ways. Weapon monk is still doing better damage...(1.5x Strength, better accuracy, and better crits eclipse the increasing damage dice on the unarmed strikes).

Ask the GM if good roleplaying will get you a bonus.

But for actual mechanical diplomacy bonus granting items:

Wear parade armor with the correct country represented.

On top of whatever fancy clothes you should be wearing when dealing with nobles, have fashionable accessories to go along with it.

Use book of letters to deal with city officials.

Smoke a calumet with folks you're dealing with.

Why are you making a starknife-focused summoner, btw?

I'm guessing for the Divine Anthology's new Desna-worhsiping Divine Technique feat that grants attack and damage rolls with starknives to use only Charisma modifier.

Sure. You can use them underwater unless you're using a style that requires being used on dry land or something (I don't that exists yet?).

Just be sure to check out Underwater Combat rules when dealing with unarmed bludgeoning attacks (it sucks). Feats like Underwater Combatant or style feats making your unarmed attacks do piercing would help out with that.

Because it makes me laugh Ill point something out.

Elven Chain magic armor is worse than a Mithril Chainmail. I would like to think its because the Elven Chain came out without the rules for Mithril as a Special material. I know that isnt the case as the Chainmail armor and Mithril as a material are in the core rulebook.

I dont think its specifically stated to be using the Mithril rules, its just Mithril-ish. a Mithril Chainmail would be almost the same, but higher AC and actually cheaper.

Celestial Armor is also a chainmail magic armor but considerably better than the Elven Chain. It doesnt mention Mithril at all.

Elven chain has the exact same armor stats as mithral chainmail and states "is made of very fine mithral links". I'm assuming you're calling it "worse" because of the price? The price is justified because it differs from mithral chainmail in that it actually counts as light armour in every way (proficiency and for the brawling enchantment) whereas mithral chainmail only is only counting as light armor for purposes of movement and other limitations, but the actual category of armor type isn't changed.

If that's not convincing enough, you can look at the mithral full plate of speed, it has an armor check penalty of -3, so that's an example of outrightly stated magical mithral armor with only a total 3 reduction of armor check penalty.

No one mentioned celestial armor for their arguments, so I'm not sure how mentioning a specific armour that's more expensive and better than mithral chainmail or elven chain is supposed to be an argument for mithral armor check penalty stacking with masterwork or not.

Water kineticist.

The other seems to be from people who are thinking doing such a thing would offend members of our real-world ethnicities. Doing such a thing would not do it any more than the physical descriptions you have come up and published for them. If that has been an issue in the past then why would the books that came later (like Inner Sea Races) still include descriptions that could be viewed as offending members of real-world ethnicities. We players, know that Golarion used some real-world stuff as inspiration. We also know that Golarion is NOT Earth. We also know that the human ethnicities of Golarion are NOT the ethnicities of Earth (even if real-world ethnicities might have been part of the inspiration for them). As latter books, like Inner Sea Races, continue to include physical descriptions that deviate from average humans (core rulebook) it can be deduced that Paizo does not think that it is an issue to do so. Logical Deduction: they should not think having such a table to incorporate their FAKE (aka not real-world) human ethnicities is an issue. Problem solved.

So players shouldn't get offended simply because it's just a game and not really equivalent to real-world ethnicities?

Folks of various ethnicities like getting some representation in the Golarion universe, I know I do. Sure it's an in-game ethnicity, but I get to play a character of ethnic background that resembles what I get to envision is a heroic character that goes on adventures, instead of what others have defined as an acceptable list of appearances. (I'm not even gonna get started on Lord of the Ring or some sword and sorcery vision of minority ethnic backgrounds)

What I don't need is a table telling me of what upper limit or lower limit my human race character should have on height/weight when compared to a different ethnicity. I'm gonna decide that for myself and I'd find any such table distasteful. It's one thing for different fantasy races having age and height/weight charts, one gets to see how the races compare to humans which is useful for those who've never been exposed to such race examples in other media.

The "if such a table exists, one can ignore it like the current CRB Table 7-3" is BS as that table is still referred to when overgeneralized assumptions are made such as that the tallest dwarves are always gonna be shorter than the shortest humans of comparative genders.
You want a table, keep using Table 7-3 then and just increase or decrease if you find the numbers not to your liking of fitting in with the taller or shorter description. The numbers are a range for the Human race, the ethnicity descriptions are for those wanting to adjust accordingly from that table.

shoving my hand into an opponent's mouth to prevent him or her from being able to speak?

The same place that allows or disallows an NPC or another player to shove their hand in your character's mouth to prevent him from speaking: The GM.

You don't need to start with a weapon in both hands, you need a second weapon.

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.

Imagine someone with the quickdraw feat and one shortsword. He COULD have quick draw'ed a second short sword out and TWF, but he makes the argument that instead he's gonna attack with the short sword already in main hand, and free action swap the sword to off-hand and TWF with that same sword. Doesn't work. The action economy is fine, but the rules of two-weapon fighting don't support it. Without an actual second weapon (other sword, second starknife in your situation, unarmed strike, etc), supposed to use the amount of attacks you get from BAB.

Except for stuff like flurry of blows or brawler's flurry which have an exception to the rules and can flurry/twf with a single weapon.

i don't care if they are open content or closed content. i asked what they were. and what my rule lawyer says is that they are kobolds. i don't think so. but i also think he is an annoying young whipper snapper. kobolds a cool little creatures but nothing like half dragons. maybe if a dragon reproduced with a kinder you might get a kobold.

Rude.

You post about "dragonborn" with your own impression that they're descended from half-dragons. THEN post that you're mainly here to try and prove a "rules-lawyer" in your party wrong. But before the "I wanna show up the rules lawyer and put him in his place" reveal everyone here rightly assumed you were talking about dragonborn in context to Pathfinder rules and lore, which they explained there isn't any because "dragonborn" isn't a Pathfinder thing, because they initially weren't open content and while they are now they still haven't been translated to Pathfinder rules.
Then you shoot down everyone's explanations of the situation because you're still not really understanding that such a term doesn't apply in Pathfinder/Golarion lore which a quick search in the available Pathfinder races would have shown. It looks like you mostly got an issue with someone else in the party having a different opinion on the what term "dragonborn" is supposed to mean amongst your party: You = big half-dragon-esque creatures; "rules lawyer" = kobolds are descended/offshoots of dragons.

For intimidate, depends on if it's being used to change attitude or demoralize. Attitude, sure, as long as there's a at least a minute of interaction. For demoralize, it says "You can only threaten an opponent in this way if they are within 30 feet and can clearly see and hear you" and I don't know if telepathy gets past that rule.

Is this for a player character or a NPC/monster?

NPC/Monster: do whatever you want, it's your game.

Player: You wanna get blindsight because a character starts off blind? For a character such a powerful ability should be paid for mechanically. See Kalindlara's suggestion of Blind Zeal trait. Also check out Blinded Blade Style line of feats from Blood of Shadows book. No one is saying such a thing should be impossible for a blind-PC; but shouldn't be granted for free without an actual feat or class investment by the character.

If the trait makes someone blind by default, can really mess up other aspects of play even with all the other Blinded Blade Style feats: reading, dodging ranged attacks from further than 30 ft away, targeting with spells, detecting visible incorporeal creatures.

After re-reading, I'll amend my answer to #3 to say: It's not clear.

I'd leave this to a DM decision. It looks like maybe both summoned from the elemental plane AND used from around you? I'd really think this is something they should specify. Can you use hydrokinesis in a room without water?

Check out this thread. Kineticists can can pull in elemental matter through the Ethereal or use ambient elemental matter from the surrounding environment. In regular conditions, plenty of ambient air around; in a vacuum, pull it in from another plane.

Protoman wrote:

For the grappling, the "part of another action" never changed the fact that it's a spell-like ability, and the grappling rules specifically state "a grappled character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell." I see that as meaning one still has to make the concentration check to use kinetic blade. For example, a swift/immediate action spell or SLA doesn't provoke an AOO normally and there might be abilities that allow one to not provoke with a spell/SLA, but would still have to make a concentration check to use it in a grapple (like with liberating command).

The part of another action is actually key to why you don't get hit with any AoO. An AoO is based entirely on what action you do. Kinetic blade is not a free action or swift action SLA into an attack action. It IS an attack action and attack actions do not provoke. The grapple rules don't look at the 'components' of your attack action to see if it is a spell or SLA. Mark is the class creator and a Paizo developer. He says the blade does not provoke. Outside of an FAQ ruling, that is going to be the most definitive answer you are going to be able to get.

I wasn't talking about provoking for casting a kinetic blade SLA in a grapple. Of course it won't provoke. I'm saying the concentration check is needed to even cast it at all.

Oh I was totally tempted by the far strike monk. But I decided to forgo it because I wanted to get to gunslinger 5 ASAP to get into Shieldmarshal prestige class faster, and didn't wanna lose the BAB, wanted a neutral or chaotic alignment for the fun-loving gambler character, and still get the level 7 deeds at level 9 with Shieldmarhsal's gunmarshal class feature, needed the favoured class benefit for extra skill points for prestige class prereqs AND other skills I wanted for the character. I got a policy of trying to have as much fun with a build as soon as possible in PFS rather than delaying things for it to be fun later and it only being short-lived with the level-cap for the scenarios and I wanted the prestige class more than anything for my character idea. And in general I don't like multiclassing when I don't absolutely need to. If I can do everything I need with one class I'd rather go that way.

My PFS maverick pistoler gunslinger just hit level 4 with Weapon Focus (pepperbox), Quick Draw, Gun Twirling, and Deadly Aim. Likely to get Rapid Reload at level 5 as combat is lasting a lot longer than in lower levels. The character does fine with current feats and always mixing it up throwing wooden stakes (they're free!), fighting and threatening unarmed, or quick drawing a sword instead of reloading.

The character is also an experiment on still being cowboy-like without all the other annoyingness of gunslingers dominating scenarios GMs (I included) have found about certain usual builds: Not planning on Rapid Shot, Snap Shot line of feats, or Rapid Reload free-action-extravaganza to keep track of in combat, and more balanced stats with a decent strength to go into melee with fist or special material melee weapons).

After 5 I'm either going TWF at 7, ITWF at 9, and GTWF at 11; or PBS at 7, Precise Shot 9, Clustered Shots 11 (these feats might be earlier if I don't bother with Rapid Reload and get Improved Critical or Improved Precise Shot at 11). I consider both rather gravy at this point and will decide as I play further. Probably the latter because the idea of enchanting two weapons AND still paying for ammo is a giant UGH. Even if I decide not to dual wield, I like the Gun Twirling feat cuz I like sheathing as a free action to have both hands free at a moment's notice without having to drop the gun.