Quatar's page

There are certain things that even a result of 50 or 100 on a knowledge check won't tell you, especially about things that are actively guarded/kept secret or that are so obscure that only very few know about.

I'd say you were right to say "no", but I also understand the PC being bummed.

The fun thing is he might actually know things, more than he thought, but in a completely different context, and has never made a connection to this artifact, and it will eventually become clearer that he knows more than he initially did, when they learn more about it.
Just an idea.

DM is the same as GM, just different names.

Your buddy is just terrible at either. And apparently as player too.

Talk to him. That's really the only thing you can do, if you don't wanna toss him out.

I wouldn't allow it, and I would hit you over the head with the Unchained rulebook for suggesting it.

I see the situation this way:

Is the Two Handed sword a one handed weapon? Yes or No?

No.

Does not qualify.

Being able to treat something as something else does not alter the state of that thing, it simply changes how YOU interact with it.

The feat requires something specific, the Two Handed sword is not that thing, thus it doesn't qualify.

You said it. You see it that way.

I don't. For me, if I treat X as Y in certain situations or for certain things, then it is Y for these things.

I'm still sure a straight up two-handed weapon Fighter or Barbarian using a greatsword with Enlarge and Lead Blades will be FAR MORE terrifying than what the OP is trying to accomplish.

Cold Iron is the weakness of Fey and some other nature-y magical creatures.

It seems feasible to me to say that iron (cold or not) is somehow disrupting the magic.

It's also a common thing in fantasy literature that people accidentally or against their will get saddled with items that weaken them, especially if taken prisoner and the enemy knows how to combat that type of foe.

So I would let it work at my table. Though I might require a Knowledge Religion check to see if the Characters would actually know about this weakness.

"Hey big guy, yes you, Mr Half Ork in Heavy Armor. Could you maybe carry this stuff for me? Please? I'll put in a good word with that nice barmaid in the tavern for you in return"

Pathfinder isn't a solo game. Ask your group for help. Especially those with 50+ pounds of free encumbrance.

Hi

I'm trying to build a half-succubus character for an upcoming game, using the ARG rules. I'm not 100% positive yet on how many RP I have to play with, but assume either 10 or 20.

Class is going to be an Enchantress, so a Bard or Sorceress or something along those lines. Spellcaster definitely.

This is mostly to gather options for abilities, feats etc. that are fitting to the idea. Not necessarily make the full race yet. Though if you want to, I won't stop you of course.

For quick reference, full Succubus is here

The Abilities should either mimic those of a Succubus or be somehow related to one they have. They can be the same power level but should not be stronger.
Here's a few ideas I've been tossing around in my head for abilities to use:

• Limited Shapechange: Unlike the Succubus who can change into anyone, this one would have a fixed form she’d change to. So she could switch between “demon form” or “human form”, but it would be the same human every time. That would be the "lesser change shape" option. But it's not available to Outsiders, so my GM would have to allow it, or the character is a Monstrous Humanoid instead. I can live with that if necessary.
  
• Wings: Either for actual flight mode (30 ft. clumsy or poor – nothing fancy it’s mostly for fluff), or simply vestigial/gliding wings. Would only be available in “demon form” (ARG: Flight or Gliding/verstigial wings - depends how much RP are allowed)
  
• Tail: Fairly obvious. Most likely Prehensile, not the slapping tail. Only in “Demon form”
  
• Seduction/Temptation: This is what a Succubus does. (ARG options: This is where I'm not sure on. Bonus to Cha obviously. Seducer most likely. Maybe Object of Desire as well. Something that gives me bonus to Bluff or Diplomacy, like Silver Tongue. Any other ideas to do this?)
  
• Energy draining kiss: Another thing that’s pretty iconic for Succubi, though the full version is clearly way too overpowered for PCs. So here’s my idea. Basically a normal Bite Attack, following all the normal rules for it, like requiring an attack roll, damage dice etc. But instead of physical damage it does Negative Energy damage and does not add Str into the mix? This would clearly require the GM to make a houserule. Alternatively just a normal bite attack, that's called a Kiss. (I'm a spellcaster, so honestly how often am I going to bite people anyway?)
  

So, what do you think? Any ideas on other abilities that would make sense and I could use?

While most people have some "free feats" somewhere in their progression where they have finished their "must haves" and don't qualify for the next tier of feats yet, players don't always have those at the same time.

So one player would have to take the teamwork feat at level 5, just to then wait till level 7 or even level 9 when his buddy can finally pick it up as well.
First player also can't wait till level 7 or 9, because those feats are once again planned for different things he didn't qualify at 5 yet.

Now tell me, would you do this as player 1? I probably wouldn't.

That might not be the main reason TW feats aren't used often, but I figure it certainly contributes.

I would say pinned would count, because you can't do anything and are at the mercy of whoever is pinning you. But I also don't think the grappler can deliver the CDG, another person would have to. (I'm pretty sure you need to spend a standard action to maintain the grapple. So if you spend a full round action instead on CDG you release the grapple, losing the condition for CDG to work)

So it takes at least two rounds, with multiple grapple rolls, and occupies two people. Guess that's why it's not standard tactics.

This depends on several factors. I've played so many paladins in various campaigns that it's bar - none my favorite class of all time. Firstly check with the paladin player about their code. Some gods are able to give Paladins some wiggle room on how they are allowed to handle a situation like that.

The half orc archetype (Redeemer) is made for situations like this. It allows the Paladin to travel with any evil creature so long as the Paladin can justify their ability to be redeemed.

Secondly to this any Paladin may travel with an evil creature so long as their purpose aligns. If you both want to end an event that could wipe out life on the planet the Paladin is allowed to work with you so long as the common interest exists and the two of you come to terms on behavior.

Now if your GM is more liberal I suggest the 2nd Ed splat of "Ex-Patriot" for the Paladin. Basically the Paladin gives up all caring for the mortal laws of man and follows only his God's law. So the Paladin can ignore laws and church edicts (only the GOD can dictate to the Paladin) that prevent his actions or associates.

You may also want to look into a way to appear lawful neutral on the regular. It helps. Also makes the whole "I use undead to better understand the nature of life" jive sound less tyrant - esque. The Paladin can give MUCH wider space to LN.

Hope that helps!

I don't know, a lot of your ideas seem to center around "The paladin could...". Honestly, in this case, I don't think the Paladin should have to do anything to accomodate that concept.

I'm not the hugest fans of Paladins, but in this case, I don't see how the burden of making this work should be on the paladin's shoulders by adjusting his code, picking some weird 2nd ed thing or just playing dumb and never noticing.

Honestly if you got a weird gut feeling already, so that you have to ask "Does this work in the long run?", the answer is probably "No" and you should just say "No".

"Specific trumps general" would be if Bludgeoner said "with any melee or ranged weapon" for example.

The situation in this specific instance the rules make no mention of this restriction one way or another, so the general rule would still apply.

That said, if you'd use your firearm to club someone over the head, I'm pretty sure the feat applies.

As other posters have pointed out, if you're not making you're player's enjoyment as the number one priority then you are failing.

I actually have to disagree with this.

If the players constantly break the game by derailing the plot on purpose, because they enjoy wrecking the GM's work at preparing this stuff, then that's just as much of a dick move. Because now it's the GM that's not having fun. It's not his fault "for being stupid enough to plan ahead".

The problem arises if one side (GM or players) use "their fun" as the only viable measurement for fun and ignore the fact that some other people might think something else fun. As with everything that involves more than one human being, it's a give and take, and sometimes compromises have to be made.
If these compromises can't be reached, then that's a sign that the playstyles are too different, and it's time to part ways.

Warning: the following is blunt.

I spent an hour typing this up. My opinions are backed up by 4 decades of GMing RPGs since the 70's, but they're still opinions. Nevertheless, I am fairly sure these answers will help the OP find a better balance in his games and resolve his players' issues.

A very long post, but a very good one too and I have to really agree with everything you said there.

In my game the PCs are lacking a healer as well. The closest they have is an alchemist, and that doesn't really count. I'm not even sure at the moment if an alchemist can use spell trigger items without UMD. They also don't have access to CLW wands yet anyway (just level 2) and kinda away from civilization.

So yes, there's a NPC cleric with them, among others. So that's not always a bad idea.

But I'm saying NPC not GMPC, because it's an NPC (non-player character) not a GMPC (GM's Player Character - which honestly is an oxymoron in my mind). I do like the character, but if they'd decide to leave her in the next town, then that's what's happening.

The thing is, they picked her up themselves, as they did all the other NPCs (about 6 at this time - 4 PCs). They're stranded on an island after a shipwreck. One of the PCs went and tried to save the cleric when the ship went down, they swam to shore together as they went overboard. They left signs and clues for other survivors to find them and searched for them specifically so they did find a few more.

The cleric is a complete non-combatant, she's just an apprentice and usually afraid when things get tough. Enough for a few heals after the combat to shorten recovery times, but nothing overpowered. The other NPCs have little to no useful skills. Two were sailors, and now without a ship are kinda lost, one can use a sword, the other can't even do that. Another is a nobleman, so he's trying to order people around most the time, but everyone ignores him. The most useful is probably the NPC they found on the island who's been living there by himself for a few years now, and wants to get off as well. He knows the place so he's their guide now.

So why am I writing all this?
To show that having NPCs that take over parts of what usually is the PCs job is not necessarily a bad idea.
But they should never try to steal the PCs place.

Also everyone should feel useful. The more social rogue character (even though they're in the wilderness, far away from any town) has enough to do to keep the horde of NPCs in check. The barbarian got enough stuff to kill. The alchemist and gunslinger help with that in their own way. Right now those two build a few fire bombs and are planning to set the enemy's stronghold on fire next time ;)

I would say neither grappled or pinned character can stand up. You need to be in control of the grapple and use the "Move" grapple-action ( http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Grapple ) to get yourself AND your opponent up.

Reason: It just doesn't make sense otherwise. How can you be grappled by someone, stand up, and still be grappled by the same guy who's still lying on the floor?

Also it states you can't move. Like you said. And standing up sounds a lot like moving to me.

I'm sorry, I don't see that math work. At least not till you get ridiculous Charisma scores.

(Sorry, lots of math following)

You need to cast Dispel Magic against a spell of equal of higher caster level than you. Since you cast it yourself, it's your CL. Making the DC for the Dispel Magic 11+(your caster level). It's caster level of the spell, not the spell level!

Your roll for the dispell is 1d20+(your caster level)+(your charisma mod)

You always have to expend one Arcane Point to even try this.
If you fail the role, it's gone.
If you succeed on the dispel, but fail to exceed it by 5 or more, it's gone.
If you succeed on the dispel by 5 or more, then you get your point back. You just get it back, you don't get more.
Only if you succeed by 10 or more, do you actually make a profit in this.

Now lets look at the numbers. At level 11 we're looking at the following DCs:

To simply dispel: 22
To actually get your Arcane Point back: 27
To in fact get another Arcane Point on top of that: 32

Opposed to that we have your roll to dispel:
1d20 + 11 + Cha Mod

Say Cha Mod of 5 (bit on the low side for level 11):
Results in a roll of 1d20+16

Need a 6 to hit the DC 22, though that doesn't really help.
Needs a 11 to hit the DC 27 and get your points refunded (50% chance for that happening)
Needs a 16 to actually gain an extra point (25% chance)

So 50% of the time you have a loss of 1 Arcane point.
25% of the time you come out even.
25% of the time you make a profit of 1 point.

Ok, it clearly doesn't work with just Cha of 5.

Each increase in Cha reduces the total failure chance by 5%, and increases the chance for the +2 return by 5%.

The tipping point is a Cha mod of 8 (mathematically 7.5, but you can't have that):

35% for losing 1 point (anything below 8)
25% for just coming out even (8-12)
40% for gaining 1 point (13+)

You now have a tiny average profit of 0.05 points per attempt. That's still pretty bad and fairly unreliable.

At Cha Mod 10 we'd look at a profit of 0.25 points per attempt. That's better already, of course, but still nowhere even close to the 1.6 the OP claimed.
I suppose he meant "I get 1.6 back, but still have to pay the 1" making it a net profit of 0.6.

A Cha Mod 13 is required to get a net return of 0.65, but I'm not sure how realistic a Cha of 36 really is at level 11.

The CL doesn't even matter in this equation at all, since it's the same on both sides (DC and check), it hinges alone on the Cha Mod.

Also there's no such thing as a "skill crit"

I just LOVED "We be Goblins" as an introductionary module. It let's them do completely silly stuff and at the same time learn the rules.

It's also a great way to break the ice with a new group.

Here's another one that might make a good first adventure:
Crypt of the Everflame - a small, fairly straightforward dungeon crawl with some RP elements, traps, and still room for some creative thinking

Rules As Written. The other thing is RAI: Rules as Intended.
Basically RAW is "the letter of the law", RAI is "the spirit of the law".

Spoilering just in case players are reading this:

Are you sure it all was supposed to happen in one round.

The GM might have thought "Ok, you're stunned, so you're helpless and I got a few turns to have fun with you".

Well problem with that is, that Stunned condition does not mean helpless. Nor does helpless mean "willing" or "fails all saving throws".

So that's the first problem.

Second issue is that Teleport requires you to be willing. Stunned does not make you willing. Technically even unconscious wouldn't make you willing I believe, though that's possibly a bit of a gray area.
But it says quite clearly it only works on "touched objects or other touched willing creatures". Willing is the keyword there. Nowhere does it mention any special rules for unwilling creatures, so the spell simply fails.

Then of course there's the fact that Nightmare doesn't work that way.
It's a 10 minute cast time for one.
Contingency does not work to shorten the casttime, as it must be a personal spell.
It has a Will save (which you get even when stunned).
It has SR.
It lasts for 24 hours and not forever.

The -10 however could work, the kiss and resulting exchange of bodily fluids could count as "body part".

But seeing how much else was wrong with the entire encounter, that last part doesn't make things right.

I would mention that list of everything that was wrong with it to the GM and straight out ask, what the hell was going on there.

Wizards want to be more than "taxi" or "taxi builders". And they certainly don't like other people telling them what to do.
That's why they usually build towers in the middle of nowhere, so the can study their creepy books on magic without being disturbed.

Could they make money with this? Sure. But a 10th level wizard can make money with other ways far easier. If he even still needs money and isn't just content with what he has (or the things he wants to acquire might require something other than money to get).

In other words: Merchants might be up for this. Wizards probably aren't.

Dumped Int hardly means you're pants-on-head retarded. It just means you find it difficult to pick up new things, thus you stick to a few closely practiced skills. It just means you're not broad-minded; you don't need to talk in caveman speak, you can still understand tactical maneuvers at least as well and most likely better than most animals, etc. You lack the broad-mindedness represented by Combat Expertise to employ highly efficient defensive tactics, but that doesn't mean you can't fight defensively at all. Sure, without access to CE, you can't take the "smart" improved combat maneuver feats like trip or disarm, but that just means you can't figure out how to do it in such a way that you don't open yourself up to an AoO. [...]

I don't agree with all you say about Charisma, but your take on Low Intelligence Characters I can support fully. Int 7 means you're slow to grasp new things, you're that guy that laughs about the joke that was told 5 minutes ago because you finally understood it, stuff like that. You're not a drooling idiot that walks repeatedly against the wall, because you don't realise the door is two steps to the right.

About Charisma: I don't agree that a low charisma character has to have a pessimistic outlook on live and be all gloomy. It's certainly a possibility, but it's not necessarily the only one. He can be quite sure with himself in certain fields, like the ones he's good at, but might just be inexperienced in social situations.
I agree though that High Charisma = Super-model pretty, Low Charisma = Quasimodo is certainly not correct. Despite some GMs and Players trying to do that. "I have 18 Cha, I'm hot!" or "No, you got 8 Cha, which means your face is covered in warts and everyone throws up seeing you".
Maybe you look super hot, but you got a shrill voice, or speak before you think and constantly insult people without realising it. That's low charisma, though you look super great.
Maybe you have great ideas all the time, can see right through other people's plots, but your voice is so low and timid that most people don't listen to what you say or follow your advice.
The opposite is true too, some of the best character actors for example I would hardly call "pretty" but they're certainly bursting with Charisma.

In other words: Your appearance is totally up to you. If you make yourself super hot, but have a Cha of 7, think about why that is and play that way.

Hey, you could just close your eyes, therefore make everything invisible to you, and ignore the blur, if the GM wants to be a dick about it ;)

How well do you know this player? Is he a good friend that you want to have in your game at all costs?

Because to be frank, what you tell sounds like the general archetype of a "problem player", that just argue over rules for the fun of it or to disrupt the game.

Tell him, that if he doesn't like this particular rule, then that's bad, but everyone will run into situations where they can't do something. You think the fighter likes that he can't charge through an ally's square or the rogue thinks it's fair you have to be flanking to get sneak attack?

Tell him that GMing is a lot more work than just sit there and read stuff from a notebook/book/PDF at them, it involves a lot of preparation, and the same rules debates that have been done 5 times now are not fun for you (and probably none of the other players eeither) and if he doesn't stop it might be time for him to find a different GM.
Make sure he knows that he can bring up issues he has with the rules, but once you as the GM made a ruling on it, he should stick with it. At least for the session he might bring up arguments later (but more than "I don't like it"). Again once you made a ruling then, even if its the same, he has to respect it.

That sounds harsh, but might be the only way.

Ok, looking for some honest opinion from other GMs and also players of course.

I'm still relatively new to GMing, so I'm aware that I make mistakes. I just don't think this was one, but I got into a little bit of an argument with a player about this, so I want to see if my perception on this matter is correct.

This was an encounter in the Jade Regent AP #2. It's just a tiny side-encounter and not a huge spoiler, but I'll spoiler the AP text anyway:

So what happened was this:
The NPC comes up to the group and yells at them drunkenly that he finally found them, and they better pay up the weregild for the dog they killed or he'll be forced to declare the blood feud.
I was fully prepared for the face of the party to say "Nope wasn't us", and make the diplomacy check and most likely succeeding easily. Or just pay the 50 gp. I ruled the chance for a fight at this encounter at maybe 5% or so.

Just to make this clear, the PCs were innocent of the crime, and got framed for it.

What she did instead was basically tell him "F*$§ off or I kill you", pretty much in those words, and shove her way past him.
She rolled good on her Intimidate too.

For me that meant however he was now convinced that they really did it, he's drunk and he feels honor-bound now to his threat before to declare a blood-feud (which apparently is a big thing to Ulfen), so while he was shaken from the Intimidate he'd still rage and attack.
He actually crit the face with his Battleaxe and nearly send her into a coma with a single hit.

All that happened over 4 months or so ago, so details of the exact happenings are a bit fuzzy but I do remember that much. As I said I was fully prepared for them to just buy him a drink and convince him it was not them, I was really surprised by the way the face reacted, so that stuck with me.

Now this week I had a talk with the player and this situation came up.
He feels I dismissed the Intimidate check too easily. He said from what they saw in that region chest-thumping would be a better result than sweet-talking and the guy should have backed down. Even if he would have come back later, maybe with friends.
I explained my reasons why he didn't, as above.

He then said, I should have let him make a Sense Motive check to figure out that Intimidate wouldn't have the intended result, and that Diplomacy might be the way to go. Mind you, he had never asked for that, if he had, I'd probably would have told him.
I kinda felt if those things would happen passively all the time, it turns the game more into a video game where you get the options that work, never getting a chance to pick a "wrong" one.

I also don't want to tell players when they say they do something "No, you don't, because X", because I kinda hate that. It's their character, if they wanna attack someone, it's not my place to tell them that their character wouldn't. (unless it's obvious the player is drunk and really would not attack the LG king in full view of his bodyguards or something)

So I think here's where the issue is:
While I think Diplomacy and Intimidate are powerful tools, sometimes enemies just have so compelling reasons to fight the PCs that they can't just be convinced or scared into surrendering or walking away.
They might be more scared of the BBEG than the PCs and attack anyway (after all they know the demi-god like sorcerer is known for invoking brutal vengeance for failure). Their family might be threatened. They just don't give a damn if they die or not, for some reason or another (greater hit to their honor from retreating than by losing the fight for example).
Mind you, I don't think that's the case with most enemies, but in some situations yes.
Also often you don't have the time to properly scare them that much. Usually the PCs will enter a room in a dungeon and the guys there will attack them pretty much immediately or the other way around.

He kinda agrees with that last part, Intimidate takes time after all, so does Diplomacy, but not really the first one.

So I guess the points I want to hear opinions on:
a) Did I really disregard his Intimidate unfairly?
b) Should I have given him a passive Sense Motive when he did the Intimidate to tell him that's not what his character thinks is the best way?
c) Would you agree some people are just beyond Diplomacy/Intimidate when it comes to that for one reason or another? Or should that at most give them a bonus to resist it but if that's not enough they're still running, abandoning their family or whatever?

As I said be honest, and if you think I should have acted differently, or that you'd be pissed too if that happened to you, then tell me that.

Humans are like Dragons in D&D. They breed with anything.

I'd not be surprised if, at some point we run into a Half-Gelatinous Cube

It depends on the skill in question.

Perception is a prime example where really everyone can make their own check. As long as they don't step on each other's toes it really doesn't matter if the rogue searches the same area the wizard before him already checked. If they do it halfway smart, it won't even take more time.

It's kinda like, when you're searching for your keys and then finally ask your wife if she's seen them. She gets up from her chair, glances around once, points at the cupboard and says "There they are", even though you could have sworn you searched that area like 5 times already. You both individually searched the area, and one of you saw it.

Sense Motive is another one that should be rolled individually. Everyone can get that "gut feeling" that something is wrong, totally independent of the others.
Both should be rolled secretly and from time to time you should give "false positives" (aka the guy who terribly failed the check thinks the guy is lying, while he really tells the truth), so the players can't metagame "But Bob rolled the 25 so what you told him is the truth, and Frank with the natural 1 and the -2 modifier is wrong"

Now talking to someone is a different story however. Usually only one person can speak at a time. I mean sure, all 4 of you can speak at the same time, but it probably will not have the intented effect :)
If that person screws it up, other party members might be able to salvage the conversation somewhat, but they can't just reset it to zero and start over.
So they might throw in a sentence here and there, reinforcing what the main speaker is saying, but they won't hold a whole seperate conversation of their own.
Therefore they add their +2 for Aid Another.

Or generally: If failure doesn't influence the situation, then everyone can roll. Failing to find something doesn't cause it to not be there. If failure however changes stuff, like the disposition of your conversational partner, then Aid Another is usually the way to go.

Flaming and Shocking need to be activated though. Most groups just ignore that I think, but by RAW they have to be activated. Therefore the shocking or flaming would stop working as soon as it gets melded into the wildshape.

A normal +1 enhancement on the amulet would keep function however, as that's a constant bonus that doesn't need to be activated.

Hi

I got a few questions about the Shielded Blade archetype for the Soulknife (Psionic Unleashed) and hope someone can help me.

There are just a few things I'm not quite clear on, I'll try to structure it into separate questions.

Since the character is for an E6 game, I'm going to look at examples at level 6 mostly, but most of them are general questions.

a) At 6th level a Shielded Blade (SB) can enhance her Mind Shield (MS) with a +2, correct? Together with the Improved MS blade skill that be a +5 to AC total?

b) As the SB gets the MS blade skill for free, does that +2 bonus apply always, even when the Mind Blade (MB) is not formed? Even when sleeping or flatfooted? Would he only get the +2, +3 from Improved Mind Shield or the whole +5?

b2) If not, what action is it to form the MS?

c) What happens if the SB has her MS formed and then decides to grab the 1-handed Mind Blade with both hands for higher strength/PA damage? Not possible to do at all because she's wearing a Heavy Shield after all, or does the Mind Shield simply vanishes for this round? When does it come back? Once the hand is free once again?

d) In case c) is impossible to do, can the SB decide to use only the base Mind Shield blade skill and not the Form Mind Shield ability? Aka just get the +2/+3 but not the enhancement, but not actually be treated as if wielding a heavy shield.

e) When the MS and the MB are formed at the same time, it states the enhancement bonus is 1 lower for the MB. Does this -1 penalty also apply to the Mind Shield? What would the enhancement bonuses at level 6 be? +1 on the blade, +2 on the shield, or +1 on both?

f) "a shielded blade can use the mind shield as if it was in all ways (except visually) a masterwork heavy steel shield". What does it look like then? Completely invisible? Translucent disc attached to the arm/hand? Blue glowing forcefield?
f2) I guess the same could be asked about the Mind Armor of the Armored Blade archetype.

Ok, I think those are most of my questions that had bothered me. I hope I'm not too confusing here.

I mentioned to my players early on, that I'm usually very lenient when it comes to allowing stuff. If I'm asked I'm usually more inclined to allow it than not unless it's completely over the top.

However, I also told them "What's fair for me to use is fair for you too, and vica versa". Meaning I'm not making special rules for my NPCs. I'm not going to have my NPCs swallow healing potions as a free action without AOO for example and force my PCs to provoke and use a Standard on it. If I'm gonna rule that my NPC can do X, because of Y, than a PC in the same position could do it too.

But on the other hand, if one of them comes up with a really broken combination of feats, items and spells that clearly wasn't meant to work that way but by the rules does, then they shouldn't be surprised if suddenly NPCs start having the same stuff.

It's all in the PFSRD entry really.

I suppose (didn't do the math) that between 4 and 7 the dog is better, then the wolf pulls ahead again when it upgrades to large.

As far as I know there are no limits as to when an animal becomes too big to ride. I mean people ride Elephants etc, and a halfling can ride a horse if he likes.

What you say there is completely wrong WrathW1zard.

From here:

For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell but not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself.

And also

While item creation costs are handled in detail below, note that normally the two primary factors are the caster level of the creator and the level of the spell or spells put into the item. A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell. Using metamagic feats, a caster can place spells in items at a higher level than normal.

To answer the OP:

What's with all those threads? I mean there's not a single day where I don't see a "How can I make X fall?" thread here on the forum.

I'm just waiting for "How can I make a fighter lose his bonus feats?" and "How can I force a rogue to sneak attack himself?", pretty much all other classes have been covered already I think.

Elves aren't just "humans with pointy ears", they're a completely different species. Aasimar are also not simply "humans with glowing hair" or some such.
Just because they take 8 times as long to mature to complete adulthood does not mean that all the phases in their lives are equally prolonged. They might not even have some of the human phases, or have entirely new phases. Maybe a second puberty. Who knows.

I think an elf maybe would be for 3-5 years in diapers. Or who knows maybe they're potty trained fresh out of the womb?
But after that they slow down the older they get and it takes them more and more time.

Does that make them outcasts (same for Aasimar)? Heck yeah.
Look at the Forlorn elves and how "real elves" view them. Those poor bastards went through 2 or 3 generations of "parents", saw them grow old and die, and at the end are probably raised by the grandchildren of their own childhood friends (who also long ago died).
Does that leave them mentally messed up? You bet it does.

It's not quite as extreme with Aasimar children I would believe, but similar.

So all this said, let me add: Some of this seems stupid, I agree, but it's in my opinion the least stupid way to explain the given ages.
I'm sorry but "The elf is physically matured around the same time as a human and then just sits on his ass for 90 years, doing NOTHING at all. And more importantly. EVERY SINGLE ONE of them does that", is just equally retarded, if not more so.
It works fine in an elven society. But it breaks down when an elf would be raised outside of it. And that is where it already stops working for Aasimar, since there's no such thing as Aasimar countries/societies.
Elves are considered to be born to Elves, so it could be a social thing. Aasimar are considered to be born to humans. So the default ages would reflect those Aasimar, not the rare ones that get born to two Aasimar parents.

However nothing stops you from changing this in your own game.
Maybe the elves in your world are actually matured with 20-30 years, and then spend the next 80-90 years contemplating the choices ahead of them. Which is normal in elven society so no one thinks them slackers and losers. But if said elf was to be raised in human lands, he'd be tossed into a "normal life" far earlier. So a 30 year old Forlorn Elf adventurer? Sure why not.
Maybe Aasimar are similar in your world. Maybe most of them just wander around trying to find their place, till they finally decide what to do with their life? A 17 year old Aasimar who just discovered her heritage, and so far thought she's just a normal human? Go ahead.
Or of course maybe Elves and Aasimar work differently, and what works for the one might not work for the other.

I tell you If you don't x, then I will hurt you.

I don't hurt you.

30 seconds later, I tell you, if you don't x, I will hurt you. I am a little less credible.

I don't hurt you.

Rinse and repeat. Eventually, you stop believing me.

That seems logical, when reading it like this, but lets put that in game terms, and see if it holds up.

First lets take a look at a failed Intimidate check - which is really what you're describing there:
"If you don't do x, I hurt you" - roll intimidate
You fail to beat the DC so the guy is unimpressed, and doesn't do what you said.
You don't hurt him.
"Seriously dude, do x or I really hurt you this time" - roll intimidate but with a -5 now because you already showed you're not going through with it. So unless you're really scary now, the chance he decides to "call your bluff" are higher.

Now lets look at a successful intimidate:
"If you don't do x, I hurt you" - roll intimidate
You beat the DC, the opononent is intimidated and does as you say.
There is now no need to hurt him.
"Ok, now you do y or I hurt you" - roll intimidate

Does it really make sense to penalize this next roll? I'd say no.
So in other words, failed Intimidate gets the penalty, successful ones don't.

If in the first example, after he doesn't do what you say, you actually hurt him, and proof you're willing to go through with your threat, then that would give you a bonus on your Intimidate check.
Now you can say "ok that bonus just eats up the penalty, so if you go through with it, you don't get the penalty or bonus". Or you could say "ok you don't get the penalty, and you get the bonus".

Both kinda make sense here, and is up to the GM (by RAW you would take both penalty and bonus)

All these examples are of course attempts to Influence Attitude, not demoralize.

Let's look at that for a few seconds.

First a failed check at demoralizing an enemy in combat:

You try to whirl your sword around in a menacing fashion to show off your combat prowess. Unfortunately you slip and nearly cut off your own hand, making you the laughing stock of the entire encounter.

Now for obvious reasons, even if you try this next time again, and this time it works perfectly, that display is tainted by your previous embarrassing performance. So you take a -5 on it.

And now a successful check might look like this:
Once again, you whirl your sword, this time quite perfectly and everyone takes a step back and figures "damn, that guy is badass".

Next turn you repeat that, or show off a different trick. People don't think "Oh, that old trick again... that's just worth a -5..." they think "Oh damn, that guy really knows what he's doing" so the duration gets stacked, and they don't take the -5

That houserule has a lot of problems from my POV:

1) It's really hard to actually ignore someone that you know is swinging a big greatsword your way. You might hear it, see the the movement out of the corner of your eyes, etc, and you'd flinch. That's pretty much an involuntary reaction. And if you managed to really ignore all that, you would certainly be at least a little bit distracted when said big greatsword sticks out through your chest.
And those little flinches and distractions are what rogues exploit for their sneak attacks.

2) This houserule seems simply and only there to nerf and screw over rogues. Why?
Glad you asked. Because they're the only ones that really benefit from flanking. Spellcasters and archers don't get flanking in the first place, so doesn't matter at all if you focus on them. Other melee fighters get a +2. Sure a +2 is nice, but nothing game breaking.
Ask yourself this: How many times have you used this ability to focus solely on your rogue and screw up his sneak attack, and how often have you focused on someone other than a rogue?
I'm almost certain it will be a ratio of "almost always against the rogue". Why?
Because losing your Dex bonus and your ability to AoO to everyone else and give them a +2 (though to be fair it should be a +4 as the guy you focus on still PROVIDES flank) to attack, seems hardly a good tradeoff to simply deny a single person that +2.
So really when do you use it against anyone but a rogue?

3) Lots of large or huge enemies have very low dex scores, sometimes in the one digits range. Which means when they lose their Dex bonus, they lose nothing. So the +2 from being invisible is the same they'd get from flanking anyway, so hardly a difference there either.
They end up slightly harder to hit, while completely denying a class their trademark ability. All the time. Over and over.
Do you implement stuff that keeps wizards from casting spells too, without them having a way to change that? Or fighters losing their bonus feats?

To be honest, a more honest way to show "Don't play a rogue because I hate them and I will make your life hell" is to say just that and not make up houserules like those.

Sure a Ninja could circumvent that by level 11 by taking the Invisible Blade trick, but none of the other rogues can.
And I'd not be surprised if you then make up a houserule that allows people to "sense" invisible people, by ignoring everyone else. Otherwise that OP rogue could actually get a sneak attack in...

You're the cleric, he's the fighter. He's your shield, your armor and your HPs. Well you know what I mean.
And not simply yours, you can stand your own ground to some degrees, but the wizard?

By not healing him, you pretty much remove his protective function from your group, and in reality you're punishing the entire group.

Better to say "Do that again, and we kick you out. Here now let me patch you up" or dock a cut of his share of the loot till he promises to behave better (at which point you'll give it to him).

All that said, I can understand your frustration with the situation, and you should consider if this was simply an IC behavior or actually is an OOC problem, in which case above methods will not work, and only a talk with the player will.
Which should probably happen anyway, just so everyone knows where the other side is coming from. Having a voting system that gets ignored when it doesn't vote in favor of one person is not a voting system.

Witches don't have "extra spells known" they get 2 per level automatically, thats independent of any stat, and can learn from scrolls and familiars, and don't have an actual max-amount of spells they can know.

You probably mean "bonus spell slots"?

I actually think that's an oversight. Everything was changed from Int to Con just bonus spells weren't? That seems rather strange if you ask me.

On a good day a level 18 caster probably goes to bed with twice as many spells still ready to cast than a level 3 character has the entire week.

It's quite unreasonable to assume that that guy wouldn't cast a few of those low level spells to make his study secure, especially since they either got durations of day/level or can be easily made permanent.

It might not be enough to keep out people of a level like him, but those level 3 thieves, that think the naive high level caster must have some riches hidden somewhere? Yes absolutely.

Think about it this way: That guy didn't get to 18th level by being stupid and careless. He knows the dangers of the world.

What I'm saying is: It might not be possible or at the very least quite dangerous.

Kikko Armor is just 20 gp cheaper than Scale Mail, which also is a +5.

Honestly it's really only interesting at level 1, when you actually are limited by money. After that 50 gp more or less won't make the decission for you, and you'll most likely get the best armor in the category you can wear.
Which in case of medium armor is usually the Breastplate.

Four Mirror armor does seem a bit cheap, but only a +2 Dex and a -5 ACP, so some people might get scared by that and pick Kikko or Scale Mail over it instead.

After that you'll not be using it instead of the Breastplate again. Less Dex, more ACP and most importantly more weight, which will become a factor later.

So I really don't see either that as a huge problem.
More that there's still usually a "best" armor in each segment, and selecting anything else usually means sacrificing some kind of mechanical benefit for RP reasons.

Well a 7 or 8 in a mental stat should be RPed, but it's not really a debilitating disability.

A 7 int or wis does not mean "can't tie his own shoes" or "drools all the time". It just means his natural talents lie elsewhere, but he can still do soemthing about it.

Honestly that reminds me a lot of something that happened in a game I was playing a while ago. Just that was maybe a little bit more extreme even:

I was a NG druid, we were playing in a homebrew world, loosely based on ancient Greece, but with PF races etc.
There was a war between dwarves and the rest of the world basically and we've infiltrated a dwarfen city. Humans and other non-dwarves were 2nd class citizens there.
At some point there was a gathering of a couple thousand or so civilians mostly, a few military guys too. They were there watching the trial and public execution of resistance people. (We were part of the resistance) Many in that crowd were humans and non-dwarves that had probably been coerced into attending.
Now our party wizard goes invisible, flies up, uses some spell combined with a Hero Point and basically makes a giant rock that was suspended over the city fall down. (in my opinion that spell wasn't powerful enough for that even with the hero point, but GM allowed it) Right into that gathering, killing pretty much everyone, and flattening entire city blocks with the blast wave, killing even more people that weren't even at that gathering.
His justification was "Hey, I'm 13 years old (the character, not the player) and just found out that the dwarves had massacred my hometown and sacrificed everyone to an evil god. So I'm taking revenge on a dwarven city."

We took a break pretty much at this point, but I said "Seriously, I don't know how I can justify my character sticking around after this, if there's no consequences at all". I mean believing in the Circle of Life etc is one thing, but this is something different.
The bad thing was, there was none. At all. IC noone outside the party knew it was him that did this, and apparently there was no way to figure it out too.
All the other players and the GM too figured it was ok what he did because "hey, it's war. that was totally normal back then to kill civilians if it was war".
And everyone in the party was ok with it too, while supposedly still being of Good alignment. Oh yes the cleric (of a NG or LG god) gave him a scolding...

My point is this: this completely hampered my enjoyment of the game and my character as I would have to ignore a major aspect of my character.
We wanted to play a heroic game, at least that's how it started and what I made my character for and were officially on a quest to save the world. Which btw, the rest of the party had voted to sort of abandon and let the NPC church deal with it at the first opportunity, so they could go and mess with the dwarves and get involved in the war. That I was the only one against that and wanted to stick with the original plan should maybe have been a hint in hindsight.
I as one of the players in that game would have actually welcomed if we've all (me included if necessary) been hunted down and killed by the resistance or the dwarves or anyone, and we roll up new characters. But to get away with this just like that, it just felt wrong in every vein of my body.
Probably luckily the game only lasted another two or so sessions after that.

So yes, you definitely should impose consequences. The enemy/government has wizards too, diviners and whatnot. They can figure out who is responsible. Clerics can put the suspects into a Zone of Truth and interrogate them. There's enough options to figure out what happened and who did it.
Or just old fashioned investigative work: "Let's see, that spell was targeted at this group with 5 cultists and 50 civilians and none of you... Hmm, yes, you're right, it probably was the cultists casting it, right? I mean why would they want to target you when they could blow up their own? /sarcasm"
The monk might get away with "accidental" but even then, he admitted up there that he took a gamble and lost. That's in modern justice systems manslaughter I believe. You willingly accepted the possibility of someone dying. If you don't want that, don't shoot with an RPG into a group of people, even if the grenade only has a 5% chance of actually exploding.
The wizard however, there's nothing accidental about that anymore.

If Local isn't actually tied to a specific region but gives local knowledge about all areas, why is it separate from Geography?

Geography gives you information about the land. You know where the mountains are, the rivers, where this and that city lies and relation to another, which roads connect them. You know that the weather in that part of the country is usually cold and it rains a lot, so better pack warm clothes. You know that the Shaonti tribes live all over Varisia. But who are those Shaonti?

Local is about the people living there. You can now answer questions about the Shaonti customs for example. You know that the people of City A are said to be all shrewd merchants, while you have to watch your purse in City B because it's full of pickpockets. You know that in City C you get your hand cut off for stealing and in City D you get hung upside down from the townhall for three days for the same crime. You know that the famous Gundar the Dragon Slayer killed his biggest dragon there. But you have no idea where City A and B are on a map or in relation to another.

History is about events. You know about famous battles, big proclamations, the slave uprising that finally ended that practice in the region and all that. But you don't really know how the people there today are or not even necessarily where that famous place is. (Example, you might have heard of the Battle of Hastings and know it was in 1066 and what it was about, but where the heck is this Hastings?) You know when Magnimar was founded and by whom, and when the Stolen Lands got stolen.

Nobility now is about who rules what country. How is this queen related to the King in the neighboring country. Which of her five children and 27 grandchildren is most likely to succeed her when she dies. You recognize their banners and sigils at first glance and you can recount the ancestors of a certain noble back to the beginning of time.

I hope that clears it up a little bit

Probably a mix of both.
In previous editions Paladin's were extremely powerful, and the "they can fall" was the mechanic to balance this. It's obviously a pretty s~+#ty mechanic.

By now though, Paladins aren't any more powerful than other classes. Yes sure against evil dragons their Smite rocks, but most classes have some sort of enemy they excel against.

There's also the problem that some players play Paladin's as Lawful Stupid with a MASSIVE stick up their behind, and drag the fun-level down for the entire party.
Even if the Paladin in question isn't like that, many players/GMs have that image of Paladins and believe that's how they're played, so they prefer not to have one in the party (or bring them down quickly).

Lawful does not automatically mean "follows the law".

It's not quite what you ask, but this is from the Jade Regent AP, describing one of the "loony" tactics the goblins might employ:

One thing I can think about is this:
Spirit Vessel says the Oracle channels a Wendo Spirit into the corpse. Which means, that yes the Zombie might still be a 10th level wizard, but it is not the wizard raised as zombie. It's a different "soul" inside that body now, if zombies even have something like that.

So you could say that if this is done on a PC he turns into an NPC, end of story. Possibly under the control of/friendly to the oracle, but still an NPC.

Also in a Pharasma heavy campaign: Pharasma most likely will not care if its a real zombie, a juju zombie or a zombie made out of candy, it's still a zombie and therefore an abomination in her eyes and she'll smite the s*%% out of it if she can (or rather her followers will in her name).

Rynjin is almost right, but a 10 on either is considered a 0, with the exception of both being 10s in which case it's a 100.

In your case, OP, the dice with 10, 20, etc is your 10 digit dice. If it comes up as 00, then you're in the 1-9 range, and 100 if the other one comes up 0 or 10.

The rolls your player made would have been a 1 on the 1 + 00 and a 100.

A 10 on the single digit and a 90 on the double digit dice represents a 90, as the 10 is a 0.

Look at them the other way, with the double didgit first and then just put them together, and interpret a 10 on second as 0. 00+1 = 001 = 1. 90+(10) = 90+0 = 90. 50+4 = 54. 00+(10) = 00+0 = 0 = 100

So why not just give wizards only 1 race to choose from, scratch their 1st level feat and give them only 1 instead of 2 traits.

Because that's essentially what you did there. With that houserule you basically force casters to take those feats, traits and maybe even races to not suck totally.