Virgil's page

Countering the wizard's 10% crafting fee by charging for your actions in the party is a foolish gambit. My wizards have universally been the one in the party that did the most damage, handed out the most buffs, helped the adventure through scrying/teleporting/door-making, and if necessary could do a fair share of OoC healing thanks to UMD.

If I really wanted, my wizard could make a minion that's as powerful as you (and have, free of charge). Now that every gold that would be given to you for your sword swings can be deducted from your debt to the skeleton's punches, you can provide any normal loot you get to the wizard because of all the stuff he's doing on top of that.

Not exactly a good way to 'get back' at the supposedly greedy wizard.

So a "Mr. Hyde" potion (enlarge person, bear's endurance, bull's strength, rage) would cost:

enlarge person: 50 gp (50 x 1)
bear's endurance: 1,200 gp (300 x 4)
bull's strength: 2,400 gp (300 x 8)
rage: 12,000 gp (750 x 16)
Total: 15,650 gp
Too pricey? Not pricey enough?

Way too pricey. I'm of the position that it should follow something close to the admixture paradigm:

* CL must be the same for all potions combined
* Duration of all effects become equal to the lowest (for math ease only), except instantaneous
* Most expensive potion at 100%, next most is 75%, all further at 50%

I would personally switch out the rage spell for heroism to make all of the effects last 3min, assuming minimum CL. This would create...

Blood of Battle: Casts [i]enlarge person, bear's endurance, bull's strength, heroism[i], all at CL 5, and lasts for 5 minutes.
* Large size
* -2 Dex
* +2 size Str
* +4 enhancement Str/Con
* +2 morale bonus on attack rolls, saves, and skill checks
Market Price: 1.500gp

My item was the Parasol of the Forgotten Shade.

Parasol of the Forgotten Shade
Aura faint abjuration, illusion; CL 3rd
Slot none; Price 16,000 gp; Weight 2 lbs.
Description
This parasol of deepest black constantly drips ephemeral ichor. Its ever-present, otherworldy, shade will blend in with the smallest of crowds and set the bearer apart from hostilities. When held open, any creature seeking to directly attack the bearer must make a DC 11 Will save to do so (as the sanctuary spell). A creature who makes the save or is attacked by the bearer can attack freely for 24 hours.
So long as the bearer of the parasol is adjacent to another creature, they can make Stealth checks in terrain without cover or concealment.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, invisibility, sanctuary; Cost 8,000 gp

I got, at ~160 words...

Mandolin of Ooze Hail
Aura moderate conjuration and evocation; CL 7th
Slot -; Price 32,250gp; Weight 5lbs
Description
This appears to be an ordinary mandolin, but if the possessor learns the proper tune, he can call upon a storm of ooze. With a successful DC 15 Perform (string instruments) check, ice storm is cast upon the chosen area, dealing 4d6 acid damage instead of the normal damage; with the [acid] subtype rather than [cold].
After the first round, an amoeba swarm is summoned and follows the player's telepathic commands for as long as the mandolin is played. If for any reason the player ceases playing, the swarm disappears. The Perform DC increases by +5 each time the ooze hail is successfully called.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, ice storm, summon monster II; Cost 16,125gp

Many of the people I see who speak of RaI over some rule interpretation, not all of them mind you, aren't objectively fulfilling your definition of cheese. I've seen alternate interpretations where the more powerful option isn't breaking the game, making things unbalanced/unchallenging, and usually makes it more fun than otherwise; yet many rise ex nihilo claiming it's against the RaI.

How are these PB values considered enough for a full CR increase? The final stat differences between 'standard' and something like 37 (17, 16, 15, 14, 12, 10) is only two points; yet the Advanced template gives a +4 to all stats AND +2 natural armor, increasing CR only by 1.

In many cases, the primary stat isn't going to be changed much, because that's the important one (especially the SAD ones). It'll be the secondary and dump stats that will be influenced the most. If you buff a wizard's Str/Cha by 4 each, you haven't functionally increased his power one whit.

While I vaguely understand some of the opinions thrown about in regards to what 42 point-buy represents and the proportionate CR increase, I have difficulty empathizing with it.

I'm currently running a game where everyone rolled 4d6-drop lowest, then just used the best array out of the group. So everyone started with 17, 17, 15, 15, 13, 8 (42 point-buy). I can do stuff like throw a CR 5 when they're level 3 and they'll almost die, and CR 3 fights are properly challenging. I'm not ramping up the fights to 'counter' their stats, and they're not stomping through like superheroes.

Of course, I've also run an entire campaign using 32 point buy and Tome classes (those classes you've seen Frank Trollman posit). I can only imagine the power level you must assume that is like. But here's the thing: they'd still suffer heavily from a pair of minotaurs at level 5, be challenged by a trio of babau at level 9, nearly suffer a TPK from a CR 11 dragon at level 8, and all of these samples are monsters taken straight from the MM.

You really can have a different play experience that's just as valid AND uses the same challenges as other games to still have a discussion.

Maybe the inflation assumes not only are they solely constructed in Alkenstar & suffer wartime inflation, but the dearth in knowledge of repair for them unless you personally take the weapon to capital of Alkenstar; which the misfire rate essentially guarantees they'll be worthless in less than a handful of battles?

A better idea would be to have the ability only work during the act of loading a firearm.

Another good question is when you have an air elemental go into vortex form. They strangely retain their ability to be attacked and grappled at the same time.

Because it isn't Conjuration (Healing) and because the magic that gives you Fast Healing property doesn't heal you. The Fast Healing is doing the healing in a "natural" way.

Magic does not mean only spells and spell-like effects, because they would say that if they meant that.

And personally, I like to punish my PCs when they start metagaming like this.

@Martinaj: I'm not too keen on metagaming, either...I *do* use random encounters occasionally when I get tired with players metagaming too heavily

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I wouldn't say that a Level IV Tome game is as stark as you guys think. I've run a plurality of Tome games and I've been able to get by using standard CR monsters that are not buffed to crazy-town; with fights lasting an average of three or four rounds (some shorter, some longer). CoDzilla's assumed numbers are above even that of a decent chunk of the Den.

The common motivation and thought process leading to the conclusions may differ, but the enjoyment of the game (especially at the table) outside of the 'rules' is no different than here.

If it was a game like chess, everyone would use the same rules, and the game itself would be about tactics and strategies and clever use of abilities, but on a game that involves roleplaying, interpretation, and weaving of a good story, balance is not just useless, but absurd as well.

Yeah, good thing Pathfinder isn't about the rules and is only about the story and roleplaying. Excuse me, the kid wants in the room, but the core book fell in front of the door and now she can't push it open...

Where was I? Ah, yes, the misconception that better mechanical balance creates a bland 4E clone that's about nothing but combat. I'm sure if you changed the AC/damage numbers on the monk class table (thus making it more balanced than before) then suddenly the rest of the book will rewrite itself to excise everything noncombat related. I've seen balanced monk rewrites, and they also come off as more flavourful and evocative than before.

Yes, I can have fun with less balanced systems, but that's in spite of their mechanical flaws. Having a more balanced ruleset lessens the chances of intraparty imbalance, which can and has created social strain; I mean, you try and feel good about yourself when you solo a single mook while another killed the BBEG and three other mooks in the same time frame. It's also easier to design encounters where everyone contributes.

I've run regular 3.5 games and I've run Den-inspired games, and while both have been fun, the latter has honestly mitigated intra-party imbalance (not eliminated, as player skill remains) and encounter design is appreciably easier.

All jests aside, I think people are beginning to lose site of fun-factor and going with a purely mathematical approach to DnD where numerics are everything, and powergaming is paramount. I think too many people start threads complaining about balance. This isn't to slight anyone, but I think it's an overly discussed topic that just never seems to find middle-ground for people.

Eh, the fun-factor remains for me and I'm quite certain it remains for many others in the place it belongs, at the game table. This board isn't the game table, however, so the goals are different. For all the crowing/encouragement some give to talk about your personal game (for which there's a forum for), the fact is that threads/blogs about your specific game doesn't attract discussion in the same way that campaign-neutral rules. This goes double for a rules-focused system like 3.X

I think you're just being hyperbolic that somehow this month is more about that topic than others.

Intra-party balance matters because not everyone appreciates being Aquaman.

Concerns about it have been around long before the MMO. Internet boards for RPGs hadn't been that big for that long before the MMO, so you didn't get to see very much opinion outside of your limited social circle. I'm not saying you're antisocial and have few friends, just that your experience is with a tiny fraction of the demographic of gamers.

If they don't keep the PF: Campaign Setting rendition of firearms, that will be satisfying indeed. That interpretation was atrocious.

The gold dragon doesn't have divine power or greater heroism on it's list. It has haste and divine favor, for +4 to hit. If you want to add extra stuff to monsters that aren't stock, then I believe the CR should be adjusted.

The gold dragon casts as an X level sorcerer with access to clerical spells, just like before. PF just gave us the mercy of saving time by preselecting the list, but its CR shouldn't be adjusted if its spells known are changed to something else. A sorcerer is a sorcerer, after all.

CoDzilla assumes that the treasure that you get from the encounter will inherently be ideal magic items that the creature can and will be using to enhance its combat ability. And if it's a creature with spellcasting, such as the Solar, if it deigns to attack it will use various buffs to further enhance.

EDIT: If you noticed, the example James referred to was using the creature's own spellcasting to buff itself. A monster most certainly IS stock if it uses its own natural abilities on itself, like spellcasting.

Fighters would have 21 feats by that level. 22 if they are human. They would have the highest AC and CMD, by the design of the class.

Post a build works both ways. I am amused to see you try to turn it the other way after so much complaint from your side of the argument.

As to your "Sage"...someone above already called him Rain Man, that is about right.

And the Telekinesis...he didn't read the spell. You can try to defend him, but he clearly didn't read the spell. This happens a lot in these threads.

That was honestly an attempt to see how you respond to the same rhetoric you keep using, which is a bit different because my side of the fence isn't hung up on specifics like you obsess over.

Regardless of whether you want to bring up false claims of Hollywood autism, someone of respectable scholarly authority remains a sage.

I figured you'd get the obvious understanding that we refer to a sage as a scholarly, knowledgeable person. If you're going to pull out the damn dictionary, look up wisdom on that site of yours, because one of the definitions include "scholarly knowledge". It's not hard to understand that there is to a True Sageman.

I'd almost say that K's referring to the line in TK that says it can perform a bull rush where no AoOs are provoked, which includes the one from the victim moving. That's a debatable point, and I might be wrong.

But really, how is this fighter spending the necessary feats for this? A fighter actually has a finite number and can't have the answer to everything the balor does, especially since we're assuming he's not metagaming and actually plans to fight things other than a balor. Your hypothetical fighter can apparently maintain a very high CMD, AC, saving throws (both Fort and Will), fire resistance, anti-teleportation, create impossible Concentration DCs, and all while able to hit it accurately and hard enough that he will defeat the balor because he got an extra three hits from it taking out the wizard first.

Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition.

Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons.

Which one of the above do you feel better governs "limited experience or understanding"

...

Seriously, if you can't even see why a 3 Intelligence couldn't be described as a sage...well I don't see any common ground on any other reasonable discussion.

And I'm guessing you are of the "K" and "CoDzilla" mindset on builds as well. Because by your logic, the burden is on me to disprove what you state as unquestionable fact in the fact of presentation of the limitations of the rules.

Still, strangely people continue to play non-casters and not die, and casters continue to die in games at a rate comparable to other classes...

Hey man, live how you want to live. In a world where 3 Intelligence isn't dumb, just limited experience...despite what the rules say...

Common sense isn't really under the purview of Wisdom unless you stretch the definition of perception (not the d20 skill) very wide. Seeing as how the ability to learn is influenced by Intelligence, I would think that 'limited understanding' would describe that fairly well.

As for the common ground for discussion, I was feeling like saying the same to you in this case. If someone's fairly knowledgeable about a subject, or even a plurality of them, I'm going to call them a sage. The low Int makes it take more effort to get a point where you're considered well-versed on a subject(s), but it doesn't make it impossible and it certainly doesn't somehow make a +10 /= +10 (or something).

I don't quite know what you're referring to when it comes to K and CoDzilla's mindset about builds. Are you talking about not making them? I can empathize with that mindset (if that's what you speak of), since people like you keep demanding a wizard build that can crush everything as the only thing that would sate you. If you're referring to something specific, such as the idiot savant sage (rather than the strawman god wizard), then I'm more willing to entertain such ideas.

You will only get one skill point per level to put into intelligence if you are talking Wizards

Good thing I'm not talking about wizards then, as this was about sages. Naivety is not low Wisdom, it's limited experience or understanding; and in comparison to someone of equal level but higher Int, they will come off as having learned less (because they did).

So what if Int 3 is one up from a dog? That one point is a rather drastic jump. They're still a playable character that can understand a language and be literate. You can even feasibly have a sage with an Int of 3, which you continue to fail to disprove.

EDIT: And no, a wizard can't bring every option at once, which isn't the claim. The claim is that what they can/do bring is better than what the fighter offers if done with Intelligence, so you're nearly always better off filling that fighter slot with a wizard (or any primary caster).

Yes.

"The minimum Intelligence score needed to cast a wizard spell is 10 + the spell's level."

Having a 3 intelligence means you have the minimum to understand spoken language, and considering you will have minuses to Int, you will only be getting the minimum 1 skill point for level for those knowledge checks.

Not exactly a "sage"

Since when is a sage required to be a wizard? If you've got a decent bonus to Knowledge (history) or something, people are still going to consider you a sage when it comes time to research the sacking of the Gates of Despair in the year of the Cricket; they might also call you other things if you have a 3 Int (naive, focused, etc), but a historical sage would be included. It's even possible to be versed in a plurality of Knowledges with that low of an Intelligence.

When are you throwing fireballs? So far you've said you would summon, then you said you wouldn't summon you would cast buff spells...

Seriously, the fighter is stabbing you with a sword. You don't think they are going to need to address that in order to not, you know, get stabbed to death.

Also, you can't have a sage with an Int of 3.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/ability-scores#TOC-Intelligen ce-Int-

Aelryinth is right, it is like you are arguing about a different game with a whole different set of rules.

You're being incredibly nitpicky in response to basic descriptions here. People aren't getting on your case on the fact that a fighter can't trip with a sword or that suffering an AoO and maybe a charge (assuming they even hit) is actually appreciably less damage than a full-attack at the mid-levels. People are also being relatively generous, unless you're CoDZilla, in assuming that the fighter actually his fairly hard to hurt. Suffice it to say, the wizard is throwing spells that are by and large obvious and show way more potential than just stabbing.

Also, did you not read the page that you're trying to use to 'counter' the claim of an Int 3 sage?

Finally, you KEEP acting as if the stance being proposed is that wizards win everything and cannot lose when K has explicitly stated on more than one occasion the stance is just that wizards bring more to the table than fighters. In fact, a decent number of casters are capable of bringing their own fighting man to the scene that isn't too far behind the fighter (companions, summons, bindings, mind slaves, etc) while still maintaining their own usefulness of spelling their enemy's doom (pun intended).

I believe the 3.0 wall of stone have the option of creating the stone ON the creature, trapping them carbonite style until they burst out of it like the Kool-Aid man, and that was the only time a Reflex save was called for. They took out the entrapping option in 3.5 but left in the exact same text for the actual save portion despite it no longer applying.

Dispelling isn't an option, because if you're scrying you're by nature not going to be anywhere near the target use dispel. Besides, scrying sensors can be nonmagically detected with a DC 24 (+/-1) Perception check, and countered with lead sheeting (the latter is only really a benefit for home bases and such).

If a creature or object hits a wall of force from the top as its falling or charging apply the appropriate falling damage for hitting a solid object, apply it to the wall as well and if it's still there determine randomly what side the creature or object falls on. Falling ceiling traps are no different. There's a reason it has a hardness & hitpoints now. You can adjucate any of your situations within the existing ruleset.

Then how is this any different than making a horizontal wall of force? Your earlier statement gave the distinct impression that it was the orientation that imbued it with its bisecting powers, despite the fact those very same situations occur in another axis which you casually dismiss.

The whole Force Wall Blade is EXACTLY why Wall of Force is Vertical only. As a Wall there's no shenanigans about bisecting moving ships and creatures. I mean it's nice to get creative with a spell, but pushing the spell so totally outside it's parameters is just wishful thinking.

To which I counter: falling or down-charging dragon, or perhaps a reverse gravity spell combined with wall of force just before it expires. Even a falling ceiling trap brings up debate if it's countered with a vertical wall. Then there are planes where gravity is a multiple choice question, making the very definition of 'vertical' vague at best.

@ The Speaker in Dreams

I think you misunderstand me. Allow me to explain: Virgil wrote a scenario where he suggested distraction could not be used becuase that function is not sufficient to use Stealth in the scenario. He said an individual might be proped up in a corner or stuck to the roof.

Well firstly, propping ones self up in that corner or holding on to something and sticking flat to the ceiling would require a substantial Climb check, after that Stealth would only be possible if some other element allowed it. Those elements, however, could easily be present in those situations by RAW:

I don't know how many people watched the series, Heroes. There were several examples there, one with Mohinder on the ceiling and unnoticed until blood fell from the ceiling onto Peter (well-lit if I recall), or when Monica/St. Joan was in that gang's building and unnoticed until she dropped stuff, and it was certainly never dark enough for people to actually suffer 20% miss chances. We also have a well-lit scenario here, practically every depiction of Spider-man ever, Assassin's Creed, Metal Gear Solid, Kill Bill, etc.

Hide in Plain Sight is a piss-poor ability to explaining any of this (disregarding the incredibly high level it appears for anyone), because that makes you able to Stealth while observed (skipping the need to make the Bluff check for a distraction), not obliviate the need for cover/concealment; besides, few of the characters I've given as an example have been able to make Stealth checks while observed, and have in fact had be out-of-sight beforehand. I'd not call all of those people Shadowdancers, who are the ONLY people in D&D who don't need cover or concealment to maintain Stealth.

When you bring up training/abilities, that more than anything implies they actually put ranks in Stealth, rather than giving abilities that basically tell you the only time you can use the skill is if you have special abilities that let you or you're already unable to be seen. I'm accusing you of saying Stealth doesn't work unless you have abilities that make exceptions, yes; an Ogre behind a 5' wall is able to make Stealth checks, while an elf standing atop (or floating above) said wall is completely unable to hide his presence. The two expose just as much surface area (if not less for the Large creature). Saying that 'obviously' the Ogre ninja is crouching/kneeling means that he's giving himself total cover and doesn't even need to make a Stealth check to avoid being seen; also, kneeling/crouching a real mechanic that gives modifiers to his AC that the Ogre can choose to not do and still make a Stealth check.

People keep invoking distraction as this universal panacea for Stealth, including situations few DMs will ever approve of. I mean, what DM is going to start saying the guard on patrol is distracted because he wouldn't be looking behind him (which is an underhanded way to bring back facing)?

Distracted, again, only works if the hider moves into cover/concealment. If he moves closer to make an attack or even stands still, distraction doesn't prevent instant awareness.

The calling for dim lighting to allow for it to work does bring a serious problem for rogues in D&D. You can't make sneak attacks against people with concealment, which means a very large majority of the hiding rogues can't make that 'assassin' kill because the observer is potentially just as shadowed as the rogue.

No, that is not Frank.

And RaW says all that distracted does is give a +5 to the DC to notice someone and allow Stealth long enough to go into cover/concealment in that round.

What about the classic scene of a guard going into a room in search of someone, fails to find him, and returns while his quarry props himself in the upper corner (or stuck to the ceiling)? The guard is anything but distracted, and the rules state he'll see the hider instantly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4

Very easily extrapolated to show it to be viable in a combat situation where you're paying attention to the area.

One interpretation I've considered is that so long as long as you start out unobserved, you don't need to maintain cover/concealment to continue to use Stealth against an observer (maybe a -10 penalty?).

I personally ignore such a vague and unhelpful term such as 'low-magic', and think about what I'm actually trying to accomplish. Do I want to limit my player's ability to direct the plot in some way? Do I want to cap their power level? Am I trying to avoid the Christmas tree effect? Am I wanting the town guard to always at least be a vague threat?

Saying it should be rare says nothing other general setting, because the PCs are rare. There's only five of them in the face of an entire world.

In regards to the OP, not nerfing monsters while removing swathes of what makes a party effective plays havoc with the CR system past the low levels. Assuming you go through with it, you need to acknowledge that fact and I hope you're good at gauging your party's numbers/tactics when designing encounters.

When you say you want spellcasting to be a rare trait, are you saying to have it is to be exceedingly special/noticeable in such a world? Does this mean that you don't want your players to be special? That's not necessarily a bad thing, per se, but it's an acknowledgement of what genre you're shooting for.

When you increase the market price of magic items five-fold, it seems to me that you're actually trying to make magic items special to the players. Adding another zero to the price tag of that +1 longsword won't really make players' eyes light with wonder, because it's still just giving you a +1 to damage at the expense of buying a house.

If you want magic items to be special & unique, make them special and unique! Flat-out remove the boring stuff that only gives numbers. Only hand out the cool stuff that can help define a character, like the holy avenger, marvelous pigments, or a horn of the tritons. Hand them out infrequently, sticking to literal piles of coins and gems otherwise, so that players will only really have a couple. People with such items won't be interested in selling them, because they're much more awesome by comparison in a world without minor magic items.

Personally, I'd attach scaling bonuses to either the players or the special items (both?), to deal with the loss of them having appropriate numbers (saves, AC, attack/damage, etc). But that's because I still want to use the CR as a guideline.

If you worry about item creation, don't let those feats make you a factory. Instead of multiplying the gold cost, limit how many they can make of a certain DC. I'm pulling numbers, so I'd advise against using them as is, but it gives the idea of what I'm shooting for...
* Each level, and only at that level (use it or lose it), you can make a single magic item of DC 5+Level or higher (throw in a cap?)
* You can make an unlimited number of items with a DC equal to your level or less (so at level 6, unlimited CL 1 items out of your spell list at normal speed)
* Don't include the unlimited low-level item option if you're still uncomfortable with there ever being someone with factory potential; even if it's only one/day maximum by a rare class at an uncommon/rare level (6+)

Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness.

If the torch cannot increase the light level, then it's influence on an area's illumination is nulled. If you're in a cave and the only source of light is a torch, then the torch's light is negated and then the illumination is reduced a step; but the cave has no other source of light, so it'll just be enforced darkness where only 3rd level or higher light magic is allowed to even have an effect.

This brings to question as to whether natural sunlight is nonmagical. If not, then barring spells of level 3+ (therefore, only daylight means anything), darkness ALWAYS creates an area of total darkness.

One exception is to Heighten continual flame to 3+, which will create dim light in a darkness spell. You only want to do this to have a non-spell draining source of light, only using daylight when necessary. Of course, once you do cast daylight, all sources of magical darkness are completely negated and your other sources of light work normally.

I've run a short-ish low-magic campaign:
* not let the party get above level 5 (would've been convinced to go to 6 if they argued for it)
* unnamed NPCs never have more than 1 level
* not allow primary casters (including monsters)
* greater masterwork weapons/armor (similar pricing/bonuses to magic items, no higher than +2)
* each PC gets [u]one[/u] magic item (name, history, 2+ related abilities, essentially a minor artifact)

I didn't have time to explain the changes to the feat, and looking at these responses I guess a message of "we're going to fix it in the errata" would have been less informative yet more satisfying.

(BTW, Virgil, a monk could take it at level 19 because everyone gets a feat at level 19.)

Yeah, I was thinking the fighter bonus feat progression (every even level) at the time, and didn't realize until it was way too late to edit my earlier post; my bad there. It's good to know that you're actually doing more.

My bad, a monk can't have it at 19th level, because they don't get a feat then; making this solely a feat for 20th level. For all practical purposes, you will not see Cockatrice Strike in the hands of a monk (pun intended). Which is probably for the best, because it's a trap to lure monk players into wasting a feat.

I do feel Kvantum's ideas fit Pathfinder's style better.

If I had a monk that was near a paralyzed or unconscious opponent, I wouldn't use Cockatrice Strike for my full-round action, I'd use coup de grâce. At 19th level, that feat is seriously competing with a minimum of 8 attacks (not counting haste or ki strike) and all the damage that entails. The feat is competing with a pair of +1 adamantine vorpal kamas (one with ki focus), which require no feat investment while providing 7 chances of no-save death on a critical; all without requiring those stringent status conditions.

Know what makes me sad? Seeing discussions/topics clogged with nonconstructive criticisms for daring to actually talk about something.

The posts that do nothing but state that you don't have to follow the official rules in your own game could follow their own advice, by not reading threads they don't enjoy.

The advantage these threads serve have been stated already in this same thread. Better to hash it out during the time when you can't game than to clog the actual gaming sessions with debate and a lack of understanding.

It's quite valid to have issues with the rule, even outside Pathfinder Society. Not everyone runs their own game, and in fact the majority are players (4+ PCs vs 1 DM). So when someone sees a rule changed for the worse (or a bad rule in general), it's outside of their control whether it gets included or not. Like it or not, many DMs will not question an official rule, either trusting the designers' wisdom or wanting to avoid too many house rules. There exist DMs and players that will drop a system once house rules become sufficiently large (or the system sufficiently unfun).

I'm looking at making an elf from the Mordant Spire, which is a little difficult since there's a grand total of two paragraphs about them in the Elves of Golarian sourcebook. and I was wondering if they're equivalent to any other culture, mainly so I can get ideas of what kind of masks they wear; or even why they wear them.

Golarion elves don't follow the lifespan in the Core Rulebook. There are many situations where world-specific material overrides a general game rule.

Wow, I didn't expect anyone to even be looking at this part of the forum due to its age and seeming isolation from the rest of the messageboard community, so I cross-posted to the setting section.

Thanks for the surprise.

If you're talking about flavor text from "Elves of Golarion," then it's important to remember that there's a little bit of 3.5 clinging to that book. It was, after all, written before we had our Pathfinder RPG out. I really wish we could revise that book to bring it more in line with the Pathfinder RPG design philosophy... but that's unlikely to happen since we still have plenty in stock and since the revisions would be relatively minor in the long run: AKA just not worth the trouble, really.

But that's the thing, the aging of elves hasn't changed at all from 3.5 to Pathfinder, so I'd be really surprised if an updated book would differ its stance on elven psychology in regards to their lifespan.

The disconnect remains. The elves as a race seemingly obsess over how ageless they are, yet become weak and frail like children in less than three centuries. Their lives aren't drastically longer than a dwarf's, especially when so many more (comparatively) will succumb to frailty at 350, and dwarves are almost never described as being as timeless as the rocks they quarry.

I hope not many people in the setting wax poetic about how long elves live, citing the handful of exceptions that live for millennium; because then one could wax poetic about humanity being a font of power and longevity (Aroden, the Runelords, Geb, liches in general, etc)

What is the stance on Golarian elves and lifespan? The rules conflict notably with the flavour text. In the flavour text, they can potentially live for thousands of years, and the only real way to tell their age is by their face looking more handsome and ethereal. You almost can't go two pages in Elves of Golarian without being reminded of a lifespan that will see monuments erode into dust.

In the rules, their average max lifespan is two centuries longer than dwarves, far short of a millennium (750 is the max). Conversely, dwarves are not described as a nearly timeless race (barring their craft-work), and in fact their comparable longevity is heavily downplayed. Elves physically suffer from age like any human, becoming weak and frail with time. Because of their lower Constitution, an appreciable fraction of elves will flat-out die at 350; as it's quite possible for an NPC to be two below average, and thus be born with a 6 Con, where the -6 from venerable will knock them to zero.

What is the stance on Golarian elves and lifespan, as the rules conflict notably with the flavour text. In the flavour text, they can potentially live for thousands of years, and the only real way to tell their age is by their face looking more handsome and ethereal. You almost can't go two pages without being reminded of a lifespan that will see monuments erode into dust.

In the rules, their average max lifespan is two centuries longer than dwarves, far short of a millennium (750 is the max). Conversely, dwarves are not described as a nearly timeless race (barring their craft-work), and in fact their comparable longevity is heavily downplayed. Elves physically suffer from age like any human, becoming weak and frail with time. Because of their lower Constitution, an appreciable fraction of elves will flat-out die at 350; as it's quite possible for an NPC to be two below average, and thus be born with a 6 Con, where the -6 from venerable will knock them to zero.

I had a DM who would give information by the following:

DC 10+CR = name
DC 15+CR = size
DC 20+CR = creature type
DC 25+CR = either one of the powers inherent for its creature type or one of the most visually obvious abilities (ie, efreet are immune to fire or blink dogs have a constant blink effect)

The cantrip that annoys me most is detect magic. I've had players casting it to check for magic traps every 5 feet they go. Take 20 on Perception for seaching for traps, cast detect magic to check for magic traps, move 5 feet, rinse and repeat. Also constantly spamming detect magic to find invisible stuff, illusions, magic traps, and whatnot seems too easy for me.

The part where they Take 20 and move five feet at a time isn't going to go away if detect magic isn't used. As for using the spell to find magic traps, the spell covers a 60' cone. This usually means means you only need to use it once for three rounds to cover an entire room or rather long hallway.

Come to think of it, if they have a rogue using Take 20 on the search, he's going to find the magic traps anyway; which makes the spell superfluous for that purpose. It's terrible for finding anything in combat time because of the three round delay.

My problem with cantrips has been guidance, because any time I have someone make a skill check and they fail (especially perception), one of the casters says he cast guidance; as if it has retroactive power. They never, never cast the spell before a check is made. The only way it could just be assumed to be present because of the way they handle it is by assuming the spellcaster is constantly mumbling and poking everyone unless they're in the middle of combat.

The annoying part is that the vast majority of the time, it's better just to use Aid Another for the skill or attack bonus.

If I recall, mending in Pathfinder can only repair items that weigh up to 1 pound/level; this essentially means that the only way to repair the thing is through natural skill checks and the like.

As for flooding out the mites, that's going to be a bit hard to pull off, to say the least. 1200 gallons is roughly enough to fill a single 5' cube with water, and that's assuming you throw it all down at once. Dirt is amazingly absorbent and the caves underneath the thing are not slouch in size. The entrance leads into a 40' long tunnel before touching the first two rooms. You've made the upper level muddy at best.