Volaran's page

Without going into to specifics, the main disadvantage with multiclassing that many times (in my view) is that it will be a long time before the character gets to the place you actually want.

That said, if you're okay with tracking all the various class abilities, and roleplaying the awakening of your PC's dragon blood over many levels, I say go for it.

Or it perhaps might it be possible that the Holy Avenger isn't the only way to express a Paladin's weapon? I remember one such weapon whose special power was to offer each person who grasped it a onetime chance at changing his alignment to Lawful Good and becoming a Paladin with no penalties.

Yup, nothing saying that you couldn't have a different sort of flavourful weapon. I remember really enjoying an article in Dragon during the 2nd Edition era about variant holy swords.

The weapon you describe sounds like it would be based on the atonement spell. I'd probably call it 'Redeemer', and give it some flavour as a weapon placed by an agent of a deity to be found by a character seeking atonement, or questioning their dark past.

I suspect it would largely depend on the religion. In Golarion, most holy avengers are probably associated with the church of Iomedae. I wouldn't be surprised if a legendary sarenite wielded a scimitar with similar abilities.

In Eberron, the most paladin-centric religion (Church of the Silver Flame) has the longbow as its iconic weapon. I wouldn't be surprised if a holy avenger were a bow in that context.

I think your powers are going to lost, unfortunately. Though if the GM is forcing a change to CE, a change to anti-paladin would be a way to keep something similar.

I'd be tempted to play the paladin as someone who is still clinging to their own code, but whose natural instincts have been completely changed. Someone who would still want to offer mercy, but whose initial instinct would be to kill prisoners out of hand, etc.

Could be fun playing the struggle. If you could keep on track most of the time, maybe an atonement would eventually work.

"I'm really sorry about cutting your throat there. I did want to hear your answer, but sword arm was kind of moving by itself. Back in the old days, I'd have been able to heal that before you bled out but...oh, you've pass out...no, no you're dead. Damn. Gonna have to invest in a healer's kit I suppose."

Edit: Hadn't read the Atonement spell in a long time, but it looks like that will be what your paladin is after. As long as he remains repentant, and struggles against the impulses brought on by his magical alignment change, I don't think it would even require the extra offerings.

That said, if he gives in to the evil...then yeah, much more difficult.

The best battle is a battle I win. If I die, I can no longer fight. I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will strike quickly and without mercy when it is not.

Based on this, your player's interpretation, and your limits seem reasonable.

Yep, I totally boned that up. Deleted the wrong section.

It was more appropriate to this:

Volaran wrote:

Most of the populace falls under that category, so I doubt most paladins scrutinize everyone they see. If you take a few seconds to size up someone you're interacting with, that's not unreasonable.

My bad!

Okay then. That makes a lot more sense :)

It's a misconception that a Paladin can't scan a room with the full cone. So he can scan a whole bar, and then narrow things down like a normal use of the spell, OR he can just pick a target and get the move action equivalent of 3 rounds of scanning on that specific target. The first use is helpful in social situations to scan a room, and the latter is good in combat to size up the BBEG and see if he is a smite target.

That is certainly true, but I am unclear as to how it was a response to the portion of my post which was quoted.

it also got me OUT of combat one time since I ran across a party of goblins in the wilderness at level 1 and was going to come out swinging, but I detected evil on them and got nothing. So, I diplomacied instead.

This might have been pointed out elsewhere, but this is something your paladin would possibly know. Detect Evil functions like the spell. As per the chart in the spell, most evil-aligned characters, NPCs, etc. don't even begin to give off a faint evil aura until they hit 5 hit dice/levels (outsiders, evil clerics and anti-paladins and undead would be the major exceptions).

To use your example above, unless those were particularly powerful goblins, they wouldn't have registered as evil. Same thing with a lot of the NPCs you meet. If they're low-enough level, they won't give off an evil aura, even if they're horribly depraved.

Most of the populace falls under that category, so I doubt most paladins scrutinize everyone they see. If you take a few seconds to size up someone you're interacting with, that's not unreasonable. I'm also one of those GMs who would say there aren't a lot of visible signs to indicate this, but the more familiar someone is with what you are (if they know you're a paladin, or can make a reasonable guess), I'd allow an appropriate check.

Now that said, your paladin may not know this, which could explain ignorance in the situation with the goblins above. I've seen paladins who have been played with low int, no spellcraft, etc. who don't have a precise understanding of how their abilities work. I've also seen perfectly good in-character reasons why they may become overly reliant on detect evil over things like sense motive checks,etc.

I had planned (but sadly never played) a Kalishtar summoner whose Eidolon was going to be the physical manifestation of his Quori soul. So, over time, I would have taken evolutions to make it look more and more like a Quori (though I forget which type).

Thanks to Jason and the design team!

Any chance the prd will be updated with these changes before the next core rules printing?

There is a feat called Dervish Dance in the Qadira book which allows a Scimitar to benefit from weapon finesse as though it were a light weapon under certain circumstances.

That's about all I can think for for non-Mythic content.

Link

I'm curious to see what the Golarion version of Saint Cuthbert is like...and since I'm assuming he's not a god, which religion(s) consider him to be a saint.

+1 for Summon Monster and Summon Nature's Ally I-IX lists (and Summon Swarm, Rain of Frogs, Mad Monkeys, etc)

I would suggest your GM keep a list of your minimal possible rolls for any given subject. Might save some unnecessary checks.

I don't think it is unreasonable for that sort of character to get prompting from the other players or the DM for even obscure things that they should remember. I would also suggest keeping extremely detailed notes if you don't already do so.

This is one of those bits of roleplaying that can be difficult; accurately playing a character with mental stats much greater or lower than one's own.

In a similar way, I would find it reasonable for a character with a 6 Int to not be able to make logical connections, or someone with a 6 Wisdom to make bad decisions even when their player knows better.

Thank you for this. I find myself frequently bringing my tablet to gaming in lieu of my hardcover books, and this makes it much more convenient.

Personally, I would allow it with spells that allow you iterative attacks from your BAB(so yes with chill touch, produce flame, and flame blade, no with things like scorching ray). Not saying that's official. James' clearly knows what he's talking about. That would just be my call.

Just adding my voice to this. I was pleased with the previous set (though I purchased it at my FLGS for substantially less that what was available through the subscription.

Even with a similar level of discount, I can't justify the expense of the RotRL set. They look nice, and I will probably pick up a few singles though.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is mostly in response to eleclipse's original post. There have been excellent arguments for both sides since that went up, but I just wanted to add my two cents.

As a LN character, and a follower of Abadar, it is perfectly reasonable for your character to charge a nominal fee for magic item creation.

Particularly as the party goes up in levels, magic item creation is a _vast_ time sink, during which your character essentially can't go out and do other things (like effectively participate in government, since this is a Kingmaker game).

I would also use the same argument to suggest that a character who takes a magic item creation feat is not obligated to use it for the benefit of any other character. ie. The fighter might want that +5 longsword for 25000gp instead of 50000gp, but I'm the one that has to spend the next 50 days creating it. Their discounted price isn't worth my time, etc.

That said, groups vary, and the meta-gaming argument is not an invalid one. There are certainly players I've played with that assume any party resource can be used by anyone. Sometimes it is okay to bend or ignore in-game concerns, depending on the make up of the player group.

I think, (and this applies in any situation where trade or barter might occur between characters), that it is important to set some ground rules. I'll use one of my own past characters as an example.

Xebbidiah was an item-creation focused cleric of a merchant god. I was last to join the party, and his in-game situation reflected this. He had been hired by the rest of the party under the following conditions of employment.

1. Base pay was 1/6th of adventuring spoils
2. Included with base pay was combat participation, healing and other normal daily spell use (expensive focus components subject to negotiation) using any spell-completion or spell-trigger items owned by other characters or the party on their behalf, skill use, and other general adventuring/mercenary duties.
3. Commissioned item creation and/or purchase from his existing stock of items at 60% of book value.

Overall, the party was pretty satisfied by this, and I made sure there were few negative surprises. Xebbidiah was happy to extend credit if a party member didn't have cash or barter, or forgive debts if someone did him a favour. He made sure to encourage other party members in business ventures as well.

The party knew what to expect from him, so there weren't any surprises. It sounds like part of your group's issue is that they weren't there to be an in-party economy. It is certainly worth more in-game discussion, as Kingmaker is a great campaign for this sort of dealing. Maybe let them know that political favours are also an accepted form of currency to Abadar's faithful

It is a clarification, but one that is _very_ late to the party.

As others have pointed out, even the Pathfinder Beta has flurry much closer to its 3.5 version (both in progression, and phrasing) than to what is in the final version of Pathfinder Core. This makes it somewhat more understandable to me how this was missed by so many for so long.

That said, I believe the quasi-TWF-but-not-really final version creates more problems than it solves, and makes for unnecessary levels of complication. Since a large part of the community has been effectively playtesting the version that emphasizes 'any combination' over 'as if using two-weapon fighting' for 3 years, with no real balance issues, it would be nice to see it become official in future printings.

The developers seem to taking their time on a final response, and seem to have been open to reworking core mechanics in the past (see: Stealth Playtest), so it would be nifty. We'll have to wait and see.

Yes for natural weapons. No for unarmed strike.

The spell on which it is based (greater magic fang) treats unarmed strikes and natural attacks differently (for whatever fluff reason you care to assign).

It is reasonable for this item to be reserved for natural attacks, and a separate item created which does the same thing for unarmed strikes, and is priced normally for a magic weapon.

Mergy wrote:

There's also the problem that there are monks in written PFS scenarios who flurry with a single weapon. If this is how it was intended, I'm not sure I understand why.

Can you give an example? I recall someone mentioning a monk's spade, but that's a double weapon and therefore works perfectly well within SKR's clarification.

Sure, no problem. Those same monks in the Ruby Phoenix Tournament are also statted up the same way, but focused on:

Standard unarmed strikes (so no conflict)
Meteor Hammer (so use no flurry rules)
Seven-branched sword (using the weapon for a full flurry)
Shang go (using the weapon for a full flurry)

And the monk's spade was just listed as a +1 monk's spade. In order to determine whether both ends were enhanced, I'd have to break down the full gp value of their equipment for their CR. Unfortunately, I do not have time to do so just now, but I'm sure other posters bought the adventure :)

Not all TWFers are fighters. Rogues and Rangers also often use Two Weapons (one for extra sneak attacks, the other because there's a combat style for it).

And they're grumbling about how they have to pay 100k gp for two +5 weapons, while the gloved monk only has to pay 50k.

Are they using weapons that are better than unarmed strikes? Probably. Enough to call the price difference with the proposed gloves fair? I don't believe so.

First, a quick bit. I had meant to enter 64 000gp as the price for 2 +4 weapons above, and I have edited the original post to match. For a full BAB class, the difference between +4 and +5 weapons at the levels when you'd have them is pretty negligible.

I did focus on the Fighter bit of TWF, so please accept my apology on that one.

Rangers and rogues are are somewhat more situational in their fighting styles, so are a more apt comparison to the monk.

A ranger has a lot of the same advantages as a fighter, being a full BAB class. Again, the price difference between Master Arminas' +5 gloves, and 2 +4 weapons isn't too difficult. A well planned ranger will have his situational bonuses in his favour a fair portion of the time. They also don't need to qualify for their bonus feats, and so are a bit less MAD than the monk. The ranger is one of the few classes that can be a strength-based two-weapon combatant, and can be quite deadly as such.

The rogue example has a lot less going for it. Their bonuses are very situational, they work best in a team environment, etc. I'm generally not a hard-core optimizer, but I know that a rogue focused on TWF is already not going an ideal route in terms of hitting a lot.

To be honest, I can see these gloves being a very viable option for rogues, especially urban thief or killer types. I wasn't kidding about your ninja above. I would honestly like to see unarmed combat be a more viable option for classes like these, and I think this sort of item would go along way towards that.

Keep in mind that these gloves, as Master Arminas proposes, only effect flat atk/dmg rolls. An unarmed warrior who wants other types of weapon abilities is still going to be paying through the nose for an AoMF.

Even with these as an option, I think a lot of unarmed warriors would still opt for a permanent magic fang, or greater magic fang. It can be dispelled of course, but it remains much more affordable for a similar effect once your get beyond the +1 range.

Edit: Looks life real life is calling me away for at least a few hours, so that might be my last statement before this tangent is buried by other posts. In case it is, thanks to Master Arminas, Benchak the Nightstalker, and Kakitamike for some excellent diversion :)

I would assume that it would be a case of taking the higher bonus.

If you have a +3 AoMF, and a +1 Flaming Gauntlet, the attacks would be at +3 Flaming. Similar to using a +3 bow and +1 Flaming Arrows.

Which is why I apologized :)

So if you don't see a problem with this, how do you think the weapon-using Two-Weapon Fighter is going to feel? He's got to spend twice as much money enchanting his weapons as the monk or ninja does theirs.

Next, people will be asking for a "magic weapon cord" that enhances two weapons, but only costs as much as one magic weapon. :)

Fair enough on the apology :)

I think the TW Fighter is likely a core fighter, who has the Weapon Training ability granting him incrementing bonuses to his preferred weapons as he levels up, or is a Two-Weapon Warrior from the APG who gains incrementing bonuses to any two-weapon or double weapon combo as he goes up in level. I also think he's benefiting from choosing a weapon-type that is probably superior to Unarmed Strikes for almost anyone but a monk, and is a full BAB class to boot.

In other words, while he's grumbling about how he had to spend 64 000 gp for two +4 short swords as compared to 50 000 for the monk's nice +5 gloves, he'll have the tremendous amount of focused-on-killing-things class abilities to keep him warm at night ;)

I don't know how many pages of this monk stuff has been going on, but has anyone addressed the fact that their attacks that can't be disarmed, asked to be left behind, detained, as a matter of balancing?

I would think a non-weapon item that enhances unarmed strikes would cost more simply because it has more versatility in game use. A +5 weapon is great and all, but it can be disarmed, dropped, fumbled out of someone's hands. Sometimes weapons have to be left behind in certain areas. WHile many times i've heard npc's ask people to leave their weapons somewhere, very little, if ever, have i heard them ask a pc to leave their jewelry somewhere.

It's just seems like there's a lot more utility wrapped into that cost.

That's a valid point, but one could say the same thing about gauntlets. Should a gauntlet enhanced as a weapon cost significantly more than a sword with the same enhancements?

I understand the mechanical reason you're suggesting it, but how many cost multipliers would be reasonable?

Unarmed is generally a pretty sub-optimal choice for a combat style, and even doing it as a monk has drawbacks. One of the few cool things you get is that people underestimate the unarmed guy...unless of course he's famous for beating people and monsters to death unarmed. Then he's the guy that gets shackled and has to wear iron books when the party meets the king ;)

My Two-Weapon Fighting Ninja or Brawler Barbarian would love these! Bonuses to both my unarmed attacks for the price of one weapon enchantment? Sign me up!

I'm being a little tiny bit sarcastic, and apologize for that. :)

I don't think the sarcasm is needed. :) These seem like an item set that would do very well for unarmed types other than the monk without being overpowering. If the monk's unarmed strikes emulate TWF, I don't see any issue with an unarmed ninja taking the TWF feats normally reaping benefits the same way.

+1 to Master Arimas, though I would hope for a more flavourful name ;)

There are two precedents that suggest to me that this makes sense, and jives with existing rules for magic.

1: Greater Magic Fang
This spell treats a creatures unarmed strike the same way as it does a single natural attack (incrementing bonus up to +5), rather than a single +1 bonus for the creature's whole body, as it does when enhancing multiple natural attack forms on a single creature.

This suggests both a game-mechanical reason, and a fluff reason for magic to treat natural attacks and unarmed strikes differently. Someone trained with Improved Unarmed Strike has worked to make their entire body a single, effective weapon, rather than using multiple natural gifts like sharp teeth and claws. These gloves would do the same (I could see a set of slippers, or even some sort of body wrap that would do the same thing).

Right now, Permanent Greater Magic Fang is probably the monk's most affordable route for permanent unarmed strike enhancement, and this item would seem to work off that, but without the drawbacks of a permanent spell.

2: The Monk's Robe
This is a core rules item that takes up a body slot, and substantially increases a character's unarmed strikes as though they'd trained as a monk. It is priced reasonably for what it does, and it has no effect whatsoever on natural attacks without breaking versimilitude for me.

Whether or not something like this makes it into Ultimate Equipment, I'm happy to swipe these gloves for my game. Thanks!

Thank you Sean, for taking the time to make more detailed clarifications. I have no further questions on the subject.

As I said earlier, it won't change my home game, though I get to make an addition to my House Rules list, but it is nice to know where things stand in cases where I might want to play a monk in someone else's campaign.

I agree with what other posters are saying in that this ruling will likely cause some confusion, as it does seem that subsequent rules are based on similar misinterpretations (like the Zen Archer's flurry).

I would request this be added to the FAQ, and suggest that the wording of the ability be made more clear in the Flurry of Blows description for future printings of the core rules.

It might be worth it to reword things like the Zen Archer's Flurry in future reprints as well. It sounds more like their ability would be best described as an incrementing version of Rapid Shot. Maybe a rename (Storm of Arrows) to further differentiate it from the core monk's flurry.

Just an addendum, regarding an example from the Ruby Phoenix Tournament

We have NPCs listed as 'Spade Monk', because they each have one +1 monk's spade, and weapon focus with that weapon. They're 9th level, with 16 str...which actually caused me to note a few other errors...

Their melee attacks are listed as follows:

Melee
+1 monk's spade +11/+6 (1d6+4) or
flurry of blows +11/+11/+6/+6 (1d6+4)

Going with Sean's ruling, the attack listing should probably look something like:

Melee
+1 monk's spade +11/+6 (1d6+4) or
unarmed strike +9/+4 (1d10+3) or
flurry of blows +12/+7 (1d6+4) and +10/+5 (1d10+3)

Of course, they could have just been given a second (non-magical) monks's spade :)

I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for clarification. As some people have pointed out, for example, the sohei gets the option to flurry with two-handed weapons.

There are other differences between flurry and standard TWF. All of the attacks use full strength bonus, for example.

The conflicting parts of the statement are in the same sentence:

When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat).

Personally, I'd always taken the 'Any Combination' to mean just that, and the 'two-weapon fighting' portion more as a guideline as to how the attack bonus penalties for the extra attacks progress, and I will continue to do so in my home games.

As I said in the other thread, this is clearly a progression in my mind, of how the 3.0/3.5 monk flurry was treated. When the two-weapon fighting terminology was used for the Pathfinder monk, I had incorrectly assumed that it the attack combinations remained the same.

I am clearly not alone. As an example (first given in the other thread), the recent Ruby Phoenix Tournament module features numerous monks statted out with this same assumption (listed as using a single monk weapon and nothing else for their full flurry).

If SKR says the designer intent is that it veers closer to two-weapon fighting for everything except unarmed strikes (where any part of the body can be used), then that's that.

Further clarifications might be warranted though. The question from the other thread regarding the sohei for example. Or would 'any combination except all flurry attacks being made with a single manufactured monk-weapon' be legal?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is news to me. You might want to post this in the FAQ or maybe even make an errata to make this more clear if this is the way things are supposed to work, because I think almost everyone has been assuming you can do a flurry with a single weapon. This is part of the reason why people have been upset about the cost of the AoMF.

I just noticed that Ross Byers actually makes that same assumption in this very thread. He's not a game developer, but is Paizo staff. If there is confusion internally, it might be a good candidate for inclusion in the FAQ.

I wouldn't say it's game-breaking, but it's certainly unfair because no other character using TWF gets to do that. The TWF fighter with a +1 flaming short sword and a +1 frost light hammer who's fighting a fire-immune creature doesn't get to say, "oh, all of my attacks are with my hammer."

Other TWF characters may not have this option, but other TWF characters aren't also limited to unarmed strikes and a tiny selection of other weapons. That balances out in my opinion.

As other people have pointed out, the issue would then come up as to how flurrying works with a two-handed weapon like a temple sword. Would the monk be forced to use all of his normal attacks with the sword, and then other body parts for unarmed attacks for any extra granted by the flurry (or the reverse)?

I think for my games, I'm okay keeping it with my original interpretation (Flurry does not stack with TWF, but also does not equal TWF). If you folks had wanted Flurry to be exactly like TWF when reinterpreting the monk for Pathfinder, you could have just given monks the TWF tree as bonus feats instead of keeping the flurry terminology. (As I think on this, my interpretation probably exists because that TWF comparison wasn't in the flurry description in 3.0/3.5).

That said, I do appreciate you clarifying that Sean, and for taking the time to follow up on this monk tangent. For my part, I'll echo what others have said: We don't expect something in this book to be a stealth fix for the entire monk class or the Amulet of Mighty Fists. If you pick out some things that interest you in this discussion and come up with some cool items that are useful to monks, I'll be more than happy. :)

Actually, because the rules say a monk's flurry is as if he's using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, he can't simply declare that he's using the same fist seven times. So there is something stopping him from hitting someone seven times with his left fist or a +2 flaming kama: the rules for how flurry works.

That's interesting. I'd always assumed that was more about preventing the monk from _stacking_ flurry with two-weapon fighting. I'm pretty happy allowing the monks I've GMed for to mix and match as they see fit.

If they have six attacks with a flurry and want to alternate their +3 silver kama in one-hand, their feet and a headbutt for unarmed, and their +1 flaming nunchaku, I'm okay with that.

If they're fighting a lycanthrope and want to use the +3 silver kama for all 6 attacks, I'm cool with that too, and I really don't think it is game-breaking.

Mikaze and Set wrote:

Handwraps for monks.

Okay, explain to me how you can justify this as an "unarmed strike only, doesn't affect natural attacks" sort of item. If a human can put this on his hands, why can't a lizardfolk put it on his claws? It's very metagamey.

The first thing that occurs to me is to make them something that is restricted to creatures with a ki pool. This gives easy access to monks, ninja, rogues with the appropriate talent, and other classes willing to dip into one of those other options.

Which seems nice until I think about something with natural weapons dipping to one of those classes, and the whole problem comes up again. Ah well...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to see a more interesting variety of low-level magic items. As someone mentioned, lower-cost staves would be great.

I always had the priors pegged as 3.5-style psions, but that may just be because I'd always wondered if they'd based the look on Ialdabode.

Hah hah! Finally caught up with what we're playing. Consider it purchased.

I really don't think that Paizo needs to reprint the first set of Chromatic and Metallic Dragons. When you say Heavily Retconned, I think you really mean light changes to the Statistics. Which are irrelevent as It's all about the lore and ecology for me. What's written in there is still very relevant to Golarion.

No, actually. I mean much more along the lines of dragons' involvement with other races as presented in that book. My understanding is that with the exception of Mengkare, James Jacobs is not as fond of the 'metallic/chromatic dragons constantly helping/hindering local humanoid politics', as many of the dragons in that book are shown to do. There are other differences; like blue dragons being presented as very likely to breed with local species to produce half-blue allies, whereas 'naturally-bred' half-dragons in Golarion now seem to be a big no-no in later products.

But as your point out, it would be nice to have a book exploring the dragons aside from the traditional metallic and chromatic as well.

Sorry if that wasn't clear. I didn't quote, but I was mostly responding to LoreKeeper's interest in more epically scaled novels set in Golarion. I'm actually pretty content with the APs as they are.

I would love to see a Fey Revisited book at some point.

It would make sense to do Dragons Re-Revisted at some point as well, since they're the most iconic monsters in the game, the old version is 3.5, and the behaviour of dragons in Golarion has been pretty heavily retconned since that book was published.

The sibling relationship is the one I see in most campaigns, and it seems to work out well enough.

I've also played in one where the party were all members of the same dwarven clan (twins, and two cousins respectively). Great fun, that was.

Were that to happen, it would be interesting to see something epic in scale, but historical, rather than set in Golarion's present-day era.

Something like a series covering the Shining Crusade against Tar-Baphon could be pretty amazing. Epic bad guys, epic good guys, the death of Arazni, the rise of Iomadae, etc.

I've run Kingmaker through with standard PF rules before, and I think it could adapt very well to E7. I find scaling things down much more easy than scaling things up.

The Kingdom rules are driven by the magic item economy, so some alteration there will be needed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unless there is an NPC mini named Marshall Law. Then it is correct.

Thanks Ross. I noticed this problem seemed to creep up after the PRD redesign. It is nice to see that it is being addressed.

I've noticed that the 'Last updated' date isn't always updated when the FAQ is. Granted, I haven't checked the FAQs in a while.

I think what people consistently misunderstand is that what they're paying for when they buy a book is the content, not the printing costs.

This is the same reason that an ebook copy of a new book just in print (say the new Song of Ice and Fire) is usually the same price or just slightly discounted from that of the hardcover. You're paying for the content (and in some cases, early access to the content, since ebook prices do tend to drop when the paperback comes out), not the paper.

With the exception of the Inner Sea World Guide, the various rulebooks priced at $10 for the pdfs are also the same content that Paizo is giving away for free in the PRD. So either way, they're providing easy access to the game. Joana summed it up pretty well by saying the pdfs for these books can be considered permanently 'on sale'.

That said, the subscription option which comes with print copy and pdf is very nice. :)

I'd always wondered why that line of Paizo tinfoil hats had been pulled.

I have been trying something similar to this in a Katapesh-based game that sees a lot of lightly armed and armoured PCs and NPCs. I actually allow a bit more, as I'm essentially fine with Dex being a to-hit option with any one-handed weapon, and any other weapon I deem sufficiently 'acrobatic'.

As something of a counter-balance, I do consider it precision-based damage, so anything that eliminates the damage from crits/sneak attacks (like fortification armour or creatures immune to crits/sneak attacks) also ignore Dex-based damage from this version of Weapon Finesse.

I don't know that I'd use this in all campaigns, but we haven't run into any problems yet. For the record, I also use the Class Defense Bonus from Unearthed Arcana in this game, but wouldn't use it in every game.