WelbyBumpus's page

This is so random but so funny. I loved this adventure, all them years ago! Thanks, YellowDingo, despite the blatant illegality of your post. :)

I think that the breath of life spell is a good step in the direction of close wounds/delay death/revivify. These spells lower the disruption that death and level loss have on the game and the 'penalty' that formerly-dead characters carry thereafter. However, I think it doesn't go quite far enough. Note James Jacobs' cure mortal wounds spell, which I've copied below. Two key changes are these:

* it can be cast within 1 minute of death, which means the cleric doesn't have to drop everything to rush over to the dead character, only to be foiled by his 20' speed and not do any good anyway.

* it is a cure spell, and so clerics can swap out for it as needed without having to keep a load of breath of life spells memorized. Note that with this rule, clerics can elect to swap a 5th level slot for either cure mortal wounds or mass cure light wounds.

Note that Cure mortal wounds could also be a druid spell of a higher level (such as sixth or seventh level).

Cure Mortal Wounds
Conjuration (Healing)
Level: Clr 5
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless) or Will half; see text
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless) or Yes; see text

This spell cures 5d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +25).

Unlike other cure spells, cure mortal wounds can bring recently slain creatures back to life. If cast upon a creature that has been reduced to –10 or fewer hit points within the last minute, apply the healing from this spell to the creature. If this brings the creature up to –9 or fewer hit points, it comes back to life and stabilizes at its new hit point total. If the healing fails to bring the creature's hit point total up past –10 hit points, the creature remains dead (although further castings of cure mortal wounds could still save the creature, as long as its allotted minute has not passed).

Creatures slain by death effects cannot be saved by cure mortal wounds.

Cure mortal wounds deals damage to undead targeted rather than curing them.

Stay.

I think those are some good fixes to the bard though I would like to see the Bardic Knowledge thing increase with level. But for now, I like it.

It sort of does, really--as the bard advances in level and puts more ranks into knowledge skills, yes?

Hi,

This is my first post (and my first time checking out this forum), so if this has been asked elsewhere I apologize.

While I realize that Pathfinder is a replacement for 3.5 and thus uses the same core classes, I think another core class should be considered.

Over the years, I've seen many attempts to do an "arcane warrior" type class. WOTCs "complete" series includes at least a couple examples (Duskblade and Hexblade), and various third party publishers have their own versions. It's a class idea that has wide appeal.

I think Pathfinder would benefit by including such a class in the main rulebook.

But that's just my two coppers...

Walt

Walt-

Jason Bulmahn has said they're only going with the base 11 classes in the PFRPG; undoubtedly, though, future supplements will include more. Particularly because there are two "divine" fighters (paladin and rangers), an "arcane" fighter seems an obvious niche to fill.

I could certainly use these, and would love to take you up on your offer.

rules.lawyer.ron@gmail.com

Happy, happy birthday!

I wouldn't say they are the "most awful" roleplaying games, but these were pretty bad, from my experience :

- Torg : Another failure in the generic multigenre.

Step outside and say, that, buddy!

Okay, I'm calm now. But I disagree with you--I think no game has pulled of multigenre nearly so well as Torg.

I would suggest that Jason could give us his home address so we could send him some pizzas, but that sounds like a REALLY bad idea. :)

*knock, knock*

*Jason opens the door to find a mob of impatient gamers.*

Have you seen Jason in person? I'd bet on him against even a whole mob of impatient gamers. Heck, I used to see him defeat mobs of impatient gamers all the time at Wisconsin conventions. :)

Following the path of most effectiveness, adventurers will always blow out their most powerful limited-use but renewable resources quickly even with a host weaker infinite-use options available... IF circumstances allow.

There is good insight here, and it allows me to make a point I've been making since playtesting 4th edition at DDXP.

4th Edition does not solve the 15-minute adventuring day problem.

The efficient tactic under 4th edition will be to storm the dungeon, blow your dailies, then retreat for a day. In fact, the only way to permanently "cure" the 15-minute adventuring day is to make sure that every single power every character has is per-round or per-encounter. Consider the following:

If every single power were at-will or per-encounter in D&D, except that once per day one character could add +1 to an attack roll, there would still be an incentive to storm the dungeon, blow the "attack bonus" in the first room, and retreat for a day to get that bonus back.

But this only works if you assume a static dungeon. The better solution, as many people have proposed, are story-based reasons to have to hurry through a dungeon (either due to time pressure to find/stop something, or due to concern that the dungeon denizens will respond intelligently to your attack).

Changing the subject a little...

Isn't the War Devil artwork the same from Fiendish Codex II?

The succubus artwork is reprinted as well; I think that neither of these are the final art version from the new Monster Manual.

Okay, I got it working. Turns out that the secret ingredient was an extra helping of patience, I guess.

Help me, Customer Service Gurus, you're my only hope!

I just had a big batch of recent publications ship out to me (#901037), and so they've also hit my downloads. I've been able to personalize and download all of them except for "Classic Monsters Revisited," which has resisted all my attempts to personalize it. Therefore, I can't download it. All the other items in my downloads personalize just fine, though. Help!

I've gotten used to parties of 6 after running hundreds and hundreds of Living Greyhawk games. I'm very comfortable with 6, but my preferred party size is probably 5.

The 4th edition assumption is a party of 5, unlike the 3.x edition assumption which was a party of 4. This is one of the items on the short list of 4th edition changes that I like.

I'm of two minds. Making Quicken Spell and Feather Fall Swift/Immediate actions was a stroke of brilliance, but the Sudden spell metamagics from Complete Arcane can be all kinds of broken - with the proper spells (Sudden Quicken makes me all kind of sick).

I would like to see more uses for Swift and Immediate actions in the game, but only if they are carefully balanced against what characters can already do (For example, perhaps the extra attack from Haste should be counted as a Swift action, and some magic weapon ability activations could be shifted to Swift actions, such as Flaming) without giving them "extra actions" but enhanced actions.

I very much agree. What the PHB, DMG and MM require is a careful look with the thought, "Now that we have swift and immediate actions in the game, which of the existing free actions should be swift or immediate instead?"

The Pathfinder RPG is the place to do that, and I would like to suggest that the designers do so.

What are people's thoughts on whether Spawn are smart enough to play dead?

I've had the odd one play dead once or twice when not playing dead would just see them get beaten down. However, in checking their intelligence score (6 IIRC), I'm not sure if I'm entirely playing fair or not?

Possums do it, and they're just animals. :)

In short, I'm pushing for more swift and immediate actions for the sake of backwards compatibility.

I've watched the 3.5 D&D game develop with interest, and the one thing I've seen skew in favor of the players is swift and immediate actions. Although these actions are in the SRD and in the core rules in some small ways (feather fall, quickened spells, etc.), they aren't a big part of core 3.5 D&D.

This means they haven't been a big part of Gamemastery or Pathfinder adventures. How many swift and immediate actions do foes in those adventures use? Darned few.

But with the increase of this action type in WotC products, I've seen my players delve into swift and immediate actions with glee. Every round, at least one PC uses a swift or immediate action--from inspirational boost to kick the bard song up a notch, to delay death to keep the monk alive, to using counterstrike bracers to land a retalitory strike. There are plenty of options for swift and immediate actions, but few of them in the core rules.

I've mentioned before that I think this really shortchanges the foes, because PCs have a whole extra action type they get to use every round, the the villains aren't built to take advantage of that without some not-insignificant modification.

In order to combat this inequity, I've pretty much banned swift/immediate actions from my RotRL campaign and my Ptolus campaign. I didn't want to--because this seems like a really clever rules expansion--but I felt like I needed to make things more fair (my initial proposal was to say, "hey, guys, since the authors of these mods only use the three core books, how 'bout you guys limit your characters to just the three core books?" It was an unpopular suggestion for them, and for me; why ban my dozens of WotC books?)

A better solution, I think, would be if the foes took their share of swift and immediate actions, too. Even low-level enemy spellcasters and fighters should have spells/feats/items that let them use their swift action for something--particularly when your average villain is only on the scene for 18 or 24 seconds. So I think we should make swift/immediate actions more central to the game, and the Pathfinder RPG is the place to do this.

The Paizo folks are revamping the rules with the Pathfinder RPG and, no doubt, building their Gamemastery and Pathfinder adventures on that. If reasonable and balanced swift and immediate actions make it into the Pathfinder RPG, then Jacobs/Pett/Logue/Greer/etc. will make use of them in their writing. And I can give back the inspirational boost, delay death, counterstrike bracers and other stuff to my PCs without feeling like they're going to overpower the villains with "extra" actions.

I may be preaching to the choir. The Alpha rules already incorporate swift actions to a pretty good degree, so it seems this sexy new action type is going to make it into the Pathfinder RPG whether or not anyone reads my request for more of it here.

On the whole, my existing 3.5/WotC stuff becomes *more* balanced if there are lots of swift and immediate actions in the Pathfinder RPG. Therefore, for the sake of making the Pathfinder RPG more backwards compatible, I'm all for increasing the presence of swift and immediate actions.

I was thinking about that Monkey Grip thing. I think I will do that, especially since this guy is focused on damage. As for the trip build, I thought you could not make a trip attack as an attack of opportunity? I may be mistaken (I don't have my books on me at the moment) but I thought an AoA had to be a standard melee attack.

No, it can be a trip or other special attack.

How about the two-weapon fighting feat chain, and have him use two Small spiked chains?

As for the D side of CoDzilla, I just removed wildshape. Completely. With that gone, the druid still makes a very decent addition to the party while not quite being overwhelming.

I played a druid in a campaign where the DM had just dropped the spontaneous summoning ability, and it seemed to go a long way to balancing the class. So there's another option.

I would get rid of the "Will negates" option; it seems excessively bad, even on a spell this minor in power.

If I can kick someone with an easy attack roll*, do 1d3 plus Strength damage, and get them to start bleeding out again as a standard action without any save, this spell (which also requires an attack roll but doesn't do any damage) should not require a save.

* sure, it's not a touch attack, but the unconscious person has an effective Dex of 0, so a -5 AC from that; it shouldn't be too hard to connect (although, for the record, I don't think I have ever kicked an unconscious person in my life).

I was glad to get this. I have laminated my two poster-sized maps for use during the game. They really added to the first game, and I suspect they will continue to be big, colorful, splashy centerpieces for the campaign.

I vote "keep" for this kind of product.

Wow, coincidence. I'd never heard of any of the names or books mentioned in this thread, except one.

I just got "Cordelia's Honor" in a box of books left with me by a friend shipped to Iraq. While sifting through the Forgotten Realms novels, I saw Cordelia's Honor, read the first two or three pages and wasn't immediately turned off, and resolved to read it. It's on my nightstand right now.

You're preaching to the choir on this one. I don't even use XP in my campaign. It doesn't exist.

Same here. The characters level up at story-appropriate points, not based on the amount of slaughter they perform. In fact, it encourages clever play, because the players realize that if they can get into the evil keep, save the prisoner, and get back out without fighting anyone, they get just as much advancement as if they kicked down the door and killed everyone inside.

Thanks,

Ron

Or what about temporary ability score loss. It will come back with time, but it drains you for awhile to make those magic items.

There is precedent for this kind of ability score loss in the backlash of the contact other plane spell, I think. Perhaps those mechanics would be applicable?

Uhm, no offense, but, are you crazy?

I'm glad this wasn't intended to be offensive. :)

I am against the idea that you are allowing dwarves to forego encumberance. No one will ever need a packmule if they have but one dwarf, who can carry the entire world -blink blink- without slowing down.

I have no idea what I am going to do with dwarves when I start running some form of Planescape setting.

I assume that the ability only works up to the dwarf's maximum load. This should be clarified, I agree, but I don't think the intent is to have dwarves carry entire castles on their backs.

And I loved, and continue to love, TORG. I marvel at the elegance and simplicity of the baseline mechanics, the card use, the "Pixaud's Practical Grimoire" magic system.

Hear, hear! I just started up a Torg game, actually, to show all my local D&D players what else was out there. They're just about done with the Relics of Power trilogy, and loving it.

I like the idea of 4 classes. Fighter/Cleric/thief/mage.

Just convert the other classes abilities into skills and feat chains, so a fighter can become a ranger/paladin by selecting the right skills and feats. A thief can become a bard the same way. A cleric can choose druidic feats skills, spells, etc.

Then this variant may be just the thing for you, but I don't see Pathfinder headed this way.

I am confused about the wording on this one. It reads: "this ability has no effect on creatures of a higher level than you or with more HD..."

Does this relate to class (cleric) level, caster level or character level?

Also - is there a save or a duration? My presumption is that it is as the spell Daze, but I don't like to presume.

I had the same question when this came up (it comes up a couple of times, I think). I believe that the intent is that there be no save and a duration of 1 round, but this should be stated.

Also, "higher level" or "more HD" are redundant. This should specify that the effect fails if the target has more HD than the character's cleric levels.

And if Nightsticks ever become part of the SRD, any non-Cleric class can just kiss their usefulness goodbye. :)

Nightsticks by themselves aren't too bad. Nightsticks plus the Divine Metamagic feat, however, is just the book-crossing killer combo you mentioned.

Whether Persistent Spell is banned in your personal games is pretty much completely irrelevant, as it is in the SRD. Divine Abilities and Feats, page 23. No idea why it's there, and I don't care. The fact is that it is in the rules, and so I'm on totally solid ground using it in examples.

-Frank

You are; it's definitely SRD material. Persistent Spell for the win!

Remember that raw numeric bonuses require coming in extremely large numbers before they make much of a difference. A 15th level Cleric can wander around with divine power, divine favor, righteous might, spikes, greater magic weapon, weapon of the deity, and bless all on 24/7. That's not even a large pile of her spell slots.

Okay, I'll bite: how does a 15th level cleric keep 1 round/level spells (like righteous might and divine power) and one minute duration spells (like divine favor) on 24/7? I'm not interested in spikes or weapon of the deity, as they aren't SRD spells and therefore inapplicable to a discussion of cleric power in the Pathfinder RPG. Splatbook feats also are generally inapplicable to the discussion--Persistent Spell, for example, has been banned from every campaign I've ever participated in or run.

In a later post in this thread, you also mention a wizard keeping bear's endurance up in every encounter of the day--how's that?

RUS: Roleplaying in Heathen Russia. Terrible mechanics, and failed to live up to the potential of the setting (a magical version of northern Russia around 900 AD). Yet somehow I ended up with 2 copies of this book.

I also tried valiantly--several times--to get through the rules of Mythus: Dangerous Journeys by Gary Gygax, RIP, but couldn't even get through the "Mythus Prime" part, which was the "lite" part of the rules.

As a sidenote: All three feats are not enablers, but improvers: Everyone can use power attacks, called shots and defensive fighting, but only at half capacity (2:1 attack:damage for attacks, or 1:1 two-handed and 4:1 for light, or 2:1 attack:AC).

I think it makes sense - everyone should be able to go on the defensive or be brutal and unsubtle, but unless you train it, you won't be terribly effective.

I like this concept a lot, but I recognize it adds a lot of tactical options to every character with every attack; this seems to be the opposite direction that the Alpha rules are going.

I don't know whether I like the new Power Attack, Combat Expertise and Deadly Aim. I'd have to see them in play at both high and low levels to really judge.

One fix that I've seen other people suggest before (and I'm surprise Paizo didn't use), is to apply the Combat Expertise/Improved Combat Expertise logic, resulting in chains like this:

Combat Expertise: can put up to 5 pts BAB from attacks into AC.
Improved Combat Expertise: can put up to 10 pts BAB from attacks into AC.
Greater Combat Expertise: can put up to 15 pts BAB from attacks into AC.
Ultimate Combat Expertise: can put any amount of BAB from attacks into AC.

Power Attack: can put up to 5 pts BAB from melee attacks into damage (I would delete the x2 for a two-handed weapon, but that's entirely debatable).
Improved Power Attack: can put up to 10 pts BAB from melee attacks into damage.
Greater Power Attack: can put up to 15 pts BAB from melee attacks into damage.
Ultimate Power Attack: can put any amount of BAB from melee attacks into damage.

Deadly Aim: can put up to 5 pts BAB from ranged attacks into damage.
Improved Deadly Aim: can put up to 10 pts BAB from ranged attacks into damage.
Greater Deadly Aim: can put up to 15 pts BAB from ranged attacks into damage.
Ultimate Deadly Aim: can put any amount of BAB from ranged attacks into damage.

I think I actually like the simplicity of the binary system in the Alpha rules: you either turn off or turn on this feat. I know that it would make the game quicker, but at a trade-off of tactical precision. With some friends, I worked out what we call "The Formula," or the maximum amount you should power attack based on your average damage, your to-hit, and the AC of your opponent. But I digress; the feat chains can keep the simplicity of the binary application but allow for some tactical options by using multiples of 5. With this change, the feat chains I propose would work like this instead:

Combat Expertise: can put 5 pts BAB from attacks into AC.
Improved Combat Expertise: can put 5 or 10 pts BAB from attacks into AC.
Greater Combat Expertise: can put 5, 10, or 15 pts BAB from attacks into AC.
Ultimate Combat Expertise: can put 5, 10, 15 or 20 pts BAB from attacks into AC.

Power Attack: can put 5 pts BAB from melee attacks into damage.
Improved Power Attack: can put 5 or 10 pts BAB from melee attacks into damage.
Greater Power Attack: can put 5, 10 or 15 pts BAB from melee attacks into damage.
Ultimate Power Attack: can put 5, 10, 15 or 20 pts BAB from melee attacks into damage.

Deadly Aim: can put 5 pts BAB from ranged attacks into damage.
Improved Deadly Aim: can put 5 or 10 pts BAB from ranged attacks into damage.
Greater Deadly Aim: can put 5, 10 or 15 pts BAB from ranged attacks into damage.
Ultimate Deadly Aim: can put 5, 10, 15 or 20 pts of BAB from ranged attacks into damage.

Thoughts?

I could see -CON as death with the optional rule to allow 1 round to heal the character. It could be described as healing the body before the soul departs.

I used to feel that the few DMs I've seen using this rule were "softball" DMs who didn't want anyone to die at their tables. Sort of like the DMs that let you reroll 1's on the d8 rolls for cure light wounds.

However, as I matured as a game designer and player over the years, I realized that the one-round scramble to get some healing into the "dead" guy--STAT--was really tense and added to everyone's fun.

I like the Arcana Unearthed solution - you're disabled at anywhere from 0 to a negative hit point total equal to your Con modifier (minimum 0 to 0), and dying up until negative HP equal to your Con score. Past your Con score, you're dead. It solves the problem of the "exact zero" situation (tougher characters have a wider margin of "not-dying") and it means tougher characters have a wider area of "not dead yet" (and if you're a Diehard, it means you feel like going for a walk).

I've tried the Arcana Unearthed solution, but found it doesn't really solve the problem at higher levels. Instead of having a 10 point window, a fighter has an 18 or 20 point window. When you're out fighting giants that take 20 hit points from you at a swing, it isn't as much of a help.

Which is why I proposed a solution that scales with level.

Hey, all. I wanted to briefly touch on one of the problems I'd like to see fixed in the PFRPG: death at -10 hit points.

This is a reasonable number at low levels, but the "window" of unconsciousness gets very small very fast. As many others have pointed out, (i) this unconsciousness "window" is basically irrelevant at the mid levels when foes do a minimum of 10+ points of damage per hit, and (ii) there is currently a perverse incentive in the game: a higher-level fighter actually prefers to be at -2 hit points rather than 2 hit points. 4E "fixed" this problem in a way that I think goes too far: you have oodles of negative hit points, and generally you simply cannot die until at least three rounds after you go unconscious.

A gritty game appeals to many, and the possibility of sudden death should be real in a game that emphasizes backwards compatibility with 3.5. Some people prefer more heroics, so an option (but not obligation) to snatch life from the jaws of death is preferable.

The solution I propose--which I did not invent--is a two-stage rule as follows:

1) You do not die at -10 hit points. You die at a negative number that is 10 plus your constitution modifier plus your character level. This opens the "window" in a way that scales up with level in a reasonable way. You can still be killed by a single massive hit at any level, but unconsciousness is more common.

2) As a campaign option: characters that exceed their negative hit point limit do not die until 1 round after reaching that negative total. Healing that brings the character above his negative hit point limit prevents him from dying. This allows for a frantic save-him-quick mentality that allows a more heroic game; but it is not for everyone, so it should be called out as an optional rule.

I've played games with both of these rules in play separately and together, and found them to be very satisfying.

Thoughts?

I've thought about a lot of other examples, arguments, proofs and so forth (like where I prove that a Level 1 PC = CR 1.64385619) but ultimately I've decided that since my philosophy works for me and my group and my game and has borne itself out in every implementation of every scenario I've run then that's fine and it's really not worth arguing any more.

Really, what works for your group is most important, and I'm glad we're all able to enjoy the game. No hard feelings at all on my end, and I hope there are none from me.

Happy Easter, Rez and all!

Find me one and I'll let you buy me a beer to thank me for guiding you to a newfound understanding of the CR /EL relationship :-)

Best wishes along your quest to learning,

Rez

Sorry, Rez, but we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this, and your attitude of being the guru dispensing all the answers is both irritating and misplaced. I've got a math degree and published dozens of adventures with hundreds of encounters, so I'm familiar with all of the cites you're making. However, I maintain that you cannot work the math backwards, as elegant as it seems to you. There is some beautiful math to the design, I agree, but it isn't strictly logarithmic and it isn't bidirectional.

The designers speak about the party of 4 so often not to confuse the issue, but because it's a crucial element of the design. They also emphasize that the whole CR system is an art and not a science (and certainly not a mathematically balanced one: how can you be precise in a system where a halfling monk1/bard1 has the same CR--and thus purportedly identical combat effectiveness--as a fiendish grimlock barbarian1?)

You're in love with the EL math, and you put it to a lot of use; I can appreciate that. But you're putting it to uses for which the system was not designed.

I'm not shouting for a goblinoid PC race. I like a better line between "heroes" and monsters in my campaigns, if only because it makes telling the "black hats" from the "white hats" easier. In a game fundamentally about murder, humanoids you can murder without compunction help elevate the escapism.

But my more salient point is this: Paizo has gone out of their way to pose Golarion goblins as vicious (and occasionally humorously incompetent) bastards. They are monsters in a way the MM goblins never were. Making them a PC race words backwards from Paizo's presentation of goblins, and shouldn't be allowed in Golarion.

Now for some settings, like the Harvestlands setting, goblin PCs make a lot of sense. But not in Golarion.

Challenge rating is derived from the monsters ability to take on a party of 4.

I think Flip hits on a key point here. For example, the designers have mentioned that undead are CR'd the way they are assuming that there is no cleric in the party. Having a cleric makes encounters with undead much easier than the CR/EL system intended. This shows that the designers are calculating CR on a "what can a party of 4 take on?" basis, not on a "what character level is this monster the equivalent of?" basis. Thus, it's no surprise to find monsters of a particular CR that are much harder or softer than a character of that level: the system just isn't designed for that.

Although the best way to get to an answer, I think, would be to ask the designers.

Frank Trollman answered

WelbyBumpus wrote:

You seem to have a good handle on the EL/CR system generally, but I have to disagree with you. You're mixing apples and oranges. The CR/EL system is designed with a party of 4 in mind. Although you can put that party of 4 up...

I direct you to page 48 of the DMG, where it discusses larger or smaller parties and appropriate Encounter Levels for them.

-Frank

I didn't have my DMG at work, so I needed to check this at home. The DMG doesn't support your point. That is, the DMG mentions in vague, hand-waving terms that you should adjust the EL of the encounter for larger or smaller parties (and XP will adjust as a result), but it doesn't support the actual math you propose (that an EL 7 encounter is the equivalent of a level+2 encounter to a party of 2, or a level+4 encounter to a party of 1).

You might assume this result from the vague statement on page 48, or want to apply the logic behind the CR/EL calculations "backwards" like that, but I don't think the rules support that and, more importantly, aren't designed for that.

If it works for a party of 4 PCs of 5th level to balance against a 9th Level BBEG Necromancer, why is it somehow nonfunctional and unbalanced for a single 9th Level Paladin to be accosted by a group of 4 bandits of 5th level in a solo-play session?

Simply because that isn't the way the system was designed. If it were designed that way, the EL/CR rules would be clear about it. They're not, which implies that the "party of 4" is the default assumption. The discussion of larger or smaller parties implies that the system can accomodate that in a casual and clumsy way, even thought it wasn't designed to.

This is a personal pet peeve of mine, so I will explain the CR system exactly once on this particular thread so that I don't start insulting people.

Why would you feel like you ever have to start insulting people?

Phil. L wrote:

While I actually agree with your concerns Frank (and like the way that Pathfinder has tried to make fighters tougher) you keep comparing monsters of a particular CR with characters of the same level. That is not how CR works. A dire bear is a CR 7 monster and so is a EL 7 threat. That's an even challenge for four 7th-level PCs, not a single character of the same level.

This is a personal pet peeve of mine, so I will explain the CR system exactly once on this particular thread so that I don't start insulting people.

• A party of Level X is supposed to go down fighting half the time against an encounter of EL X + 4. Another way to say this is that a party of Level X is approximately as powerful as an encounter of EL X + 4.
  
• A group of monsters that is twice the size is an encounter of EL + 2. A party that is twice the size faces Encounters which are EL + 2 vs. those who are not.
  
• Doubling a Double is a quadruple. So if you go from a party of four to a party of one, you face challenges of X - 4.

So a Party of one character is supposed to be an even match for a Monster with a CR equal to his level. He is supposed to fight "standard" encounters of his level - 4, and a monster with a CR of his level is an EL of Level - 4 + 4. And this should surprise you in no way because a character of Level X actually is a Monster of CR X.

Note: some characters are at an advantage or disadvantage in a number of situations. This means that your character may well be properly "Level X" despite failing consistently or winning consistently against a specific CR X challenge, so long as in aggregate your wins and losses are roughly equal against a variety of EL X encounters.

You seem to have a good handle on the EL/CR system generally, but I have to disagree with you. You're mixing apples and oranges. The CR/EL system is designed with a party of 4 in mind. Although you can put that party of 4 up against challenges consisting of one, two or more enemies, the CR/EL system is not designed--and cannot be used--to judge how a party of one or a party of two will handle an encounter. The CR/EL system isn't designed for that. Your contention about what a "party of one" can or can't take on isn't supportable by the CR/EL rules.

Now, this doesn't invalidate your point generally about the ability of a fighter of level N to go toe-to-toe with an enemy of CR N. But you can't use the CR/EL system, as presented in the rules, to show that.

Here's a new one - and infinate money making machine. Use any of the summon monster spells from IV and up, and summon lantern archons, which have the continual flame spell as an at will spell like ability. As long as you speak celestial, you can communicate with them and have them use their powers as you direct. Therefore, you can tell them to cast continual flame every round that they're summoned on objects you have ready, and presto, you've got as many everburning torches as you want, which you can then sell without paying any material component cost at all.

Now let's not start the infinite moneymaking loops, or we'll have people taking quarterstaffs (free) and selling them as firewood (which has value); or buying ladders, sawing out the rungs, and selling them back as two 10 foot poles.

I don't like the fly skill, either. Streamline the aerial maneuvering rules, but don't do it as a skill.

This seems a really odd inclusion. You streamlined grappling, tripping and other combat effects without a Grapple skill or Trip skill (come to think of it, CMB might work as a skill. But I'm not in favor of that.).

My email is also sent. I am very excited to help out in whatever capacity I can (administrative, authoring, DMing, convention organizing, etc.). I have years of Living Greyhawk experience and energy that I'd like to turn to the Pathfinder Society.

One of my players, without any knowledge, picked the same first name as the Chopper ("Jervas"?). He is an archivist with an unhealthy fascination with monsters. When he found out about the back story, he now wants to build a house on Chopper's Isle. I told him there would probably be no better way to see that his house is burned down and he is run out of town. :)

I am also very excited to see this. I echo the concern about power creep; remember that one of the goals is backwards compatability.