drsparnum's page

Be able to climb onto the back of large, unwilling, flying creatures and battle them in the sky.

A pit fighter/boxer will really stink when that flying dragon shows up. They need this option in a regular campaign.

Since both sides are aware of one another I would just use a straight up initiative roll.

If you deviate from this rule, and just allow your players to say "I attack" and win initiative, then they will never let you finish a set of boxed text again.

Here's take on the situation I haven't seen...

With a successful stealth roll you render your fired arrow stealthed. You're good enough so that your target's don't see or hear the incoming arrow. You're targets have no idea where your arrows are coming from. They don't even know which side of a wall is the right side of the wall to choose for cover.

However...
You were not succesfully stealthed. You fired from concealment. You get 20% concealment when your foes counter attack, but no particular advantage to hit your foes. Your foes hear you firing the bow (so they know the right side of the wall to choose). They might even hear the arrow coming to make an educataed guess about how to avoid the arrow. They can see the arrow flying in for the last 60 feet of flight.

This distinction brings up a whole host of additional realism-based questions (e.g., if I have low-light vision, and can see the arrow for its last 120 feet of flight do I have a better chance to dodge it? Can anyone reasonably avoid an arrow if all they can see is the last 60 ft of flight).

I choose to ignore all of these realism based questions. The stealth rules are weird and this strikes me as a balanced solution (are hearing and seeing equal? you wouldn't argue to attack flat-footed against deaf foes, but I've not seen what portion of stealth is based on vision, hearing and smell). It gives the attacker some advantage for attacking from concealment (improved defenses against a counter-attack), but it provides a character who invests resources in making himself stealthy an additional advantage.

If it doesn't exist it should be a talent, not a feat. Poison already gives you a pretty poor bang for the buck compared with magic...no need to make it any harder.

A feat that let you make poisons much more cheaply...now that might justify a feat.

The Shadow companion is very powerful in play. Alot of the key abilities (e.g., hitpoints) are keyed off of the Shadowdancers base scores so the thing works out to be as tough as a PC when you combine the awesome defensive abilities afforded to something incorporeal. And a shadow was already one of the toughest CR3 creatures in the game, and draining STR never gets old, even at L20. On top of that, the only scout better than a shadow dancer might be the shadow dancer's shadow.

The big downside to the Shadow as a PC is the 30-day delay when replacing a dead shadow. For an NPC, who cares?

Two for one is only part of the goodness of versatile performance. You'll also get to use your CHA bonus for some skills that don't normally use a CHA bonus (e.g., acrobatics). Assuming CHA is your best stat, it's better to add a CHA bonus than a DEX bonus. Any skill you're going to get via versatile performance...only invest in it to the minimum standard you need based on how long you will need to wait to unlock a relevant versatile performance.

Link
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041214a

Relevant Text:
Also, all the scrolls shown in the Dungeon Master's Guide contain a single spell. There's not actually any rule that limits scrolls to a single spell (see page 237 in the Dungeon Master's Guide). To create a scroll of multiple spells, combine the spells' base costs to determine the scroll's creation time and XP costs. If the multiple spell scroll is abandoned, the whole expenditure is wasted.

One advantage to creating a scroll with multiple spells is that you have to use only one action to get out the scroll during an encounter. Once you have the scroll in hand, you can read any spell it contains. DMs should feel free to set a reasonable limit to the number of spells you can search through on a multispell scroll before you have to use an action to find the one you want. I recommend a maximum of seven spells. If a scroll contains more spells than that, it takes a move action to find the correct one. As spells are used from a scroll, the writing that stores them vanishes from the scroll, which can make the remaining spells easier to search.

A WOTC rules of the game article recommended 7 as a reasonable limit. I will try to dig up the link. My group accepted this number, because of this article, implicitly, as the most official number available.

That's a good point.

For example a bard gets confusion at L3, and a sorceror gets it at L4. But since bards get L3 spells at about the same character level as sorcerors get L4 spells...in a typical campaign both classes will access these spells at about the same time.

Still, at least you're not behind on that spell, like most bard spells.

Hi.
I pasted below a list of core spells that are either bard exclusive, or spells that bards get at a lower level than at least one dedicated spellcaster (cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard). I just made a new bard, and I looked for these spells first when filling out my spelllist, and thought others may find the list useful as well.

Level Spell School
2 Blindness/deafness necromancy
4 Break Enchantment abjuration
3 Charm Monster enchantment
6 Charm Monster, mass enchantment
3 Confusion enchantment
1 Confusion (lesser) enchantment
3 Crushing Despair enchantment
4 CCW conjuration
5 CLW, mass conjuration
2 CMW conjuration
6 CMW, mass conjuration
3 CSW conjuration
3 Dispel Magic abjuration
5 Dispel Magic, greater abjuration
4 Dominate Person enchantment
3 Fear necromancy
3 Geas, lesser enchantment
1 Hideous Laughter enchantment
4 Hold Monster enchantment
2 Hold Person enchantment
6 Irresistable Dance enchantment
4 Legend Lore diviniation
2 Locate Object diviniation
1 Magic Mouth illusion
5 Mislead illusion
4 Modify Memory enchantment
1 Obscure Object abjuration
6 Project Image illusion
2 Rage enchantment
3 Remove Curse abjuration
3 Scrying diviniation
6 Scrying, greater diviniation
3 Sculpt Sound transmutation
5 Shadow Walk illusion
6 Shout, greater evocation
5 Song of Discord enchantment
2 Suggestion enchantment
5 Suggestion, mass enchantment
0 Summon Instrument
6 Sympathetic Vibration evocation
2 Tongues diviniation
1 Undetectable alignment abjuration
4 Zone of silence illusion

What if you're in a small party (n=3), and I'm taking leadership to get the cleric noone else made?

You'd murder that guy?

Under the leadership feat, it states:

"The cohort should be equipped with gear appropriate for its level (see Creating NPCs)."

Once I aquire the cohort who pays for the cohort's equipment? Me? Or does he receive some magical funds from the DM to maintain level appropriate NPC wealth?

I had a free PDF hypertext downloaded copy of the Pathfinder SRD, and now I can’t find it on my computer. Does anyone have a link? I particularly appreciated its nononsense, text-heavy, appearance … which looked like a detailed report … which made it look like I was actually reading a detailed report to people who casually passed by my computer…. in case I wanted to read it from a place where I should be reading detailed reports and not the Pathfinder SRD.

Some spells or items that affect movement specifically list the effect as an enhancement bonus to base land speed (e.g., boots of striding and springing, horseshoes of speed, expeditious retreat), while some do not (e.g., haste).

My interpertation of RAW is that if the spell affects base land speed it affects the calculations for acrobatics checks (e.g., expeditious retreat). If the spell does not affect base land speed it does not affect the calcuation for acrobatics checks (e.g., haste).

My personal interperation of RAI is that anything that affects land speed should affect acrobatics checks, including monk speed bonuses and haste checks (ESPECIALLY monk speed bonuses), and that the term "base land speed" is used to exclude things like swim, fly, burrow, and hover speeds from affecting the calculation. It would be unnecessarily tedious to remember which speed affects adjust base land speed and which don't - so I would let all affects alter acrobatics checks.

If you run faster you can jump farther. It's no accident Carl Lewis held the record in the hundred meter dash and long jump at the same time. If you don't allow the monk speed bonuses to affect acrobatics checks than a L1 dufus with a ring of jumping can better imitate the jumping from the movie Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon than a L20 monk without that ring.

Celestial could get wings and maybe some greater DR against certain energy types (e.g., electricity)

Aquatic: Bonuses to grapple, resistance to being grappled, higher DR, no penalty to squeezing, occasional extended reach,

Fire: Bonus to intimidate, fire damage on attacks, obviously fire resistance.

Air: Speed, speed and more speed. Some flying too. Bonus to shooting bows (there's no reason a character built on a primitive hunter shouldn't be good at bows).

I agree with other posters Umbral, it's a relative penalty to high skill point classes.

If you want to bump skill points, bump everyone. If anything, I would bump HIGH skill point classes more than low skill point classes. A +1 skill point/level to everyone helps low skill classes more than high skill classes (just like +1 hp/level helps low hp classes more than high hp classes). I'd recommend +50% skill points across the board.

Jikuu, I'd feel cheated if I played a rogue and everyone else/many other classes got an extra skill point. If the DM wants to award a free maxxed out craft or profession skill fine, but I don't see why the rogue, bard and ranger shouldn't get the same deal.

The return would be the additional sales on the old converted adventurers to customers who otherwise would not have bought the unconverted adventure.

The obvious part of the cost would be the cost to convert the adventures. But there is another cost. A conversion likely would also lead to lost sales of the new Pathfinder adventures because some groups bought older converted adventures instead. Each additional download of old adventures cannot be counted as pure extra revenue to Paizo it would not have seen, because to some extent the updated adventures would be cannibalizing the sale of the new adventures.

While converting the old adventures might grow the overall adventure market a bit, to some extent the market may be saturated. How many adventures can players reasonably play? I'm still waiting to run my group through Savage Tide. I agree with above posters.

If I was running an older adventure I would pay $2 to have it converted for me. Still, that doesn't look like it's in the cards. Therefore, I recommend that as you convert things from old adventures you post it in a thread. Then others will follow suit with their conversions in the relevant thread. That should save you some work, and let you help out your fellow DM.

If I was in a party with one each of the 4 core classes, I would most want a 5th party member to make a bard. If you're in an adventure where you don't need to talk to people from time-to-time, you're in a very strange adventure.

And while a lot of classes can sub-in for a bard, with either high skill points (e.g., rogue, wizard), or a built in incentive to up charisma (e.g., paladin, sorcerer), bards are the only one with high skill points AND a built in incentive to up charisma. And that's before we factor in all of the bard abilities specifically geared towards dealing with people.

That 5th player bard will walk into this established party and quickly become the default leader (especially since the default party proposed did not have a paladin or a sorceror).

Treantmonk is right about Glitterdust. I play a bard (a bard!) in a 3.5 game. We've reached L9 now. After each session we (the players) vote on an MVP, who gets some bonus XP. I win MVP the most. My most powerful asset is my spells. My number one spell is ... glitterdust. I still use it, frequently, at L9.

Also:

I think hold person still beats ghoul touch (even if you factor in spell level). Not having to touch somebody is worth quite a lot for keeping you safe, and being able to target exactly who you want.

I wouldn't sunder unless I planned to add back compensation (over and above standard compensation) in the short-term (probably same session at most) future.

Losing your gear is a fate worth than death. You can fix death, and after the cost of the spell be none-the-worse for wear. Sunder a weapon a character has spent 25-50% of his/her total gold on, without future additional extra compensation specifically for that character, and you've permanently weakened the character. The player would probably be better off just dying and making a new character with otherwise identical stats, using whatever rules you use to introduce character mid-stream.

It may seem ridiculous, but that's the way the rules work.

I prefer to only sunder with monsters built specifically for sundering (bebelith, rust monster which basically does the same thing), and I only run them when the pro-written adventure already wrote those creatures in, AND I try to repay the victim in some way after the fact.

The game is supposed to be fun. Gaining levels and watching power charts grow is fun for most gamers. Temporary set-backs are necessary to maintain excitement. Permanent set backs are never fun. That said, I think sundering is fine in this example if you throw the paladin an extra sword of equal or better power in an upcoming treasure hoard, and you make it clear to your players out-of-game you intend that for the paladin (otherwise, you might have inadvertently helped another character, like a fighter, who could claim the weapon).

My $0.02, because you asked.

"I suppose my larger issue is that, if my resistance to spells is due to my daily training and diligence, why can I not let that fall for a moment without giving so much of my concentration?
Just feels silly"

I see your point. If you can't get your DM to adopts JJ interpertation you may want to propose a switch. Dropping SR = free action. Turning it on = Standard action (flip it). That makes more sense to me based on your flavor text. It's probably slightly better for the monk to do it this flipped way, than as written, but not a huge difference.

I'm not sure if they changed the planar ally in Pathfinder, but it seemed quite powerful to me in 3.5.

As a DM, running the final battle from a Dungeon magazine adventure path I had a monster call in a Dream Larva (epic handbook). The PCs had the upper hand, and I wanted an exciting encounter, so I pulled out all of the stops. Still, I read the spell description three times, and couldn't see any reason why I couldn't call a Dream Larva (from a technical or flavor perspective). The players soon realized that the Dream Larva was the biggest threat.

Any spell that lets you spend a round to call in the cavalry, and that cavalry is much, much, much more powerful than you, is pretty powerful. If my PCs used the spell regularly I would probably have to nerf it, but our unspoken agreement seemed to be I could get away with this as the DM, and only really in a situation like this one (final battle of the campaign looking like an unexciting route for evil).

Establishing that it is powerful, should a DM use extenuating circumstances to control it? I say no.

Most of the controls on planar binding are role-playing controls which don't work well. Sure you might roll a d12 and determine the called creature got married that day. But do you get married every 12 days. So what are really the odds an immortal creature got married that day?

Simply put, the PCs tend to be doing important good work. They don't use planar binding to get someone to carry their bags. Smart/most PCs call good creatures who will automatically look favorably on the PCs goals.

A lot of fantasy literature (and D&D mythology) proposes an infinite extraplanar multiverse filled with extrememly powerful good and evil creatuers chomping at the bit to influence actions on the prime material plane, but limited by metaphycical barriers. A caster who casts this spell, and makes a proposal the creature would normally agree with, basically gives the creature an "intervene for free" card. Some call it slavery. But from my opinion of the goals of angels and devils, I think they would usually THANK the caster for the opportunity and say "let's get to work," with the expectation of a tip as an expression of gratitude.

Ergo, I think it remains a (overly?)powerful spell, and a DM who routinely craps on it from a role-playing perspective would be better off just adjusting the rules of the spell itself, or work with the PCs to come to a gentleman/womans agreement not to go nuts with it.

Start with female gamers who already like computer/console role-playing games, or failing that, at least computer/console action adventure games (e.g., Zelda). The rest is easy. If the prior is not true, introduce the female gamer to the above mentioned games as an intro. Video games are a good gateway because: they don't require massive rule understanding up front (the computer crunches the numbers), they are more common in pop culture and therefore will be greated less skeptically, and they present actual sound and images.

By the way, that rule of thumb also works well for figuring out if a guy you know who has never tried D&D might like it.

For example, I find it hard to picture the individual that could like D&D and not like Dragon Age: Origins. Similarly, I find it difficult (but not as difficult) to imagine someone who could like D&D and not like Dragon Age.

So big T-rexes were no bigger than a big elephant? T-rexes just got a lot lamer for me. I've wasted my childhood.

I DM'd a game with a single player who ran a wizard. He used alarm a lot. I admit that the more friends you have, the less useful alarm becomes. But if you're alone, or with people you don't trust, alarm has its uses. I would assume someone in situations where he/she needs alarm will take it. Most people will take another spell. Isn't that the way it should be?

Even if the enemies and encounters are predetermined in the AP the weather is usually not specified and it is not 60 deg F, partly cloudy and pleasant every day.

I really like this site in my game: http://www.wunderground.com/

1. Pick a location in the real world that you think matches the approximate climate of the location in the fantasy world.
2. Choose a random real world year (my last game I chose 2003).
3. Choose a starting day/month for your game that coincides with the season you envision for your campaign. When I lack other inspiration, I usually just choose today's date.
4. Put that information in the website.

You can even print the weather history of the location in a monthly calendar view from the site. As a DM I use the print out as my default calendar, and write notes for the game right on it.

I started doing this without my players knowing, and they commented that I had unrealistic day-to-day weather variation. I was running a warm, jungle type game and chose the real-world weather for Vietnam. When I told them that it was real weather they were surprised.

Yes, real weather varies. A lot. And yes, sometimes it's windy. If you use a system like this, when it is windy you won't necessarily feel like you are intentionally "screwing" your archers. You used a realistic system that would result in occasional windy days, and today happens to be one of those days.

Naturally breezy days?

The attack roll penalty runs from -2 (strong wind) to impossible (windstorm winds+).

Thanks everyone.

Interesting, so it's dead even at 2 (Vult, northbrb) vs 2 (dosgamer, laughing goblin) vs. 1 (Karui) on if it's fair.

Thanks for the help Laughing Goblin, but when I hit reply I can't see the BBC codes in other people's posts.

I've seen a few threads allude to this question, but I haven't seen any address it head on (my apologies if I missed one). (This will also be my first post with BBCode tags, so apologies for that too)

Tireless rage:
[/QUOTE Starting at 17th level, a barbarian no longer becomes fatigued at the end of her rage.]

There are a handful of rage powers usable 1/d. For purposes of this discussion let's focus on one I consider particularly good, Unexpected Strike: "
[/QUOTE The barbarian can make an attack of opportunity against a foethat moves into any square threatened by the barbarian, regardless of whether or not that movement would normally provoke an attack of opportunity. This power can only be used once per rage. A barbarian must be at least 8th level before selecting this power.]

Finally, some relevant information from the description of rage itself:
[/QUOTE A barbarian can enter rage as a free action...A barbarian can end her rage as a free action and is fatigued after rage for a number of
rounds equal to 2 times the number of rounds spent in the rage....]

So let's put these three together.
1. Can a L17+ barbarian turn his rage on and off every round, renewing his once/rage rage powers on his action every turn? For example, could a barbarian with unexpected strike and tireless rage turn his rage on and off each round to always get 1 AoO/round on enemies who simply approach him?

2. Even if possible, is this a cheap tactic? Or is this just fair reward for a L17 barbarian struggling to keep pace with a L17 fighter or paladin? A reward for slogging through levels 4-16, when the barbarian may not have held up as well, comparatively.

Edited for grammar. Sorry about the tags.

Hmm, that's complicated.

If someone can hover I don't see why not, and that's probably the thing most likely to want to take a 5 ft step.

For everyone else:
I definetly wouldn't allow someone to take a 5 ft step directly backwards from the direction they had moved in the previous turn (that's like turning 180 degrees, which costs 10 ft of movement). And I would definetely allow someone to 5 ft adjust into the square directly in front of the direction they had moved in the previous turn (essentially continuing straight line movement).

Between straight ahead, and straight back, I don't know. I'm leaning towards 5 ft adjusts can only be done if straight ahead (based on previous movement).

I'm lazy. Can I get a link to the errata?

Here's another way without the tripping wolf I listed above, assuming you are in a big flat open arena.

Take the horse companion and all archery feats (assuming the fighter didn't also build for archery...which he probably didn't). Spend 3,000 gp on horshoes of the zephyr (chump change at L20). Take a move action and move 80 feet away and shooting full attack (you don't even need the mounted archery feet to shoot from a mount taking only a move action wihtout a penalty. Fighter needs to run (probably 30 x3 = 90 feet) just to keep up, and can't attack that round. Repeat until fighter dies.

Oh, and I think everywhere should fall into the best available ranger terrain, so for me arenas are urban terrain.

In my group, dead things (NPCs or PCs) turn into difficult terrain (I guess it's technically a house rule). Over the course of the battle difficult terrain piles up. Plus, since you can't charge through an ally's square, can't turn during a charge, and must charge the closest available square...charges are blocked about 1/2 the time.

At L20 a ranger can have a wolf animal companion with a 30 STR. Throw in even a small amount of magic items, and an animal growth spell, and you've got yourself quite the grappler/tripper.

I don't know who would win...grappling or tripping a fighter isn't easy....but every round the wolf trips the fighter the fighter would need to stand up (provoking an AoO from the ranger and wolf, assuming they both flanked the fighter...as they should), and would not get a full attack. Meanwhile the ranger would get a full attack on a prone fighter.

I just don't think you can discount the animal entirely just because it is 3 levels lower than the druid companion. On top of that, in this completely artifical arena fight, two things are always a lot better than one.

...spoken by someone whos first pathfinder character is a ranger with a plan to take a wolf animal companion.

Both vital strike and cleave make the fighter better on actions where he needs to move and attack. What you get to on the other end of that move action (a single foe, or a cluster of foes) determines whether you'd rather have cleave feats (cluster) or vital strike feats (single foe). So while it would be ideal to have both feat trees completed, I think the rules of diminishing returns and limited total feats dictate that most fighters should just pick one of the trees and invest their remaining feats elsewhere.

I think the vital strike feat will be useful more often (since you only need one enemy on the other end of your move action to make it useful). However, it is more feats (3 vs. 2 for cleave*), and you cannot complete it until later (BAB +16 for greater vital strike). So, depending on how many feats you want to commit to making you standard action attacks better (3 or 2?), and what levels you care about most (early favors cleave, later favors vital strike), should determine whether you pick cleave or vital strike.

*Cleave is technically three feats: Power attack, cleave, and great cleave. But since power attack is so good most fighters will take it anyway, so I don't view it as a "cost" of cleave.

I'm pretty sure I could think of a scenario Happler...

He's aganst an invisible (can't get an AoO) gelatinous cube (not worried about fancy combat maneuvers), with almost full hitpoints remaining (doesn't need rage hps to live), with only a few rage rounds/day left (going to lose rage hp soon anyway), and he's sure that his enemies won't use magic (no need for the will save).

And in general, to everyone saying this is a legal but foolish tactic: Yes, it's not worth the paladin doing this every round. It is worth a paladin doing it sometimes for a barbarian with a lot of 1/rage powers currently depleted. It is worth it even more often for a paladin who serves as a barbarian's cohort. It is worth it if the party really, really, really needs the barbarian to use a 1/rage power. It's also obviously worth it for a paladin who would have used LoH on the barbarian anyway.

Although by my logic then, a barbarian with tireless rage could start and stop his rage every single round, and thus functionally avoid the penalty to AC while everyone else attacks him.

Of course, the barbarian would also have to give up the hit points, the strength bonus (for the his own AoOs he may get, or for his own CMD), and the will save bonus...so it probably wouldn't happen too much.

But he could do it, if he really, really, really didn't want a -2 to AC.

Happler's got it.

I probably should have described the actions more clearly, instead of going for a story-like narrative.

I tried to invent a scenario where someone would actually want to do this (perhaps the barbarian doesn't want to actually cut the bartender in half with an ax, and the paladin wants to help out his friend but not act more directly in a bar brawl?).

The barbarian gets into a fight with a corrupt barkeep who tries to overcharge the barbarian for his ale. The barbarian gets angry, activates rage, uses strength sure and knockback on the barkeep, and pushes him into the wall.

A waiter smashes the barbarian with a broom handle in retaliation, hurting the barbarian.

The barbarian holds his action until just before the paladin goes, ends his rage, and is fatigued.

The paladin helps his friend out. The paladin uses lay on hands to heal the bruise the barbarian took from the club. The paladin friend also wisely selected the mercy to remove the fatigued condition.

The fatigueless barbarian re-enters rage, and uses knockback and strength surge on the waitor.

....in essense, my question is, is this legal? Is it a loophole? Can a barbarian loaded up on 1/day rage powers turn his rage off as a free action just before a paladin (who selected the mercy to remove fatigue), uses lay on hands. Can the barbarian then use all his 1/rage powers again (at least until the paladin runs out of patience or lay on hands powers)?

And thus Pathfinder made Dodge a pretty respectable feat...unlike in 3.5 where it was a below average feat picked up on the road to other things, and, frankly, just annoying to have to use.

Thanks wraith!

I wish at least the combat plusses could be adjusted.

Alot of cool unique weapons never see action in game because they're the best choice for just a few levels and then phase out. A player would rather choose to keep upgrading his main weapon then spend a load of gps on a specific weapon, only to then sell the specific weapon back at a 50% loss a few levels later.

I agree celestial armor may be an exception to this rule. Characters with high dexterities may op for celestial armor all the way to L20.

So:
A) Allowing bonus modificaiton would increase the use of specific weapons and armor (and I think that's inherently a good thing), and
B) Since people will want to adjust the properties of celestial armor more often than anything else it would have been nice to have some rules on how to upgrade celestial armor, or apply a celestial template to other armors.

FYI: I asked the celestial armor question a few weeks ago, and received some good answers here:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/enhancingSpecificArmorsAndWeapons

Some CM are attacks, more are standard actions....

Attack action?

Bull Rush: No
Disarm: Yes
Grapple: No
Overrun: No
Sunder: Yes
Trip: Yes
Feint: No

If you choose to close your eyes you convert from dealing with several images to dealing with a 50% miss chance. This may be advantageous in the short run but consider...

1. You're not 'working' off the images (which are only AC10), so you will continue to need to deal with the images in someway (e.g., work off later, continue to close your eyes, kill the caster).

2. If you close your eyes for the whole round (and I think you do) you're blind for everyone. So you lose your DEX bonus, you slow down, you're vulnerable to sneak attacks.

I think it's a fair trade off. In some circumstances it may make sense to close your eyes, but I think that will be the minority. I certainly don't think it makes mirror image useless.

Quote:
The problem with "1 swing = 1 attack" is that the feat explicitly indicates two attacks, so clearly that's wrong.

Although this argues against my overall position, consider if it wasn't two rolls. If the first roll hits, odds are it was a decent roll. If that same roll is carried over for the second target, the odds of hitting the second target are that much higher. That makes the feat more powerful. Imagine carrying a double-20 auto crit through a great cleave hit of 8 targets. Much more powerful than rerolling on all targets. My point is, the designers may have specified two rolls, not so much because of how they picture the attack proceeding, but because it allows for the second target to face standard hit miss odds.

Sorry. My interpertation is, by RAW, a character can 5 foot adjust mid cleave to bring an opponent formerly not in reach into reach, and then cleave ito that opponent.

I base that primarily on two pieces of text....

1. If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move action for one or more equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action.

...and later....

2. Some full-round actions do not allow you to take a 5-foot step.

I take this to imply that any standard action that does not expressly forbid a 5 foot adjust permits a 5 foot adjust at anytime (provided the character could otherwise take a 5 foot step).

But I admit it is unclear.

This is a great debate, and I have no meaningful contribution to solve the argument.

However, I have another caveat for why a player may want to make the 5' adjust after the first attack hits. I've seen in the discussion points made with various layouts that the player could simply 5ft adjust and then use cleave in many of the examples.

However, in some cases a player may prefer not to 5 ft adjust. Maybe the 5 ft adjust pulls him out of threat range from an enemy spellcaster. Maybe a 5 ft adjust puts the player that much closer to falling into lava. Maybe a 5 ft adjust puts the player out of range of the next time the cleric will channel healing. Still a player may be willing to make that 5 ft adjust if the player knows it will result in another swing. By allowing the player to 5 ft adjust after he knows the results of the first attack role, a player may make a 5 ft adjust to a position on the map he otherwise would not have chosen.

(Oh and for the record..my take is...
RAW: You can 5ft adjust mid cleave.
RAI: You cannot 5 ft adjust mid cleave.
Houserule: Since cleave is not overpowered as written, this minor boon to cleave wouldn't shatter the system).

Thanks!

Is it possible to further enhance the specific armors and weapons in the book?

I'm specifically interested in building a better celestial armor (more AC bonus, and/or more Max Dex bonus). I see challenges though. For example, with celestial armor, you would need to retro fit the cost of a suit of +3 chainmail (easy enough), the cost of adding a 1/day fly (possible...probably a +x gp type ability), and a very high max dex bonus (I'm not sure how you would determined the cost of this/point of dexterity, but it should scale exponentially).

Are you supposed to be able to do this? How would you do this?

It seems like a lot of interesting items like celestial armor don't see much use at the game table because for any given PC they're only good for a few levels. Before that the player cannot afford it, and after that the player can afford something better. If you can't upgrade them like normal weapons and armor they can be a bit costly.

FYI...

Celestial Armor (22,400 gp)
This bright silver or gold +3 chainmail is so fine and light that it can be worn under normal clothing without betraying its presence. It has a maximum Dexterity bonus of +8, an armor check penalty of –2, and an arcane spell failure chance of 15%. It is considered light armor and allows the wearer to use fly on command (as the spell) once per day.

We all know specialized arrows (excluding silver and cold iron) are so damn expensive, it's tough to justify the expense until very high levels.