Adacanavar's page

27 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


The reason why it needs to be changed in my opinion

1. we now have seven stages of fear instead of 3 or really 2 since shaken may be a fear effect but things besides fear cause it in the core rules.

2. It has never made any sense that a character that is above level 9 would not be afraid of something like Cuthulu since it cannot affect anything above 9 hit dice at all as a base rule.

3. the new fear system does away with fear immunity telling you to downgrade the penalties by 2 levels not due away with it entirely which makes sense someone might be able to act even though they are terrified of something else but only a fool is competently immune to fear.

4. almost no creature in the bestiary's that has frightful presence is something you would throw at a party below level 9 anyway making the frightful presence aura at base pointless as written from the core rules.

5. Several fear effects in the game should take advantage of the new 7 stage fear system for the same reasons as frightful presence needs to be changed. If you cast a level 1 spell like Cause Fear which causes fear a character should not be immune to it with a 7 stage system just because they have 6 HD or more they should downgrade the effect with a 7 stage fear system it just makes more sense if nothing is immune to fear anymore and instead just downgrades it. The spell might still cause them to be spooked above a certain number of hit dice but it should still have some level of effect no matter how many hit dice the player character has if they fail their save.

Its like Paizo did not think through the rules changes or how it would be different with a 7 stage fear system that is what I am saying. Just because your character is a level 14 bad ass when a CR 25 ancient wyrm lands in front of you its frightful presence should still work to some degree maybe not enough to make you poo your pants and cower in fear but still affect you somehow. Otherwise what is the point of the aura; Also no matter what if a 150 ft. long dragon lands in front of you as a human being you are going to have some reaction just based on how big it is after all the entire party could fit in its mouth.

So I received my copy of Horror Adventures today and read through the new rules no where in the book does it address any changes to frightful presence with the new fear system or anything that was previously based on fear other than to say GM's decision. Made me go what? so will there be an Errata on this?

I feel like this is either an error on Paizo's part or just laziness I mean why introduce a new fear system and not adjust old fear based things to reflect it.

I am going to push forward with this house rule on frightful presence and the new fear system unless someone has a better idea or has seen something in the book that I haven't concerning it.

Frightful Presence:
This special quality makes a creature’s very presence unsettling to foes. Activating this ability is a free action that is usually part of an attack or charge. Opponents within range who witness the action may become affected by greater or lesser fear effects depending on their total hit dice. The range is usually 30 feet, and the duration is usually 5d6 rounds. This ability affects only opponents with fewer Hit Dice than the creature possessing this ability. An opponent can resist the effects with a successful Will save (DC 10 + 1/2 the frightful creature’s racial HD + the frightful creature’s CHA modifier; the exact DC is given in the creature’s descriptive text). An opponent that succeeds on the saving throw is spooked by the creature’s frightful presence and is immune to further fear effects caused by that same creature’s frightful presence for 24 hours. On a failed save the opponents fear level is Horrified if the creature had 15 or more hit dice than the opponent, terrified if 10-14 more hit dice than the opponent, Frightened if 7-10 more hit dice than the opponent, scared if 5 or more hit dice than the opponent. In addition on a failed save an opponent must make a new will save each turn if they fail again they are staggered for one round each time they fail as long as the creatures frightful presence is in effect. If the opponent succeeds on their will save after initially failing their fear level is set to Shaken for the remainder of combat and are not subject to further fear effects from the creatures frightful presence for 24 hours.

Format: frightful presence (60 ft., DC 21); Location: Aura.

Devilkiller wrote:

Warpriest - After looking at the class a little I think it seems OK. Fervor is basically like Lay on Hands. Sacred Weapon resembles some stuff the Magus can do. The bonus feats could help with using feat intensive fighting styles. I can understand folks wanted a “paladin for any alignment”, but honestly the Champion of the Faith archetype seems kind of close. It looks a little like a Paladin with lower BAB, higher spellcasting, and more feats (including access to Fighter feats).

I'd be willing to try a Warpriest PC.

** spoiler omitted **

It seems like everyone is caught up a lot on the war priests damage that is not what concerns me because a cleric in melee can easily out damage a war priest by virtue of channel smite and having higher dice for the channel smite. While you can give the war priest a channel smite he does far less damage with it than a cleric which balances the increased damage from the focused weapon ability.

I'm not saying the sacred fist isn't nice it is nice but not my cup of tea. The overall versatility of the war priest is what the not having a full BaB or something to distinguish it in some other way brings into play. It doesn't have to be full BAB either if the war priest could pull from every divine spell casters list rather than just the clerics it would balance him out as well. Or even if he got spells the same way as a cleric only up to level 6 that would balance him out too.

As to the summoning arguments i'm seeing the summoning is only viable if you are playing that type of war priest one that has the summoning blessings. Even then its not enough to balance it out the only thing is taking an archetype that requires to be a war priest of a certain alignment which is just ridiculous. Yes if i was wanting to OP a a war priest I could but this is a role playing game if i don't want to play a war priest of Sarenrae I should not have to in order to make the class viable.

Matthew Downie wrote:
Adacanavar wrote:
look in the equipment chapter of the core book wielding a two handed weapon with 1 hand is at a -6 attack penalty.
I'm fairly certain there is no such rule.

In appropriately sized weapons read it with logic in mind it may not be what they intended but it is in the RAW -2 for each size category and it does not say you can't wield a two handed weapon as one handed if you are willing to take the penalty.

And under weapon size category's it says that two-hands are required to wield it effectively meaning you can wield it with one hand ineffectively. You would take a -6 penalty for the size and could only add your strength bonus rather than strength and a half. It is right there in black and white.

Malwing wrote:

I have no clue, mostly because everything I normally cast as an inquisitor are already on the cleric list and there would likely be spells that I'd want that I would lose in this exchange. Gaining the Paladin list in addition to Cleric (like hunter) would be more in line and better to me but really I haven't had any casting problems from warpriest.

BTW why is everyone picking on warpriest. I took it for a test drive and the dude is a murderbeast.

I don't think it is so much picking on it as a general disappointment in what the end release was for the war priest its not that it isn't a viable class its that the inquisitor seems more like the war priest than the war priest does.

Sagiso wrote:

Basically, our GM loves to throw us lots of constructs to battle as of late (as well as elementals, but that's more to the grievance of our rogue) and as an arcane caster, I'm as far as I know not very well equipped to be dealing with these things. Especially as I've only recently started growing into the role of battlefield control from a more blast-y setup. So to rectify that I've been looking a bit at some spells that might be decent for dealing with the issue, but since I lack experience, I figured I'd check with more experienced deconstructors on this forum (this is non-PFS by the way and we use pretty much every D&D material if we can source it).

Anyhow, things I've been looking at:

The "Chains of Light spell, 6th level.
Looks good and all at first glance (to me anyway) but since constructs tends to not be awfully bothered by paralyze, I'm not sure how much of an effect, if any, the "The creature is paralyzed and held in place" part actually is.

Then there's the spell "Sabotage construct", another 6th level spell
I have no real experience with mind effecting ailments, so I'm not sure how effective confusion would actually be. Any input on that is greatly appreciated.

And then there's the spells "Apparent master", 5th level, and "Control construct", which is 7th level.
Now, the latter of these kind of makes me want to laugh evilly, but that could just be inexperience and the text phrasing it as wresting control away from its master; which undeniably sounds pretty badass.

This is pretty much just what I've found without digging super deep, so if you have opinions and suggestions outside of these spells then that's very much welcome.

HMMM dungeons and dragons if i remember most sonic spells deal extra damage to constructs.

Shatter is good and easy to get.
Spells which don't allow spell resistance and aren't mind effecting very good and you can find some really nifty ones out there just run a google search of D&D what ever edition and spells that don't allow spell resistance.

Anzyr wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Uh... all of those characters are chumps compared to even say a 13th level caster. Batman is like level 6 (with.... a lot of WBL), Green Arrow and Hawkeye are the same, and Captain America may beat them out as a level 8ish character with a sweet template. But a 20th level caster would laugh in Thanos' face. And then murder him. As a Swift action. And that's the problem. Those heroes aren't high level, but people consider them many levels higher then they are, which drags down martial types as a whole. Now Cu Cuchulain... thats a decently high level martial. And he'd wipe the floor with all those superheros. (Though lets be honest, in a fight between say Captain America and Ruby from RWBY, the safe money is on Ruby, not Cap. And she's like mid level martial, or rather what they should be.)

But Batman, whom you say is level 6, is in the same club as a guy with racial bonuses high enough to push planets around and shrug off nuclear explosions. And the kid who can buff up to that same level by speaking a single word. And the woman who beats the god of war in melee combat. And the guy with the magic Ring-of-Whatever-I-Want. Yet whenever I've seen these characters together in a game, Batman contributes at least as much to the adventure as any of the others, and frequently more.

It's not just raw power that makes a character fun to play.

Only in stories with fiat. Realistically speaking, with Superman's abilities in an actual fight his loss rate to Batman would be 0%. Having a Kryponite Ring is no good if your very human body was crushed (by literally even a single finger) faster then then human body can react.

Correction. Zod's loss rate to Batman would probably be 0%. Superman can't crush Batman without killing him, which he's not willing to do.

My post wasn't about who'd win in a fight, however, but how much of a contribution Batman can make to the team. The game systems I've seen that feature those


To the OP of the thread it isn't any one that can be pointed too or even just the list you provided which by the way is an assumption it is the rules as written which need to be pointed at and reevaluated. As a GM I can honestly say that their is nothing wrong with PF in concept it is the execution which is at fault for any issues with overpowering characters or monsters. The RAW of the game system should have been gone over with a fine toothed comb before the game was released and the issues which have been errata'd and FAQ'ed numbering in the hundreds addressed at that time and yes there are still issues still better than 3.5 or Hero which is even more broken or Gurps super broken. However everyone makes mistakes even game companies look at 4th edition dungeons and dragons if you don't believe me. While i can honestly say some of the rulings made on the issues are not what i would have made they are still not overpowered save the magic item creation rules. The system itself created your solution to all of your issues with the game as well HOME BREW. You don't like something fix it change it make it what you want.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wilimac wrote:

I might be confused but death and active buff spells. Do all active spells that are on you (I.e shield of faith, telepathic bond, bless) end once you are considered dead. I know that a dead body is considered an object after death but wouldn't the spell duration continue on til they end?

And what would happen to active spells right before your an target of a Breath of life when your considered dead?

Sorry if this looks weird typing during a session on a tablet.

I actually had to answer this question recently in a game session a character was raised and had several permanent spells on him. Everything i could find concerning dead players says they are creatures and obviously if they can be targeted by a spell such as animate dead they are valid targets for any spell just like an undead creature is even a mindless one. Therefore the ruling i made was that spells last past death if you are brought back in the same body you retain the spells which were on you. If you are brought back in a shinny new body reincarnation or true resurrection the spells are gone.

Dragonchess Player wrote:

Design philosophy.

Full BAB classes can only gain 4-levels of spells (if they have spells at all).

+3/4 BAB classes can gain 6-levels of spells if arcane or either 6- or 9-levels of spells if divine (if they have spells).

+1/2 BAB classes (typically arcane) gain 9-levels of spells.

Basically, allowing full BAB and 6-levels of spells is more powerful than pretty much any other class in Pathfinder, especially with the divine buff spells on top of that.

Not to say you don't know what your saying but clerics and war priests have the same BAB as do magus and cleric. And i really don't know where they pulled the fervor ability from its like lay on hands that change's into channeling and lay on hands with a weird shudder from time to time as you burn it for a quicken buff at level 4 which is just strange. But if the blessings and sacred weapons and sacred armor don't seem like a fair trade off from the inquisitor if it had a full BAB i would say it was fair right now not so fair maybe they will pop out an archetype that only gets one blessing and gets full BAB i can hope right?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. Magic item creation system my god gold should not be the only factor in creating magic items are you kidding me? If you can create a +5 weapon as a level 5 character or gain a +6 attribute bonus as a level 3 character which totally makes anything your own CR or within the next 6 CR levels go splat its broken. I know gold is supposed to limit it but that also limits role playing, like being able to sneak into the kings castle and kill his steward steal the key to the vault and make off with the tax payers hard earned shinny gold for yourself you can't allow is as the GM under the current magic item creation rules without allowing player characters to be overpowered regardless of the fact that a level 3 rogue could probably do that with a little luck.

2. Spell synergy please look at adding more spell synergy, the current system has some but it should be all over the place especially with the elemental spells we can home brew it right now of course and I do but it would be nice if there was more of it in the RAW.

3. Rules regarding realistic carry weights please by this I mean more than just how much one can carry on there person some things are just cumbersome and while your character could move them the wouldn't be able to carry them just because something weighs 300 pounds it could be 20 feet long and have an odd shape so actually lifting it would be impossible for much time.

4. Equipment weights please make them realistic no offense but the listings of weights for several weapons and armors are completely ridiculous a simple google search shows anybody that. But for someone who has actually trained with real weapons or armor it is glaringly horrible.

mswbear wrote:
basically people are mad because it actually balanced the class. I have seen a ton of theory crafting arguments that it is now one of the worst class and doesn't hold up to paladin or inquisitor. I assure you that in actual practice it just as powerful. Advanced Class Origins is coming out Oct 22nd. I assume that war priest will be plenty powerful after some of the options in that book for the theory crafting crowd.

I do feel quite limited in my the options for the advanced class guide right now so i'm looking forward to that release. I don't need or want to be the most powerful in fact that is one of the things which annoys me about pathfinder the last character i played was a bard and i enjoyed it even though i was weaker than everyone else. The whole not having a full BAB on a front line melee character just feels wrong is all.

Doctor or physic that is hired to travel with you would be a decent cover for a mage in hiding who can really identify all that goop they keep with for spell weaving anyway and you would pay them a bunch.

Prostitute who specializes in object insertion (maybe that is to graphic)

Thelemic_Noun wrote:

So, if a level 20 two-handed fighter/tier 10 champion with Maximized Critical uses devastating blow with a x4 weapon on a 1st-level commoner, what does that actually represent? Does the blade smash his heart into pieces and send him sprawling? Or does it go further? Can he be split in two down the long axis and fall apart in B-movie horror fashion? Does his upper body go flying 2d6x10 feet in a random direction away from the fighter? Does he fall apart into ludicrous gibs like in Quake III or UT 2004?

This somewhat has a rules implication, because if you bisect him purely through hit point damage, that makes him just as difficult to raise from the dead as if you'd animated him as a ghoul.

While there is no rules system flavor text is very much apart of combat so i would say something like this. " your sword slashes through the top of his head splitting him in two down to the breast bone where it lands with a solid crack of bone, his brain splatters out from the wound and lands at your feet as you pull up on the hilt you realize the blade is stuck in the breast bone, instead of removing it normally you jerk up on the blade lifting his entire body and bringing crashing down folding his body like an accordion and ripping the blade from his breast bone.

Everything from the swords and sorcery setting.

Pathfinder unchained should rename the rogue to a thief again so no PC but who cares lets drop the PC thing. My favorite thing about the rogue in pathfinder has to be the talents such amusing talents.

Eltacolibre wrote:

The class is all about buffing itself with swift actions , essentially all warpriests are battle-clerics without having to wait to get quicken spells, so they easily have a Bab comparable to full bab classes and they can even pick combat feats as if they were a full bab class and they can use their god special snowflake weapon like any weapon. Which means that Warpriests are very good for any campaign going from level 1 to 12, when clerics can't buff themselves that fast. If you know your campaign is heading to level 13 and above, you might as well just play a cleric because higher level spells OP.

I'm not saying they aren't good and they do amuse the hell out of me as a class and i'm going to play one as soon as i can it just seems from there general description there ideals and philosophies they would be a full BAB class like a paladin for the gods who would never have a lawful goody toe shoes killer on a chain like Pharasma. To me it makes no sense they aren't full BAB. And there isn't a spell that makes up for BAB not with the number of spells available to the war priest which is why i said if they balanced it more like the magus i would understand. Admittedly the swift action from fervor thing is nice but you can do it such a limited number of times per day one combat and its pretty much your done being a front line fighter for the day from levels 1-10.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Sauce987654321 wrote:
"Realistically" speaking, how big would a colossal T-rex have to be to swallow a sperm whale?

Realistically, as others have noted, what's realistic depends on the sort of creature.

Of course if we're really being realistic here, there's an upper limit to real life animal sizes for good reason. The bigger an animal is, the thicker and thicker its bones need to be in order to avoid them breaking under the weight of the animal's own mass. Whales can get truly big because the physics of water counteracts the crushing force of gravity somewhat; I'm not sure what the record for biggest land animal is, but it's sure to have truly massive bones; and fliers can't even approach that record because they require a longer and longer wingspan just to take off.

And realistically...

Pathfinder SRD wrote:
If a swallowed creature cuts its way out, the swallowing creature cannot use swallow whole again until the damage is healed.

Well, er, like so many things in PF/D&D, realism just doesn't apply. If I swallowed a mouse, which then managed to gnaw its way out of my throat, I'm pretty sure I would die horribly. Not have to go on a liquids diet until someone wrapped a bandage around my neck.

It's not quite as hilarious as the 'muscular action' that 3.0 and 3.5 creatures with the SH ability use to regenerate gaping throat wounds, but PF's is still far out in fantasy land. :)

ROFLMAO anyway if you are being realistic you would live quite awhile if a mouse cut its way out of your stomach in unbelievable pain true maybe unconscious most of the time but its like getting shot in the stomach you would live for quite awhile. Do that to an animal watch what they do they either attack or flee and that's all about being the GM and making a convincing combat. As to the size of a t-rex in pathfinder it is supposedly 40 ft long a t-rex is bipedal and 40 ft long including the tail a triceratops is 30 feet long and a quadruped including the tail. So if you are a 40 ft long biped why couldn't you fit a 30 ft quadruped in your stomach, in one piece it does seem unlikely but heh why not. You might look like Luffy from one piece after eating a pile of meat but i think it is just funny as all hell.

Diego Rossi wrote:
PRD wrote:
These crystalline stones always float in the air and must be within 3 feet of their owner to be of any use. When a character first acquires a stone, she must hold it and then release it, whereupon it takes up a circling orbit 1d3 feet from her head.

It never say "around the owner head". If we go to the original literature from the Ioun stoens (The Dying Earth novels by Jack Vance) they circle a few feet behind the owner, not in his field of vision.

So the focus of the ioun stones orbit isn't the owner head, it is a point behind his head. It can even be a point over his head.

So essentially if you have enough ioun stones you can't be sneak attacked from behind or flanked because they create a solid shield behind your back? (not serious)

Does anyone know why they decided to not give the warpriest a full BAB progression in the advanced class guide? I would understand it if they balanced it more like the magus but it does not appear that they did.

Malwing wrote:
Speaking of 3.5 feats that didn't make it, the feat that I hear about the most is Monkey Grip.

Monkey grip didn't make it because it exists by default look in the equipment chapter of the core book wielding a two handed weapon with 1 hand is at a -6 attack penalty.

That being said the feat i would most like to see?

Powerful Throwing
Prerequisite: quick draw, close quarters thrower, point blank shot
Benefit: when you use a thrown weapon your range increment is doubled for that weapon and the maximum range increment for the weapon increases to x10 just like a projectile weapon.

Adacanavar wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

This is the same issue as wearing more than two rings. Physically, you can wear as many rings as you have fingers, but you only have two ring slots. I seem to recall the general rule being that the ring worn first on each hand is the one that works.

So, in the case of single magic gloves that are not part of a pair, the first glove you put on works normally, and the second one you put on is inert until you take the first glove off.

Magic items are based off of the mortal form only being able to handle so much magic and different slots have different things associated to them. So if you want you could logically sacrifice one slot to put another ring on your hand that works like say you don't want to wear a cloak then you sacrifice shoulder slot of magic for another ring i think wearing two different gloves would work the same way if they don't require both gloves to be worn for the magic benefit.

In regards to determining which one is active if you are wearing two sets of gloves and you don't like my above statement then you should treat it like drawing a weapon the player declares which glove is active all the time then takes a move action caused by concentration and changes the glove which is active if the other glove would have a better benefit to that combat situation.

David knott 242 wrote:

This is the same issue as wearing more than two rings. Physically, you can wear as many rings as you have fingers, but you only have two ring slots. I seem to recall the general rule being that the ring worn first on each hand is the one that works.

So, in the case of single magic gloves that are not part of a pair, the first glove you put on works normally, and the second one you put on is inert until you take the first glove off.

Magic items are based off of the mortal form only being able to handle so much magic and different slots have different things associated to them. So if you want you could logically sacrifice one slot to put another ring on your hand that works like say you don't want to wear a cloak then you sacrifice shoulder slot of magic for another ring i think wearing two different gloves would work the same way if they don't require both gloves to be worn for the magic benefit.

Ok i need to put this in the form of another question after reading all of this and i will quote the FAQ in here as well which brought the question to light in my mind and made me post the original two questions.

1. As to the first question I asked what i am understanding from this thread is that the item you are trying to create itself unless its an enhancement bonus to a weapon of +1 to +5 has no actual caster level at all so a level 3 wizard with some insane spell craft check could make a belt of giants strength +6 if they had the gold piece value and the craft wondrous items feat, is that correct?

2. As to my second question originally why does the RAW bring up meta magic feats at all if it in some way does not effect the item you are trying to craft?

tying into number two and one here is the RAW on magic item creation from the core book page 549 concerning caster level and meta magic if they don't matter at all if there is no minimum caster level why does it even say this?

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

3. I understand that you can remove the caster level requirements with a +5 to the DC of the spell craft check which was not one of my original questions because i took it for granted that doing so would add +5 for each level removed from the caster level required. Where are we getting that the +5 is not cumulative when it comes to level? as the FAQ simply states the following

"Crafting and Bypassing Requirements: What crafting requirements can you bypass by adding +5 to the DC of your Spellcraft check?
As presented on page 549 of the Core Rulebook, there are no limitations other than (1) you have to have the item creation feat, and (2) you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites. So racial requirements, specific spell requirements, math requirements (such as "caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus"), and so on, are all subject to the +5 DC rule.

wraithstrike said wrote:

you can start the full round action in the surprise round, but you can not complete it because surprise rounds only allow for standard actions unless you have a special ability that lets you ignore that rule.

Short version the coup de grace would start in the surprise round and finish once normal combat started.

edit: If you are sleeping or paralyzed you do not get to act, and your helpless condition is not removed.

Is this in the raw somewhere so i can point to it?

Chemlak while I appreciate the commentary and don't mean to sound snooty about it but the only way the players in one of my campaigns will accept an answer from forums is through a developer. The question was directed at the developers as this is what these forums are for according to the FAQ and saying that it is only limited by gold is also not a valid reasoning. The gold pieces awarded through simple math using even the slow progression for CR's of an equivalent encounter to a player party dictate a person could craft a +6 wondrous item by level 5 without even really trying to save gold if they are a spell caster and with the appropriate skill rank choices and 1 feat can easily make that spell craft roll. If that is the game developers reasoning for it I will gladly accept it i just think it is broken if that is the case and they should think about redoing the rules governing magic item creation.

Also it says this in the core book: Using metamagic feats, a caster can place spells in items at a higher level than normal.

I don't understand how if this effects the level of a spell it would not effect the level of a magic item or at least the creation DC of that magic item. Also all spells required for wondrous items i have looked at directly tie to the wondrous item in some way shape or form so saying they don't duplicate the effects of spells is just untrue, they do duplicate the effects of the spells that are there requirements almost exactly with only a slight deviation in some cases.

I need to know if a character with temporal celerity can be coup de graced in there sleep. There is an argument from a player that the ability to act in the surprise round means that a sleeping character cannot be coup de graced because the action itself would be the surprise round. I do not think of it that way because coup de grace takes a full round action so you could not do it as part of a surprise round by the rules which state you can only take a half action in the surprise round. So does a coup de grace action start a surprise round or is it the surprise round??? In other words if a character successfully sneaks into a sleeping Orc encampment and coup de graces the Orc chief who survives the action waking him up is it now the surprise round? or was the coup de grace the surprise round and every acts in initiative order?

I have seen several postings under the rules section of the forums addressing item creation and caster level however none of them answer my questions at least not completely and many of the answers seem rather vague and game breaking so i'm guessing that a developer did not actually answer them. So i will explain why the postings don't answer my questions as part of each question.

1. Wondrous items which effect ability scores have the same effect as giving a weapon a +1 bonus if applied to the appropriate ability score (only with more benefits such as skill roll increases) that being an increase to hit and damage or in the abstract of increasing a spells DC or the number of spells which can be cast per day, for the class of the character who ends up wielding it. This has the effect of bypassing what i'm guessing is a limit on the amount of damage which a weapon can do below a certain level so as not to unbalance the combat system. Since this is the case does a wondrous item which affects an ability score also increase the caster level required to create it by 3 for each +2 of the ability score it effects?

2. The spells that are used to create wondrous items often times do not allow the amount of bonus's which the completed wondrous items end up having (such as a +6 belt of giants strength). Is this because it is assumed the wondrous item is crafted with an empowered version of the spell?

3. If the answer to question number 2 is yes does that mean that any caster who does not have the empower feat should increase the DC of the spell craft check on creation by 5 and should they burn the appropriate level spell slot for the empowered version of that spell for the days of creation instead of the spells normal level?