Amakawa Yuuto's page

However, by the rules, you could definitely put a Bag of Holding into a Handy Haversack (or into another Bag of Holding, for that matter).
Or a Portable Hole into another Portable Hole.
It just means that you'll take several rounds of rummaging through your multiple stacked Bag of Holdings/Portable Holes.

Just curious does anyone else treat a rope trick like a portable hole since they are both extra dimensional spaces? In other words you can't put a bag of holding inside a rope trick and you need a source of air if you plan on being inside one for a long period of time.

Extradimensional Spaces

A number of spells and magic items utilize extradimensional spaces, such as rope trick, a bag of holding, a handy haversack, and a portable hole. These spells and magic items create a tiny pocket space that does not exist in any dimension. Such items do not function, however, inside another extradimensional space. If placed inside such a space, they cease to function until removed from the extradimensional space. For example, if a bag of holding is brought into a rope trick, the contents of the bag of holding become inaccessible until the bag of holding is taken outside the rope trick. The only exception to this is when a bag of holding and a portable hole interact, forming a rift to the Astral Plane, as noted in their descriptions.

Unless otherwise specified (Bag of Holding vs. Portable Hole), extradimensional containers can be placed into extradimensional spaces, but you can't open them there. So, you can bring your Bag of Holding, Handy Haversack or Portable Hole into your Rope Trick, but you can't access the contents in there.

PRD wrote:

Faerie Fire

A pale glow surrounds and outlines the subjects. Outlined subjects shed light as candles.

You know, candles, that item that was used to light up rooms and read manuscript.

Yeah, but suppressing the "raising light level"-effect of Faerie Fire doesn't necessarily suppress the "negating concealment" effect - they could be separate, and/or the "leftover" glow after darkness might be enough to outline them (especially in contrast to the even darker background). Though that doesn't really matter, since...

/Edit: Missed it. It's in the Faerie Fire spell description:

Faerie Fire Spell Description wrote:

Outlined creatures do not benefit from the concealment normally provided by darkness (though a 2nd-level or higher magical darkness effect functions normally)

...it doesn't work either way.

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

Drow have darkvision why would they need to use Faerie Fire?

In the 1st and 2nd edition it gave a to hit bonus in low light and darkness conditions. Now? It negate invisibility, blur and displacement, all stuff that is irrelevant if you can't see.

Maybe the idea is that you will clearly see your enemies thank to darkvision and beat those effects with faerie fire.

There's still Deeper Darkness, which Noble Drow (both the "Noble Drow" base race and the feat chain) can use as Spell-Like.

So, keeping Faerie Fire active on your enemies while they're in Deeper Darkness would allow you to keep even enemies with Darkvision blind (and everyone down there has Darkvision, so regular Darkness does nearly nothing), without suffering any miss chance yourself.

And ok, now I'm playing Rules Lawyer (I'm not that good at it, so bear with me), but...

Magical light sources only increase the light level in an area if they are of a higher spell level than darkness.

[...] Darkness can be used to counter or dispel any light spell of equal or lower spell level.

Faerie Fire doesn't increase the light level, so that doesn't apply. And Darkness can be used to counter/dispel light spells (which, I'd assume, would work like using Dispel Magic, but only for light spells), but it doesn't say it automatically does so.

Is there any statement saying that Darkness-effects automatically dispel any light effects in their area that I missed? Otherwise, "Faerie Fire keeps working fine" seems to be the rule, because the only automatic effect ("can't increase light level") isn't applicable.

/Edit: Missed it. It's in the Faerie Fire spell description:

Outlined creatures do not benefit from the concealment normally provided by darkness (though a 2nd-level or higher magical darkness effect functions normally)

So, you'd have to lower Darkness to spell level 1 for it to work against creatures without Darkvision, and you'd have to do the same to Deeper Darkness if you wanted to use this trick against creatures with Darkvision.

Heighten Spell is all you need.

The combo is "classic" because Drow (all Drow, apparently, since none of their Alternate Racial Traits trades their Spell-Likes away) can use both Darkness and Faerie Fire as Spell-Like Abilities.

So, to be able to use Heighten Spell, they'd first need to become actual casters able to cast said spells, which many of them aren't.

/Edit: I'd say I was ninja'ed, but fact is that I'm generally so slow when it comes to typing (and I looked some stuff up before I answered) that it doesn't have to be a ninja.

A GM asking for a perception check and/or a will save...
...and then not giving any further information about what just happenend.

Diabolist requires you to be "lawful neutral, lawful evil, or neutral evil", and the fluff says "Though some tread the path of the diabolist to enslave the forces of Hell and turn them toward goals other than corruption, only the most stalwart of diabolists can resist the temptations of the Pit" - so, Lawful Neutral is an option, though it's not the default expectation.
Otherwise - sure, you summon devils, which is an evil act excluding all other factors, but, it could be argued that while a devil is forced to serve you, it's barred from furthering its own evil agenda, and you could put it to "good use", so properly used it might end up neutral.

Last but not least, sure the ring of mind shielding is an option, but if the pally sees (or otherwise learns of) you stealing candies from innocent babies, you're still in for some trouble, so Lawful Neutral might be the way to go. He might think of himself as great villain, but "lesser evils" are beneath him and whenever the opportunity to "true evil" offers itself, he ends up being squeamish and makes up an excuse to himself as for why he doesn't go through with it...

...And now I'm thinking of Megamind: More obsessed with the role of "the Villain" then with actually doing bad stuff.

This slightly varies in our campaigns, but it's definitely a valid default, yeah.

I mean, in the campaign I'm running, they started out in a town that accepted pretty much anyone, but that was something unusual, and mostly because the town wanted more workers and trade, so anyone who didn't cause trouble was accepted.
In another campaign, a tiefling player was warned that, unless he managed to get some influential friends or a well-known good reputation by the time people figured out what he was, there would be problems. (Not problems we wouldn't be able to handle, since that would also take the fun out of it, but still, problems.)

It depends on the setting and probably should be discussed beforehand - at least if someone wants to play an unusual race - but "pitchforks and torches" are an entirely valid reaction.

And if someone calls you a stupid savage monster and you proceed to prove them right by murdering them over an insult, then yes, that's evil, not neutral.

The funny part is that Joyful Rapture has no listed effect on opponents, but is still explicitly including them in its area, which pretty much means that disrupting psychic casting is the only effect it has on enemies (it still has the regular effect on allies, though).
And yah, barbarian and bloodrager raging doesn't matter, a barbarian's rage doesn't allow any spellcasting and bloodragers can only cast their bloodrager spells while in bloodrage.

That being said, the easiest way to crash psychic spellcasting is probably still the demoralise action. Shaken is definitely a fear effect.

Also, still and silent spells can still be useful if you're paralysed and somesuch, though you should probably avoid getting paralysed in the first place. Being restricted to mental actions is always bad news, one way or another.

But if you really want to secretly cast spells, [there's a feat for that]. Yes, it requires one prerequisite feat and an opposed skillcheck, but the feat helps with said skillcheck, and being able to cast spells without anyone knowing it was you should be easily worth it if you're the kind of person who'd abuse such secrecy. Also, you'll note that psychic casters can still usually ignore most of the penalties other casters would suffer from on said skillcheck.

Actually, D&D itself doesn't use the Tolkein races like Tolkein did. In D&D, Elves aren't immortal, and don't emigrate to a certain restricted area of the world, [...]

Unless you're playing in the Faerûn-Setting, where most Elves just move to the fae realm "mirror" of a specific island before they die.

The magic section specifies that a wizard spend a certain amount of time performing spell research, and that is the basis for the new spells. I wouldn't think it appropriate to charge money for these spells, personally, but a time requirement is certainly appropriate and is even supported by the CRB, though it doesn't give any particular amount of time.

So, basically the same as fighter bonus feats.

(Technically, there's also the "middle ground" of people having their level up happen during the next extended rest for bookkeeping reasons, and there are those that don't use XP anyway and can pretty much hand-wave when level up happens, and probably a few other variations but I think "training is boring" and "lack of training is unrealistic" are the main points here.)

Which are pretty much just differences in opinion and play style, but I wouldn't call one side any more correct than the other (though I admit that I consider hand-waving training more enjoyable, but that's subjective).
Although, if your group hasn't RPed daily training so far (which you've said - your argument was that their new spells and skills apparently came out of nowhere), I'd guess that they aren't crazy about having delayed level-ups and forced training, either.

I think there is a list of 3.5 undead at GitP?

Punch in "3.5 d20 undead list" or something similar to Google, that should get you there. Maybe it will jog your memory.

Wasn't in that list, and not in the monster finder either - but I did find it with a general google search.

It's the Curst, from "Monsters of Faerun". Created by casting Bestow Curse and Wish/Miracle in close succession on a victim, they're... odd undead. They can't be turned, and they can be healed by regular healing magic, but they can't be killed by damage, only by Remove Curse, which causes them to "crumble to dust with a smile".
Also, they're a template, not a creature, so you can make variant Curst.

This template is nearly identical to the one in the book, and mostly just irons out a few kinks - it's probably a bit better (as in "easier to adjudicate" - it actually gains a few penalties, more ways to kill it, and never mention that regular healing magic works on them - but the original template had a few a bit harder to adjudicate things in it, like just giving every Curst a 1d4 slam attack without adjusting for size, 9 out of 10 Curst getting a fixed Intelligence score of 8 while the last 1 out of 10 retain their int scores, and making no mention about how their "5% chance for craziness every 10 minutes" should be handled in combat...).

3.5 had a type of undead that did this - I forgot how they could be killed, but casting "break curse" was a necessary part of it.
And they were generally looking for a way to die, only obeying necromancers so they'd free them from their curse (and getting... unpleasant if the necromancer broke their part of the deal).
Also, every few minutes they'd just... start acting randomly for a while, and completely ignore their surroundings.

...to bad I completely forgot their name.

The trick is to have cast it before you enter the room.

Detect Magic gives you info based on "how long you study a particular area or subject", not based on when you cast it. So, you still need to concentrate for three rounds before you see where any magic aura comes from.

That is, unless you use it through a wooden door, before opening it. That could work.
Unless (again) it's a heavy steel door (or a wooden, but lead-lined door, because people know divination spells are a thing and that lead blocks several of them), in that case you still sense nothing and can only start scanning the room after opening the door.

zainale wrote:

i would not say no to pc wizards who plan ahead and have a scroll or two with the spells they wanted on them. then it is just a matter of them copying them into their spell book.

Ok, I'm gonna have to raise a flag on this one. The 2 spells a wizard gets upon advancing a level are supposed to be free. As in, no cost in gp or time. There are specific mechanics for scribing a scroll into the wizard's spellbook, including the cost of that scribing in gp and time required. While many would say it's a small price to pay for being such a powerful class, it is still against RAW.

Also, it has to be possible to invent "new" spells, what else would arcane research be for? (In-fluff-new, mostly, but "this spell was invented by that character" is a thing.) If this isn't possible, then there's just a fixed set of spells possible in the world, and if you destroy the last scroll of a spell, you might just erase knowledge of that spell forever because no one could "invent" it anew.

...
Anyway. That's what I always took the automatic two new spells for - sure, they weren't anything "ground-breaking new", others already knew how to do that, but the Wizard figured them out on his own (when he leveled). No copying other's work necessary.

Also, this "have to mention their feats so they can gain them when they level" just leads to repetitive "My character practices X before he goes to bed" (imagine it said in the most bored, expressionless voice you can). If you think that sounds boring and repetitive - well, that's why it's usually assumed to happen off-screen, next to "gathering dry wood for the camp fire".

One, "Immediate Action" is actually a defined term, and triggering a Mesmerist Trick isn't one. But that's probably just nitpicking.

Two - RAW, no. You can't trigger tricks outside of the trigger condition. You can waive and void them without triggering them so you can implant another trick, but since the only mention of how to trigger them is "as a free action, even if it isn't their turn, as long as the trigger condition is met", that's the only way you get.

That being said, I don't think anything would break if standard action triggering was allowed.

I'm of the opinion that the elements should have been split more, which means lightning, ice, and gravity would have all gotten their own element.

Eh, I wouldn't mind Ice as seperate, if only so I could better build Snow Queen Elsa (Kineticist seems more appropriate than spontanous caster, and prepared caster is completely unfitting).

@Tels: My point was that, assuming that the link between "Void" and "Gravity" was "Space", it'd make about as much sense as a link between fire and cold (a better example would probably be that space is as much connected to "gravity" as it is to "air" - space is primarily defined by the absence of both).
'Course, if the connection is more along the lines of "Dark Matter", or simply "Gravity -> Black Hole -> ULTIMATE DARKNESS", then the point is moot.

The list in the "Archives of Nethys" is more extensive (...to the degree of even including some (marked) 3.5 poisons), but I don't know if any (or rather, how many) are missing.

Somehow, I think Gravity is associated with Void because of space (as in, "the empty void between the stars", not as in "storage space")...

...which is rather ironic, given that the connection between gravity and space is that space is about the only place where gravity is as good as entirely absent.

It's like giving fire a cold attack - "Fire is about heat, so I can drain heat away too, right?"

/Edit:

I suppose you could do water/wood (thematically tied), but earth/void isn't great either.

Near-random, but still somewhat related tidbit...

Well, China and Japan have different ideas about what's in the center.
In China, the center has the Yellow Dragon representing Earth.
In Japan, the center is (intentionally) empty, representing Void.
Of course, here "void" represents the serene calm achieved by a mind freed from all distractions, but still...

The "just a short list"-disclaimer seems more like it was just put there because it was in the original book, and to keep a loophole open so you (or later books) can add more poisons.
I mean, look at the sources of these poisons...
...wait, that's all Ultimate Equipment. Nevermind.

Here, have a link to the Archive of Nethys:
http://www.archivesofnethys.com/Poisons.aspx

That might still not be 100%, but it's probably still pretty complete.

It reminds me of a D&D 3.5 feat in the Faerun setting: "Heretic Faith". It allowed a cleric to be two steps away from his patron deity, instead of only one step. So, you could be lawful evil and worship a lawful good deity, or could be chaotic neutral and worship a lawful neutral deity.
Some mentioned heresies of it include the belief that a living god was actually a dead god in disguise - like Lathander actually being Amaunator and such.

'Course, in 3.5 Faerun, deities were even more important than in regular D&D: If you weren't faithful to your god, the god of death would judge you as "False", keep your soul and punish it (so no one had to wonder why a pacifistic god of martyrdom would punish worshipers who failed him - he doesn't, those worshipers never even reach him).
If you didn't even have a patron deity, the god of death would judge you as "Goddless" and destroy your soul (after a week of being dead - that's how long judgement takes), and then even resurrection couldn't bring you back.

People with "Heretic Faith" could cast divine spells even though they actively disagreed with their gods, but after death they were still judged as "false worshippers" by the death god and punished for eternity (or until resurrected).

So, yah - it had a minor, fluffy benefit: Being one step further away from your god's alignment than is usually allowed. In Pathfinder, that's probably better served with a Trait.

2) and even if you think it's 'always' active, only the 'significant' portion of the weapon is brilliant energy, so the hilt would stop it from falling through the earth and allow you to hold it just fine.

If only the "significant portion" is turned into light, then the still solid "insignificant portion" of an arrow will stop it from passing through a wall. Which is probably the biggest argument for "does not ignore cover". But hey, it's from the first sentence, which pretty much everyone agrees is just fluff.

If the ruling is sheathing a weapon suppresses the effect, problem solved. The brilliant energy effect is suppressed while the weapon is sheathed.

Flaming and similar weapons only activate "upon command", and since the description ends with "The effect remains until another command is given.", they can obviously be deactivated for carrying and storage.

Brilliant Energy is continually, there's no way to deactivate it.

If you drop a 8th level spell you get what the spell say you get.

Discern location say: "The spell reveals the name of the creature or object's location (place, name, business name, building name, or the like), community, county (or similar political division), country, continent, and the plane of existence where the target lies."

You want something that isn't part of what the spell give you.

So, to sum it up: You're saying "Discern Location" doesn't actually give you the location of the target. Only the name of the location of the target.

Yeah. Babies are essentially animals. They don't have a language, and while their intelligence may be higher than 2, they don't show it yet. Hence, they're neutral.

Also, it's only 1/3 that's evil. So at best, you get to kill two.

Tell me, do you also rule that flaming arrows set the users quiver on fire? Or does the arrow only ignite when used?

Nah. What I did was reductio ad absurdum: I took the stance "Ignores non-living matter" and took it to its ridiculous conclusion.

Hmm. True, too. But if they didn't interact with the walls of extradimensional spaces, wouldn't they still fall out of them?

Bags of Holding, and by extension Handy Haversacks (whose insides are described as "like a Bag of Holding"), rupture when pierced by sharp objects. Since you can't sheath a Brilliant Energy weapon, those are out. The quiver or other stuff made explicitly for weapons would probably work, though.

Still, you need to get a "Get the weapon back from any distance"-trick, or the first disarm is going to rob you of your blade forever.

Ok then, let's take "ignores non-living matter" to its logical conclusion:
You can't use it as ammunition unless your bow/sling/ranged weapon of choice is alive, because otherwise, the ammunition ignores it and can't be fired.
You can't sheath it unless your sheath is alive, because it would just fall through it.
You can never, ever let go of it unless you place it on a living surface, because the moment you drop it, it will fall through the floor and, after falling a long, long way maybe hit some poor drow in the head. If that kills him, it will start falling through his corpse again and start a war with the aboleths.

The description of "brilliant energy" was most likely written with swords in mind. Yes, their blades (the significant portions) ignore nonliving objects, but their hilts, I assume, do not. Hence, they stay on the ground instead of falling through it, and can be kept without having to keep them held all the time.

I admit, I have no idea how the "only front half of the ammunition turns to energy"-interpretation could be made to work with bullets, sling-stones, very small arrows and similar (normal-sized bolts can still be "only front half turned to energy"), but as you said:

Also, one word we might forget from time to time: Magic. Perhaps the arrow is interacting with a thin layer of magic in the atmosphere, causing the fletching to work as intended even though it doesn't interact with the air around it O.o

"Long, long ago, an epic god-wizard living by the cost decided that cover-bypassing Brilliant Energy weapons were a threat to the balance of the world, and hence made it so cover blocks them. Because magic."

To be fair, by erasing yourself, you also cast True Ressurection on all allies in a 50ft emanation.
No limit on the number of fallen allies, and it's just a standart action.

Sure, the character can't ever be brought back, not even with wish/miracle, his name can't be spoken anymore (let's ignore all problems with that) and every written instance of his name becomes a blank space, so for the character himself it's pretty bad. But it can have its uses.

As a side note, I hope everyone knows that each brilliant energy arrow costs 1,000 gold. Not cheap, especially if your shooting 5+ a round.

"Projectile weapons with this ability bestow this power upon their ammunition."

StDrake, could you please point to the rule, sentance, or passage that indicates or states that only the head of the arrow ignores objects?

As I pointed out earlier, if only the head of the arrow ignores objects then it is utterly impossible for an arrow to harm someone in armor.

Why? Because if we use your house-rule then the head of the arrow is not creating a hole in the armor for the arrow shaft to follow. Thus, the head of the arrow goes through the armor (about 0.5 to 1 inch) without causing a hole and then the shaft hits the armor and stops. This would have the result of stopping the arrow head since it is still part of the arrow.

In short, it doesn't make sense.

Either the ammunition ignores objects or it doesn't, there is no half measures here because that is not in the rules and it would lead to the absurdity shown above.

Unless we take "half measures" literally and turn half the arrow into light. That's more than plenty enough to penetrate armour, but not enough to penetrate cover.

And if we really, really want to be realistic?
The fletching of an arrow needs to interact with the surrounding air (which is non-living, usually, though it being an "object" is debatable), or otherwise it can't create the rotation necessary to stabilize the arrow. So, it has to stay solid. The fletching impacting with cover not only rips it off, but also stops the arrow in its flight.

Ah you are correct. Instead, you would get your wishes, then immediately destroy both contracts, solving the inssue

You forgot to read "Breaking an infernal contract": "Should both copies of a contract be destroyed, any effects caused by the contract are canceled or reversed and the mortal's soul goes to its normal place of rest after death and can be resurrected as normal."

Breaking the contract undoes the wishes.

The shaft itself is insignificant damage-wise. It could perhaps deal like what..0,4 damage? ok rounded down like everything else is that's still 0.

The shaft is still heavier and propelled with more force than a throwing dart. In fact, not all arrows need to have a "head" - a sharpened wooden shaft with some fletching to keep it stable will to just fine against skin and flesh.

That being said, I remember a D&D 3.5 discussion about someone building a "dungeon sniper" using some form of remote sense who could clear out a dungeon without even entering it.

His first sentence was "is there a way besides hand of the mage to get mage hand at will" (Italics mine).
I think he's aware of "Hand of the Mage" ;)

You're supposed to link the comic.

Appologies, but I don't remember in which comic I read that joke. I thought it was Goblins, but this is the only Drow-related joke I can find in there.

I thought all Drow were Lawful Good?

No, the Drow race consists entirely of Chaotic Good outsiders trying to redeem their evil Drow-kin.

Swarms are immune to Intimidate because "A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures." Intimidate is a targeted effect, so no dice.

Dazzling Display.

If you can't even leave, then I'm going to repeat what Valandil said:

Have you tried Infernal Healing, Path of Glory or Fractions of Heal and Harm, all cleric spells that can heal.

Remember, a cleric has no "spells known" - if it's on the cleric list, and not opposed to her or her deity's alignment, she can cast it.

Also:

More details please; if you have them.

- Specifics on the curse
- What you have tried
- More details on the party

I second this.

At last, the "can't leave the forest because riddle" and such make me want to second the "burn the forest down"-idea.

As others have mentioned, I'd advise looking into "Infernal Healing" since it isn't 'real' healing, and since it draws its powers from hell stuff that interferes with regular healing shouldn't matter.

Was the Cleric spell used "Healing Warmth"? Or was it a spell&feat combo like "Glorious Heat" and a fire spell?

An incorporeal touch attack goes through armor and presumably clothing as well. A regular touch attack disregards armor (not AC), which only means that chain shirt provides the same amount of protection as a cotton shirt. Since the base AC of 10 remains for touch attack AC (and deflection & dodge effects), and AC "represents how hard it is for opponents to land a solid, damaging blow" there is more required of a touch attack than just a touch. Of course, a ruling that touch attacks have to touch exposed flesh would result in characters adventuring in mummy costumes but a touch attack has to represent more than just a touch.

If you had to touch skin, Full Plate + Helm would give you a crazy high touch AC.

The base-AC of 10 is "How hard is it to hit a target of average (10) dexterity".
Bonus from high dexterity and dodge/deflection effects stand for "added chance of failure because target is better than average at dodging/something deflects you before you hit them". This is literally the "can't touch this"-part of AC.
Bonus from armor comes from the added failure chance of "hitting armor instead of exposed flesh". This is the "It hit me but did no damage"-part of AC.

Since the failure chance for "Hitting armor instead of exposed flesh" is ignored for touch AC, hitting armor instead of exposed flesh doesn't matter. Hence, hitting armor is the same as hitting the targed when it comes to touch attacks.

I don't, but I know a ****load of players and GMs who like using Doppelgangers that way, Hell, 'Doppelgangers' stories usually have some forms of it.

Some of the Doppelganger stories I know have it as a side note, but it's rarely the core of the story.

This kind of thing might be why it wouldn't be easy. (remember Paizo stuff is usually PG-13 friendly)

That's... not really relevant, in any way. Sure, Ditto can be used to breed with any Pokemon. So what? That doesn't mean Doppelganger reproduction has to be handled in any more detail than, say... Half-Dragons (who are "only rarely the result of dragons mating with other creatures"). Or Half-Orks, Half-Elves...

If the only ideas you can come up with when thinking about doppelgangers are X-rated, then you should get your mind out of the gutter =P

He held three, which is impressive enough in and off itself. Being able to successfully use all of them at once is a different matter.

An ability to hold three weapons, but only actually using two of them at once in any given round, would seem more fitting for a first-level character. It'd still be the equivalent to switching between weapons as a free action (instead of sheathing/dropping the first weapon, then drawing another, the character would simply attack with another weapon he holds).

(Also, I'd advise against taking such anime comparisons to serious. Take Dragon Ball/Dragon Ball Z: Should we write off young Gohan as crazy racial bonuses? If yes, should we make a race like that available to players?)

That said I suppose the rogue could be climbing on clothing instead of flesh.

Given that Touch-AC ignores armor, including shields, that shouldn't make a difference. A touch is a touch, and clothing counts as part of the target for this purpose.

That being said - RAW it doesn't matter, you can climb and someone while missing with the touch spell.

The character is introduced as having all three attacks.

Yeah, but Zorro as he's introduced in One Piece is unlikely to be a first-level character, given his relative skill and his reputation.

My list is pretty short.
I want Doppelgangers.
They're fun, and there's pretty much nothing about them in Pathfinder so far.

I get the example made by Davor here, i feel i should just be padantic and point out that a Gould cannot have a ghost as it is undead thus has no soul. but name a creature with an on hit effect from a physical attack like snake venom and he would be correct

To be pedantic right back at you, the spell "Magic Jar" states that intelligent undead (which includes Ghouls) do have souls.

I agree on the "Dragon Breath stays functional", though.

My interpretation of the rule is that a small long sword and a medium short sword are both tiny sized therefore no difference in mechanic size and there is no significant difference in physical dimensions size by the descriptions of the weapons.

In real life this would make even more sense, a short sword (say roman glatus) is designed for stabbing and puncture wounds but can still be used for slashing all be it with less efficiency. A long sword (say Excalibur) is designed for slashing and hacking but can still be used to poke and stab, albeit with less efficiency. This efficiency could be represented with a -2 attack in pathfinder systems.

While that's a nice houserule, it's not exactly the same. A large short sword, while having the same size as a longsword, isn't the same as a longsword. It has different proportions, the blade would be shorter than a longsword and the grip longer. The...cross-thingy? would also be larger.

Even worse for a huge dagger: A longsword's blade is several times longer than its grip. A dagger's blade is usually less than twice the length of its grip. Making it a huge dagger would give you a foot-long handle with a less than two foot long blade. That's not a longsword, by any means.

So, long story short: No, it's not the same. You could make it a houserule if you're the GM, or ask your GM to introduce it, but honestly? It seems more like this would fall under "improvised weapon". Stabbing with a longsword is *hard*, -4 should cover that.

Are bloodragers allowed in PFS? They have an Undead bloodline. Sure, it's more "Ghost" than "Vampire", but still close.

I don't think a sorcerer would be all that viable as a melee fighter, otherwise their Undead bloodline would be good, too.