Anguirel's page

Flying and charging upward: Definitely not allowed. That would be the equivalent of difficult terrain. Anything that slows you (such as the reduced speed from moving upward while flying) prevents the charge action, as noted in the charge rules. Specifically: "If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that ... slows movement ... you can't charge." Flying upwards slows movement, therefore you can't charge.

Fly: Reading the rules for the Fly skill, there's nothing explicitly allowing or restricting movement beyond normal. There's definitely nothing wrong with a double move, and therefore all conditions for a Charge against a target at your own height or below and sufficiently far away can be met (assuming no wind or other obstacles). Run isn't settled, but I don't see any reason to disallow the general rule without a specific rule to trump it (e.g. the Fly Spell has a specific restriction).

Swim: Explicitly allows creatures with a swim speed to run. There's absolutely no reason you couldn't charge as long as you have a swim speed - if you need to make a Swim Check to move, you're hampered by default (and can get up to half-speed at best). Again, I point to the Triton, who has listed in the base version Ride-By Attack, but the most common version (which is what that base description and stat block should describe) very rarely leaves the water, and rides only aquatic mounts such as a Dolphin which does not have any special "Swimming Charge" qualities. There's nothing difficult here being "opened up" or "complex" about the uses of Swim Speed, even if Flying Charges are allowed.

Burrow: No specific rules on this at all (so I don't know what the "complex rules" you're referring to for this are). If you fall back to 3.5, running and charging are not allowed. If you don't, as long as they have a clear line to the target and are aware of the target, there's no reason to say they can't charge or run.

Climb: Run is explicitly disallowed, but a double movement is allowed with a Climb Check. That said, a Climb Check is required for all movement on surfaces above DC 0 (even if they will auto-succeed as they are always allowed to Take 10). I'd consider that impaired movement/difficult terrain, and disallow Charges any time a climb check is required (which is almost all the time you're using Climb Speed rather than Land Speed).

I'll try to translate the primary point against non-land-speed charges:

There's a special ability for a single creature that appears to be an Aerial version of charge (rather than an extension or improvement on charge). If this ability is needed to charge while flying for this creature, no other creatures can charge while flying.

Stampede also finds the concept of burrowing or swimming charges to be ridiculous. I disagree...

For Burrowing Creatures: Creatures cannot charge or run while burrowing. This is explicitly noted in the text for the Burrow ability in 3.5 SRD (the PRD doesn't have any text for Burrow or Burrow Speeds itself, apparently). That said, as it isn't explicitly disallowed in the PRD it shoudl be allowed. If allowed, a Bulette would definitely be a candidate, and even has a charge-based improvement ability requiring a leap (which I could totally see it doing when starting the round underground to burst out of the ground and into the air, then land and attack).

For Swimming Creatures: I'd say a Shark can, would, and does frequently charge while swimming. Similarly, the Tritons explicitly use cavalry tactics, which would certainly include charging while on their aquatic mounts. Heck, that one even has Ride-By Attack as a feat, and they rarely leave the water and are explicitly noted as using dolphins as aquatic mounts. What the point even be if they couldn't charge, since that explicitly requires the use of a charge action?

Further, Flight lacks the specific verbiage restricting charges and running that is present in Burrow. The Strix Archetype Airborne Ambusher has an ability that explicitly enhances a charge made while flying with bonuses above those of a normal charge including fly speed.

In regards to the original question, the Ranger Archetype Falconer gives their pet a special bonus trick Swooping Charge. This is just a trick, not a new Ex or Su, and gives it additional bonuses -- but also specifies that the bird uses a Charge action to gain them, cementing that Charge is allowed for Flying creatures.

While I might agree with you (I certainly prefer the d20pfsrd formatting), the Table of Average Die Rolls in the Bestiary disagrees with you, Zhayne (and may be one of the few spots where fractional values appear in the books).

Of great value is the note on this table:

"*Always round down after multiplying. For example, treat the average of 1d4 as 2, and the average of 2d4 as 5."

The section on Damage defines "Multiplying Damage" - and this note specifies that you always round down after multiplying.

Unless someone comes up with evidence to the contrary, this has been solved -- you keep the fractional value to the end when multiplying damage (e.g. on a crit).

#1 is correct.

The rules say 'whenever you wind up with a fraction', which to me says 'at the moment you have a fraction, round it down'.

Where do they say that? I only see that line in the d20pfsrd third-party site, not in the Official PRD.

Note: the damage here is generally trivial, and this question is mostly silly, but now I'm curious and would like to see if anyone knows of any specific rules or official rulings on this.

Imagine the following scenario:

A character with a spear (2H Simple Weapon, 1d6, x2), 12 Strength (+1 Str Modifier), and no other damage bonuses. They roll a crit. How high is the total flat modifier for the damage on this crit?

Theory 1: Round immediately.

This seems to be the common camp, where one rolls 1d6 (base weapon damage) + 1.5 (1 Str modifier * 1.5 for wielding two-handed), rounds down to 1d6+1, then rolls a second time for another 1d6+1, total of 2d6+2.

Theory 2: Round at the end.

While apparently unusual, this case is perfectly valid by the rules, and may be closer to RAW, though not RAI. Here, you roll 1d6 + 1.5 + 1d6 + 1.5, then add them together for the total crit damage of 2d6+3.

The rule is clearly round down when you must (in the PRD, that's actually "are must", but I'll let that go for now). That isn't a problem. The rules for adding up multiple "damage rolls" for a crit (rather than "multiplying") is also not a problem. The question is: when must you round down? Specifically, can someone find a direct quote from the rules that state you should be rounding down before determining final damage on a crit?

Ok, now the above character is: Wizard 3 / Magus 1 using Evocation's Intense Spells on a Shocking Grasp delivered through that spear, without getting a crit against an enemy with no resistance or DR.

This yields: 1d6 + 1.5 (physical damage) + 1d6(3d6 if cast with wizard slots) + 1.5 (electric damage)

Rounded down immediately because they are separate types of damage with a +2 flat modifier, or added together for a +3 flat modifier on the rolled damage from the attack?

Since you asked for comments, some uses for Sift:

1) Speed of Searching: You get to search a 10-foot cube in a single action as if searching for fine details -- this would usually be at least a check per 5-foot square, so possibly 8 checks total if you are checking the ceiling as thoroughly as the floors. Possibly a huge time savings in a cluttered room if the GM would say a normal Perception Check for Fine Details (your classic taking a room apart to find something specific seen in movies) would take a few minutes. You just saved several minutes by casting this spell, and you only took a -5 penalty to do so.

2) Leave no evidence: Taking a room apart makes it very clear that you were there, pulling everything out of drawers, pulling bookcases out to look behind them, pulling pictures off of walls, and so on. Cast spell. Done. Nothing is disturbed.

3) Possibility for "Indirect" searching. Area spells do not require you to see your target unless otherwise specified, they only require Line of Effect. Sift does specify that you need to be able to see the "area" but... if you're able to find "Hidden Treasure" that implies it can perceive things that aren't directly in view. So a good case can be made that you just need line of sight to the center of the area to be Sifted. So... why even break into a place to search it when you can Sift through an open window?

Combine all that and... Depending on how your game handles the Verbal and Somatic components, you could potentially case every building for the best targets while you wander down a street (perhaps in an "animated conversation" with a companion?) and not even miss a step.

For a more typical adventure, you can quickly check around corners or up on balconies or ledges with it, if nothing else, before wasting any time trying to climb up or down or get across the chasm or whatever...

You are never required to take an attack you have available. You don't need to take an AoO just because one is provoked. You don't need to finish an attack sequence if you don't wish to do so. Specifically int his case: you are allowed to change targets based on the results of attacks, rather than needing to declare all attacks and targets up front, so I see no reason you couldn't choose to stop due to a misfire... or even drop that weapon and quick-draw another if you had such available and the appropriate feats for free-action draws, continuing your attacks with the second weapon.

Putting this up top of this post... "Magic is Magical" -- assume you essentially add a touch of divination into your spell. There's no reason it shouldn't impact "correctly" on anyone with Hostile intent or against whom you have Hostile intent, or even that would have Hostile intent against you if it was aware you existed (e.g. a goblin of on the other side of a wall that has no idea you are there, and that you have no idea that it is there, but happens to be in range of your spell), or that you would have Hostile intent against if you were aware of them (BBEG that doesn't even know the party is after him yet, but happens to be in range), and ignore anyone lacking it, and I'd probably say RAI is close to this.

However, personally, I'd probably rule as follows since I liek to differentiate between Caster types where possible: "All Enemies in Area" - for Arcane Magic, this is like a version of Selective Spell. Pick one: You either designate targets to be hit (and everything else, including enemies of which you are unaware, are not affected) or you you designate safe spots (allies and known neutral parties like civilians, generally) and all other targets (including both enemies and allies of which you are unaware) are affected. For Divine Magic, since it is coming from a specific Deific Source, it "just knows" who to hit -- all appropriate targets (going on the "either side considers the other guy to be an enemy") are hit by it.

For the specific case noted: if you didn't know to insult the mimic, why would it be insulted and therefore intimidated? You presumably said a lot of nasty things about the Mummy and his Mummy (har har) -- but left out all the nasty things about the shape shifter. I'd agree with the DM ruling in this case, specifically because it is a language-dependent effect that would require you to act directly against that target.

Similarly, for the Fool's Forbiddance I'd say you explicitly have to choose who it impacts. I'm good with either of the Arcane Magic methods above (explicitly included in or explicitly excluded from effects), but once you pick a way to go with it, be consistent. "Enemy" is just shorthand for "specified targets in range", or "all targets in range excluding those specified."

You have a fairly solid stat array there. Have you considered an Oradin? You get some solid battle-healer options, and have most of the martial capabilities of a Paladin still available.

If the spell effect is attacking (e.g. Fiery Shuriken, Spiritual Weapon (side note: Spiritual Weapon specifically denies that your Feats apply)), then Spell Perfection would double associated feats (e.g. Weapon Focus(Ray) works because it is used on an attack directly caused by the spell).

If you have to use another skill or a non-casting non-specialized-spell-specific action to attack (e.g. Shadow Weapon, Flame Blade attacking via a stanrd or full-round attack), it would not double those Feats. Those feats are not part of the act of casting the spell (which is where Spell Perfection applies), or directly noted specialized methods for enacting its effects (which could also potentially be allowed to benefit, if there's a spell that has Rays going off in subsequent turns but requires an action to use them). Flame Blade, more interestingly, probably shouldn't grant Power Attack as it already denies Strength Bonuses, but that's an aside.

Point being: If it directly relates to casting the spell, it gets the doubling. If it does not, then it doesn't get to be doubled. Or, possibly better: If you can't use the feat without casting a spell, and that feat applies a direct numeric value, it probably applies. If you could use that feat without a spell effect, and the feat doesn't specifically call out spells as gaining the bonus, it doesn't get doubled because it isn't a Spell-specific feat.

Though looking more into how Feats interact with spells... I wonder why you're not being penalized when you cast Ray spells, because you're not proficient (or show me where a Wizard gets "Weapon Proficiency: Ray").

Let's take a new tack here, which satisfies all conditions expressed without actually allowing useful meaning to be conveyed directly...

When you use Ghost Sound to produce the sound of talking, that's all you get to select. You might want to have it say something specific, but you don't get to choose that part. Maybe it's the sound of people reading this thread out loud. Not terribly helpful, but definitely intelligible speech. It might even be that you can choose the general character of the conversation (e.g. a pair of guards chatting), but again you don't get to pick the exact phrases they use.

So... You chose the basic character of the sound, the volume, the number of voices, but not the words they use. You can also have tones play that are Morse Code, but you don't get to set the rhythm. You can have a song play, but it could be any song you know in a given genre of music. It's an MP3 Player where you get to pick the song list, but not the specific song.

Now, you can assign meaning to those sounds (e.g. a Bird Whistle means "Come in", a Dog Bark means "Stay out of sight"), and that's fine, but you can't have a sound convey meaning in and of itself.

Please tell me where it says that Good and Evil are what a particular god says it is. This is a doubly absurd stance for you to take when there are tons of different gods in the setting. What makes an evil god evil? It isn't because he goes around saying "This is evil!". What is called evil is not defined by him. It's not just some arbitrary label we slap on some gods and not others. He's evil based on the quality of his acts.

Try the paragraph that starts the Alignment Section, a few above the part you quoted:

This game assumes good and evil are definitive things. Evidence for this outlook can be found in the indicated good or evil monster subtypes, spells that detect good and evil, and spells that have the good or evil descriptor. Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil, though using spells to create undead is an even more grievous act of evil that requires atonement. Creatures with an evil subtype (generally outsiders) are creatures that are fundamentally evil: devils, daemons, and demons, for instance. Their redemption is rare, if it is even possible. They are evil to their very core, and commit evil acts perpetually and persistently. Mortals with an evil alignment, however, are different from these beings. In fact, having an evil alignment alone does not make one a super-villain or even require one to be thwarted or killed. The extent of a character's evil alignment might be a lesser evil, like selfishness, greed, or extreme vanity. Having these qualities might not even cause the character to detect as evil when subjected to detect evil, as creatures possessing 4 or fewer Hit Dice do not register to the spell (with the exception of clerics or other characters that radiate an aura).

It's all right there. Evil-Subtype Creatures are Fundamentally Evil. That baby was a Devil's. It is Evil, though as an innocent (at this point) not necessarily evil. Killing it is Good, but not necessarily good. Philosophical dilemmas are entirely obviated by having a very explicit Good-Aligned and Evil-Aligned planar topography.

Let me try this again: Good Deities wholly embody Good. Whatever they are doing, no matter how bizarre and terrible it may seem to Limited Mortal Eyes, is inherently Good. Same with Evil. Whatever those guys are trying to do... Evil. Inherently and fundamentally. That is the explicit definition. [Evil] spells? Also are Evil Acts. Why? Because they draw upon one of the Planes of Evil (and those planes have definitive Alignment-Based game mechanics -- it's one of the places where Alignment actually matters and has mechanical impact). Keep in mind that Alignment is a mechanical function in the game. Good Acts are Good because the Deity said so - they control their own Plane, and therefore control what would allow one to be Aligned with it, and whatever is Aligned with their plane, or uses the energy of their plane, is Good by definition. A Good act isn't necessarily good (by a common moral definition). Same with Evil. The qualities you quoted are implied, and they usually apply, and in general that's going to be true... but it's not explicit. The explicit part is that Planar Outsiders are fundamentally of that type, and here's some text about how that relates to Alignment.

Actions can also impact Alignment, but if you're going around using planar energy, or summoning Celestial or Fiendish creatures, that's allowing energy of that Plane to enter the Prime Material, and that energy apparently somehow impacts the Cosmic Balance. That's why it is inherently a Good or Evil act on its own -- minor, and for a given creature its probably not as important as the action taken with them, but it is Good or Evil inherently and fundamentally, and the planar energy related will adhere to the caster (changing that character's Alignment in a game-mechanics sense), as well as likely adhering to the target (though likely for less time). On a target that's relatively weak (e.g. a commoner under 4 HD), that may be more than their own inherent aura. If they get zapped by an [Evil] spell that doesn't kill them? They may show up as Evil per a Detect Evil, and get repulsed by a Protection From Evil, at least temporarily.

Note that this can be an entirely unconscious action. Infernal Healing, perhaps invested in a Magic Item and used by Good people who are unaware of the energy source, are slowly corrupting their area to Evil. Who knows what specific impact that may have -- maybe it makes it easier for Evil outsiders to come in, or opens people's minds for Evil thoughts -- the specific implementation isn't terribly important right now. What was asked here was about the [Evil] magic descriptor -- and that [Evil] means Evil energy is in play, and that Evil energy, coming from a Plane with Evil Alignment, and infused with Evil energies, has a definitive game-mechanics related impact. It is actually inherently and fundamentally Evil, no matter what action is taken with it.

Edit: Your later post agrees with (at least most of) this view, at least regarding the planar energies. Not well defined, certainly, but there is something there.

Quite the contrary: your proposal may sound sensible and elegant, but this is a rules oriented game which proposes VERY different ways of handling damage, a core combat mechanic, to the different types of targets, creature vs object. For one, objects never have damage reduction, they have hardness. Also, creatures cannot have the 'broken' condition, but they can have a whole wealth of other conditions objects are immune to. Objects never make saving throws unless held by something, but that's okay because of said immunities and the fact that ranged attacks and most energy types only do half damage to them. Attempting to put something under BOTH categories opens up a proverbial can of worms by making it necessary to start including more and more specific exceptions to longstanding rules.

That's a lie -- Constructs are Objects and Creatures, they have Hardness and Damage Reduction. Dead Creatures could certainly have hardness -- what's the hardness of meat and bone? Both of those are "objects"... and also parts of a former creature. If I went to a Butcher Shop and grabbed a generic chunk of meat and cast Resurrection on it, it becomes a creature. But... that spell targets a "Dead Creature" -- it can't do that unless that is actually a "Creature". Are you going to say that chunk of meat doesn't have hardness and wouldn't be treated like an object, because it is a Creature as well? How about a Door made out of a Treant? Object or Dead Creature? It's both. Spells that affect Objects or Doors work. You use the Break DC and Hardness rules if you attack it. But spells that target a Dead Creature work as well. And if it doesn't specify Living Creature or Dead Creature, just "Creature" or "Creature Touched"? The spell technically works -- it may have limited to no effect, but it's a valid target.

Your example of a spell that targets generic objects being used on a dead creature is an odd one, I'd have to know what spell you're talking about here. I'm ASSUMING you mean something like Disintegrate, which has no 'Target' descriptor, it merely requires an attack roll be made. The application of the effect for the spell is then listed out separately for both the creature and object types.

You missed the second Example: Make Whole. It's in the part you quoted, even. It targets an object, and there's no reason to think it wouldn't work on a dead body to reassemble a decapitated and hacked-apart corpse if you had all the parts. Now I'll add the flip side of Resurrection, cast on a bone. Both Object and Creature spells work on the same thing. So what is it? It's both.

I think people have too narrow a concept of categories. An Apple is a Fruit and a Red Object and an Apple. It would be affected by spells that targeted any of those things. It might also be Plant Matter, a Seed (more or less), and possibly Living. An Orange gets some of those, but not "Red Objects" or "Apples". A Fire Truck gets Red Object, but not Fruit or Seed or Apple or Living. And so on. Any possible target may belong to more than one category at a time. Sometimes things transition from one category to another. Living Creatures are Creatures, but not Objects. Dead Creatures are both Creatures and Objects.

Except that spells like Raise Dead or Resurrection don't target objects, they target 'dead creatures'. Also, you don't worry about hardness or the 'broken' condition with corpses, which is what a large portion of the rules about objects is about. Clearly, dead things should still be considered creatures, even when disintegrated into a pile of dust or whatever.

Spells like "Stone to Flesh" target chunks of stone. Are those not objects? If a spell targets a generic Object, and is used on a Dead Body, it works (and note that Mending specifically excludes creatures, including Construct Creatures (which are objects and Creatures as well), but Make Whole does not). There's no reason for it not to do so. It's just some decayed matter. Otherwise you have a lot of problems when you're looking at, say, a wooden structure (it's a dead plant) or anything made of bone. In addition, PF doesn't contradict, so if you go by the old 3.5 ruling... The last 3.5 Dungeons & Dragons FAQ that was released by Wizards of the Coast stated that a dead body is treated as an object, and thus it can be damaged using the rules for “Smashing an Object”.

So... Dead Creatures are objects. They may also be a sub-class of Creature (when a target doesn't specify "Living Creature" I don't see why you couldn't target a Dead one). Many spells (e.g. Sleep) specify "Living Creature", specifically making them exempt.

That doesn't make any sense, though. How can they continue to function when the target is invalid?

Luckily, they aren't necessarily invalid targets. Enlarge Person, for example, targets a humanoid creature. It doesn't specify living or dead, so it can apply to both. It would definitely persist. In fact, almost all of the buffs are "Creature Touched" or "Personal", which continues to be a valid target whether alive or dead. It would just be unusual to cast on a dead target, but not against the rules. Check each of the spells in question -- if it becomes an invalid target, I'd consider removing the effect, but lots of effects (even Flesh to Stone) don't seem to remove previous target types. For example, Flesh to Stone doesn't remove "creature" or "Living" as possible states for it -- the Live/Dead status is ambiguous at best (but the soul is likely still tied there if you're in a Planar campaign, and Speak to Dead or Resurrection wouldn't work), and it still seems to be considered a mindless creature made of inert stone.

If you had a spell that required intelligence (or couldn't target something that was mindless), and the target was rendered mindless (an actual case of something becoming an invalid target), I don't see anything clearly in the rules for that. The GM would need to make a call as to whether an invalid target suppresses an effect, or dispels the effect. I'd go with suppress personally, but as long as it was handled consistently, I could see arguments for either side being valid at the moment.

Anguirel wrote:

Within the world of D&D and PF, this makes a lot more sense than it seems. [Good] is "Whatever the Good Deities say it is," same as [Evil] is "Whatever the Evil deities are involved in." It's picking a team.

Where does alignment matter? It only matters in two cases of which I am aware: 1) Asking one of those deities (or their servants) for a favor; 2) When someone detects your alignment, or uses another spell or effect that is alignment...

That's explicitly NOT how alignment is defined in the game. Nor should it be.

"Good" being what an entity defines it as doesn't make sense. Read Plato's dialogues. Get your thinking on.

I disagree. That is explicitly exactly how it is defined. [Good] and [Evil] spell descriptors aren't directly tied to morality. They're mechanical effects of the system. And similarly, acts related to being Good or Evil aren't directly tied to philosophical morality -- there's a lot of gray in the real world -- they're very specific and objectively definite within the context of PF. Plato didn't write PF or D&D, and while he said some interesting stuff, it doesn't apply here.

Let's go to the extreme here: If the God of Ultimate Goodness says you need to kill a baby for <reasons>, and it isn't a test, it's a direct command and that Deity means it... killing that baby is a Good act, no matter how insane that may seem. And unless another Good Deity is saying "Don't kill it" then not killing it is a Neutral act at best (choosing not to make sacrifices), and possibly Evil (actively opposing the Good).

In general, Good and Evil moralities in our normal definition of things and their definitions in PF match up, but it isn't required... but in the specific case of "Alignment" it is purely a mechanic for detecting whether you're playing for the Good Deities or the Evil Deities. It's picking a team.

Getting your Smite on as a Paladin because something Detects as Evil isn't about doing "Good". In many cultures, that would be inherently Evil (especially, say, if you were a Jainist and went so far as to sweep bugs out of your path so you didn't accidentally crush them as you walk). You should be looking to take them alive, bring them to trial, and have appropriate non-lethal punishments that reform and redeem.

In PF? Murder-Hobos are Good, because they go around killing Evil. If you swapped all the Good and Evil Alignments on everything, you wouldn't change the general nature of the game all that much. The characters could be Evil just as easily as Good, as long as their targets were appropriately chosen, and very little would change except possibly tactics and willingness to allow for side-effects and allow the ends to justify the means.

It depends on the exact wording of the condition -- there's a decent chance I'd have fizzled it, though your interpretation isn't necessarily wrong.

1) Contingency is not entirely suppressed by the Anti-Magic Field. When the trigger condition occurs, the instantaneous effect goes off... and fails. Spell fizzles.
2) Contingency is suppressed. The trigger is "going below 60 hp". The Wizardess is already below 60 hp. She is no longer going below, she's there. Contingency doesn't trigger.
3) Contingency is suppressed. The trigger is "is below 60 hp" or "gravely wounded" or similarly worded. She exits the area, Contingency triggers and she's teleported off.

You went with 3. I see that as a pretty valid interpretation, as long as she worded it properly (I'd consider Contingency similar to Wishes in their overly literal interpretation of effects -- it's even noted that overly complicated on convoluted conditions may malfunction). That said, it would most definitely pre-empt the Readied Action, and would even trump any Immediate Actions, as it is Instantaneous. The only effect that might beat it would be another Contingency, or an AoO or immediate action that was taken as she moved out of the previous square (as opposed to into the present one) and would have hit her there. The Witch's action is "enter the next square" and requires her to be fully there. If a player had a charge readied (for example) to bullrush her back into the cleric before she fully gets out of range of the effect, that would go off first (triggered on attempt to leave a square, and can hit while she is still there).

But the attack is wasted or I could just act as if I did not that attack?

Anguirel says I could continue my move action and attack, but I dont think so: if the action triggered you stopped your move action an cant resume that. I am pretty sure about that.

Seriphim84 told you can quidraw and attack with a bow, but i think it would be illegal: if I started an attack with an axe, I cant use that same attack to switch on a bow.

So... This point is important: do I lose an attack, or not? And can I resume a move action? Or a charge?

The key here is "if that triggered action stopped your move action" and a follow-up: "have you started your next action yet?"

My move action is not "Go to Square (8,5) because the enemy is in (8,6)." It is "Get next to the enemy." A readied action can interrupt an action, it does not cancel it. Here, I'll use a more obvious example first:

[E][ ][X][ ][ ][P]

The Player P readies a spell to cast if any enemy enters square X. Let's go with "Shield" first. Enemy E declares a move to get next to P. He crosses "X". He is mid-move, so his move is paused while the Readied Action occurs, then resumes and he takes two more squares of movement and completes his move. There was no reason to halt his movement due to the effect that happened.

Version 2: Player P readies "Grease". This time Enemy E needs to make his appropriate Saves and Acrobatics checks to continue. If he does, and has enough move remaining, he should still be able to close the distance and attack, but depending on how you handle things at your table might be denied his Dex bonus for that round (using Acrobatics on his move as a Balance action means he'll remain off balance until the end of the round -- table-ruling as to whether he needs to remain in the Grease-affected zone for that to be the case, I'd say it persists for a few seconds, others might not). Again, his move was interrupted, and in this case it created difficult terrain, but it didn't completely stop him. If he'd failed his checks and fallen prone, his move ends there (the attack stopped his move). He'd still have a Standard Action left.

Version 3: Player P readies "Hydraulic Push". This time he knocks E back a square or two -- possibly so far that E no longer has enough move left to reach P. E can either burn his standard action to close in, or take a different Standard, but gets to act essentially as if you had preceded him in the initiative order.

So that's if you are triggering on "enter a square". But if the trigger is "If I'm attacked" things might be different...

[E][ ][X][P][Y]

E moves forward (not a charge) into X to attack P. Move action completes. Attack action starts, triggering the readied action... And now P is in square Y. Hmm. Well, E hasn't actually attacked yet, so whether he's fully into his Standard Action or not is in question... the CRB to the rescue! "The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action." P's readied action happens before E's action. He is not in his Standard yet. So since he had to use his Move action, and his move was "Get next to P", if he has move remaining (and he probably does), I'd rule that he continues that action and gets his attack. By RAW, he probably shouldn't get to move, though, and other DMs might rule that he's "finished" his Move already, but in either case he'd still have a Standard available and at worst could select an action appropriately as if he were Staggered.

Version 2: Charge - very clearly in favor of E getting to continue, as the Move and Attack are a single combined Full-Round Action, and that action can continue. Even side-stepping won't avoid it in the above situation, as the closest point remains in a direct line, though in some cases where the charge is already at the corner of a character, a side-step away might cancel the charge (Toro!), as it is no longer a direct line from the start of the charge to the closest edge of the target. If there's another valid target along the line, I'd consider allowing a re-target. I'd also be in favor of a house rule that broke the Charge back into Move+Standard -- you lose the benefits of Charge and retain the penalties, but at least you can redirect a bit and get your attack in (if you haven't already exceeded your move range), and at worst you can at least end up adjacent (again, assuming sufficient Move remaining). Possibly toss in a Dex, Ride, or Reflex Save to recover sufficiently if it feels thematically appropriate. Again RAW wouldn't support it, but it makes the game play better and removes the ugly corner cases and weird examples like this where someone can game the mechanics in ways that don't match up to reality particularly well.

Version 3: [E][X][P][Y] -- this complicates things if E uses a 5-foot step. He can't move any further at that point, but still has all actions available (Move and Standard, or a Full Round). Personally, if the 5-foot step didn't allow him to escape AoOs, I'd allow it to convert into a Move. If it did, he could accept AoOs to convert it (a stumble as he stepped forward as his target danced away and he was knocked back enough, perhaps). But RAW doesn't support that. So by RAW, E is stuck in place, but can use whatever other actions feel appropriate in that moment. Probably ready an action, or use a ranged attack.

To address a specific point, though:

Seriphim84 told you can quidraw and attack with a bow, but i think it would be illegal: if I started an attack with an axe, I cant use that same attack to switch on a bow.

Unless you use Full-Round Declarations or Reverse Initiative (i.e. everyone declares all actions for the turn before any actions are taken -- actions that no longer make sense are simply lost), don't think this way here. Pathfinder is not a full-round-declarative game. In other systems, yes, that's absolutely the case. In PF, I can choose to split my attacks how I choose on the fly. I can even insert a 5-foot step between them. If you aren't requiring your player to declare "Attack 1 on Enemy A, Attack 2 on Enemy A, Attack 3 on Enemy B" before any attacks are rolled, and won't let them change things up if Enemy A drops on the first attack, or he misses twice, why would you require that here?

Treat the Readied Action as if it happened on the initiative just prior to the character that triggered it, and they are still at the start of their "Declare Standard Action" part of their turn. If you can change what you would do in that case, you can change what you would do now. If that new action is to drop the axe and pull a bow, that's fine.

If you want to keep it somewhat restricted, then at least allow the acting character to pick a new target (easily allowed above with iterative attacks -- selection of target is made at the time of the attack roll) -- still an attack with the axe, just at a new person. Or, as above, at the very least allow the standard Attack to convert into a Move-Toward-Enemy, even where that "breaks" other rules (like no movement on top of a 5-foot step).

Or consider this: an opposed roll of some sort (Initiative?) to see if the attack goes before the 5-foot step carries the target out of range. Allowing a 5-foot step readied action to entirely negate a turn in this fashion is simply asking for trouble of exactly the sort you're experiencing. At least in the case of a readied Trip (or the like) there's some active roll in place to force that effect to happen, and a method to potentially avoid it. This... not so much. Next you'll have people readying a 5-foot step if they recognize a targeted attack spell being cast to break Line of Sight. By RAW? Probably acceptable. In practice? Kinda silly. Especially if you had the spell fizzle and the caster lost that spell for the day. Make them use a distracting attack or counter-spell, or roll the inherent Save associated... or in this case, make them use a combat maneuver that actually stops movement. If they don't have anything invested in halting a melee enemy, they shouldn't be able to get that benefit for free.

Going back to the older part of this thread...

Are wrote:

Casting an [evil] spell once or twice wouldn't immediately shift your alignment, but like was said above; if it becomes a regular act, then the character probably isn't truly good any more :)

The problem with this argument is that nobody (least of all me) would accept it in reverse.

Darkbad the Necromancer wants to penetrate the Temple of Holiness, in order to steal the Heart of the Martyr for use in his latest experiment. He is aware that the temple's paladins regularly scan pilgrims, and deny access to those who detect as evil. It is said that they are alert to the various ways of fooling detect evil, and anyone caught entering the temple under an alignment hiding spell is subject to the death penalty.

He spends the next few days summoning lantern archons, to switch his alignment from NE to N ....

And also...

My problem with this approach is that it trivialises Good and Evil, and divorces them from actual morality. They might as well be Blue and Red. Summoning lantern archons to slaughter innocents is not morally better than summoning dretches to slaughter innocents. Not in the slightest. Yet the latter act is more [Evil] (and [Chaotic]) and the former act is more [Good] (and [Lawful]).

Casting a [Good] spell is nothing like doing a good deed for the world. In itself it benefits nobody.

Unless casting [Good] spells somehow tips the cosmic balance in favour of team [Good]? Anyone know if this idea is supported in the RAW anywhere?

Within the world of D&D and PF, this makes a lot more sense than it seems. [Good] is "Whatever the Good Deities say it is," same as [Evil] is "Whatever the Evil deities are involved in." It's picking a team.

Where does alignment matter? It only matters in two cases of which I am aware: 1) Asking one of those deities (or their servants) for a favor; 2) When someone detects your alignment, or uses another spell or effect that is alignment based, such as "Protection from X". There is a proxy war going on for the Prime Material plane in most of these settings. Older settings like Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms are rather direct in having the Gods attempt to come down directly and take part, while other settings have more subtle interplays (I haven't read up on Golarion, so I can't comment on how overt the war is there), but make no mistake -- the Deities are doing their thing to gain worshipers and influence over the Prime Material Plane in order to accrue whatever Deity Points they use to keep score. More points is more power and grants some advantage to that side somewhere.

Now, certain acts adhere to the ideals of one of those sides. Those acts will color your aura, and they grant points to the associated Deity. Certain spells use energy from one of those planes -- drawing in Infernal Power™ will grant additional influence to the Evil side over the Prime Material. It is inherently Evil, and also colors your aura towards that side. So Darkbad? If he can cast enough [Good] spells, he might cloud up his aura enough with lingering Good energy to slip into the Paladin Temple. He'd also be scoring points for the other side while he did it, and the Deities in question might not approve.

I'll assume the enemy is setting up to do this to my character. If I would finish my allowed move in that square (e.g. target is exactly my move speed away), yes, that works. He swings and steps back, and I can either close with my standard action, or do something else. If I was charging and am out of move, I waste the charge action and don't get to attack.

However, that's pretty rare. Usually if I'm closing to attack, I will still have some move left over. So I'm in the middle of my move action, and I move 15' in and hit the trigger square. The guy with the readied action interrupts that move, attacks, and moves 5' further away. That done, it's still the middle of my Move action. I move another 5' since I have move remaining to close the gap, and then I can perform whatever Standard Action I was intending to use.

There are exceptions, naturally -- if the readied action impacts my movement (Trip effect, Entangle, Bull rush effect, etc...), I may no longer be able to complete my move action, or may not be able to reach a point close enough to attack, even though I had remaining move.

There's no rules for being dead or needing sleep either.

Really? I see rules for being dead in combat and Dead as a Status Condition, along with the need to sleep being covered here for any major activity beyond 8 hours, specifically:

Forced March: In a day of normal walking, a character walks for 8 hours. The rest of the daylight time is spent making and breaking camp, resting, and eating.

A character can walk for more than 8 hours in a day by making a forced march. For each hour of marching beyond 8 hours, a Constitution check (DC 10, +2 per extra hour) is required. If the check fails, the character takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage. A character who takes any nonlethal damage from a forced march becomes fatigued. Eliminating the nonlethal damage also eliminates the fatigue. It's possible for a character to march into unconsciousness by pushing himself too hard.

I'll admit, the Forced March thing is a bit of a stretch by comparison, but dead is definitely in the rules, and I'm not sure what sort of adventuring you'd do without walking (or expending equivalent effort)...

If only there were a way to change how your clothes looked, or even alter your entire appearance. What's really terrible is that you can't just create your own items to make them look how you like, or add those abilities to your already color-coordinated outfit.

Unless your players are all too ready to shout "Allahu akbar!" before they toss the dust (by hand. When it has a 20 ft. spread.) I wouldn't be too worried about your "nuke".

Have you considered a Bard Crafter, purposely creating it via botched rolls, and using Beguiling Gift?

Still kinda weird that a Belt of Giant Strength +6 is CL 8 while one of Physical Might +2 (on two stats) is CL 12.

Well, it is and it isn't -- the stat blocks only show a single CL, even if there's multiple variations of an item. I generally assume that to be the highest level of the item in question. As it requires a Level 2 spell, that should be a CL 3 base, but for some reason they seem to like bumping up CLs beyond that for various reasons (e.g. "Caster must be twice the level of the bonus"). Se we'll assume the latter for a single stat, 3 times for two stats, and 4 times for three stats. So you have:

+2/4/6 to 1 Stat: CL 4/6/8
+2/4/6 to 2 Stats: CL 6/9/12
+2/4/6 to 3 Stats: CL 8/12/16

And that ends up inline with a lot of other magic item creation mechanics listed in other places, while also matching the final CLs listed for those items.