-Archangel-'s page

Hi, last session someone mentioned that you can use stealth if you have Blur or Displacement on.
I imagined a character walking toward a fort in middle of a day being unseen to watchers due to Blur spell as Blur gives concealment.

It sounded ridiculous so I said no way. But the rules lawyer in me decide to look it up.
And it seems by Raw this should work.

So I decided to come here and ask your opinion.
Maybe I missed something...

Hello Paizo.

Well, Starcraft 1 has been a loved game around the world for 12 years now. Now Starcraft 2 has renewed the fire in gamers all around the world and has introduced the game again to millions of people (by Blizzards own records).

There has not been any news about any PnP RPG game for this setting so I would strongly suggest Paizo to use that skill and knowledge that gave us awesome Pathfinder rules and make a Starcraft product. Get Blizzard to give you the rights for that before others have (like Wizards did with Star Wars).

I know there is an Alternity based Starcraft already but that one is outdated and honestly crap (not to mention no longer supported) and I know you can make a much much better product.

Starcraft 2 will yet have two expansion each coming out 1.5-2 years after last one so life time of Starcraft 2 will be at least 4-5 years more. That gives you plenty of time to create a book in 1 year and for a long time have a big group of people for product placement.

Please consider this suggestion honestly.

Sincerely,
Your and Starcraft's great fan.

Also if anyone else wants to add their voice to mine be free to do so in this thread.

I am wondering now if I have been using AoO + Combat Reflexes wrong all the time.

Here is the text:
Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity: If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.

I have bolded the confusing part. I have always ruled this to mean that each kind of AoO action in the same round from the same person can give one AoO. So, an archer firing his bow 3 times while in reach of a fighter with Combat Reflexes would only provoke one AoO for action of firing his bow. If that archer were to fire his bow once then move out of the threatened area then he would provoke 2 AoO.

So if each use of the bow provokes an AoO why is the bolded text needed?
Can anyone thing of any situation that anyone would make more then one AoO for just one action? Or is this the "Keep it Simple and Stupid" kind of text? Like, "lets mention it just in case".

Feat says:
Elemental Channel

Choose one elemental subtype, such as air, earth, fire, or water. You can channel your divine energy to harm or heal outsiders that possess your chosen elemental subtype.

Prerequisites: Channel energy class feature.

Benefit: Instead of its normal effect, you can choose to have your ability to channel energy heal or harm outsiders of your chosen elemental subtype. You must make this choice each time you channel energy. If you choose to heal or harm creatures of your elemental subtype, your channel energy has no affect on other creatures. The amount of damage healed or dealt and the DC to halve the damage is otherwise unchanged.

Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take this feat, it applies to a new elemental subtype.
---------------------------------------------------------

So, how does this feat actually work, are positive energy channeling clerics able to both damage or heal outsiders of certain elemental subtype or can they only heal them while negative energy channelers can only damage them?

Also since Channel Energy already affects living creatures why would a channeler need this feat?

Some of you might have read my thread about my problems with Channel Energy and the house rule I decided to put upon it.
For those that have no clue I decided to change Channel Positive and Negative Energy that affect living creatures in a way that they need 1 minute to activate it. It is still a standard action to use Channel Energy to heal or damage undead.
Lets not debate here if this is OK or not, the other thread is for that. Lets just say I wanted to have clerics that behave in combat more similar to way they did in 3.5e (as I consider I will have easier time designing encounters) while still being able to prolong the 15min adventuring day and not use precious spells to heal the party outside the combat.
My mind is set and I opened this thread because I need help to redesign the feats that work with Channel Energy, or more precisely Selective Channeling and Channeling Smite. As they are in the 3P they do not work OK with my house rule. I can either remove them completely or change them.
If possible I would like to keep them and change them.

For Selective Channeling I am not sure how to make it more useful (as situations where you do not want to damage friendly undead in the area are really rare; same for not wanting to heal unfriendly undead). One option is to remove this feat and give its ability automatically (Cha mod targets can be excluded from the effect, still useful for those evil clerics wanting to wipe out a square of innocents while not killing their helpers who guard them there for 1 minute). I am not sure what else I could do with it.

For Channeling Smite I was thinking still allowing it to work as normal for negative channeling clerics, but to give something to positive channeling as well as it would be unfair for evil clerics to attack living with this feat while positive channeling could still attack undead as normal but could not affect living. My house rule would basically favor negative channeling then.
I was thinking allowing positive channeling clerics to use Channeling Smite (and call it channeling touch during that time) to also be able to touch single living targets and heal them (same amount as normal channel).

So what do you think? Any better ways to change these feats to work with my house rule?
Do I need to change any other feats that got affected by my house rule (none come to my mind at the moment)?

Hi all.

I found another problem with Channel Energy and I must say it is bothering me.
It is about the huge difference in power between good and evil clerics.
And I am not talking about their usefulness in a party which is another huge problem.

What I am talking about is good/neutral cleric with this party against an evil cleric and its party.

Evil cleric channeling negative energy has to have selective channeling to not damage his allies, and if he cannot ignore all he has to damage some of them.
Good cleric that heals everyone in the area if he cannot avoid healing all his enemies can choose to avoid the damaged ones and heal the full or close to full HP ones for practically no effect.

When an evil cleric is channeling negative energy his targets get a will save for half effect, but a good cleric healing them afterwards gets to do it without a save for half. This makes healing always a more effective option. It makes cleric battles always end up on the healing side, making an option of an evil cleric to damage foes using channel energy a very subpar option if there is a good cleric on the other side (and there usually is). So that evil cleric has to use disable spells or death spells. Even cleric's area damage spells like sound burst (at the respective level) or Unholy smite very subpar and useless. Even Flamestrike becomes very much useless or at least a weak option.

This was not a problem before channel energy. Channel energy was put into the game but it was not balanced properly. Either for all kinds of cleric or for different spells or classes.

This whole thing makes me think what to do.
So far I figured out two options:
1. Channel positive energy to heal allies heals 1d4 per two levels (instead of 1d6).
2. Both channel positive and negative energy only work on undead. Either damaging them or healing them. Cleric still needs to take additional feat if he wants to turn or control them.

1. I was wondering about some spells that say in its target description "one/a living creature".
Who does this work on exactly?
Does it work as well on:
Outsiders?
Elementals?
Oozes?
Plant creatures?

2. Hold Person and similar spells that says they work on humanoids.
Do Shapechangers count as they have a humanoid as a base creature?

I know this probably does not belong in this section but in Video game section not enough people come and I am sure none of the people that I would like to hear an answer frequent often enough. I would ask that this is not deleted or moved from Pathfinder RPG section of the forums.

So, I would really like to see pathfinder rules as a cRPG, especially a turn based one. I am not even looking for a AAA title like NWN2 (lets not discuss this game here), just something playable that is more or less pathfinder like. Maybe a web browser based game, something not expensive to make? There are a couple of good turn based rpg like online games with more or less simple graphics (3rd person view) but fun because of its combat rules.

Is Paizo even able to use OGL d20 ruleset to make a deal with a games development company to make a computer game?
Some game that is put into a world of Golarion?

WotC is I am sure only interested in 4e future cRPGs.

What do others think, would you like to see a pathfinder cRPG? Would you buy it? Would you play monthly cost to play it online if it was a simpler graphics but with fun turn based combat with out of combat options of using skills for many different things like crafting an such (up to 10$)?

I would love to see something in the future using Paizo material.

Has paizo though about this and/or contacted any game developers?

Martin's Song of Ice&Fire is going to get 2 computer games made, why not pathfinder as well?

Hi all, I had two session now leading my players through adventure using full pathfinder rules. I am waiting for the book to arrive (I ordered it from amazon.com but I live in Europe :D) so I am using PRD + beta book for things like XP tables :)
I was using some monsters from 3.5e MM and 3.0e MM2.

My group has

Level 8 human fighter specializing in Greatswords. He has Vital Strike and Power Attack, Step Up and Stand Still and all the weapon feats he can have for his lvl (including Improved Critical). His equipment is not even that impressive, no +2 weapons (no special material) or armors, two +2 ability items, +2 ring, +1 amulet, +2 Cloak of Resistance and a Ring of Iron Will(gives the feat). AC in mid 20s, around 90+ hp, great attack and great damage.

Level 8 elf ranger with 22 Dex, favored enemies orc (1st choice) and humans (2nd choice), bow master, taken Improved precise shot at lvl 6, has all great archery feats except Imp. Crit., Vital Strike and Shot on the Run. Has a bear familiar but he forgot to use him in both sessions :D
He is evil but uses a lesser holy(as holy but damage is +1d6) +1 bow that he never activates :D Other items are of similar quality as the fighter above.

Level 8 half-orc monk that went Str route and in addition to standard monk feats has taken Improved Trip and Greater Trip (and has a ring that gives him Combat Reflexes feat). His HP is his weakest point, AC is also in mid 20s, but he can get it higher with Ki points (as you all know). Items of similar quality to other players.

Level 8 elf bard that went archery+buff party route. His damage is weaker then other party members and he misses some of the great feats that ranger has (manyshot and improved precise shot). He buffs the party with Good Hope before and Inspire Courage and Haste during combat. As lvl 8 he can activate songs as move action. Items of similar quality (best items are +2 bow and +2 ring of deflection).

1st session setup:
Woods:
Bard hiding near a group of 2 lvl 6 half-orc sorcerers and 2 lvl 3 orc barbarians (they were looking for him). Ranger scouts a bit ahead for others in the group and runs into these four trying to hide (the other 3 party members were leading a huge band of refugees that made a lot of noise) to ambush. He gets surprise and then initiative. He kills one half-orc. He and the bard fight alone for two rounds before other two arrive. The fight ends with the enemy doing exactly 7 damage to the party (one half-orc managed to fireball the fighter and the monk who both saved). Definitely not a CR 9 encounter. I ruled the situation was in favor of the party and gave them XP for the CR 8 encounter.
This was an error on my part since I forgot pathfinder considers NPC's CR with only class levels as their lvl-1.

2nd session setup (all in the same day):
1st encounter
Open square:
Party ran into two CR 8 flaming demons from 3.0e MM2, and babau (cr 6 demon from 3.5e MM). I ruled MM2 demons had DR 10/good and magic. The whole party had align weapon cast on them. Monk also got resist fire and fighter had an armor that gave him 5 fire resistance.
There was no surprise on both sides so initiative was rolled as normal. CR 8 demons got initiative but 1st managed to die before he got his turn again while the other died the round later. Babau appeared at the end of the 1st round by casting Darkness on the whole area to give everyone 20% miss chance (which in addition to demons only ranger and half-orc ignored due to feat/darkvision). Babau died in the 3rd round.
Altogether, a bit more difficult then the last encounter, but nearly worth CR 10.

2nd encounter
A underground 12x30 squares stone room with supporting pillars:
Party came from a 2 square corridor and was two troll zombies (I added to the the diseased template from the bestiary preview which in the ended turned out to be completely useless). They engaged them at the entrance to the room by waiting for them to come to them. In addition to those trolls 2 lvl 8 human priests with death and destruction domains (that were prebuffed with really long and 1 min per lvl spell) waited for them completely hiding behind pillars (party heard them but could not see them). Although the clerics were designed to be melee combat monsters (Vital Strike, Smite from destruction domain and Channel Smite) they really endangered the party by both using channel energy to damage them and heal themselves at the same time. As zombies were created by their Animate dead this was a CR 9 encounter, and the only one that was tough to the party (monk almost dies), rest were mostly left below 25% of their HP except for the fighter).

3nd encounter
Stone underground room a bit bigger then the last:
This one had a CR 9 demon from MM2 and 2 same CR 8 demons from MM2.
The party had a lvl 9 elf fighter/wizard/EK NPCs as help.
I gave the CR 9 demon DR 10/cold iron and magic which none had.
I also buffed the demons this time but keep their CR same (as last time they were really pathetic). I gave them 10-20 extra HP, +2 to attack and saves. CR9 demon also got a +4 to AC bonus (he had 25 ac which everyone went through easily; for comparison clerics in the last encounter had 29 ac and that didn't save them much).
Elf npc got lucky and managed to crit one of the cr 8 demons while power attacking, arcane striking and vital striking with his greatsword and kill it instantly (it failed the dc 15 death from massive damage save).
The other two demons got killed in next 2-3 rounds without actually endangering the party in any real way. The CR 9 demon has a negative level draining gaze (DC 17 will save) which was failed only once in the whole encounter. He also tried to use his suggestion spell-like against couple of party members which also failed.
Altogether this supposedly CR 10-11 encounter was pathetic.

Well what to conclude from all of this.
Party power level went up drastically in pathfinder full game?
3.0 MM2 and 3.5e MM monsters are completely underpowered for 3P games?
I managed to challenge them only with premade NPCs that were completely prebuffed and used probably an illegal tactic (even possible two illegal tactics)?
I suck as a DM in full Pathfinder (I rarely had these problems in 3.5e)?
This game cannot be played without Pathfinder bestiary?

Biggest problems I ran into were Vital Strike doing just too much damage in combination with Power Attack and two-handed weapons.
Improved Precise Shot completely ignoring concealment and cover. Feat by itself for me is a bit too powerful, but giving it to rangers at lvl 6 is really too much.

After this I feel that to challenge the party I need to start using flying, improved invisibility cheese tactics?!
Or to give encounters that are challenging if the party has good rolls or TPK on their bad day.

D&D combat used to last 3-4 rounds, now it feels more like 2-3.

Hey all, I am still waiting for my book and the PRD does not have this info.

So now that Wall of Force and Forcecage have hardness 30 and attacks and spells can affect them, do effects like acid and sonic still ignore harness?
Do fire, cold and electricity do 1/4 to 1/2 damage?

What is the save modifier against area affect spells? Spellcaster's reflex save mod, although he/she is not holding the wall or controlling it directly?

Does anyone else here find that monks having 7 attacks is a bit much?

They had 5 in the 3.5 and although 3 of those were at highest bab, they get 2 now at +3 bab and 2 at -2 bab (compared to 3.5e). Altogether this seems a bit too much, especially after Haste, Bard Song and enchanted gloves with Holy and Flaming (also new to 3P).

Hi, all.

I have called upon this system a number of times now, but only because it deserves it.
It Star Wars Saga Edition again as a bright example of how it can be done better. Its system of using Force Powers is more fun then D&D magic and should in a way be implemented.

The powers are more free, and can be used on the fly. But the best thing about it are the reaction powers like Rebuke or Negate Energy.

The first lets the caster try to negate or even return any Force power that is affecting him or the area where he is at.

The other negates energy attacks targeted at him.

Both last for just that one action and cannot be used again until the caster had time to rest or had multiple uses of that power.

Yes this sound like 4e a bit, but it is better.

3.5e and Pathfinder need something like this. Letting more spells be used on the fly is what will make magic more interesting. Especially during mage duels. Force user against force user is the main show, the main fun. And it is not about how wins initiative like in D&D (or who had more time to prepare). In D&D mage duel is not about the mastery of the Art, but who has better reflexes. It is lame and it is stupid.

I would prefer that defensive spells (at least some of them) can be cast as reactions during your (like against AoO) or enemies rounds. They would last just for that one effect, not hours, minutes or even rounds. All the different class powers that wizard, sorcerers and clerics get could be used for this (since memorized spells are too few).

I do not have a proposal on which spells could be changed like this, this idea first needs to light some light bulbs in people's heads.

Star Wars Saga Edition has it almost fixed. There 2-3 attacks is the tops you will get. And it is easy to fight because all attacks have the same attack roll. Using Force powers is done also 2 times tops per combat round.

I suggest taking (stealing) some ideas from them. They got rid of iterative attacks and turned those into feats. Also the feats that would grant extra attacks now give extra damage. Like Rapid Shot which gives +1dX of damage instead of a new attack.
The important thing to note is that all weapons do much more damage there then in D&D. But the whole system works, and works really good. It is actually the best d20 system out there ATM.

How can we use their ideas to make Pathfinder combat better and more simple?

My suggestion is to allow the two-weapon wielder to be able to get attack with both weapons as a standard action if he moves in the round (or make a feat that allows this). For the rogues to not abuse this I suggest the sneak attack can only be done with one of those two attacks. Also both attacks have to be at the same target.

Or create a feat similar to the Manyshot, but for two-weapons that does what I wrote above but with one roll with -4 penalty (that overrides the usual -2 for attacking with two-weapons).

I do not like how the new grapple is defined and plays out. I had a chance to see it at work during my campaign and there are just too many questions about it.

In what status is the one that initiated the grapple?

Does only the one who initiated it get the +5 bonus afterwards?
Why? If the other person also wants to grapple it does not matter who started it. I have personal experience in martial arts grappling and it does not matter who started it. Actually the whole +5 bonus thing is unrealistic.

Personally, if grapple stays the was it is now, I will be using 3.5e rules for it. For me they were logical and never complicated.

Please remove the automatic bonus and penalty that depends on the Strength/Intelligence.
Let us use these feats as in 3.5e.

If your purpose was to make it more simple then it has failed.
Even Star Wars Saga Edition didn't do this and their goal was to make is more simple then D&D3.5 and older versions of Star Wars. And in SWSE it does not make the game more complicated or harder.

I have found the new wholeness of body to be pretty bad and useless.

So I have decided to improve it a bit.
At lvl 7 when the monk gets it, it heals 1d8+monk level. Then at lvl 10 and every 3 levels later (13, 16, 19) it heals additional +1d8 for a total of 5d8+monk level at lvl 19. On average that gives 20ih more HP (like the old Wholeness of Body but with a more random element).

I know monks get more of these per day now, but as I am trying to give some more healing to other classes (and not make all dependent on Clerics) I feel it is OK. Also, using up your standard action in combat for healing is worth it.

Hi,

After playtesting I do not like the grappling system in 3P. I feel it was OK before. A touch attack followed by opposed grapple check. And ranged characters having a chance to hit allies inside the grapple.

The best compromise I feel would be OK is to bring back the touch attack but after that make the grapple check be like now but 10+CMB of the target.

Or put in explanations that when going to grapple targets under concealment or total concealment you get a penalty to your grapple check (-2 or -5 for concealment, and -5 or -10 for total concealment).

Also the size bonuses to CMB are just too low and pathetic. Large only getting +1??? That is not balanced at all. +2 should be minimal with Huge then getting +5, Gargantuan +10 and Colossal +20. Same for smaller targets.
As it is now a halfling with high Dex can easily grapple an Ogre or a Hill Giant (there is only 2 difference for size between them??????).

And if any of these complaints fall on deaf ears at least change the +5 bonus after keeping the grapple to round 2 to +2 bonus (or +1 to follow the size bonuses :P)

I would ask the designers to take this into consideration.
Star Wars Saga Edition has done this and it has made movement in combat much more interesting and used more often (in addition to better withdraw rules).

I have been using this in my D&D 3.5e (and now 3P) games for some time and it works great. Please change the Charge from full-round to standard action.

I will keep my houserule whatever you do but I ask this for all other players that have not yet experienced fun and good tactical options this opens for them in the game.

What, none has anything to add?

I feel the druids need a healing boost so parties without a new cleric can actually heal themselves.

This way druid becomes a NPC class, that is only taken by the average party if one cleric is in the party already.

Clerics now have a instantaneous healing burst ability so I would suggest to give Druids fast healing per round ability.
They could heal 1 hp per 2 class levels for number of rounds equal to their Charisma modifier. Also they can use this ability for 3+Cha modifier times per day.

Also evil druids can after a successful melee touch attack do poison damage per round instead of healing with a save for half duration.

This makes the mechanic similar to Channel Energy. Some feats could be invented for this ability then.

I have noticed that the break DC table is missing anything regarding materials stronger then Iron (like mithral and adamantine).

Iron Door is the biggest DC (28). I wanted to suggest expanding that part of the table with a lets say +2 DC if the material is mithril and +5 (or +10) if it is adamantine.

Something similar was done for Hold portal and arcane lock and I feel it should be done for these two materials as well.

Last session my players:
lvl 7 human fighter with a greatsword
lvl 7 human rogue with Rapier and shortsword
lvl 7 elf ranger using a bow
lvl 7 elf sorceress mostly with blasting spells

Fought against:
lvl 6 half fiend orc fighter with a falchion (CR 6 by PF rules)
lvl 7 half orc cleric with chaos and evil domains (CR 5 by PF rules)
about 20ish standard Orcs (no idea, they were here as fodder :) )

I must mention that fight was not balanced.
One of the players almost got killed (he got stable at -13 with Con score of 14). They had hard time defeating these guys. Only one critical was dealt to the players (not hard with a 18-20 falchion).
Sorceress kept failing the SR check of the half-fiend, but the PC fighter kept passing all the saves from spells cast on him by the Orc Cleric so I would say it was fair.

They fought the Orcs for 3 rounds before two big bosses appeared. More then half of the Orcs got killed in those 3 rounds and rest got finished with a Fireball that hit the two bosses as well. So those orcs didn't play a big role in the combat (they were ment more as round buyers so bosses could cast at least some buffs).

I post this because I had my doubts in the new CR system of NPCs in PF (NPC lvl -2 = CR), and now it was shown to me that I was right.
Players were attacking the orc camp so they were not ambushed or anything.

EDIT: I forgot to mention ranger had Orcs as his first choice for favored enemy. Although he was effective against Orcs I can see a problem when this ranger would fight non favored enemy opponents.
I feel the favored enemy mechanic based on groups of opponents BAD.

Last session we were converting Alpha3 characters to Beta and I noticed I could not find the list of languages to choose from.

Are they missing or was I just blind?
What page then if it is the latter?

Page 291 says: "Adding NPCs: Creatures without racial Hit Dice are
factored into combats a little differently than normal
monsters or monsters with class levels. A creature that
possesses class levels, but does not have any racial Hit
Dice, is factored in as a creature with a CR equal to its
class levels –2."

So for a lvl 7 party of 5 players a Challenging encounter (APL+1) is two lvl 8 enemies (for instance a lvl 8 fighter and a lvl 8 cleric)?

This is a lot different then 3.5e where x lvl NPC was CR x.

Is this balanced?
I have yet to playtest this in my campaign and would like some feedback before I do a TPK with a "challenging encounter".

EDIT: This also means a challenging encounter would be 4 lvl 7 NPCs?!
This sounds like too much and a possible TPK.

I suggest giving fighter something similar to the Ritual Combat from Arcana Evolved.

Maybe a modified version (with Divine/Natural theme) of this can be also implemented for Rangers and Paladins instead of their spells.

I just checked both classes again and with this change to wizards, in the end wizard just lag one spell to cast per spell level.

Even on lvl 6 the difference is small.
Wizards 3+1,3+1,2+1, Sorcerers 6,5,3

I must admit this is the only thing that worries me in 3P.

Can someone try to explain to me why this is not too powerful?

A ability that heals 1d6/2 levels in an area (with the feat it will heal only you and your party)?

Doesn't this ability make Mass Cure spells useless?

Doesn't this make healing too powerful at early levels?

Doesn't it make an even bigger difference between the Cleric and Druid/Bard in the terms of healing? So far you could be a Bard or a Druid and be fairly proficient in healing when compared to the Cleric, but with this you are not even close.

As the title says. Sorcerers were liars and cheats in 3.5e with only Bluff as class skill, and now they are bullies as well?
So channeling magic through your blood does not allow you to actually talk to people like normal folks? You can be as Charismatic as hell, but if you lie and bully others will not like you (they will up to the moment you fail once in these attempts).

1. Combat Style Feat (Ex): At 2nd level, a ranger must select
one of two combat styles to pursue: archery or two-weapon
combat. This choice affects the character’s class features
but does not restrict his selection of feats gained through
normal advancement. He can choose these feats, even if he
does not have the normal prerequisites.

The question is: Does this text mean that even if you choose two-weapon combat you can still take archery feats with normal feats (lvl 3, 5 ,7 ,9, ...) even if you do not possess the prerequisites for them?

2. At 4th level, a ranger forms a bond
with those he hunts with. This bond can take one of two
forms. The first is a bond to his companions. This bond
allows him to spend a move action to grant half his favored
enemy bonus against a single target to all allies within 30
feet who can see or hear him. This bonus does not stack
with any favored enemy bonuses possessed by his allies;
they use whichever bonus is higher.

I did not find any time limits for this ability. Does this mean that it lasts until the target is killed? It also could mean it lasts even if the target escapes and meets the heroes later.
Also I did not find any limits to the number of opponents the ranger could give bonus against in an encounter.

Also nothing is said what happens if the allies within 30 feet leave that area or if the ranger dies or goes unconscious?!

I think this ability needs some clearance.

I am either blind or the Spellcraft skill description (and tables) do not have the rules for casting defensively (you know 15+ spell level).

The funny part is that the feat Combat Casting says:
"Benefit: You get a +4 bonus on Spellcraft checks made to
cast a spell or use a spell-like ability while casting on the
defensive or while grappled."

See the bolded part? What does that mean if Casting defensively does not exist anymore?