Atticus Bleak's page

boon companion.i don't understand it's meaning. is it good it sounds good? but i am not sure..... whats my levels do for my companion? or does it make the CA 4 lvls higher? a simple long drawn out explanation would be greatly appreciated. >.> and if you can't thats fine i will just keep asking on parts i don't understand.

Your animal companion gains HD, Base Attack Bonus, Saves, Skills and Feats as it levels up with you. A druid starts with theirs' at level one, but Rangers and Paladins don't get them until later, and the animal companion they gain has a level of their class level -3.

Boon Companion exists so that Rangers and Paladins can catch up and have animal companions on par with their level, instead of 3 levels behind them. It also helps if you are a class with an animal companion, but decide to multiclass. Since you aren't leveling in the class that gave you a companion, the companion will stop leveling, unless you take Boon Companion.

Quick question for those who have run the whalebone pilk fight:

massive spoiler for the fight, so if you arent a DM - go no further!

** spoiler omitted **

I just recently ran this one!

@

What would it take to put out two ranged attacks each dealing 4d6? That would be a double-barreled musket, Haste extra attack, or BAB extra attack. The significance of these weapons is a flavour for all classes, everyone will perk up when these turn up.

A Flaming Vicious Light crossbow could deal 3d6+1d8. And you can fire that one handed. Your average damage on a 4d6 musket is 12, not even enough to kill a 1st level favored class Fighter with 14 Con.

You say perk up, as a player if we got one of these as loot I would probably go "Oh! That seems cool! Oh, no these are not very good at all. Lame." and immediately sell it, especially if that are "Too expensive to carry more than one". I would be very disappointed.

Also, if they are so expensive, how hard is it to find someone interested enough to spend all that money to buy it off the party, or to find ammo?

Atticus Bleak wrote:

I am going to be honest, if you came to me and explained this reasoning, and then the rules above, I would ask to reroll a character, and feel like you were unfairly crippling my character for your desires that our fantasy game be "more historically accurate". The gunslinger class revolves around firing guns, their class features all make them better at firing guns, and you admitted you want him to only be able to do this once a combat.

And as far as historical accuracy, for Treasure Island and Three Musketeers were set in the mid 17th century, when Wheel-lock, Dog-lock and Match-lock weaponry were more common, although Flintlock was being introduced. The guns in Pathfinder seem more based on the late 17th-early 18th century Flintlock weaponry.

Sorry, for "Forget everything PF said about guns before" includes forgetting the entire Gunslinger class.

I'm not proposing this as a solution for Gunslinger, I'm proposing this as how guns could be in integrated into a table running Pathfinder, at all.

We've banned gunslinger from our tables for a while, it always ended up a mess. In fact the most problems we've had has been with builds that focus on ranged attacks.

** spoiler omitted **...

Oh. See you used an existing gunslinger as an example, so I assumed this was an attempt to fix him, I apologize.

I would still argue that no one would bother ever buying guns with this system, and I do mean anyone, including NPCs. The gun industry would die and we would continue using arrows forever, because it is impossible to really reflect the danger of guns.

The primary killers in an early firearm is shock from the pain, organ damage, infection, lead poisoning, and bleeding out. Guns were a thing everyone carried in those books and movies because they were essentially one use "Avada Kedavra" wands, even if you hit someone in the arm or leg they were out and probably dead unless a doctor is present. You can't really reflect that expectation without making them a 1 use wand of Finger of Death.

Thanks for the feedback Atticus.

One thing I'm actually hoping for is it doesn't replace crossbow for those who are already committed to crossbows, while you may not like them, Dex builds love them for avoiding strength penalties to damage. Paizo chose the example art of the Rogue to have a crossbow with good reason.

I thought 4d6 was pretty generous base damage. I guess a gravity bow'd Composite with one of the +7 strength ratings would match the same damage and that's one out of possibly 3 attacks EVERY round.

But a musket would be a simple weapon. It's something almost anyone can use.

It's something they can open a fight with, where after the opening exchange they invariably either get to cover or close to melee range. Or if an enemy appears out of melee range, unsling that trusty musket and give them a good hit.

While 2d6 isn't much better than a light crossbow with gravity bow, it's all that power in a lil old pistol. I guess that's the thing. RAW, there's no difference quickdrawing a pistol compared to quickdrawing a crossbow. But certainly you could use such a weapon one handed.

One thing I am hoping to do is to enable more switch-hitting as a trend I have noticed is damage goes up, enemy health goes up, and nothing really changes. I want more options, more tools on the utility belt, less predictability in the gaming sessions. Things like having more flexibility count so much more for keeping sessions fresh and engaging.

Not a problem for stronk players, they have the power of thrown weapons add damage modifier, they can lob a nearby brick and with strength bonus deal decent damage.

Maybe pistols would be more appealing if they were more disposable like a sling can be. As part of your movement you find yourself unable to position to attack, you sling out a pistol and take a shot, no worries after that, just drop it on the ground.

FYI: the first thing I was taught when I went clay pigeon shooting is you DO aim a shotgun. The first thing I learned when I started shooting was...

You have done a good job making them not replace crossbows. Crossbows are now 100% better. Because at level 6 my fighter can fire his crossbow 10 times in 5 rounds, and your gunslinger can fire his gun 3.

Also, you shouldn't try to compare target shooting to combat use of a weapon. You are trying to hit center-mass while the target is not fighting back, as opposed to just trying to hit your enemy to stop them attacking you in combat. I wouldn't AIM for your arm, but if I hit your arm, you still aren't fighting back.

Cyrad wrote:

What are your design goals with these rules? Also, you don't need to make a rule that natural 1s result in no damage. All attacks automatically fail on a natural 1.

The key thing is the round that you took ages to load isn't expended. All that is cost is the action to aim and try to shoot. If you have high BAB, Haste or similar you could take another attempt to shoot. It is still the case that natural-1 spoils your single attack, but it shouldn't knock you down too far.

Yeah, my goals? To have guns in the game more reflect their early historical role which is important for player group expectation. Things get a bit weird with gunslinger who isn't acting like players expect, they are going against expectations of musket being a mediocre hitter to one of most reliable hitter in the game. And despite best attempts they end up going rapid fire as the class has the dilemma of being either really bad or suddenly really good.

Drawing from films and books like Treasure Island and the Three Musketeers, guns were important but not the be-all-and-end-all. They could suddenly change the pace of a fight by one suddenly being drawn then, oh well, one shot, back to swordplay. They could be devastating in a single hit (a crit) but generally they weren't of supreme advantage over crossbows.

From a practical point, guns are important for their great power being independent of strength score. Crossbows and Stone Bows fill that role to some extent but still quite limited, even if you ignore flavour text for how bulky they are it's only by magic that you can get the damage to scale at higher levels.

I am going to be honest, if you came to me and explained this reasoning, and then the rules above, I would ask to reroll a character, and feel like you were unfairly crippling my character for your desires that our fantasy game be "more historically accurate". The gunslinger class revolves around firing guns, their class features all make them better at firing guns, and you admitted you want him to only be able to do this once a combat.

And as far as historical accuracy, for Treasure Island and Three Musketeers were set in the mid 17th century, when Wheel-lock, Dog-lock and Match-lock weaponry were more common, although Flintlock was being introduced. The guns in Pathfinder seem more based on the late 17th-early 18th century Flintlock weaponry.

Okay, I can tell you the primary problem I see already.

Good damage, but slow to reload and too expensive to carry more than one? That means I will never use them. Ever. Because if they take anything more than a move action, and there is no way to ever speed that up, then Crossbows are extremely more efficient and crossbows are already terrible.

Also, this removes anything that makes them special. They are just crossbows that you can never reload faster, and do slightly better damage for "too expensive". I could just get a magic crossbow.

And lastly, I think you misunderstand what Buckshot and Blunderbusses are for. They are for shooting into a crowd. You don't AIM a shotgun, you point it in a direction, and everything close to you that way gets hit. Without those traits, it would be better to just say that buckshot and blunderbuss don't exist at all.

Cyrad, I think he means no damage to the gun.

WHY IS THE DRUG WORSE THAN MOST POISONS? WHAT IS THIS STUFF? ITS WORSE THAN ARSENIC!

Because the dosage size is 8 oz? If you drank 8 oz of arsenic you would be taking 8d2 Con.

I always assumed that the second sentence in the description mattered. It is often watered down. You only get a half a pint to last you all night and the next day? 4 shots? Better cut that. And if you water it down, it shouldn't be nearly as poisonous.

I have trouble picturing a ship full of rambunctious pirates gingerly sipping their rum like a dainty nobleman, or drinking 4 shots and then only water for the rest of the night.

Atticus Bleak wrote:

I didn't give any suggestion at all.

I believe the OP is well aware of the problem, and, to a certain extent aware that the problem can't be "ended" (despite the title) but mitigated at best, and is looking for constructive suggestions.

For example, Riuken is right on target. But, I think the OP is looking for structural as well as tactical suggestions.

I get that you are implying I am not being helpful. I would argue that pointing out the problems that make ideas not work is just as constructive as coming up with a bunch of ideas that need to be checked for holes.

Also, I just realized that my first post was accidentally in reply to you. I believe it was meant to be in reply to either the OP or Toxicpie.

Atticus Bleak,

Is your suggestion to the OP anything besides "don't play past level X"?

I didn't give any suggestion at all.

I was just commenting that if two groups are capable of killing each other too fast, giving one side better armor is not a bulletproof solution.

@Paladin of Baha-who? That is true, but so could a villain. All he needs is one surviving minion who can call his friend the cleric. Just because you get to come right back doesn't mean its not annoying to have 4 people give it there all to kill a villain before he can kill anything and have the game say "No, there are only 4 of you and he has 5 HP pools, so no matter how many resources you spend, no matter how clever your strategy, or how much you risk, it is impossible to kill him. Now he gets to kill one of you."

Your enemy is action economy.

Maybe HP Pools could solve that, but I would up it to 100 per pool as a compromise.

Also, although it's cheating, you could give the boss two initiative rolls and two turns per round. Call it a special NPC Boss template.

Or use minions. I love minions. Especially if they pose enough threat to not be able to ignore (high damage or debuff) yet low enough defenses (AC, Saves, HP) as to be easily dispatchable.

I use Fate Chips (Think Hero Points) in my game. My players start each session with one, and I start the session with none. They can bank them between Scenes but not between Acts (think of an AP as a 6-Act Play). When a PC uses one, he passes it to the DM. Mwuh-ha-HA!

I feel like you guys are all forgetting why it is called Rocket TAG.

Springing off this.. arent there bolts that do other stuff? Like element bilta that say 1d6. Does thay just add on?

Also I dont remember seeing a thrown bolt, you sure your not confusing dart s? I only remember bolts under ammo. Opin the books and on the paizo site. Then various magic bolts

Yes, but even the special bolts don't have a listed damage, they have an additional damage in their description.

For Example: The fire bolt says it does normal damage and an additional 1d4 fire.

Evasion would be a pretty worthless ability if it could be countered by "but no, you see, the wizard targets your square with the fireball so you can't escape it."

I hate when DMs feel the nerd to nerf a class ability for realism but then don't tell you about it until you fall prey to it. It smacks of unsportsmanship and enjoying tricking people.

DM: Yea you can be a rogue.
Rogue: Cool!
[Later]
DM: Okay roll Reflex.
Rogue: Okay, I get a 40, and have Evasion, so I take no damage right?
DM: Ha! Nope, in my games rogues take normal damage, got you, you idiot!

The "Bolt" is not the Crossbow ammunition. It's a bolt you can throw at your enemies with your hand (a thrown weapon)

I think you are thinking of the Dart?

What book did you find a listen damage for a bolt? Everywhere I have checked that do not have listed damage.

Thats why I love the idea so much. My players want to build their own plot devices? Why not?

It definately will go FUBAR some day and will create a lot of plot opportunities close to home...

Right, what Snorter means is that there are no ways to game the rules on this one because there are no rules for it. No loopholes unless a contract exists first.

I was about to say with that list it sounds like an artifact until I read #4. Basically you are going to need GM Fiat for most of that stuff. If might be better to assign this acquisition of such as item as a quest because if he puts a price tag on it, you may not be able to afford it.

The question is this---->Are you trying to be as good in melee as a full BAB class or are you looking to be more defensive?

No, like you are super missing the point. He isn't asking for advice, or a strategic weapon for a character. He is asking for a cool item that a Powerful Wizard might buy to have, when he doesn't want to waste spellslots on peons, in an entirely hypothetic setting.

Saying "What situation made your wizard desperate enough to rely on melee?" or "Well, entering melee makes you die so nothing." Is literally failing a multiple choice question that has no wrong answers. Its like if I asked if you wanted to ride a Pegasus or a unicorn and you said that neither exist so my question is invalid.

Its a hypothetical, which could be phrased as "Whats the kewlest magic weapon to give someone with infinite money and power?"

No offense, but that answer doesn't help me. I am looking for an actual number, here, as I don't want be forced into a "what does high/low cha mean" debate with a GM who disagrees with how much charisma I choose for them to have.

This is the best answer I can give. Don't think about who he is, or how he acts. Think of how people react to him. If he insults someone, are they likely to blow it off, or take him seriously? If he asks for help, are people likely to side with him?

If people are likely to take his side in arguments and conversations, he has a high charisma. If people are likely to ignore him, or his attempts at diplomacy would anger people, then he has a low charisma. Charisma is less about how you act, and more how readily people will listen to and like you.

Gargs454 wrote:

Well, I think its certainly close with regard to the paladin falling, but I would probably let him off with a warning from his god since he did at least remove himself from the actual initial kidnapping and torture.

However, as others have pointed out, their plan isn't going to work anyway. First off, the guards are going to have to know about Grigori since the party cannot be at the castle every day to do the waking up themselves. As such, its only a matter of time before one of them slips up and spills the beans over a tankard or four too many. Besides, Grigori will get his spells back anyway, so he'll still have a chance to charm the guards, PCs, etc.

having plausible deniability might work in a court room setting, but should never work when deities are concerned, the fact that he knew they were kidnapping him and did nothing to help is not lawful good behavior.

its especially terrible because he was in a place of power and authority and could have done something and instead turned the other way, how is that not a fall from grace?
as far as i'm concerned the fall from grace is the warning to knock off the shenanigans:)

I would just like to stress that Paladins to not fall for acting chaotic. A single chaotic action, even if they let it pass and never fix it, will not make a paladin fall. EVIL actions make a paladin fall. They are not LAWFUL good, they are lawful GOOD.

The party believes they are stopping the Joker here, a bad guy who is using magic on people and hurting people. Now kidnapping is a pretty chaotic way to handle the situation, they should have taken him to the city officials...Oh wait, that's them. So, they had the criminal brought to the town council. Now, trials are only necessary in our society, not giving someone a trial isn't necessarily evil or chaotic, based on the setting. Ustalav has trials but if you commit a crime in a tiny Varisian town with no courthouse? The mayor would probably just sentence you. We are talking about a fledgling settlement.

The only problem here is the torture, and that is pretty bad. However, the code of conduct doesn't say that a paladin never lets an evil act happen, just that they would never commit one. Unless you consider not wanting to split your party with a fight evil, he hasn't committed an evil act, just let one happen. He is Harvey Dent, the party is Batman. As long as this is a one time thing, the Paladin doesn't need to leave the party, or have any real consequences other than it being more likely he will need to leave the party.

And the worthiness of the winners follows from their picks. Once upon a time in the fair kingdom of Sweden, we had a prize called Årets svensk, Swede of the year. It was awarded for something like four years, until it became obvious to every thinking person that things always went to s++@ for the laureates. It was heckled in humour shows, people realized they would be very loath to accept it if offered. At that point, the politicians giving it had picked too many wrong winners, and the status was gone.

I don't...Think you understand my point. It doesn't matter how useless, pointless, or meaningless the award actually is. It is their right to give it, and saying that it should be disbanded because you do not approve is like saying a movie should be banned because you don't like the plot.

Atticus, I am glad you asked.

Thing is, the peace prize is a status prize. It is meant to be awarded to people who have done something truly spectacular for the world and for peace. Your reasoning would be true if the point of the prize was the sum of money involved, but it's not and it never was. The point is recognition, exclusivity and fame. Like the laurels awarded to the winners of the ancient Olympics, the winner of the peace prize becomes an important person.

The peace prize is not the only such institution. Many other such prizes exist. And they all have to deal with the same problem: A laureate that is shown not to be deserving cheapens the value of the prize. There have been a few such incidents in the history of the Nobel prizes. Still, those are understandable. The committee can't know everything, and never will, and people can recognize that. What's worse is if the prize is awarded due to poor judgement by the awarding committee. That has the potential to taint the entire process. I'd argue that has already happened quite some time ago with the peace prize. The end result is that the worthy candidates will refuse a prize, since they still get the recognition of being offered it, and the money is not necessarily a problem to everyone. The ones who will accept it are the money-hungry and the unworthy. At that point, it will end up a prize that's seen as a joke. Sound familiar?

Don't get me wrong, I understand your point.

My point is that it is not the duty of the committee to live up to the expectations put on them by others. They are the only authority that matters when awarding their award. They could start choosing war-hungry conquerors, or choose a name out of a hat, but it is their prize to award. You see what I mean?

To anyone. It's a useless prize and has outlived every iota of its credibility. It did so ages ago. If this was done, a new prize that meant something could be instated.

Here is my question. Why do you think it has to have credibility? Or mean anything? Why should your, my, or anyone but the 5 member councils opinion matter? They award money from the Nobel fund on someone, chosen by them, that they believe fits the criteria. They have no responsibility to you or anyone else.

If you want a prize that means something to you, go start one. There is no reason for the Nobel Prize committee to stop giving out prizes because you think they lost their meaning, there can be more than one Peace Prize.

Its like saying I should stop buying people dinner so that a different guy can choose deserving people for free dinner.

Hrothdane wrote:

Which APs are you finding to be meatgrinders?

So far Carrion Crown and Rise of the Runelords.

Having just finished running Runelords for the second time it is fresh in my mind. Can you give me an example of an encounter that felt meatgrinder like?

I am starting to think that if you run an ap and want it to be successful, you have to have an ultra optimized party or rebuild all the major encounters from scratch. That defeats the purpose of running an ap. This is a failure on the part of paizo. The adventures should be challenging instead of deadly. I know it's a fine line, and there are a lot of variables, but they are supposed to be the experts. I wonder if third party AP's are better? Anyone have experience with those?

So far I have run Rise of the Runelords, Carrion Crown, Howl of the Carrion King, and Serpent Skull, and am running Reign of Winter and had no problem with them. In Serpent Skull we had a party of 2 and did fine, Carrion Crown we had anything but an optimized party and did fine. I have not experienced any meat-grinder at all. We are actually feeling that Reign of Winter needs to be made more challenging.

Also, of the 4 responses, all of them express that the APs are not all meat grinders, so you have become more firm in your position BECAUSE they disagree with you, or...?

Is no one going to mention that that isn't what Mind Blank does, at all? Mind Blank is a buff spell that makes you immune to divination, not an amnesia spell.

To be fair, there is a spell to do that, Memory Lapse, which makes you forget one turn of actions, but as a 1st level spell it should have a manageable save, and is subject to SR.

Yes it only works 5 rounds at a time, but as far as I can see nothing in the rules say that it is expended after the 5 rounds is over. I imagine you'd need to pick it up and activate it again, but other than that I see nothing preventing reuse.

Somehow I missed the part of it being destroyed merely by being touched while active.

Let me be clear, that I don't find it gamebreaking, even with the seemingly correct RAW reading that says it takes 18 damage to do a single point of damage to it, but I do wonder if it was what the powers that be intended.

It also doesn't technically say if it is touched while active. It says that if an arrow magnet is touched by any creature or reduced to 0 hp. Picking it up to reactivate it would be a creature touching it, meaning it would destroy it.

Call it what you want its still meta-game powers poorly explained.

How can you react before you know something has happened (are not looking), if you god knows = everything is fated = no free will. never mind should characters have defic or reality altering powers at low level.

ANY immediate spell, feat, spell like ability etc is basically up for it.

See, you say anything with an immediate action, but that prevents any specifics and lets us just stand here making sweeping generalizations that get us no where. Give me an example to comment on.

Atticus Bleak wrote:

Pupsocket wrote:

Allright, "attack" was being used as shorthand for "combat maneuver that can be used in place of an attack". Which grapple isn't. Before level 8, the Maneuver Master cannot make 2 grapple checks during a Flurry of Maneuvers.

I have learned from this thread, though, that the higher-level MM can indeed use his second maneuver to pin a grappled target.

Where are you getting this information? There is nowhere in the ability that says when using a maneuver in place of an attack, it says that as a Full Attack action, you can make one additional maneuver. As in a flurry of maneuvers. I feel like it would specify if the ability applied to only Sunder, Disarm, and Trip.

Ah, I think I see our disagreement here. I'm not saying that the bonus maneuver from FOM can't be a grapple. It can.

I'm saying that the regular attack can't be a grapple.

But what regular attack are you talking about? The ability states that by making your action a full attack action, you get to do an ADDITIONAL maneuver, meaning you make a maneuver, then a second maneuver. If you can only do one maneuver with it, it is hardly a flurry of maneuvers.

Atticus Bleak wrote:

Pupsocket wrote:

Atticus Bleak wrote:

What do you mean only the bonus maneuver can be used?

At 1st level, as part of a full-attack action, a maneuver master can make one additional combat maneuver, regardless of whether the maneuver normally replaces a melee attack or requires a standard action.

An additional maneuver, meaning he could use one, grapple, then his bonus one to do any of the actions someone can do when they maintain a grapple, like pin, or damage, or move. Is everyone trying to say that making a combat maneuver check to maintain a grapple on your turn isn't a combat maneuver?

Because grappling isn't an attack, it's a standard action.

Point Being? The ability lets you make two combat maneuvers in one turn as a full attack action.

this isnt entirely correct. fom allows you to declair a full attack and stack additional maneuvers. however it doesnt change how maneuvers are applied except for the additional maneuver at the end.

this means at low level the mm monk can FOM and gets one normal attack + one additional maneuver it has no means to double maneuver until lvl 8.

So what you are saying is that the ability, which is called "A mass of maneuvers" will not let you do multiple maneuvers until level 8?

I think I am following your logic, it does say "As Part of a Full attack action" but it also says "An additional maneuver", meaning in addition to the original maneuver that you are claiming is impossible.

Allright, "attack" was being used as shorthand for "combat maneuver that can be used in place of an attack". Which grapple isn't. Before level 8, the Maneuver Master cannot make 2 grapple checks during a Flurry of Maneuvers.

I have learned from this thread, though, that the higher-level MM can indeed use his second maneuver to pin a grappled target.

Where are you getting this information? There is nowhere in the ability that says when using a maneuver in place of an attack, it says that as a Full Attack action, you can make one additional maneuver. As in a flurry of maneuvers. I feel like it would specify if the ability applied to only Sunder, Disarm, and Trip.

Atticus Bleak wrote:

What do you mean only the bonus maneuver can be used?

At 1st level, as part of a full-attack action, a maneuver master can make one additional combat maneuver, regardless of whether the maneuver normally replaces a melee attack or requires a standard action.

An additional maneuver, meaning he could use one, grapple, then his bonus one to do any of the actions someone can do when they maintain a grapple, like pin, or damage, or move. Is everyone trying to say that making a combat maneuver check to maintain a grapple on your turn isn't a combat maneuver?

Because grappling isn't an attack, it's a standard action.

Point Being? The ability lets you make two combat maneuvers in one turn as a full attack action.

Pinning someone is something you may do as part of the check to maintain the grapple, so no, he could not use the bonus maneuver from Flurry to pin the target.

Only the bonus maneuver granted by Flurry of Maneuvers can be used to make the grapple check, though it is ambiguous as to when the bonus maneuver occurs during your full attack.

What do you mean only the bonus maneuver can be used?

At 1st level, as part of a full-attack action, a maneuver master can make one additional combat maneuver, regardless of whether the maneuver normally replaces a melee attack or requires a standard action.

An additional maneuver, meaning he could use one, grapple, then his bonus one to do any of the actions someone can do when they maintain a grapple, like pin, or damage, or move. Is everyone trying to say that making a combat maneuver check to maintain a grapple on your turn isn't a combat maneuver?

Nefreet wrote:

I still don't understand your problem. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

We've given you answers, and shown that you needn't crack open a 3.5 book to find them. Pathfinder is completely playable as its own game. No prior knowledge of 3.5 is necessary.

But if your excuse is "OMG this book has so many pages there's no way I could ever read everything", then there's nothing we can do for you.

You don't seem to understand my whole point that I was making so all I am left with is a cycle of replies in the hopes that the words make sense in your brain at some point.

I made no excuses for myself on finding the information or drawing conclusions as to what means what, what could mean what, what I think means what, and so on. I have read the book cover to cover and have played 3.x systems long enough to draw conclusions in light of what I consider useful missing information in the CRB. There is nothing any of us can do if someone (and I am not speaking about myself) has an issue with finding stuff in the book, that is up to Paizo to fix somehow.

So basically you are saying that your problem is that people have to ask questions on this forum at all, and the fact that this forum exists for questions about the rules system is a failing on Paizos part that they need to fix by adding even more pages to an already thick book, which would anger all of the people who bought an early copy because they missed out on the extra pages, and would only serve to explain in excruciatingly elementary detail what a few words mean, and on what page the definition of certain terms can be found?

Also, I appreciate that you feel this is a serious problem, but why are you posting this on someone elses question? It is very easy to start your own thread, instead of invading someone elses easy to answer question in order to pose problems that really only the Paizo editing team can solve.

Add "most" to my list of doubt causing words in the absence of a defining entry for what it refers to, in this case the lack of a circumstance bonus entry in the CRB.

I believe that in this case the term [most] refers to the existence of circumstance bonuses that do stack, and will be noted. As in, [unless otherwise noted] circumstance bonuses do not stack.

Also, why do you need a definition? Are context clues not enough? The name is circumstance, meaning it involves the details of a specific situation, as in it is a bonus to this circumstance. Effects that produce a circumstance bonus will be clearly labeled as such. Effects that produce circumstance bonuses that stack are indicated.

Boasting Taunt (Ex) (Advanced Player's Guide): While raging, the barbarian can incite a creature to attack her by making an Intimidate check to demoralize. If the check succeeds, the target is also shaken as long as the barbarian is visible and raging or until it makes a melee attack against the barbarian. The barbarian receives a +2 circumstance bonus on this check for every alcoholic drink she has consumed during this rage. This is a language-dependent mind-affecting effect, and it relies on audible components. The barbarian must be at least 6th level to select this power.

Meaning that the bonus stacks for each drink.

Also, and this is the kicker, the OPs question was whether or not racial and class bonuses stack, not if there was a definition of circumstance bonus in the CRB.