Do you want to be able to fight also? If you just want to be a casty casty go for conjuration wizard teleportation subschool.
If you want to be able to fight in melee and cast a cleric of Desna is always fun to play and you can take the travel domain paired with either luck or good I think and be a real force with a ton of excellent travel abilities.
It's not about the timing of the damage. The application of damage is a single event. There is no rule that will describe it as such because it is implied by the action system. An immediate action can interrupt a spell, but not part of its resolution simply because the action system doesn't include a damage allocation period.
If you want to cast charm and compulsions spells you need a somewhat cooperative GM. Usually we'll have the caster hidden or doing some sort of weird arcane rituals while the party face distracts the individual being targeted.
But RAW it's very tough to cast social spells, save some special abilities. Glibness is kind of unbeatable, but I don't know if it's on the mesmerist list.
There's a real data bias effect on the level inquiry. Most games start at low level and are apt to end earlier just based on momentum.
The lack of high level material is another reason this data would exist. Either way, there are always going to be fewer high level characters than low level simply based on structure of the game and time. But I do love me some data!
Some of it is more relevant than other, but I really love most of it. The archetypes in particular.
The key, as addressed above, is agency. A GM's job is create a world and let the PCs interact with its inhabitants and structures.
Character decisions, as long as they are realistic, outweigh any story, drama, or plot arcs I had planned. I try to give the PCs any info that is important to their narratives, but I also reward curiosity and expect the players to know events continue to occur when they are focused elsewhere.
With shared expectations, people seem okay no matter how things play out, so long as they are the agents of change and I am not trying to impose my plot arc upon them.
No, the staggered, dazed, and stunned statuses are not rooted in movement. Rather a lack or restriction of movement arises from conditions. However, FoM beats paralysis and it beats hold person since those conditions are about the restriction of movement.
FoM is a tricky spell, but ultimately it comes down to whether movement itself is restricts, if that's the case FoM takes effect. (Though it doesn't prevent being stuck in an area (e.g., walls and pits)).
Wait a minute... people play wizards without at least 14 constitution?
Sure wizards are all about evading attacks and miss chances anyway. Probably wouldn't dump it, but 12 is easy, and 10 doable.
Attributes don't require a type of role play. Just create the personality, the skill set will fit in.
In reality the answer is simply, people pick up religion based on cultural and historical environments. Occasionally people worship a god based on values, but by and large it's a product of upbringing.
If an empyreal lord of its representative did good for a small town, that society may be more inclined towards its worship. Then people growning up in that society going forward.
I honestly think it's four rolls, but the one time I tried it I agreed to three rolls reluctantly.
It can probably be read both ways. Persistent spell says "it must make another saving throw" so maybe just one. But honestly, I read misfortune as applying to each saving throw caused by the persistent metamagic. There may be an order of operations problem here.
But the argument feels a lot stronger for four rolls unless there is an FAQ I am unfamiliar with.
You're reading everything backwards. The sentence "This damage is subtracted from current hit point" isn't a restriction, but an explanation of how damage works. It doesn't create a new category by fiat of sentence.
The problem here is that you are not arguing RAW, you are reading too much into descriptive sentences and other rules to fit a very particular interpretation that is not in the rules at all.
You can keep quoting the same sentences, but that won't make them mean what you say they mean. We can keep arguing with you, but that's not going to change your mind apparently. But you're wrong. Non-lethal damage is, ultimately, a form of damage to hit points, hit point damage is merely a way of distinguishing from ability damage, and power attack applies to non-lethal. You don't have to agree, but as far of the rules go, it's cut and dry.
Not some spells. Certain spells create physical attacks with special materials, for instance pellet blast:
These are subject to damage resistance. But this is the exception to the rule, largely spells and dr don't interact (summoning being another major exception).
Here is the pfsrd section on DR, ask any clarifications you'd like, happy to help out: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/special-abilities/#TOC-Damage-Reduct ion
But as for the pricing of magic items, in cases like this, it's more an art than a science. First, look at pricing for comparable items, then use the rule set that breaks magic items down by elements.
Personally, this feels like a 5k item to me. It's very good at low levels and middling as you go along. But you're not going to find a correct answer, just jury-rigged guesses.
You can't just take a term used to distinguish between hp damage and ability damage, for instance, and use it as a basis for a whole new class of fictional rules and distinctions. Non-lethal damage is damage to hit points, just non-lethal. What else is non-lethal damage damaging if not hit points?
There's no need for contextualizing the rules, when a plain and simple reading, that power attack applies to non-lethal, and it makes sense. This kind of nonsense harms the game by leading to rules bloat or oversimplification.
Oh wow... this has gone of the rails. Hit point damage isn't a "type" of damage. It's damage. Power attack applies to damage. You can't just make up a category of damage based on your reading of a separate rules and try to apply it across the board. If a distinction this meaningful were intended, the rules would have expressed it clearly.
If you believe in permadeath I would alter the loot structure. The money spent on resurrection should be reallocated to permanent enhancement to protect against the threat of permadeath.
People love their characters. If you are you going to remove access to resurrection; you should permit them to use their look however they sey fit to prevent death (or whatever they want).
There is so much context here that suggests that stand still simply doesn't work, beyond mere logic (and that alone is enough for me):
The subject and all its gear become insubstantial, misty, and translucent.
Its material armor (including natural armor) becomes worthless, though its size, Dexterity, deflection bonuses, and armor bonuses from force effects still apply.
It can pass through small holes or narrow openings, even mere cracks, with all it was wearing or holding in its hands, as long as the spell persists. The creature is subject to the effects of wind, and it can’t enter water or other liquid. It also can’t manipulate objects or activate items, even those carried along with its gaseous form. Continuously active items remain active, though in some cases their effects may be moot.
All the above quotes suggest that it cannot be stopped with mere physical weapons or impeded by stand still. The actual answer is unclear, but the logical answer only leans one way.
It doesn't say it is restrict to Duergar, like pretty much any other spell limited to a race.
The GM can do whatever they want, textual pretense or no. I just think it's a pretty dumb way to answer the question.
When I GM I believe in a fully collaborative process where we discuss rulings and figure out ambiguous situations together. Obviously, I don't permit a 2 hour argument at the table. But I am only right by GM fiat if I am houseruling something.
I don't see an actual textual reason to restrict the spell to Duergar, absent that any in game restriction is basically a house rule (unless someone has text that suggests Ironskin is actually restricted according to the rules).
1 is such a silly circular rule. No one is coming to the board just to hear the GM is always right. I wish people would stop saying it when people have specific questions.
Nothing in the spell description on pfsrd says duergar only: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/i/ironskin/
I am usually pretty liberal about race-specific spells, but this doesn't even list it, such as spells like http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/p/paragon-surge which specifically list half-elf as a requirement.
There is a difference between a race developing a spell and it being specific to a race.
Most of the time it is easy enough to learn as I go along. When players level up, I look at their choices and, if I am not familiar with something, I look it up and discuss it with the player.
This really comes up with 1.6 players per campaign so it's no big deal and fun to learn about new options I don't know of. Core only is painful for the weaker classes; I prefer to allow options and restrict only where it's a huge problem.
Communication is key.
All of these factors matter. The real question comes down down to context. Is this one player or a party and what other classes are in that party.
I would probably have wizard and cleric higher than, say barb, no matter what. But if it was a 1 man party, I'd be more inclined for cleric, despite the wizard's overall power adtvantage.
So tiers may be both subjective and objective. It depends on the goal of this exercise.
That's my ranking, if we're going to rank and assuming competent use. In terms tiers, I'd classify Wizard-Sorcerer as 1; Alchemist to Barbarian as 2; Fighter to Unchained Monk as 3.
It's more spectrum than tiers and depends on what you're going for (and the rest of the party, but in terms of the ability to handle any situation, there you are)
Nonsense. Philosophers and scientists have not determined an absolute morality so constructed alignments are completely open to interpretation too. Nothing is absolute, there are grey areas in everything, including a simulation like pathfinder. You may have an absolute view of how things work morally, but I guarantee you it won't hold universal. It will always be based on assumptions and interpretations.
There are practically correct decisions in certain situations. There might even be morally correct decisions in certain situations. But each is fact-dependent and culturally, socially, and personally contextual even if Pathfinder does try to put them in a box, that box is too limited by human nature and words to ever be absolute.
Since the spell effect of create pit is a 10 x 10 hole you should be able to create pits on the sides of the castle by the foundation. The sloped edges of the pit are ancillary to the actual spell effect, so technically there should be no need for line of sight or effect to create sloped earth under various parts of the foundation of the castle.
The exposure of those slopes should allow you to target them with transmute rock to mud. That and grappling hooks or tk or other ways of pulling the castle foundation down into the extradimensional space of the pit should do some serious damage, and when the pit rises, some real foundation breaking.
Enchantment and Necromancy. Get Necromancy back at 9 with opposition research. A ton of creatures in the bestiary are immune to mind-affecting spells.
Necromancy doesn't have a ton of great spells below fourth level, save false life.
Evocation is the other standard choice and although conjuration has some good damage spells, some of which even ignore spell resistance, but it's always nice to be able to drop a fireball (and later daze with it and some of your conjuration spells like acid arrow and pellet blast).
But ear-piercing scream, magic missile, and flaming sphere are all useful lower level spells that you'll probably find yourself using before anything in necromancy, until you get enervation and other decent offensive options.
(As for the remainder abjuration and transmutation have too many spells (and too many useful spells) to work. Divination gives you detect magic and some other interesting options; but can be dropped if you plan ahead.
Illusion is another drop possibility, but giving up (or wasting two slots on) mirror image, blur, invisibility, displacement, and at early levels color spray is almost definitely not worth it. Miss chances and evasion through flight and invisibility are a wizard's best defense (especially if you are going to summon; you can summon as much as you want while invisible).
I assume you also intend to take teleportation subschool, shift is probably the best defensive school power in the game.
Early feats to consider: Improved Initiative, Spell Focus (conjuration), Augment Summons, Craft Wondrous Items, after that it depends if you want to focus mostly on summoning or mix it up. I recommend taking Persistent Spell or at least grabbing a persistent rod at some point.
If you have any more specific questions feel free to ask.
I think the rules probably do not allow you to intensify magic missile. However, it is not unreasonable to argue that the number of missiles is effectively a damage dice cap. That fifth missile is the cap on the damage dice.
I think by intention it should be allowed, and I would permit it. The only consideration I have is that missiles may have multiple targets and intensify is granting you extra targets if you so choose. However, only in the case of an intensified toppling spell is this an issue.
I think the fair reading is no, but an interpretation leaning the other way exists and it should probably be permitted.
It depends on the feat or item you are trying to determine. If it affects spell preparation, then they are prepared. If it involves actual casting and recall, it appears to be spontaneous.
I think this is a context dependent question and the correct answer is that some aspects of arcanist casting are prepared and some are spontaneous. I think you are much more likely to get specific questions about items and feats answered than a question that is this broad.
General consensus has a different meaning than general v. specific meanings of a rule.
Doomed claimed that it was a general developer consensus that you have to have the prerequisite for 24 hours.
Greystone correctly pointed out that this is not true, and provided a specific example of where the developers discussed how this rule applies to brawler's flurry. This is pretty compelling evidence that there is no general consensus that 24 hours of the prerequisite is required.
Of course, you are literally correct, maybe it is the general consensus. But I have never seen it, and the specific example in the case is strong evidence that there is a lack of such a consensus.
There's no need to go round and round. There's rules and realism. You have to separate the two because you are playing a game. Melt stone, by the rules, is a different action, than breath weapon.
If you need a flavor change to make it more explicable pretend that dragons have to use hotter, more focused breath that drills directly in the ground to actually melt stone.
It's always easier, to the extent possible, to figure out the rules and then add flavor where necessary than get stuck on realism issues like this (where the game rules are trying to prevent using this action simultaneously with the breath weapon, otherwise it would simply be a feature of the breath weapon).
Here's how I read it, melt stone and breath weapon are different actions. One targets the ground, the other is an area of effect.
Although they are superficially the same action, as a matter of action economy they are not. The dragon has to choose to target ground or people (even if the people are standing on the ground). They still take the lava damage, but they don't take breath weapon damage the round the ground is melted.
Obviously in subsequent rounds if they are still in the lava and get breath weaponed the PCs, if not dead, will take both damages.