I agree it is largely common sense, but the main reason I ask is because it could have a significant effect on non-monk characters in certain situations. For example, if a barbarian was disarmed while facing down a skeleton that was immune to nonlethal, can he take the -2 to deal damage with his fists or does he have to retrieve his axe if he wants to remain effective?
I am happy to run it in a way that makes sense at my table, and will happily change things I don't like. I was mostly just looking to see if there was anything that would actually give a clear, official answer to this, especially since it could have an impact on play if people have different opinions on how it should work in a specific situation. There's also the risk that future additions to the game could add problems.
I think the intention for something like the Champion is to make sure the character taking the dedication feat at least has somewhat appropriate stats to the class and isn't just dipping for an ability, like a wizard spending spare feats to pick up lay on hands just to do it.
I think the Monk and Fighter should have the option of the two abilities rather than requiring both at 14, however. The classes are designed so you can focus either Dex or Strength and be fine. Plus, its not like they put the same restriction on rangers or rogues, even though they could also sometimes benefit from having both abilities high.
I have been going through the book this last week, and I found something odd with nonlethal damage that I think I know how is supposed to work, but it looks like the wording might technically have it working differently. I didn't see any threads covering this after a quick search, so I am making a quick post for my own benefit.
This pertains to four specific things, that I will add below:
Nonlethal Attacks:
You can make a nonlethal attack in an effort to knock someone out instead of killing them (see Knocked Out and Dying on page 459). Weapons with the nonlethal trait (including fists) do this automatically. You take a –2 circumstance penalty to the attack roll when you make a nonlethal attack using a weapon that doesn’t have the nonlethal trait. You also take this penalty when making a lethal attack using a nonlethal weapon.
Nonlethal Trait:
Attacks with this weapon are nonlethal (page 453), and are used to knock creatures unconscious instead of kill them. You can use a nonlethal weapon to make a lethal attack with a –2 circumstance penalty.
Immunity to Nonlethal:
Another exception is immunity to nonlethal attacks. If you are immune to nonlethal attacks, you are immune to all damage from attacks with the nonlethal trait, no matter what other type the damage has. For instance, a stone golem has immunity to nonlethal attacks. This means that no matter how hard you hit it with your fist, you’re not going to damage it—unless your fists don’t have the nonlethal trait, such as if you’re a monk.
Powerful Fist:
You know how to wield your fists as deadly weapons. The damage die for your fist changes to 1d6 instead of 1d4. Most people take a –2 circumstance penalty when making a lethal attack with nonlethal unarmed attacks, because they find it hard to use their fists with deadly force. You don’t take this penalty when making a lethal attack with your fist or any other unarmed attacks.
So basically the questions that I have is these:
Does taking the -2 penalty to make a lethal attack with a nonlethal weapon remove the nonlethal weapon trait?
If so, does taking the -2 penalty to do a nonlethal attack with a lethal weapon add the weapon trait?
Does the Powerful fist ability of the monk remove the nonlethal trait?
These all matters, of course, in reference to Immunity to Nonlethal Damage. The immunity states that it makes the creature immune to all damage from an attack that has the nonlethal trait, not from nonlethal attacks. The nonlethal trait doesn't actually make attacks with that particular weapon nonlethal, it simply reverses whether making lethal or nonlethal attacks applies the -2 penalty.
So for the example given in the Immunity to Nonlethal, the stone golem may technically be immune to the monk's punches since his unarmed strikes still technically have the nonlethal trait. Similarly, another character could do nonlethal attacks at a -2 penalty with a longsword at otherwise full effectiveness. Obviously, this is silly and not how I would run it, but I can't find anything that bridges this gap.
Based on the example given in the immunity section, the answer that I would assume and play at the table is that taking the -2 penalty does not add or remove the nonlethal trait, but the powerful fist feature does. This way, not just anyone can punch a golem and hurt it, as stated, but a character with an appropriate special ability could, such as a monk. In this case, I would rewrite powerful fist as such:
You know how to wield your fists as deadly weapons. The damage die for your fist changes to 1d6 instead of 1d4. When making an unarmed attack, the monk may choose to remove the nonlethal trait.
Has anyone found anything to clarify this better, or have a reason why it should work a different way?
But Dominigo it does state that range, duration, damage, area, and saving throws are all caster level dependant variables. It even states in the empower spell feat: Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected. If it specifically states that a saving throw, which is a caster level dependant feature, is not effected by this ability which shows they considered it a modifiable variable. Also with the last portion of the first sentence "including bonuses to those dice rolls". This just states that you must include the extra bonuses gained via feats, abilitys, or caster level dependant effects to the calculations.
Ex: By using your exact reasoning if I go to cast an Empowered Cure Moderate Wounds I would get ((2d8)*1.5)+10) as the +10 is a level derived variable or "constant" and should not be increased.
And it does not even come close to reading "variable = dice roll". It specifically states ALL (variable and numeric) effects are increased, INCLUDING (not exclusively to) bonuses to those dice rolls (which may not be variables such as with specializations or the constant +1 bonus to magic missile).
First off, let me say saving throws aren't based on CL in any way. It is based on your characters stats and the spell's level. A 20 Int level 20 wizard casts Charm Person exactly as potently as a 20 Int level 1 wizard (without any feats, of course).
Second, yes, it does directly say that the "variables" are dice rolls. Look at the sentence. The variable effects are what are increased. Also, any bonus to those dice rolls are increased. Which dice rolls are these? Nothing before it said dice rolls. Well, they must mean those variable effects from the first half of the sentence. Sounds to me like those "variable effects" are "dice rolls". There isn't really anything else those "dice rolls" can be.
Alright, now, lets run with your logic. Let's run it straight into the Maximize Spell feat.
Maximize spell states (from the PRD):
" All variable, numeric effects of a spell modified by this feat are maximized. Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables."
Ok, the same as Empower except I put it at its maximum value. It even has the caveat at the end like Empower stating what it doesn't apply to. Great.
So this will set all those variables you have mentioned above that to their maximum value. Awesome. So let's look at the spell haste. Here are some of the details:
School transmutation; Level bard 3, sorcerer/wizard 3
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a shaving of licorice root)
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Targets one creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart
Duration 1 round/level
Ok, so here is what I have gathered (from you) about how this works. Range is a variable (it can change), so we set it to its maximum value. Well, there isn't any cap listed, so how high can it go? Well, mathematically speaking, it can go forever. There isn't a limit to caster level, after all (which is not increased, of course! Only variables based on it). So the range is now infinite. If you have line of effect, you can hit it.
Next is targets. Well, there are two limits: number of creatures and distance. The distance is set, so everything must remain that close together buuuuut the number of targets isn't, so just like with the range it goes to its cap of infinity. As long as everything is together, they all get it!
Finally, there is the Duration and as luck would have it, its also a variable set by level! So we get to set it to its maximum value as well which, as it has no cap, is infinite. So now we have a Haste that lasts forever, affects as many targets as you can get in a 30 ft diameter circle, and can be cast on anything not physically blocked. Awesome!
Extending this logic, spells like Shield, Mage Armor, Heroism, Jump, Resist Energy, Life Bubble, etc (this is a long list!), can become permanent until dispelled by simply applying Maximize spell. Now you may say "for +3 spell levels, thats fair! His Mage Armor wasn't really infinite until level 7 anyway!" Well, this is where the magic items come in. A lesser Maximize rod only costs 14,000 gold, and will let you make 3 buffs at spell level 3 lower a day become permanent. According to WBL, a character could afford this by level 6! That means at level 6, a wizard can make any spell he can cast with a non constant duration last forever since almost no spells cap duration.
Some spells become even more problematic than before. That guard giving you problems? Hit him with a nice Maximized Sleep spell. If he fails that save, he will sleep until he starves to death (literally)!
Also, look at the last three words of the first sentence of the empower spell feat if you dont believe me. Im on a phone and cant show it easily myself, but the feat specifically calls out it increases bonuses "to the dice rolls". From the wording of that statement, it can be conclusively determined that "variable, numeric effects" are in farct "dice rolls"
Claiming that caster level dependent features of spells are variable is like claiming that the slope of a line in the generic equation y=mx+b is a variable because different lines have different slopes. In reality, it is a constant since for any given line that value is the same. Many lines can have the same slope and still be different just as many casters can have the same caster level and be different. The variables for a spell are only the independent variables of the spell, or the features of the spell that change every time the spell is cast regardless of caster level. If we assume CL dependent features change, a 6d6 fireball that has a range of 640 ft becomes a 9d6 damage fireball (with +50% damage rolled) that goes 760 ft since number of dice, range, and damage rolled are all "variables". Other spells will also find things like duration increased and the target limit increased since they are also based on caster level. It doesnt stand up to scrutiny.
Actually, if you check the PRD, being the source that Paizo personally runs, all of the redundant stat requirements you mentioned are removed with the exception of furious focus. The SRD, while useful and larger, is not run by Paizo and may contain outdated information, so you should always double check when you can.
That said, these are your rules, so you can do whatever you want with them. Just thought I would give you my thoughts. Overall, they do look pretty good.
1) You really shouldn't refer to Antagonize as a combat maneuver. It doesn't involve those rules in any way. It should simply be a "special combat action" or something.
2) Given the nature of skill checks, higher level Antagonize builds using these rules could quickly be crushing the DC on any opponent hard enough that it becomes an easy task for the user to put the condition on anything on the first round and have it last the entire fight. Given the severity of the secondary effect when not targeting the user at higher levels, that is a serious concern.
3) You should probably clarify that every 5 points above the DC increases the duration of the secondary effect by 1 round. I believe that is what was intended based on your writing, but it isn't immediately obvious the way it is worded.
4) The AoE form of antagonize granted by Imp. Antagonize should be a full-round action, not a standard.
5) The Int requirements on Imp Parry and Greater Parry are mostly redundant. You have to have Int 13 to get Combat Expertise, so if you meet that requirement, you automatically meet the same requirement for these feats unless you got Combat Expertise from a class feature. In that case, the class is obviously defense focused in some way, so why deny them this?
6) Using attacks of opportunity to defend yourself is certainly an interesting idea, but I think that in the lower level ranges, a melee focused character with Parry could become near impossible to hit with melee attacks without much cost to himself in terms of action economy. All it takes is 3 feats and a decent Dex to get a chance to parry almost every melee attack targeting you. Maybe consider allowing Imp. and Greater Parry each granting one additional parry chance a round instead.
7) Might want to add something stating that a brilliant energy weapon can't be parried. It just seems like it would fit since it would pass through most manufactured weapons used to parry.
8) I think I would replace the Duelist's Parry ability to something that directly adds to the maneuver rather than replaces strength. Strength could already be replaced with Dex through Agile Maneuvers if the duelists strength is that bad. Adding 1/2 Duelist level to parry maneuvers would probably fit.
How high could you buy a single stat if you're free to dump the other five? Let's say 20-point-buy, all five others dumped down to 5.
Paladins would probably be the least broken, as they still need Strength for melee. Bards need reasonable STR and/or DEX, their choice.
Sorcerers, meanwhile, are already expected to avoid melee and live or die by their spells. Plus, the sorcer/wizard spell list is full of save-or-suck spells even at level 1. A level 1 sorcerer who is free to TRULY minmax his Charisma would have a saving throw DC unheard of at level 1 and enough bonus spells that he'd barely even need a backup weapon.
The problem is even worse for Oracles, who would have the cleric's save-or-suck spells to work with, plus the Cure line to keep themselves alive when their HP is no longer enough of a buffer.
I don't really see where you are headed with this. Regardless of how many points a character has available at creation, you can never buy a stat higher than 18 before racial adjustments, meaning a stat of 20 at level one is the maximum 95% of the time. People already do that, so it isn't really breaking the game. All it would do for Cha casters is let them leave Con at 10 or dump it if they are feeling brave about Fort Saves.
Traditionally, cold iron is sort of an antimagic material, so it would make sense that it would be more difficult to enchant (and thus more expensive).
From Combining Magic Effects in the Magic chapter of the PRD:
"Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies."
Using it multiple times would simply give him whichever use had more images.
I can't really remember where I first remember seeing that it worked that way. It could be something that I (wrongly) brought over from 3.x but here is how I view it. Circle of Death kills 1d4 HD of creatures per caster level within its area, not just targets. Once you check the number of HD you can kill, you determine which creatures need to make their saves first. Every time a creature fails it save and dies, deduct its HD from the spells pool. If a creature passes its save, then Circle of Death hasn't killed it even though it was targeted, so the HD aren't deducted. Then you just keep checking creatures until either there are no new valid targets or there are no HD left in Circle of Death's kill pool.
Basically it comes down to the fact that the spell says it kills X man HD worth of creatures, not targets X man HD of creatures.
If PC makes his save, he is not counted as "affected" by the spell. It will keep forcing saves from creatures in the area until either a) It has killed 28 HD worth of creatures or b) all remaining creatures in the area have either passed their save or have more HD than the spell has remaining.
Heal can deal decent damage to undead, but other than that I wouldn't bother trying to turn Cure spells into an offensive option except in a pinch. They don't scale with caster level particularly well and there is no metamagic that will get them on par with other offensive options at your disposal.
You were not in a square that he threatened when you made the trip attempt. Therefore, you do no provoke an attack of opportunity from him. He cannot interrupt your attack of opportunity to do any normal actions (such as a 5 foot step).
Okay, maybe you don't "need" Read Magic to read a spellbook, but it doesn't matter. The point is, you can still use it on a spellbook. Why? Because there's some magic there to read.
You can use Comprehend languages or the skill Linguistic to comprehend something written in a foreign language.
That make it magic?
Comprehend Languages actually specifically says it doesn't allow the reader to read "magical" writing, though it will reveal the magical nature of the writing to the caster. Read magic is for specifically reading writing that is in some way magical, such as spell books and scrolls.
I still think it wouldn't register, personally. I would consider the written spells in a spellbook to be CL 0 effectively, meaning they don't have even a faint aura.
It is not directly stated, no, but it is at the very least implied. Characters under the effect of constant damage sources, for instance, are unable to stabilize. It is probably fair to assume they can't stabilize because the damage he takes each round removes the "stable" condition.
From the PRD:
"On the character's next turn, after being reduced to negative hit points (but not dead), and on all subsequent turns, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check to become stable."
I believe what Jiggy is trying to say is that all you need to resume dying is have your hit points reduced to a negative, yet non-fatal, value. There is nothing saying they have to be reduced from 0 or more hit points for this to take effect. So, if you are at -1 but stable and take 3 damage, your hit points have been reduced to a negative value that doesn't kill you. Hence, you need to restabalize.
I see no reason that you couldn't do both, though the DM might say that they are from the same source and therefore wouldn't stack. Even so, you could Aid Another to give them +2 to attack and Swift Aid to give them +1 AC if nothing else.
The rule for stacking bonuses lives under Special Spell Effects in the Magic section of the CRB.
A level 5 Zen Archer has a speed of 40 ft if I am not mistaken, which also happens to be the base speed of ogres according to the prd. Unless the monk is always going to be fighting in a field where he has plenty of time to pepper them with arrows while they approach, the ogres can get to him and the monk can't outrun them yet. Once the gap is closed, the monk will have to spend Ki like crazy to keep the ogres off long enough to take a shot without getting clobbered.
In my experience, the best way to fix a monk that is causing you problems is to go get a brute squad and give the monk a thorough beating with very large sticks. He may have a great AC against one attack a round, but two or three ogres should still easily be able to work him over in a few rounds without too much trouble. With a d8 HD and not being able to pump his Con as much if he wants to be a threat, he will find his HP disappear very quickly against a heavy hitter.
I'm with rangerjeff on your characters alignment. From your description he strikes me as more Neutral Good. Of course, that is assuming he cares about innocent people other than just his friends and allies. If he is less concerned with helping others outside his group, Neutral would probably work. I say this since your character clearly is interested in following protocol when appropriate, but has no qualms to step outside it when it starts to fail him. Most chaotic characters would not worry about honor or anything of the sort unless they felt they had to in order to survive or reach their goal while most lawful characters would be less willing to act in a dishonorable way (to them, at least) even when the going got tough. The kind of flexibility you describe sounds neutral on Law-Chaos.
You are correct about how 1-1/2 str bonus works. As for the "double damage twice", every so often it is possible to have two separate effects that each would double the damage, such as a paladin scoring a critical hit while using Litany of Righteousness. Basically, what that rule is saying is that you should think of effects that double damage as actually adding 100% damage. So, in the example above, the paladin would crit for +100% damage and the litany would give him +100% damage, for a total of 300% normal damage, or equivelent of x3 damage. If he were using a greataxe, which has a base crit multiplier of x3, the crit would add +200% to the +100% of the litany for a total of 400% damage, or x4 damage. Hope this helps!
Another thing to keep in mind with an Enchanter is that Protection from X doesn't protect your enemy from all enchantment spells, only the ones that grant you some measure of control. Spells like confusion and hold person should still work even against a warded target.
You can certainly force a creature to give you its equipment, though once the dominate effect is gone, it may come looking to get it back. You could also try a bluff check to convince it something it true, but Dominate won't give you any sort of bonus. If anything, it will make the creature less likely to believe since you are clearly hostile to it. An important thing to keep in mind about dominating a creature is that you get absolute control over its actions, but not over its beliefs. Look into the spell Sow Thought (Changeling racial spell). It can inception people into thinking weird things. That said, you can still force a dominated creature to fight its former allies, it just won't be happy about it.
As for some of your other questions, a creature might retain some base level of its personality while dominated, but anyone taking the time to watch him will clearly be able to tell he is ensorcelled (DC 15 Sense Motive).
If two people have a creature dominated, it will follow out the orders from both of its masters as best it can. In the case of conflicting orders, the casters perform an opposed Charisma check to see who's orders the dominated character follows.
Once the spell is in effect on the target, the range of giving commands is infinite on the same plane of existence. The complexity of commands depends on whether or not you share a language. If you do, you can command him to do anything you can put into words he will understand. If you don't share a language, only basic commands can be relayed, similar to giving commands to a trained animal.
A dominated creature should remember its time dominated as nothing says it won't.
Trying to build trust with a creature you have dominated will be hard. Most people don't like being controlled like that. Also, not every creature will go berserk the moment it breaks. Some will probably just try to get away as fast as they can so they can keep their freedom.
I would think it wouldn't have any effect on you until you try to return to the material plane since petrification doesn't actually kill you. When you return to your body by any means, you become trapped as a statue as normal. That could make for an interesting adventure though. Wizard was petrified while astral projecting and needs the PCs to run down and cure his body so he can return to it.
I would say you can't since you are not emulating a caster level to activate the staff. You are emulating having a spell on your spell list. It functionally works the same as using a wand and even uses the same DC. So if emulating a CL of 10 doesn't activate the staff, I see no reason why it would activate the staff with an improved CL.
"Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. 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. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.
You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don't otherwise move any distance during the round. "
One important thing to keep in mind when it comes to this it that there is not only a stat requirement to casting a spell. There is also a caster level requirement to each spell based on the particular spell casting class you are playing. For a sorcerer, he requires a CL of 1 for 1st- and 0th-level spells and a CL of 2 * Spell Level for all other spells up to level 9 on his spell list. If you are ever unsure what the CL requirement is, look at what level a character class gains spell slots of that spell level. Whatever the class's CL is at that level, and it is usually equal to the level, that is the required CL.
I think if you go with the circular casting of blade barrier, it would absolutely work since you simply select the center point and let fly. With any shapeable effects, you will need line of effect to each point you are creating part of the spell in. In your example, its a little unclear. You could argue that he simply targets the area he can see and tells the spell to just keep going as far as it can in one direction, or you could say that he has to create each patch of the wall independently even though its not really shapeable. I would probably personally rule the former since that is the general way an area of effect spell works which most wall spells essentially are.
It is implied in some of the flavor text that a filled page on a spellbook does have some inherent magic, but nothing ever states they are truly magical in the same way as a scroll or potions. I would assume that since they never say what sort of information someone could gain from using detect magic on a spellbook (like caster level, school, etc.) it would be fair to say that the magic in the writings is so meager it doesn't even detect as "faint" with a detect magic spell. You can certainly house rule otherwise, but that is the implication I get from reading over it.
You could build a Duelist with an agile weapon. I ran one once that stopped wearing armor completely by about level 11 since it started lowering his AC by capping his Dex too much. H didn't deal great damage, but he also didn't have an agile weapon, so he had to rely on a lower than normal strength for bonus damage. He can't duel wield weapons unless you are willing to give up precise strike, but in terms of damage, you are probably better off dumping Int for Dex and duel wielding.
That's pretty much why I said the gap won't really be able to be closed until a martial character can SoD people by swinging his sword. In terms of raw damage, a caster can't hope to keep up with a martial unless he is fighting enough enemies to make area of effect spells effective. Simple movement differences can be made up with magic items, though a caster's may be more reliable since he can activate them more readily and easily most of the time, as can more minor spell effects. The advantage of the caster lies in the vast range of options they have both in and out of combat. Giving a fighter the ability to hit more often isn't going to change the fact that all he does is swing a sword. All it will do is make the poor saps he manages to get his hands on die a round sooner then they might have before.
Martial characters don't really need a buff in damage. If they need improvement, it is in utility. I realize that isn't the purpose of this thread, but my point is the iterative attack penalty doesn't really hurt martials that badly. The first attack will almost certainly hit, the second probably will, and any other attacks may hit with some luck. With the damage bonus you can get on each attack, most enemies die pretty quick. I don't really see why you would want to make that even worse. If anything, enemies need to be able to survive a little longer in my opinion.
Are you suggesting that martial characters can't produce damage when they go crazy on someone, because I have a Kingmaker campaign that would like its dignity back from the barbarian that routinely embarrassed almost every "big bad monster" in it by killing it in one to two rounds.
Also, if I had to choose between a fight between a guy with a sword and someone with direct control over reality, maybe I'm weird for taking my chances in a sword fight 100% of the time.
In my experience, even with the -5 progression of full attacks, most enemies can't handle more than a couple full attack actions before they are toast. I would rather not have to deal with that. Letting everyone do iterative attacks at full BAB would require a rework of the system to balance. If they didn't adjust AC's or didn't increase them enough, combat would become much deadlier with everyone taking almost every attack from a full attack action. Adjusting ACs too high would make characters without a fast progression BAB have even more trouble hitting and would probably set them back in damage further than they already are.
I haven't really found the number of natural attacks creatures have to go up as CR increases. Generally they will receive other mechanics and abilities instead as well as high damage numbers on the natural attacks they had anyway. Granted that there are some monsters with a lot of natural attacks, but if they do, usually several of them are secondary attacks with the -5 penalty.
Overall, I don't see any reason to change the iterative attack penalties at all. If a full BAB class isn't hitting often enough, then either the enemy is just way too powerful for them or they are doing something horribly wrong in my experience. Removing the penalty would help the 3/4 BAB classes, but it would probably also make them worse in comparison to the full BAB classes than they are now.
As far as "closing the gap" in power level between any martial and a full progression caster, I don't think that will be achieved until they give martial characters a way to create Save or Die and Save or Suck effects by hitting something with a sword or shooting it with an arrow.
He did one thing, and one thing only: farming. Fifty years later and he has seen all that comes with his craft and can pull a crop through almost anything. In his quest to perfect his craft, however, he failed to learn any other skills. He has no particular talent for fighting (slow BAB), is not particularly resilient (low saves and HD), and barely has a working knowledge of most things other than his job (limited skill points and class skills). He does alright compared to most when the going gets tough, though. Years of work have made him used to pulling through the hard times whether its a dry spell that won't end or a brawl at the local tavern. He could go out and be an adventurer if he wanted to, but quite frankly, he is too old for that crap.
Incidentally, I heard once that in the Eberron campaign setting the highest level NPC in the world was actually a lvl 20 commoner. She worked as a cook in Sharn and made the best food anywhere. Never saw where she was talked about though.
I know there is a cloak that does something similar called the cloak of fiery vanishing. It allows you to go invisible and leave an illusion behind when hit by a fire spell. Maybe he has a modified version of that? Also, if he is throwing around 5th level spells and 5D6 sneak attacks, it means one of two things. A)He is at least Wiz 9/Rog 9, putting his CR at a minimum of around 17 or B) He has around 6 levels in Arcane trickster, which puts him close to about a level 11 or 12 character at least. In the latter case, he can actually get an ability that makes him invisible as a free action, but that would require him to have a higher than 5D6 sneak attack.
I was thinking that maybe he cast contingency to teleport him when he dropped a quick illusion, but that trick would only work once. Maybe he is using the old Warlock ported over from 3.5 or a custom rebuild of it? It's not impossible to think since backwards compatibility to 3.5 is intended in Pathfinder, though it requires some slight modding.
I don't think it is an evil act, though it is certainly looked down on by most civilized people. There is already precedent for this ruling in the books. A ranger from a rough walk of life would know that no matter how despicable it may seem, you can't always afford to waste a food source.
Follow up question. The PCs in my campaign alerted ghouls above them by opening a trap door. They closed the door after hearing the ghouls. I know the beastary says ghouls have intelligence. Are they going to
1. immediately open the trap door and jump down
2. mull around a bit before opening the door
3. mull around indefinately never opening the trap door
Depends on what they are doing on the other side of the trap door and what sort of things they are trying to accomplish. They will certainly be aware of the PC's now, and they will respond just like a person with a similar level of intelligence would. If they think they spotted easy prey, they will probably give chase pretty quick. If the PC's looked like they would be tough to take down, they might elect to instead set up an ambush elsewhere or even block the trapdoor if they think it is necessary.
The ghouls probably won't just mull around like a bunch of zombies. They might talk about what to do for a bit, but there will be purpose to their actions.
It wasn't actually a wish spell, but once I asked a dragon to give me all the gold he could. He gave me a magic bag that had an effectively limitless supply of gold in it. I have seen a wish for to additional arms get granted back in 3.5 so the character could use multiattack, and more recently I saw someone get a wish granted to gain the Shadowdancer's shadow jump ability. That one was partially twisted though since every time the character character shadow jumped, she had about a 10% chance to call demons.
Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
Based on this, I would say that you can use the on-touch effects of Dispel Evil as part of a slam attack, but some people might rule it differently since it isn't a touch spell in the same way as Shocking Grasp and the like.
You could have a room where Mabbe was trying to create a new "perfect" skin for herself by skinning the most beautiful women she could find and sewing them together. The twisted skin suits could get animated by the tortured souls of the victims and attack, or you could put a haunt in there. Or both, really. Maybe make the haunt spawn in a ghostly figure who tries to skin living creatures in the area. Make it do touch attacks against various targets to deal some Cha damage and HP damage. If it gets enough hits, it could make a suit for itself and animate as a new monster that must be killed to stop the haunt.
Though Tyranny sits upon a throne of bone
unable to be broken by sword or stone,
he holds a secret not known to man
on how to defeat the Fallen Lands.
The key lies in the Prince's friend
whose cold grasp brings men their end.
Once the fiend has been brought low
men need not fear their most hated foe.
Evil will lose its mightiest tool
and the time will come to end His rule,
but fear the world that will follow
as the hearts of kings shall soon be hollow.
Actually, you could choose to cast your Merciful Fireball at a lower caster level so long as you don't reduce it too low. If you were a wizard, for example, you could cast Fireball at a caster level as low as 5 (since that is the minimum level for a wizard to have access to that spell). This is a rule that doesn't get used much since you usually want maximum damage/duration/range etc. but if you are trying to take prisoners, it can certainly be useful.
Yes, non-lethal damage can kill if you stack up enough of it. Once a character takes his maximum HP total in non-lethal damage, all additional non-lethal becomes lethal.
Armed is a specific game term used to refer to attacks that do not provoke attacks of opportunity and can be used for attacks of opportunity. Since you can make "armed" unarmed strikes, it is not unreasonable to think that you can make an "armed" touch attack with a spell without that spell being "weapon-like".
Xophea
Iliel / Thomar
Dmyetri Heartshollow
Shatsuite Li
Lord Xaladorian Blackwood
Nar Malak
Ocannith
Lashielle
Shayelle
Naeryn Voh
Katrakama
Krekeshkrenak
Fighter Deck - null