DonDuckie's page

No, you are not a fighter with sneak attack. :D

If it doesn't say you can take more than once, then that's it. It defaults to "take only once."

poisoned? diseased? making the saves? cursed? special wanna-die-can't-behealed-viking-power? or he just tells them he doesn't wish to live.

On the other hand: GMs and NPCs shouldn't always get their wishes, so if they save him against his will he can go off and commit seppuku later - or carry a nice grudge against the PCs - or get over it and become a farmer.

It's collaborative gaming/story telling; sometimes the train sprouts wings and rocket boosters and flies off the rail.

The way I see it:
You want NPC to die. Fine.
You force NPC death against PCs' healing attempts. Fine.
You let the PCs save NPC against his own wishes. Fine.
You push the players to play their PCs to "want" to let NPC die. Less fine.

Check him for horizontal spin, if he keeps his dice lying top side up (like I and many other gamers do). He might be picking up with finger tips and it only spins around a vertical axis and 'locking' the top side in the up position. With practice you can gain very good control with a d20 (harder) and lower dice (easier). Physically bigger dice make this technique easier to learn.

Remember: it might not be intentional. I had a DM who did this with his oversized d20 without realizing it, he figured the die was weighted - but it wasn't for anybody else :) it was his way of throwing the die.

I like prestige classes but I would like to replace them with an alternate system closer to the benefits from organizations. Something like (much) weaker mythic progression, parallel to class levels and advancement independent from XP.

Something that doesn't halt class level progression.

This is one way I start sketching out a large city if I don't have a clear image.

Write down keywords for what you want, you've done this.

You could start with drawing an interesting skyline, then assign a few words to the iconic/defining structures of the city (from that angle). Make an outline of the city directly below the skyline, draw vertical lines to place the skyline structures and major parks/places in the city - not too close, not too spread out these things like to arive together but apart from existing - the areas around these structures are high value property, it's more prestigeous to be closer important buildings and probably safer.

Main import/export hubs: port(s), gates, maybe pseudo-airport, portal hub - some can overlap with important structures. Close to these are your primary marketplaces (often both sides of gates, inside being more expensive). Markets are mostly safe places, so living close is better, ie. more expensive. Where does food come from?

Services: Bigger city, more waste. Messaging. Deliveries. Transportation: public, rickshaw, tracks, private transport (cars/bicycles)? paving, access (who's allowed to go where).

Industry: What is produced? Where? Industry smells bad, around these are cheaper, crappier housing. (where is the product used? a shipyard might be close to largest or oldest port)

Recreation: Parks are a newer invention, prime realestate used for "nothing" - pure luxury, high maintenance. Bars, clubs, paid establishments for all classes, plays, music, movies(illusions?), art.

Defences: Wall(s)? In-city military facilities? City guard? Fliers?

That's a lot of mapping and overview.

Government? Bureaucracy? how does govenment change?
Policies? magic, necromancy, constructs, flying, teleportation? taxes?
Race/class divide? all races in all classes or more segregated?
Cities within the city: China town/Tengu town? Ghettos can be both interesting and annoying.
Names and people: who build the bridge? how long ago? how is the city developing now?
Surrounding area: forests, farms, suburbs, neighbouring towns/cities, roads.
Threats: A dragon? internal power struggle? close border to an enemy?

Once you start filling in the blanks you quickly get a lot of material. Ideas have a tendency to multiply like rabbits.
And don't bother if it won't come up in play, unless it's for the sake of world building.

DonDuckie wrote:

you need a special focus for the spell to arive on a different planet

Spell-Like Abilities wrote:

A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus.

That is from PCS: Distant Worlds.

So? By 'you' I meant 'you as a player'. And if a player somehow gets (sp) planeshift - I would still require a focus... because I'm a jerk GM who says you lack the inherent understanding of planar travel that allows some creatures with that ability inherent to their kind to travel without foci.

Also

Outsiders with (sp) planeshift might be less restricted as they don't see the planets as all that different from one another

Or am I completely missing you point?

DonDuckie wrote:

In short; you need a special focus for the spell to arive on a different planet, otherwise planeshift takes you to the planet you're 'most familiar with'.

That's pretty reasonable and sensible. Does that mean that there might be strange or non-standard forked rods that would let one plane-shift to secret and hidden regions in the the planes? For example, special rods to plane-shift to border regions between planes.

Unspecified. So - yes! Absolutely.

Greater teleport (rules line) does say range: unlimited (or similar, I didn't look it up).

'Distant Worlds' clarifies that this is not true for interplanetary travel (page 53).

Page 3 of that same (and amazingly awesome) book also explains that simply plane shifting twice isn't a viable method for interplanetary travel.

These are in the campaign setting line, so they are mostly flavor for golarion.

But there are giant space whales that can carry passengers (by swallowing them) to other planets in 3d20 days.

That devil is looking pretty tempting I would say. ;)

Why? you're not locked in a harness unable to move. You can even duck behind your mount to gain cover.

So I would say no :D

DonDuckie wrote:

Secret Wizard wrote:

Cerberus Seven wrote:

Does it need one? Yes, badly.

Will it get one? Haha, no.

I don't like the second answer, try again? Okay, maybe in another 5 years or so, but don't get your hopes up.

This.

That's two people saying it (badly) needs a new edition. Why is that? Is pathfinder really the system for you if it badly needs to be replaced?

You know, that's a really great question. Really great, because it forces me to look at the pile of books and software data packets (yes I use Hero Lab) that I've purchased over the years, and ask myself a really difficult question. Is it time to give up on it? Obviously a person doesn't like to look at multiple years' worth of money spent, and think it might have all been a waste. So, do you stick with something that is probably a lot broken in a lot of different ways, and has started to suffer from bloat. Or do you look at all those materials you've purchased as a lesson learned and move on to the next thing? Those are really difficult questions to answer.

It wasn't meant as an 'accusation' or trick question, I have a near complete collection of rulebooks and campaign setting lines plus some 3pp, and I'm still accumulating more books every month - one of the things I love about pathfinder is the constant flow of material, and "better" systems don't deliver on this (addiction). As for financial advice: don't throw good money after bad. :)

Try teaching Pathfinder to a few friends who aren't incredibly numbers-savvy and who don't have much (if any) experience with TTRPGs. It's not an easy task. The rules for interactions between items, spells, feats, the environment, and different actions can get really confusing. Too many options are of the boring, "Add this number to that statistic in this circumstance" variant. There's no incentive to role-play besides what that person brings to the table. I'm not even going to mention the #1 favorite topic of the board. It's an inflexible system with a huge learning curve and an obsession for adding little numbers together in lieu of real creative options.

For the sake of its future, Pathfinder needs a more streamlined model that does a better job of balancing various player options while incorporating actual role-playing mechanics and benefits. After 8 years of this system, though, it doesn't appear Paizo wants to go this route. If anything, they're pushing the opposite direction. It's gotten a lot of mileage off of being the successor to 3.X, but that's only going to take it so far. Eventually, the geeks this works on are going to stop playing and new blood will be needed to keep the system viable. Whatever future of the game is offered will have to be able to successfully compete with the desire to spend hard-earned money and precious time on sitting down at a table with friends and playing this over simpler TTRPGs, video games, Cards Against Humanity, etc. It's good that Paizo is always introducing new options and sub-systems and I hope it works out...

I do try to teach and I just give it a little at a time, nobody learns it all before playing - a lot. I'm not too keen on RP incentive mechanics, but that might just be my experience with GMs who almost punish players for not RPing to their satisfaction, or RPing passive/shy/careful characters simply doesn't get you anything.

I don't think paizo will run out of players for this style of expanding game system. But yes it does target other groups than lighter TT/video games. Although there is a PF MMO on the way if it's not released by now (haven't kept up with news for a while).

Thanks for the answers.

Cerberus Seven wrote:

Does it need one? Yes, badly.

Will it get one? Haha, no.

I don't like the second answer, try again? Okay, maybe in another 5 years or so, but don't get your hopes up.

This.

That's two people saying it (badly) needs a new edition. Why is that? Is pathfinder really the system for you if it badly needs to be replaced?

New edition? I don't think we're getting one, I don't think we need one, and I don't want one.

I'm perfectly happy with paizo continuesly adding to the existing system.

And as for the "what's allowed and what isn't"-talk, groups should always discuss the campaign they are about to start.

And I have heard a GM argue "I don't want to read five extra rulebooks to play", to which I suggest: just read the relevant bits; classes, feats, variant systems and say yes or no to each of those.

I love the amount of stuff that's available both as a player and a GM.

DonDuckie wrote:

But seriously, I looked around a little, and under the sorcerer class I don't see where it classifies the sorcerer as a spontaneous caster. And in the magic chapter under Sorcerers and bards it simply states that they don't prepare spells.
What makes them spontaneous casters? I honestly thought it was the ability to cast spells without preparation.

Technically, Sorcerers are not spontaneous casters according to the CRB, as it never calls them that (if you know otherwise, please cite the page number). Clerics and Druids have the Spontaneous Casting class abilities, which allow them to substitute some spells for another. Clerics may 'spontaneously' use a cure/inflict spell instead of a channel energy, while a Druid may use a summon nature's ally in place of a prepared spell. That's what spontaneous casting is, technically speaking.

However, that being said, the term is also used to apply to spellcasters that do not prepare their spells. One citation of this would be the retraining rules in Ultimate Campaign (page 191), which says:

Quote:

Spells Known

If you are a spontaneous spellcaster (such as a bard, oracle, sorcerer, or summoner), you can retrain a spell known.

I don't see how it gets in the way of BigDTBone's assessment though.

Thank you. The surge ability holds limitations for prepared and spontaneous casters respectively, I believe all casters are one or the other or both, but never neither(I can't cite a page for that).

My view:
- If you cast spells then you are a spellcaster.
- If you must prepare spells in order to cast them, then you are a prepared caster. And the ability only works for prepared spells.
- If you can cast spells without preparing them, then you are a spontaneous caster. And the ability only works for spells on your list of spells known.

The fighter 1/archmage 1:
Can he cast spells? yes, the ability grants him that -> spellcaster
Does he need to prepare spells in order to cast them? no. Okay.
Can he cast spells without preparing them? yes, through the ability -> spontaneous caster and in dire need of some spells known.

It's a contradiction.

PS.
I agree with Paizo's call for common sense in interpreting the rules. But not in RAW clarifications.

I prefer point buy. And when compairing builds, it's really the best (arguably) method for cross class/race comparison.

I never liked the random rolls, partly for how it was presented to me at first:
1) you roll stats because not everything is about choice.
2) now, choose race, gender, and age. And background.

It also prevents fudging/cheating stats in organized play.

A lot of people are just biting the troll bait today :)

I have ignored all the other similar threads... I'm tired of feeling left out. And edition-talk isn't exactly voldemort, we can say it, and we can talk about if we want to... :P

If I had to guess I'd say we're 3-4 years out from PFRPG 2.0 (and a year less before it is announced). Mind you, I have no direct knowledge whatsoever so take it as some guys on the internet's random guess. However, I've been pretty good at guessing so far.

Reasons:
1) Pathfinder Unchained. This to me looks like a test bed for the next edition. The Book of 9 Swords for D&D 4e and Exalted Player's Guide for Exalted 2e. Paizo has said before that it takes them about 2 years from when a book is released to when feedback from a system/subsystem can be incorporated into a book. So 1 year until it is released + 2 years before it can be incorporated = 3 years minimum. But a new edition means alot more stuff needs tested and incorporated so 4 is more realistic.

2) D&D 5e. Paizo is going to put off announcing PFRPG 2.0 as long as possible for one very good reason: announcing the new edition kills off sales of the current edition. D&D 5e is proof of that. Sure, D&D 4e was outsold by PFRPG before they announced 5e, but they could have hung on with satisfactory sales (including board games) for a few more years if they really wanted to. But they announced 5e and a great playtest. Then they announced it would take 2 years to playtest it properly. D&D sales eversince have gone downhill from there. The most recent ICv2 ranking didn't even have D&D on it. An announcement of a new edition max 1 year before launch is optimal.

3) .... I had a 3....

Perry? is that you? ... oops ....

I really like(d) 9 swords, but I never enjoyed 4e, too generic-with-different-names for my taste. I did not know they were in any way related.

I don't think there is a PF 2.0, there is no need for it, PF material sales are still going up (last I heard). In large part I would suspect because of PFS events and not overdoing the splat in the shape of major powercreep that invalidates earlier material the way 3.5e did.

Heavy steel (or bronze) shield, aaaaand... done! :)

The rest is done with the spartan's extraordinary training, ie. feats. Like shield focus, improved shield bash, weapon focus(heavy shield bash), etc.

I'm not sure, but I would like to know this.

The mythic power is an immediate action to use.

The arcanist exploit is a standard action to use. It just changes countering from a prepared action (which I believe delays your entire round) to a standard+immediate. And the spell must still be identified.

So I don't think it's quite the same ability. But I'm not entirely sure.

I used to do the same thing and made crazy restrictions, mostly out of fear that the average player is comparable to a forum optimizer.

Now, I'm pretty much anything and everything that dosen't spoil anybody's fun. And if it's a non-standard option, make me a rules reference card similar to spell cards.

I still reserve the right to approve characters and ask about basic ideas, plans, and tactics, and if something was blatantly kept from me in order to exploit it during the game, it simply won't work by fiat. (hasn't happened yet, players are generally nicer than GMs fear)

This boils down to simple "rules cards"; when you start at low levels there aren't that many options, and as the game progresses when more cards are added the previous cards should be fairly familiar. And the burden of learning new rules is limited to what is actually used. Rather than an entire shelf of books.

For higher starting levels or shorter games, I would probably limit the material to what I know, and allow new material only in the same gradual way as above, ie. leveling/retraining.

"I don't have that much experience. But I make up for it by being very opinionated."
- me, just now

It depends on the setting. In Golarion they just die, leaving a nice corpse behind to be looted.

Hey Forum

I been thinking about adding a new house rule to my game(s):
Iterative attacks are determined by total attack bonus.

Example(if needed or desired):
A medium sized 1st level fighter with STR 16, weapon focus(longsword), and a masterwork longsword would have +6/+1 with the masterwork longsword, but "only" +4 with a regular battleaxe.

Feats with BAB requirements, would still only count BAB. Like Improved TWF.

Upsides:
u1) martials get a boost
u2) weapon focus (line) improves (along with other combat feats)
u3) enhancement bonus gains benefits over magic weapon properties

Downsides:
d1) size change may determine number of attacks
d2) low level fights become deadlier (eg. orcs/ogres, barbarians)
d3) more rolls may incur slow play
d4) ranged combat
d5) skewed benefits on borderline values: a masterwork item is worth more mechanically if you have attack +5 than if you have +4 or +6.
--------------------------

I really like the upsides - which should be obvious, since I'm advocating the rule :)

My take on the downsides:
d1) I dislike size bonus/penalty to attacks as it is. I prefer to only apply these when your size changes from your normal. If kept, then the size change usually incurs an "equal" drop/gain in strength, so - maybe not an issue (for melee).

d2) GM beware!

d3) The extra damage will shorten combat, which alleviates this issue

d4) Ranged combat already has advantages over melee.

d5) meh... (okay - bad argument, but it's all I have)

---------------------------
Now the questions are:
- What do you think?
- Am I overlooking some potential/obvious problems with this? which?
- Has this been tried/done to death and failed? (I hope not)

It is of course exploitable, but my players are focused on fun, but not attracted to martial classes.
Maybe some oomph will help; I like oomph... do you like oomph?

Thanks...

I use the Golarion(ish) gods, my own gods, other gods, pantheons, old nameless gods, dead gods, godlings and demigods, powerful outsiders, ascended mortals, and principles/alignments. All available for worship.

Gods will interact with creatures of the world when the world interacts directly with their existence. They are mostly kept in check by "fear" of all the other gods.
But otherwise they just appreciate the worship and (scheme and) await the end of the multiverse when they get to fight for the remnants and the construction of the next one.

I only modify cosmology a little; as in the gods don't reside in the aligned outer planes, but has their own (unreachable by normal planar travel) "far planes" where they offer an afterlife to worshippers and others they find worthy.
These far planes are either the domain of a single deity or a pantheon, some are the graves of dead gods, and others again are long forgotten and lost. Some gods are just occupying another gods plane.

I like my sources of the divine in the anything and everything catagory.

Isn't there a stipulation somewhere that says a player, with DM permission, can learn spells outside of the sorc/wiz spell list if they do appropriate research? Or am I remembering incorrectly?

With GM approval: all is possible :D

I don't know of any rule that allows wizards to expand the spell list, I think even the create new spells section recommend not to steal the spotlight from others.

The sorcerer has a wording that allows for spells from other classes. (As I interpret it, others disagree):
"A sorcerer casts arcane spells drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list."

I bolded what I consider the key word to allow sorcerers to choose a minority of his spells from any spell list in the game, which I think is in line with the nature/spirit of the sorcerer class.

@MagusJanus:
I didn't mean to imply that you didn't, but the "wizards can learn any spell from an arcane scroll" is a thing I've seen many claim is RAW. And so I gave my argument for not agreeing with that. (granted, using your post as an open window to talk through)

Cool, but Windows me no likes or has... so no .NET (haven't tried MONO or other)

Have you considered an online tool?
Maybe a library for other sources - Inner Sea Bestiary has some 0HD races with RP costs on their special qualities.

I don't use any, but I'm open to it, and I have tried to come up with something.

My problem spellcaster:
What do fighters do? They hit stuff with a stick!
Always? Some times they miss...
Then what? They try again! :)
What do wizards do? They cast spells!
Always? Eventually they run out...
Then what? They're done for the day so they run away! :(

My idea for a solution:
A cast spell check: 1d20 + casting ability modifier ± situational stuff
DC 10 + spell level

Succes: they cast the spell
Failure: they waste their action, but the prepared spell or spell slot is not expended.

------------
Other thoughts for this:
(From memory; I lost the document, and I don't recall all the details)
- no daily limit on spells cast, but maybe a harder check or material cost or focus (eg. a wand for Potter-style), still a limit on prepared/known spells
- giving casters viable options other than casting their own spells
- giving all creatures a Spell Resistance, and making all spells "SR: yes"
- replacing saves with defenses that the caster should overcome in an attack roll(I think this is something 4E did, not sure)

I like to allow as much as possible as long as characters are interesting and likeable. So I don't outright ban anything, but I will ask how you intend to play your character, and if you want to spam some trick, run it by me first.

But I don't mind others limiting sources (now), but I did once get the argument (for 3.5) "because you don't need more than core", to which I asked "do I really need more than commoner?"

It was a jerk question, but my feelings were hurt... because to me it's not always bloat - it's options and potential.

I would allow it.

My games are polytheistic, and most people worship different gods in different aspects of their lives: god of war for strength in battle against bandits, and later that same day a god of farming to protect and grow his crops.

Worship isn't just folding your hands and speaking some words, or being in a special room at a specific time of the week... it's living by the philosophies/values of a deity - whether it's done in the name of that god or not.

As for how the gods view this, they are "powered" by worship (yes or no, not number of minutes), and not worshippers, and worshipping multiple gods takes nothing from any of them, but gives to all of them. They arrange in pantheons, and they have allies and enemies, and they don't appreciate empowering their enemies, but they are rational about their worshippers also worshipping other similar "minded" gods - including those who share an alignment.

In my mind: Not forgiving people for trying to kill you is not evil, at all. At worst, their actions were neutral.

You can't attack people until you realize you're losing, and then just expect to go on as happy friends. Asking for mercy is not the same as deserving it.

As for the "battle-fury" argument: If you can't distinguish between an armed attacker and a surrendering foe - you're going to die!

A New Page has appeared in the Holy Book of Paizo: It's words must be applied to all other texts. All deeds. And all our thoughts.

BTW: is thinking, breathing, standing, gripping, tasting, watching, etc. free actions :D

There is no grey area to me.

An improvised weapon is something you pick up from whatever is lying around you and start whaling with it. The feats that aid this are designed to do exactly that. Carrying something around with the intent to use it as a weapon violates the spirit of the feat.

Anything that's masterwork, is by definition.... no longer improvised.

I don't agree with that definition, or the spirit; catch off-guard is more about your opponent not expecting you to be too dangerous with a regular hammer or a golf club - two items not specifically engineered to be used as weapons. But if crafted properly, they could easily look like mundane items, but function like masterwork improvised weapons.

And about the enchanting. I have no doubt that improvised weapons can be enchanted, as long as they have the 300 gp masterwork quality/component required to enchant weapons.

Items don't have a "mouse-over popup" that tells you if it's a weapon or not. Enchanting items as weapons requires they where crafted with exceptional care and craftmanship, ie. the 'masterwork component', and the 'Craft Magic Arms and Armor' feat. If those two requirements are met, then you end up with an item enchanted as a weapon - possibly an object usable as an improvised weapon. Many weapons started out as tools.

And because in game - And this is important to me :)
Fighter: "How about this throwing hammer? It's good quality."
Wizard: "Sure, I can enchant that."
Fighter: "Great! I also have this carpenter's hammer that I like to surprise people with. Made it myself. Same quality and all. How about that?"
Wizard: "Sorry, no... that's not a weapon."
Fighter: "But... okaaaay, I also found this pretty stick in a cave, how about that."
Wizard: "Easy-peasy, a fine club like that. I can enchant that."
Fighter: "..."

So this falls in the big bucket of rulings based on "Why wouldn't it be possible?"

I dunno, why wouldn't the skeleton priest use death knell.

That is the point of the spell

Because the skeleton isn't actually real, and we're trying to have fun, even at low levels.

For the sake of the game, it's allowed to use less than out-of-game numerically optimal tactics. Even if it's just to not kill players in bulk.

Since any alignment is capable of working with others, sharing stuff, having friends, and finding that special someone, the problem isn't that he wants to play an evil character, the problem is he wants to play a jerk character. And that (regardless of alignment) goes against one of my table rules: All characters must be likable.

I agree, there is an apparent overlap. An alternative I've worked on was consolidating knowledge skills(and now also Spellcraft)

Knowledge(natural) <- nature, geography, dungeoneering
Knowledge(supernatural) <- arcane, planes, religion, spellcraft
Knowledge(cultural) <- history, local, nobility

knowledge(engineering) would is replaced by appropriate craft or profession checks.

Leonardo's swords were easily stopped by a Donatello's wooden stick.

Wooo... wooden stick is the superior choice - and within my budget!

You are not visible from thousands of feet away when using darkvision.

The everburning torch is more expensive than the ioun torch which by default hovers around your head. And continual flame could just as easily be cast on anything other than a torch shaped stick.
like a ring, medalion, buckle, boot, etc.

So having one sticking out a backpack isn't really game breaking.

EDIT: I don't always get ninja'd, but when I do - I get ninja'd by James Jacobs

I allow leadership.

GM and player create the cohort together. (Because the effect of spending a feat shouldn't be a surprise).
Player controls the cohort in battle.
It's not an extra PC, so if the cohort is chosen to scout; he goes out, he comes back and he reports.
Party must agree on loot sharing as they see fit.

And I allow you to obtain and/or hire cohorts and followers through RP, but leadership gives you some protection from schemers.

If it isn't working, we retcon.
If it's problematic, we talk it out.

Thoughts? I think leadership is a fine feat, it allows a player to gather a personal army or found his own town, even if he doesn't want to RP the whole thing.

Is it overpowered? not when the benefits are already available through reputation, story, money and/or RP.

Tom S got you covered on CRs(adding one class level adds one to CR), so I'll make a (slightly more) detailed example of the lizardfolk druid 4th:

Give him some new ability scores from an NPC array or point buy. then modify these by: Str +2, Con +2, Int -2

race bonuses: +5 nat AC, swim 15ft(or climb 15ft).

Level / Hit Dice
1st - 1d8 humanoid(reptilian), feat
2nd - 1d8 humanoid(reptilian)
3rd - 1d8 druid, feat
4th - 1d8 druid, ability score increase
5th - 1d8 druid, feat
6th - 1d8 druid

that's 6 HD: total of 3 feats and 1 ability score increase.
hp: 6d8+6xCON

skill points: 2+2+4+4+4+4+(6xINT) = 20+6xINT
+4 racial bonus to acrobatics

BAB +4
saves(race class)
fort +7(+3 +4)
ref +1(+0 +1)
will +4(+0 +4)

Spells:
2nd - 2+bonus
1st - 3+bonus
orisons - 4 at will

SQ: hold breath, natural bond(monitor lizard companion), nature sense(+2 on know[nature] and survival), orisons, wild empathy, woodland stride, trackless step, resist nature's lure, wild shape(1/day, beast shape I)

This should illustrate the process of adding levels to monsters. The animal companion is the same as for any other level 4th druid. He should have wealth like an 6th level NPC.

I don't know how deep you want this character, but maybe consider skill points in linguistics for common(or as GM you can give it that for free) if he talks to the PCs. And climb and swim speeds give some bonuses to skill checks and others.

As a player: Rolling initiative and going first would have me in combat mode and attacking as well. But I usually ask what I see first.

As a GM: I could ask players to roll initiative to see how they act in a situation instead of just reacting to it - because that's roleplaying. Like an encounter in the forest.

I may also ask for perception checks even if there's nothing interesting to notice.

On the rules quote above(2 up):
Yes, it says "when combat begins, all combatants roll initiative."
Not "when you roll initiative, everybody around suddenly becomes a combatant."

in logics: it's => and not <=>
;)

I would be very interested in such a product... so far, this is the best I've found...

fan-map

But I would like more detail... (and official)

I would say that the adamantine golem discription is the more specific of the two and therefore beats the general effect from mace of smiting against constructs. (specific overrules general)

If it came up, I would rule that a critical reduced the adamantine golem to 0 hp but wouldn't completely destroy it.

Ancient thread... but it's new to me, and I like it. But I'm not just bumping it, I wish to contribute.

On the subject of not having a body part requirement, as a GM I would(and do) rule that the spell's range of 0 ft means the original creature has to be present for the full casting time.

Also: the material component mentions an ice sculpture of "the target", I understand the spell doesn't have a target, but I ruled: This spell targets the original creature, duplicating its powers with shadow magic and placing these powers in the ice sculpture and thereby animating it. (I believe my original wording contained: "with shadowy stuff")

Awesome thread for all those of us who love simulacra.