Falkyron's page

Ghoul touch states it has a save to negate, but in the text it mentions the save to negate is for the stench it creates.
People at my table are in conflict as to whether the initial paralysis allows a save.

Can I petition the elder brain for their common consensus (or an FAQ to refer them to)?

Hello everyone.

I had a character a long time ago which had something to allow it to use wild empathy on an intelligence 3 magical beast.

I'm currently struggling to remember what it was. It was an item, feat, or mythic ability. I was playing a druid. For the life of me, I can't recall what it was, and this is a problem as the character is apparently recurring in another game. Again, I have no recall of any more than that, but I remember for sure that it was legit.

Do any of you know of ways to wild empathy a 3 intelligence magical beast?

Ok. Food for thought...

Can she just stay in fox form so that her gestation period is only 2mo instead of 9mo?

If she is in "human" form, the exact moment as the baby is born, shapeshifts into a fox, does she give birth to a "human" or fox form baby?

What if the baby is a half breed and will never get the shapeshifting ability for itself? Can it still change inside the mother to match her form?

Seeking answers to questions like this is how we got owlbears.

I just remembered...

Back in D&D 3.5, for Eberron, the changelings, which were descendants of doppelgangers (not hags), couldn't shapeshift if they were pregnant.

Yes, you're correct. Some races couldn't even attempt to shapeshift while with child. I suppose for many races that inhibitor just triggered and prevented shapeshifting.

I don't know. I could understand a wizard turning into a rabbit while pregnant being seen as irresponsible.

This is swerving hard into a political discussion that is against the rules of this forum. I suggest a course correction.

Also, while I don't speak for approximately half the world's population, I myself find that kind of stuff patronizing and possessive; far from "sweet".

Agreed on the first point. We don't need this to become a political discussion about the merits of either/or perspective. However we can make it a purely anthropological statement and leave it at that.

However I must disagree with your second statement. If this was the real world I would agree, but these are times in a world where feeding yourself can be a full-time job... in a world that in-context is literally full of terrible monsters, and some of which specifically have it out for mothers. It's probably the smartest thing to have a community put a carrying mother at its center for a while.

Your player told you how she wants it to work-- can you honestly think of a single halfway decent reason that it should not work that way? Can you think of a single, solitary way that making it work any other way is going to make the game more fun for anyone sitting at the table?

Whoever wrote the rule you think you remember is obviously a tremendous a!~*&&!, and the biggest tragedy here is that you don't remember his name so you won't know not to take anything he says seriously in the future.

There's no need to be this way when I'm clearly neutral on the subject and keeping my opinions out of it. If you were fishing for my opinion then fine, it's "The child is a part of the natural process of the creature's body until it tries to separate, AKA birth, and shapeshifting should just be dangerous near birth." This is something the DM also came up with independently, and what we are going with.

Blanket-declaring previous writers of material as jerks because there was some mechanical detriment to carrying a child, you know, like there actually is? That's rather rude.
You have to remember that for the longest time in culture a child was considered a separate entity entirely. It's only during recent times that people as a whole have started thinking differently due heavily to pressure for body rights for women, and whether or not you're comfortable with a child being just a biological process of a woman, it just wasn't viewed that way, AT ALL, not too long ago. To the headspace of a lot of people, shapeshifting with a child inside of you was like a transformer changing form with a human in the car seat. Dangerous.

The question was asked out of curiosity to see if rules or books exist that approach the subject of shapeshifting while already pregnant.

In regards to the cruelty of shapeshifting with child in 3.5, I think 3.5 was more grimdark in general. However there was a sweetness about it.
You see, on the other side of it, the fluff would ramble on for paragraphs about shapeshifting races treating pregnant mothers with greater protection and understanding than most races that existed. They were pampered and treasured until birth as a general rule because a part of what made their motherhood precious was how much of a commitment to it they had to make. They would use words like 'vulnerable' and 'sacred'. This was present in a lot of the race-specific splat books, even if they didn't approach shapeshifting in such a way at all.

I have a character in my game playing a kitsune who loves to enter fox form with Fox Shape.

Fox Shape (Kitsune)

You can change into a fox in addition to your other forms.

Prerequisites: Cha 13, base attack bonus +3, kitsune.

Special: A kitsune may select this feat any time she would gain a feat.

Benefit: You can take the form of a fox whose appearance is static and cannot be changed each time you assume this form. Your bite attack’s damage is reduced to 1d3 points of damage on a hit, but you gain a +10 racial bonus on Disguise checks made to appear as a fox. Changing from kitsune to fox shape is a standard action. This ability otherwise functions as beast shape II, and your ability scores change accordingly.

Said character wants to have a child. What happens if the character tries to enter its tiny fox form while pregnant?

The player's input: "My shape shifting is a natural part of my race. It would be really weird for them to be unable to use one of their best natural defense options during one of the most vulnerable times"

Thanks guys. Hopefully the Paizo staff answer this in an FAQ and we can get an official ruling. It seems really up to each DM right now.

If a creature is possessing the body of another, such as with a magic jar spell, and the possessed body is then hit with an enervation, one of two things should happen:

1) The creature's puppet body suffers the negative levels and protects it. The penalties to things unrelated to the body are side-effects.

2) Negative levels are tied to soul energy (canon) and thus affect intangible things like caster levels, so affect the possessing creature and potentially force it to abandon the body to escape.

Which is correct?

Under the ability 'Immunity to Magic', an iron golem is said to absorb fire damage and heal for an amount instead.

Immunity to Magic (Ex)
An iron golem is immune to spells or spell-like abilities that allow spell resistance. Certain spells and effects function differently against it, as noted below.

A magical attack that deals electricity damage slows an iron golem (as the slow spell) for 3 rounds, with no saving throw.
A magical attack that deals fire damage breaks any slow effect on the golem and heals 1 point of damage for each 3 points of damage the attack would otherwise deal. If the amount of healing would cause the golem to exceed its full normal hit points, it gains any excess as temporary hit points. An iron golem gets no saving throw against fire effects.
An iron golem is affected normally by rust attacks, such as those of a rust monster or a rusting grasp spell.

Mythic fireball bypasses resistance and immunity.

If you expend two uses of mythic power, the maximum damage increases to 20d10, the area increases to a 40-foot radius spread, and any fire damage dealt by the spell bypasses fire resistance and fire immunity.

So the question becomes thus: Is the absorb component considered an immunity, as it is listed as part of an immunity ability? In addition, does it block the mythic fireball high level mythic ability intended to let it punch through such things?

Sorry for the late reply.

Yeah it's more that the sphere is a McGuffin and there are likely to be RP consequences to using it willy-nilly. My character will likely carry it around as a show of force and a deterrent.

Note it's a mythic game, by the way. It doesn't have a talisman per se, but rather used a true wish (the really good kind) to mimic the Control Sphere ability some creatures and classes can get, which gives immunity to spheres and a talisman-mimic passive. This was as much part of the story as something we did for power. Involved winning the wish in another adventure.

The character will actually walk around with the detriment of having one hand dedicated to holding the sphere to guard it (it's sought after by Evil Dudes™ and is technically called a Void Orb; an advanced sphere needed to complete an artifact BBEGs (plural) want) which it keeps in its demiplane spherical holding cell and guards when it's home. So it will move easily enough with it, but it'll pretty much ruin the ability to use all its staves and wands between casting, and then its metamagic rods are almost useless.

As a general rule though, it'll only sling the thing if it has no choice and has to to protect the orb. I just want to know what that would involve if the fecal matter hit the rotating wind blades.

So general consensus so far is basically "One guy gets screwed over when you control check it if it's in range."?

That seems insanely powerful. I understand my character will have it as a McGuffin sort of thing and it's meant to be, but does that seriously mean that if something is in range it can just move the sphere to it and destroy it instantly, no save, no attack roll?

Hello everybody.

It's come to my attention that I may soon be in possession of a sphere of annihilation on my arcanist, and it already had a talisman of the sphere.

My question is simple: How would you use a sphere of annihilation in combat?

Reading what it does, it seems like it might be the control check vs Touch AC, but it could also be a Reflex save by the enemy to avoid when you push it into the square. What resolves whether an opponent suffers the effects of a controlled sphere of annihilation?

Ah, right. MrCharisma is spot on then. Still hilarious.

I guess the question is "Is your increase to a save sourced from your base ability score, such as your Wisdom mod's natural increase to Will saving throws, considered an 'untyped bonus' for stacking purposes?"

Let's say your character treats one ability score as another for a purpose (such as the lunar oracle's prophetic armor ability), replacing Dexterity with Charisma for AC and Reflex saves.
Let's speculate that later on the character gains an untyped bonus to either AC or saves equal to his Charisma modifier.

I'm under the impression that one is your base ability score and the other is a bonus, so they stack. Is this correct?

Thank you for your time everybody.

I should clarify that when I said 'other druids' I was referring to druids who worship gods from other settings with similar portfolios to Gorum. The others are right in saying that a normal druid putting on metal armor pops out of form.

I'm thinking it might be alright when it comes to armor if the armor is custom-made for the shape and somebody else helps don the armor post-change, since there's rules for barding.

At the moment we have a player using Two-Weapon Fighting along with a natural bite attack, making use of gauntlets on his fox paws. The discussion about this at the table is mixed.

Gorumites and other druids, as well as those casting the spell manually, could stay in form while wearing the barding according to rules discussing it. However one of the players is putting forth the idea that putting the armor on at all causes it to meld post-change.

Follow-up question for consideration: If a character shapechanged into a small monkey, could it use a small longsword?

I've had a situation where players have been using items such as the polymorphic pouch to access weapons or armor of size when turning into smaller creatures, then equipping said items. I'd draw the line at equipping armor that requires assistance, but a few specific cases have come up which have been a bit controversial.

1) A kitsune turns into a tiny fox with a polymorphic pouch. It then pulls out two sets of tiny gauntlets and slips them on.
I'm aware that all creatures can perform unarmed strikes. Would you allow a fox to wear gauntlets?

2) A caster turns into a bear, and allies assist it in equipping full-plate armor.
I'm aware in this case that druids of certain deities permit armor being put on but suppress other class features until it is removed, but some say this is an exception to the rule and others say armoring a creature post-polymorph is normal. What do you think?

As usual I'll refrain from stating my opinions for now. I'd really appreciate some input from others!

That was my thinking too but I've always had that nagging secondary thought about whether 5' away is a measured distance from square edge. I'm seeing a lot of fogs used lately in games so I wanted to be sure.

Thanks for the input you two.

A misty vapor arises around you. It is stationary. The vapor obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet. A creature 5 feet away has concealment (attacks have a 20% miss chance). Creatures farther away have total concealment (50% miss chance, and the attacker cannot use sight to locate the target).

The way I see this, it can mean one of two things. Which of the following is correct?

1) Adjacent targets attack each other fine. A target more than 5 feet away (one empty square between them of fog) has 20% concealment. Targets further away have total concealment.

or

2) Adjacent targets have 20% concealment. Any targets with a full square of fog between them have total concealment.

If an alchemist has the tentacle discovery, can it wield and use weapons without penalty in that extra limb? I'm seeing a lot of table variance.

Formatting fail, and too late to edit. SMH.

My one consideration now is this: Which of you is correct about the Wild Shape alteration? I don't think stating my opinion here is ideal as I don't want to swing things either way, as a fellow player has his foot in on this as well.

a) They Wild Shape as fey form instead of beast shape[/1]
/or/
b) They can also [i]beast shape once they acquire animal aspects at mid-level play

Thoughts from the council?

You both essentially have the same understanding of it that I have. I was just making sure I wasn't being too conservative in reading it.

Final Aspect (Su): At 20th level, a feyform shifter gains access to a fourth aspect. When she uses shifter aspect, she can assume the minor forms of all her aspects in addition to her fey aspect, and she can use her major and minor forms at will.

This alters final aspect.

This also adds a whole new ingredient to the broth. What major form is it talking about? Is this an accidental copypasta from other archetypes' capstones for shifter?

I have two questions about the feyform shifter from Wilderness Origins.

1) Can a feyform shifter still choose and use animal aspects as normal, or does fey aspect replace the innate ability? A friend has stated he believes it doesn't replace the base animal aspects.

Fey Aspect (Su): A feyform shifter can take on a First World aspect and assume fey traits as a swift action.

While in this form, she gains low-light vision (or darkvision with a range of 30 feet, if she already has low-light vision) and DR 1/cold iron. Her body outline becomes indistinct; she is treated as though she has concealment, except that she cannot use this concealment to attempt Stealth checks.
She can maintain this form for a number of minutes per day equal to 3 + her shifter level. The duration does not need to be consecutive, but it must be spent in 1-minute increments.
At 5th level, the feyform shifter’s DR increases to 2/cold iron, and she grows a pair of butterfly-like wings that grant her a fly speed of 30 feet with average maneuverability.
At 10th level, the feyform shifter’s DR increases to 5/cold iron, and she gains a +4 bonus on saving throws against enchantment spells and effects.
At 15th level, the feyform shifter’s DR increases to 7/cold iron, and her fly speed maneuverability increases to good.
At 20th level, the feyform shifter’s DR increases to 10/cold iron. She becomes resistant to movement-impairing effects (as freedom of movement) and gains spell resistance equal to 10 + her level.
This alters and replaces all improvements to shifter aspect.

2) Can the archetype still turn into animals, or does it instead use fey form?

Fey Shape (Su): At 4th level, a feyform shifter can use her wild shape ability to become a fey creature. The fey shifter must spend at least one use of wild shape to transform into a fey creature; this ability functions as fey form IUW, except that it lasts for only 1 minute per use of wild shape spent. Using fey shape or reverting back is a standard action that does not cause attacks of opportunity. At 8th level this ability instead functions as fey form IIUW. At 10th level this ability functions as fey form IIIUW, and at 14th level it functions as fey form IVUW. This alters wild shape.

Considering that the later abilities it grants allows you to do the following...

Fey Shifter (Su): At 9th level, a feyform shifter gains a second shifter aspect, chosen from the animal aspects normally available to shifters. When she uses her shifter aspect ability to take on her fey aspect, she can choose a second aspect and assume the minor form of that aspect, alongside her fey aspect, allowing her to combine her fey aspect with the animal aspects available to her.

This modifies chimeric aspect.

...so it gets animal aspects added later that modify the fey aspect ability, I'm hesitant at best to believe this archetype simply tabs on *fey form* and a free aspect onto already-existing abilities and effectively takes nothing away in return.

Any opinions?

Lucy_Valentine wrote:

Because CHAOS DON'T FOLLOW RULES!

(seriously though, no idea. But I do kind of hate Authoritative Spell)

i for one think Authoritative Liberating Command is very flavorful effect.

I take it to just throw out immediate action pseudo forbid action spells? That's cheeky.

Maybe you guys are right. It does seem like Tumultuous Spell was intended to be like the others. Maybe it was written that way just for spacing or formatting purposes?

Cevah wrote:

Check out the Simulacrum thread. Some previous posts to mine have James Jacobs' thoughts on the spell, as well as many questions answered.

*Clicks link*

*Reads third post*

Have I really been discussing this topic for a DECADE!?

Sometimes I stumble on old builds I came up with on other forums over a decade ago and get the same weird pride/discomfort sensation.

Considering that there's so few spells with the chaotic descriptor, this seemed like a good stop-gap metamagic feat to help with it. It's rather frustrating.

I've noticed a trend with all the alignment planar metamagic feats. They accomplish a sort of effect you would expect from their theme, but in the process can't affect a spell of the opposite alignment and apply the appropriate descriptor the to spell.

For example, and Authoritative Spell can't be applied to a chaotic spell and by making a spell 'Authoritative' you give it the lawful descriptor.

With that in mind, does anybody know why Tumultuous Spell is the only one of those feats that doesn't do this?

I think you should be able to feint even if your foe can't see you. The feint is you tricking them into reacting in the wrong way, and that doesn't necessarily mean they see you coming.

My reasoning behind this is simple: There are niche cases where feinting allows you to sneak attack something, but surprising the enemy or attacking while invisible doesn't.

She cannot be caught flat-footed, nor does she lose her Dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible. She still loses her Dexterity bonus to armor class if immobilized. A barbarian with this ability can still lose her Dexterity bonus to armor class if an opponent successfully uses the feint action against her.

So I'd say your efforts to feint would trigger a barbarian to react and move to avoid the strike instinctively, allowing you to make an opening for the true threat of your attack.

Your sources and opinions are both excellent, everybody. As usual your input has been not only helpful but well-thought out. Thank you for your replies thus far.

I feel this thread will be put to rest soon, but before that happens, does anybody have anything else they'd like to mention about sneaky simulacrums I should know? (From either a player or a DM's perspective).

Weight is actually a big deal for a lot of characters, especially dex-based characters. It also protects your stuff as per nondimensional or extradimensional spaces.

Except that using multiple quivers is a move equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity. RAW, this is retrieve a stowed item. As would be selecting a particular type of arrow from a mixed quiver

So yeah if you're only using one type of arrow a normal quiver is fine. Which works great until you encounter DR monsters.

My archers put a small alteration on their arrows' fletching and put a divider in their quivers. Reach for the arrow, that's the one, lock and load from that spot. At worst a DM could say you need to quickly peek but that's not an action anyway.

Besides, it's not like strapping a quiver on your back and using it from there was terribly common anyway (except in media). Hip holsters, nearby containers dropped or straight out of the ground you stabbed it in for bonus infections were more the way.

Augmented (3rd): If you expend two uses of mythic power, the target can attempt one additional attack per round when taking a full attack action (as if using a haste spell). The target can use this additional attack ability a number of times equal to your tier.

There's the important part. In that moment you're taking the extra attack as if using haste, and so if you're already making an extra attack using haste, which has a rule that you cannot benefit from stacking it or similar effects, then the bonus attacks from mythic heroism can't be used at the same time.

Note however that haste lasts 1 round per level and heroism lasts 10 minutes per level. When your haste runs out you can use those mythic heroism extra attacks (so it's not pointless).

It's quite feasible to have your hours-long buff already on before combat begins, meaning in clutch moments where you don't want to cast you can have a pool of extra attacks.

What if you us the extra move from mythic Haste and the extra attack from mythic Heroism?

Yes. The extra attack from your mythic heroism is the only part of that spell which functions as mythic haste. They do not conflict. You should enjoy all of the other benefits of your speedy spell.

Okay, so let's go with that. No more aiding another with allied skill checks unless you threaten a target.

No. Come on now.

That's nonsensical. If I can aid another a friend who's using Diplomacy by just nodding my head when he talks and looking sure of it, or my buddy can aid another my Spellcraft check by saying "What was it you said about that book one time, with the thing?" (these are about a skill check of 10 honestly) then his snake can aid another him in feeling more confident in deceit when it has a direct empathic link to him that allows him and it to feel emotions of each other at will and is the pinnacle example spirit animal for a deceiver.

Come on guys. Really.

It's 100% expected behaviour. In fact, the familiar is smart enough to be asked to help and do it on its own with no checks or commands. If you could give it a voice with, say, a ring to speak and convince a DM it can manipulate items (Maybe with its tail, or an item to mimic hands? There are ways.) it can even use your Use Magic Device skill to help with buffs, healing, or even messing with enemies a bit.

Extra Item Slot can help with that, or with your other desire for it to have some fun trinkets to use.

Note there are some items that improve aid another bonuses, as well as some traits. There are even feats to make it more viable. It really depends on how much you want to invest in it. Personally I'd say you're likely to bluff really well without another +1 here or there for thousands of gold.

Oh, and I should mention that aiding you in a skill check is actively helping you, not hindering the enemy. As a result it can stay safely with you out of harm's reach. It doesn't need to threaten the enemy you want to pop a shadowstuff bolt into.

You can aid another an ally for skill checks. It doesn't require you to specify how you do so, but maybe your serpent gives you a feeling of confidence for a moment to hide your tells via it's empathic link? Maybe it hisses at the right time to help distract?

Performing a bluff check doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity so it can do so freely. It just has to meet a DC of 10 with its skill check as its standard action and it can indeed give you a +2 to your next bluff check to feint.

Just be aware that if you have it actually feint for you, it does nothing for you unless it has a means to pass you the benefits. You don't innately benefit from it using feint (nor does it from you feinting).

If successful, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). This attack must be made on or before your next turn.

For me the key words are 'holy guide would be able to', as the phrase implies that it's talking about mercies available from the class progression.
This is important because I don't think the developers really want to set a precedent where you can use an 'Extra X' feat to sub in for a class ability an archetype replaces.

If I had to be particularly pedantic, I'd also note that Extra Mercy doesn't give you a mercy known, but rather is a separate effect which makes your Lay On Hands apply a new mercy's effect through a feat.

Your idea also hinges on the validity of the word 'select' as being of particular importance as well, with a 5 year gap between the release of the feat and the release of the archetype I think? That doesn't seem very concrete to me.

Maybe I'm just being overly-cautious as I'm aware of certain prestige class / multiclass combinations which use Favored Terrain to brutally destroy campaigns, and so I know that giving easy access to Favored Terrain bumps for a paladin would be another path to that?

Splash Damage is it's own thing, it isn't weapon damage, it is splash damage. You don't get the bonus.

Splash damage from an alchemist bomb is always equal to the bomb’s minimum damage

Please enlighten me Dave. From direct quotes from the Bomb ability itself, I can determine the minimum damage of a bomb thrown by an alchemist with 18 Intelligence who has +1 to weapon damage rolls from Inspire Courage is 7 (the minimum damage of 2d6+5).

Which rules, FAQ, or even blog post from a developer beyond an out-of-field decision on Point-Blank Shot can you show which would make it arbitrarily only 6 damage? The language in the ability is very clear, as is what 'weapon damage' itself 'is'.

The Inspire Courage ability increases the bomb's actual damage, and is not a special effect like a magic weapon special ability. In that moment, the bomb's damage is 1 higher because the alchemist is more capable at that time thanks to bardic inspiration. He temporarily throws a better bomb because his bard is using a teamwork ability which is working entirely as intended.

I hesitate to try and nitpick based on presumptions in this case as it only serves to make the bard feel worse for supporting its team. If you would rule adding Inspire Courage to the splash is so terrible, then what other things that Inspire Courage adds to would you consider negating for perhaps no other reason but to make the bard contribute less? Cantrips? Arrow volleys?

The character gains a familiar (as a wizard’s familiar), treating her class level as her wizard level for the purposes of this ability.

As a wizard's familiar, and notes effective wizard level.

Because Bloodline Familiar requires me to do away with my first bloodline power, but I don't have one, because Tattooed takes it away.

This is correct, yes?

100% accurate, yes. Since you have already traded away your 1st-level bloodline power to acquire a tattoo familiar, you no longer possess a 1st-level bloodline power to trade for a bloodline familiar.

Use sorc to get familiar, Wizard caster level to gain Improved Familiar. I mean, RAW. But I hate obvious cheese. But it'd work, from what I see.

EDIT: Nevermind, there's a FAQ saying no to the second question.

Your effective wizard level is the caster level prerequisite when it comes to Improved Familiar, not your sorcerer caster level. If your wizard levels are contributing to your familiar's progression, and you originally gained the familiar from sorcerer, then you can qualify.

Darrell has it right. One is a kit used as the alchemy equivalent of artisan's tools, and the other is basically a spell component pouch for alchemists. The names were adjusted later to clarify this.

Here's another way to think about it.

You determine the multiplier by removing 1 from the 'x#'. A x3 crit adds two to the multiplier, for example.

Time to add multipliers together:
Lance bonus damage + Lance critical confirm + Spirited Charge
...or...
(+1 multiplier) + (+2 multiplier) + (+1 multiplier) = +4 multiplier

Now we add 1 to the total multiplier to represent the base damage die, and that's how many sets of weapon die we roll. To save time we can even add the extra damage now. If he had 16 strength with the two-handed lance to add 4 strength modifier with no other bonuses, you'd do this:
(1d8+4)*5 = 5d8+20

Test roll!: 5d8 + 20 ⇒ (5, 4, 4, 8, 5) + 20 = 46

If you wanted to simply multiply and not roll all those dice, then you'd have:
Hit with the lance: 11 damage
After adding the multipliers as before, we just add 1 to them for the before-multiplier damage and then multiple the damage rolled:
(4+1)*11 = 55

This ends up in a less randomized result, but saves time.

Archetypes don't apply to hybrid classes as they're different classes. Some classes were unofficially considered to be sort of like archetypes, such as the ninja or antipaladin, but that doesn't seem relevant. Since they've made it so you can have levels in both the parent classes and the hybrid classes that whole ship has sailed.

If you still couldn't be both a brawler and a monk I'd maybe have seen some justification in allowing it, but the 'parent classes' are just listed for fluff now.

An affected ally receives a +1 morale bonus on ... weapon damage rolls.

It specifically affects weapons.

Bombs are considered weapons

Bombs are weapons. Contrary to popular belief you can only crit with the base 1d6 damage, but you affect the base 1d6 damage with feats you wouldn't expect.

Splash damage from an alchemist bomb is always equal to the bomb’s minimum damage

Your minimum weapon damage with the bombs is increased by Inspire Courage.

I don't think there's an official answer, but I'd be inclined to treat it the same as Point Blank Shot and say you don't get it on the splash

I agree with this ruling with Point-Blank shot, as the splash damage is incidental to a direct hit, but I don't believe this applies to us. Inspire Courage increases your weapon damage. It doesn't apply a +1 bonus to damage if the damage is from a ranged attack roll within 30 feet.

That's how I see it.

You can make the subjects appear to be anything you wish. The subjects look, feel, and smell just like the creatures the spell makes them resemble.

This is a big deal. It's also in line with how illusions scale. Typically higher level illusions have lower level equivalents that don't fool as many senses.

I once gave my players a dorje of Crisis of Breath and they threw it away because they felt it was too evil to use. I thought they should have at least try to sell it, but nope. Goody Two Shoes, all of them.

"What? It makes them pass out and die in their sleep? That's terrible!"

"I can't believe you tried to give us that dorje! You absolute bastard."
> Forces another orc's best friend and comrade warrior to lift its axe. The faux-betrayer orc tries to fight but its will is overpowered as it is compelled to murder the one it wished to one day tell its love to. She wails in anguish as the man she loves is cut down, and the cleric doesn't even seem to care.

"Why would you bring such a sick, twisted thing into our game?"
> Slips up behind the orc woman who is desperate for revenge after being forced to kill her lover, denying her the chance by ramming a short sword into her lower back from behind and twisting with a cowardly backstab.

You need line of sight for those spells, but it says nothing about line of effect. A wall of force is invisible. While it wouldn't work with opaque barriers, nothing seems to prevent you from directing your flaming sphere from behind a transparent barrier.

I’m not targeting anything and not creating an effect. Can I have it roll in a general direction?

A burning globe of fire rolls in whichever direction you point and burns those it strikes. It moves 30 feet per round. As part of this movement, it can ascend or jump up to 30 feet to strike a target...

...The sphere moves as long as you actively direct it (a move action for you); otherwise, it merely stays at rest and burns.

This implies that it follows where you intend for it to go rather cleverly. It probably can even move in serpentine patterns if you want to be silly.

If it enters a space with a creature, it stops moving for the round...

If you take a move action to direct it and it doesn't bump into somebody, there's no reason you can't just do tricks with the thing and hurt nobody. You can make it run circles around somebody and never strike them if you want.

Note though that is has a hard movement cap of 30 feet per round, not 30 feet per move action.

You could use a feat to give your familiar reach, which would allow it to assist you from atop your shoulder or help your allies more easily. You could even give this ability to a familiar who already has 5' of reach if you want.