Gascon Bite's page

Trying to figure the costs and determine whether it makes more sense to just carry silversheen (3gp) and cold iron blanch (10gp, 140gp after you want to improve your weapon to +2 at level 10).

Rule sections:

Under Giant Instinct, Core Rulebook page 87:
“Titan Mauler (Instinct Ability)
You can use a weapon built for a Large creature if you are Small or Medium (both normally and when raging). If you're not Small or Medium, you can use a weapon built for a creature one size larger than you. You gain access to this larger weapon, which can be of any weapon type otherwise available at character creation. It has the normal Price and Bulk for a weapon of its size.”

Under Items of Different Sizes, Core Rulebook page 295:
“Creatures of sizes other than Small or Medium need items appropriate to their size. These items have different Bulk and possibly a different Price. Table 6–20 provides the Price and Bulk conversion for such items.

For example, a morningstar sized for a Medium creature has a Price of 1 gp and 1 Bulk, so one made for a Huge creature has a Price of 4 gp and 4 Bulk. One made for a Tiny creature still costs 1 gp (due to its intricacy) and has 1/2 Bulk, which rounds down to light Bulk.

Because the way that a creature treats Bulk and the Bulk of gear sized for it scale the same way, Tiny or Large (or larger) creatures can usually wear and carry about the same amount of appropriately sized gear as a Medium creature.

Higher-level magic items that cost significantly more than 8 times the cost of a mundane item can use their listed Price regardless of size.

[EMPHASIS] Precious materials, however, have a Price based on the Bulk of the item, so multiply the Bulk value as described on Table 6–20, then use the formula in the precious material’s entry to determine the item’s Price. See page 578 for more information. [END EMPHASIS]

Table 6-20: Differently Sized Objects
Creature Size Price Bulk Light Becomes Negligible Becomes
Tiny Standard Half* — —
Small or Med. Standard Standard L —
Large x2 x2 1 Bulk L
Huge x4 x4 2 Bulk 1 Bulk
Gargantuan x8 x8 4 Bulk 2 Bulk
* An item that would have its Bulk reduced below 1 has light Bulk.”

Then finally, under Cold Iron Weapons, Core Rulebook, page 599:
“Iron
PFS Standard
Cold Iron Weapon (Low-Grade)
Item 2

Source Core Rulebook pg. 599 4.0
Price 40 gp (+4 gp per Bulk)
Craft Requirements at least 20 sp of cold iron + 2 sp per Bulk
PFS Standard
Cold Iron Weapon (Standard-Grade)
Item 10

Source Core Rulebook pg. 599 4.0
Price 880 gp (+88 gp per Bulk)
Craft Requirements at least 110 gp of cold iron + 11 gp per Bulk
PFS Standard
Cold Iron Weapon (High-Grade)
Item 16

Source Core Rulebook pg. 599 4.0
Price 9,000 gp (+900 gp per Bulk)
Craft Requirements at least 4,500 gp of cold iron + 450 gp per Bulk”

Not finding a clear answer on first pass through the rulebook, so I'm hoping to confirm my instinct on how to handle a certain fiend's special ability. Everybody's best friend the Barbazu/Bearded Devil has the following ability:

Infernal Wound (divine, necromancy) A bearded devil’s glaive Strike also deals 1d6 persistent bleed damage that resists attempts to heal it. The flat check to stop the bleeding starts at DC 20. The DC is reduced to 15 only if the bleeding creature or an ally successfully assists with the recovery. The DC to Administer First Aid to a creature with an infernal wound is increased by 5. A spellcaster or item attempting to use healing magic on a creature suffering from an infernal wound must succeed at a DC 21 counteract check or the magic fails to heal the creature.

Nasty, but fairly straight forward. The question(s) I'm looking for clarity on: how do healing potions and/or elixirs of life interact with said ability? Spellcasters attempting to use healing magic on someone suffering from an Infernal Wound have to make a DC 21 counteract check.

1) Since a healing potion is magical healing, does it also have to make a DC 21 counteract check?

2) If yes (my assumption is yes), is the potion's counteract check modifier derived by looking at the item level, taking the standard DC for that level (DC 15 for a Level 1 Minor Healing Potion, DC 18 for a Level 3 Lesser Healing Potion, etc.) and subtracting 10 to get a modifier (+5 for a Minor Healing Potion, +8 for a Lesser Healing Potion, etc.)?

3) Elixirs of Life don't have the magical trait like a Healing Potion does, so should they be treated the same way vis-a-vis an Infernal Wound? I'd inclined to think yes, as there's no neat/consistent way to treat it like mundane First Aid.

4) Finally, just to nail it down, the requirement for counteract checks and increased DC healing stops after the persistent bleed does, right? The alternative being that the PCs need to heal all the damage caused by the infernal wound(s) before they can heal freely again. That'd not only be potentially brutal for the players, but would also be a PITA for the GM to have to try and track what damage was the result of an Infernal Wound and which wasn't, and then argue whether the Infernal Wound damage has to be healed first before non-Infernal Wound damage can be healed (like an old Laurel & Hardy bit regarding the bottom half of a milkshake), or if they've just a got a pool of damage from a nasty wound that sticks around after their other wounds heal if they can't make a successful counteract check.

Thoughts?

Looking for something official, not sure if it exists, as I don't recall seeing it, and Google Fu has come up dry thus far.

With the exception of some things like wall spells, the vertical height of a lot of area spells is left ambiguous. At lower levels, when most creatures and characters in a combat are on the ground, this isn't really an issue. But the higher level play goes, the more things like flying and weird terrain come up that make the question relevant. So for the two most frequently types of area effects, the question would be:

Radius effects: do we treat the radius measurement as good for all 3 dimensions? A fireball centered at ground level would be a 20' radius hemisphere, while one centered 20' in the air would be a full 20' radius globe, with the vertical topography resembling the 2D contours of the area? Or is it simply a 20' radius area with a 5' height?

Cone effects: do we treat the cone as expanding outward in the same fashion on the vertical axis as on the horizontal, so a 15' color spray is 5' high adjacent to the caster, but 15' high in its most distant squares? Or is it just a 5' high cone throughout the whole 15' horizontal area?

Irori have mercy - the armor spikes entry leaves all sorts of things terribly ambiguous. I've got an oread monk (tetori) who's starting to get up into the mid-levels, so the questions are becoming more relevant to damage output (especially in regards to DR as more and more monsters start to crop up with said same), so I'm hoping for a little guidance beyond what I can find in the RAW that I'm aware of. As a starting point, here are the rules for both fleshgem spikes specifically, and armor spikes more generally:

FLESHGEM (from Advanced Race Guide, page 147)

Price PFS Legal 1 gp (decorative), PFS Legal 50 gp (spikes)
Weight — (decorative), 5 lbs. (spikes)
Description
An oread adventurer discovered these small green gemstones when, after suffering a wound from falling on some jagged stones while exploring a cavern, she noticed pieces of beautiful green crystal growing from her skin. Oread jewelers found that these crystals, dubbed fleshgems, seemed to feed on the elemental energy that permeates an oread's flesh, growing from tiny chips of stone into large, elaborate gemstones. Essentially harmless, implanting fleshgems became a unique racial method of body alteration among oreads, equivalent to tattoos and piercings among other humanoids. Decorative fleshgems cost 1 gp and are merely ornamental. Fleshgem spikes, on the other hand, grow into elaborate crystalline shards that function as armor spikes, but the oread wearing them cannot wear armor over the spikes and even normal clothing requires special holes or seams to allow the spikes to stick out. Implanting a set of fleshgem spikes takes 10 minutes, and the resulting shard takes about a week to grow to full size. Removing a fleshgem takes 1 minute; the person removing the gem must make a successful DC 15 Heal check to avoid dealing 1d4 points of damage to the oread. The fleshgem spikes can be sundered or destroyed as if the growths were a worn object (hardness 1, 5 hp), but unless the embedded root of the fleshgem is removed, the shards grow back 1 week later.

ARMOR SPIKES (from Core Rulebook, Page 151 and/or Ultimate Equipment, Page 9)

Statistics
Cost +50 gp Weight +10 lbs.
Description
You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage on a successful grapple attack (see “spiked armor” on Table 1–5: Martial Weapons). The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) An enhancement bonus to a suit of armor does not improve the spikes’ effectiveness, but the spikes can be made into magic weapons in their own right.

SPIKED ARMOR (from Core Rulebook, Page 142, and/or Ultimate Equipment, Page 18)

Statistics
Cost +50 gp Weight special
Damage 1d4 (small), 1d6 (medium); Critical x2; Range —; Type P; Special —
Category Light; Proficiency Martial
Weapon Groups Close
Description
You can outfit your armor with spikes, which can deal damage in a grapple or as a separate attack. See the armor spikes entry on page 10 for details. Armor spikes can’t be disarmed.

Okay, so a few of the basics are clear enough. The oread monk can have spiked fleshgems embedded in her skin, and those fleshgems are treated as armor spikes, a manufactured weapon made of crystal that can be enhanced, sundered etc. But that's pretty much where the clarity stops, even looking at some old threads on the subject of armor spikes in general.

Area 1: When do/can the fleshgem/armor spikes deal damage? The entry for Armor Spikes says "on a grapple attack," and the entry for Spiked Armor says "in a grapple" (let's treat "as a separate attack as mostly irrelevant, as in most situations, most monks and brawlers of medium level or higher will prefer the damage dice of their unarmed strike to the 1d6 offered by the spikes).

1) Do the spikes do damage on the check to initiate a grapple?

1a) If yes, is Strength modifier added to this damage, since ordinarily initiating a grapple does no damage?

2) Do the spikes do damage on all checks made to maintain a grapple, including those to pin or move the target? Or just the checks made to do damage in their own right?

3) When the spikes do damage, do we simply add 1d6 on top of everything else? I've seen others previously argue that the spikes damage should replace the normal unarmed strike damage, in which case pretty much the only reason a mid-level or higher brawler or monk would ever use them would be if a creature has DR that's susceptible to piercing damage but not bludgeoning. On the other hand, I've seen others argue that since its a separate weapon added into the grapple, the character's Strength modifier should be added a second time. That seems excessive.

Area 2: Damage Totals vs. DR
Fleshgems have to be made of crystal, but more conventional spikes could be made of cold iron, alchemical silver, adamanatine, what have you, and the spikes can be enhanced like any other conventional manufactured weapon. At the same time, most grappling brawlers and monks will spring for an amulet of mighty fists at some point, which can be given enhancements other than the simple +1 to +5 (agile, flaming, holy, etc.).

4) If the spikes damage of 1d6 is added on top of everything else (as opposed to being treated as a replacement damage total for the unarmed strike's damage, or a separate, additional damage total with its own addition of the character's Strength modifier), how do we treat that for DR purposes? Is it all one pool of damage that is simultaneously both bludgeoning and piercing damage (like a morningstar)? Or are they separate, so that a creature with DR 5/bludgeoning would take full damage from the unarmed strike, but at most 1 point of damage from the spikes? Would a creature with DR 5/slashing or DR 5/- get to enjoy its DR "twice," by reducing the unarmed strike's damage by 5, and the fleshgem/armor spike's damage by 5?

5) How do the two enhancement totals interact against DR? If an amulet of mighty fists is +3 and a fleshgem/armor spike is +2, the unarmed strike part of the damage would ignore DR/cold iron or silver. Would that DR still apply against the 1d6+2 the fleshgem/armor spike is adding to the total? Or is it riding along on a damage total that already gets past the DR?

6) How do the individual enhancements of the two items interact at that point? If the amulet of mighty fists and the fleshgem spikes are both enchanted with the same enhancement that does additional damage (let's say flaming), does that add an additional 2d6 fire damage instead of 1d6? Or do they not stack in that way?

Those are the most salient points that come up at this juncture. Anyone have a line on any good RAW material that clears any of it up? Or even an instance where a developer weighed in one some of these points on a forum? (The only armor spikes related FAQ I'm aware of was back in 2013, and simply clarified that you couldn't make an off-hand attack with armor spikes in the same round you made an attack/attacks with a two-handed weapon)

If not, anyone feel strongly about one or another answer to any of those 6-7 questions to venture an argument back up by tangentially related rules, or simply a strong sense of "how things oughta be?" ;)

Looking for a good ruling on the cost of Large and larger weapons when the PCs come upon them and try to use or sell them (say, looting Large and Huge giants).

The CRB states that weapons for Large creatures cost twice the listed amount. No problem there.

What about the cost of making a Large or larger weapon masterwork? Is the 300gp cost a flat amount, or does it need to be increased (doubled to 600gp?) for a Large weapon? I've seen GMs rule this both ways.

What about the value (and sale price) of a Huge giant's adamantine greataxe that the party wants to sell off (or that their Titan Mauler Barbarian wants to enlarge himself to use)? The entry for adamantine as a special material just says +3,000gp for a weapon, it doesn't give a poundage cost, or indicate that it necessarily changes by size category. Should it be a flat 3,000gp like a Small/Medium weapon? Doubled and then doubled again for increasing by 2 size categories above Medium (so 12,000gp)? Add 3,000gp per size category increase, so +9,000gp to the cost of a Huge adamantine weapon?

I can see arguments for any/all of these interpretations, but I don't see anything definitive in the rules to point one way or another.

So here's an interesting one from a player who'll be at one of my tables for GenCon:

Tangleburn Bag (150gp)
This sack contains tanglefoot bag materials and alchemical powders that burn at a high temperature. It functions like a tanglefoot bag, plus a direct hit on a creature deals 1d6 points of fire damage, and the creature must make a DC 20 Reflex save or catch on fire. If it catches on fire, for the next 2 rounds extinguishing the flames is a DC 25 Reflex save instead of a DC 15 save, and using water to extinguish the flames creates a burst of burning material equivalent to alchemist’s fire making a direct hit on the target (including splash damage). After the initial 2 rounds, the flames may be extinguished as normal. Crafting this item is a DC 30 Craft (alchemy) check.

Said player has levels in rogue and alchemist, and has the ability to use the spell create water. When initially thrown, the tangleburn bag isn't a splash weapon, but if it's extinguished using water in the first 2 rounds, it creates a burst effect equivalent to a direct hit with an alchemist fire. You may be able to guess where this goes, but here are the questions/implications in order:

1) Will the alchemist using Create Water generate that effect? This one seems like an easy yes.

2) Since its the alchemist doing it, and it generates a splash effect, should the alchemist get the bonus damage from his Throw Anything bonus feat and class feature? Should he be able to use feats like Concentrated Splash on his target?

Create Water doesn't require any sort of touch attack, and allows you to place the water fairly precisely if you're within close range (you just can't cause the water to appear inside a creature or the like). Clearly this is cheese, but that doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't work, particularly if he's willing to spend 2 turns in order to generate the effect.

Thoughts?

Searched the forums and found several threads on this subject, but none came to a definitive conclusion, whether “everyone/an overwhelming majority agree” or “a developer descends from on high and says unto the Pathfinders: ...”

Running an Eyes of the Ten table in the near future, and the party is psyched to use this as a tactic, so a definitive answer one way or the other is necessary (preferably one that doesn’t have them waffle-stomping the whole thing).

If a summoner of one kind or another brings in multiple lantern archons or hound archons, each has the following ability:

Aura of Menace (Su) A righteous aura surrounds archons that fight or get angry. Any hostile creature within a 20-foot radius of an archon must succeed on a Will save to resist its effects. The save DC varies with the type of archon, is Charisma-based, and includes a +2 racial bonus. Those who fail take a –2 penalty on attacks, AC, and saves for 24 hours or until they successfully hit the archon that generated the aura. A creature that has resisted or broken the effect cannot be affected again by the same archon’s aura for 24 hours.
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/archon/

So 2 questions:

1) (probably the simpler one) Who gets nerfed? It says “any hostile creature” - the intuitive answer is “those hostile toward the archon and its allies.” But the way it’s written leaves it open to the interpretation that it’s anyone engaging in hostile actions/combat, akin to what you’d consider for a calm emotions spell. Does someone have to be specifically hostile towards a specific archon to be subject to that archon’s aura? Or specifically hostile to the summoner? Or do allies who are fighting in the area also become subject to this effect?

2) And by how much? First instinct here is to say that since the penalty is untyped, it should technically stack, and therefore since multiple auras are separate (though identical - supernatural, not spell) effects, those in the area of more than one aura should be subject to a penalty of -4, -6, etc. if they fail multiple saves.

As I’m certain the PCs preferred interpretation will result in a dozen or more archons flooding the board seeking to nerf all foes the PCs face (while slowing combat to a crawl), I’m not exactly thrilled at the prospect. However, we’re looking to run this for PFS credit, so “the rule of fun” should at least try to err in favor of “getting it right.”

Thoughts?

Okay, so I'm trying to figure out whether there's an exception to the rules, or a specific order of operations to the math to make a babau's protective slime a threat to any manufactured weapon. Here's the ability's text:

Protective Slime (Su)

A layer of acidic slime coats a babau’s skin. Any creature that strikes a babau with a natural attack or unarmed strike takes 1d8 points of acid damage from this slime if it fails a DC 18 Reflex save. A creature that strikes a babau with a melee weapon must make a DC 18 Reflex save or the weapon takes 1d8 points of acid damage; if this damage penetrates the weapon’s hardness, the weapon gains the broken condition. Ammunition that strikes a babau is automatically destroyed after it inflicts its damage.

Okay, so it does damage to natural attackers/unarmed strikers if they fail a Reflex save based on the first sentence, and automatically destroys ammunition based on the third sentence. Fair enough.

The second sentence is where there seems to be an issue of futility and useless dice rolling. At most, if the wielder of a manufactured melee weapon fails the Reflex save, their weapon has to contend with 8 points of acid damage, and if that penetrates the weapon's hardness, it gains the broken condition. Just looking at the table for damaging objects, no blade or metal-hafted object or heavy shield has anything to worry about, as they all have a hardness of 10. The remainder (non-metal-hafted weapons, light shields) have a starting hardness of 5 (they gain +2 hardness for every +1 enhancement on the item, so they frequently won't be subject to this either).

But even for that pool of manufactured weapons with a hardness of 5, we also have to consider the following rule:

Energy Attacks

Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object’s hardness. Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion. For example, fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily. Sonic might do full damage against glass and crystal objects.

So, on that basis, since the 50% calculation is applied before the hardness is factored in (explicitly stated as being the correct mathematical order of operations here), the babau's protective slime is doing no more than 4 (1d8/2) acid damage to a weapon. Does this mean the text in the second sentence of the protective slime ability is just wasted words, and no one wielding a manufactured weapon has anything to worry about? Or was the intent to ignore the halving rule for this kind of ability so that it has at least a puncher's chance of doing something?

Fairly related to my last rules question/post:

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/spells/wallOfFire.html#wall -of-fire

The rules for being in proximity to a Wall of Fire or passing through it are pretty straightforward. But what about attacking through it?

Different cases would include:
1) a medium creature making a melee attack with a non-reach weapon against an enemy in the adjacent square on the other side.

2) a medium creature standing back from the wall 5’ and making a melee attack with a reach weapon against an enemy on the other side.

3) a large or larger creature attacking a foe on the other side using its natural attacks

4) a large or larger creature attacking a foe on the other side with its natural reach (i.e. a non-reach manufactured weapon)

5) a large or larger creature attacking a foe on the other side with a reach weapon

In each of these cases, would the attacker take damage once per attack, once per round, or not at all?

Ran part of a module (Ruby Phoenix, so perhaps a mild spoiler here) recently, and couldn’t find a definitive answer at the time, so I went with what I thought was a logical answer, and wanted to see if there was a more definitive answer somewhere.

The situation involved an oracle with a ring of blinking and the wall of fire spell (though there are plenty of other types of secondary concealment that could fit in the example - fog cloud, invisibility, deeper darkness, etc.) Once the caster activates the ring, they have a 20% miss chance on their own physical attacks, and a 50% miss chance for physical attacks made against them, by virtue of the fact that they’re bouncing back and forth between the material and ethereal planes (a timing question, but also partly visual, since the spell stipulates that your enemies’ miss chance goes down to 20% if they can see invisible creatures, but they get no benefit if they have the Blind Fight feat, and also points out that ethereal creatures are both invisible and incorporeal):

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/spells/blink.html

Kinda fiddly, but all pretty workable. What happens however when a subject under blink adds a second effect with a miss chance to the effect? In this case the caster had two high level barbarians bearing down on her, so she surrounded herself with a small-radius wall of fire, pointing it outwards. The wall of fire provides total concealment, blocking line of sight, by virtue of being “opaque.” Ordinarily, attacking a foe on the other side of such a wall would be a 50% miss chance, though stuff like the Blind Fight feat or some creatures’ ability to see through flames would reduce or negate the miss chance.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/spells/wallOfFire.html#wall -of-fire

So, with both of those effects in play, what are the miss chances for the blinking oracle on one side of the wall, and the raging barbarians on the other side (no one involved had Blind Fighting or the ability to see through flames.

The simplest “go away and stop making us think hard” answer is just a flat 50% for everyone based on the wall of fire, using the idea that miss chances shouldn’t stack.

The harshest position is to say that since they’re from fundamentally different sources, resolve them separately, meaning the barbarians have to get through a pair of 50% miss chances, while the oracle has to get past a 50% miss chance and a 20% miss chance. This is what I went with under the time crunch and not wanting to bring the game to a screeching halt. Alternatively, you could resolve the percentages into a single roll and say the barbarians have a 75% miss chance (50% + 50% * 50%) and the oracle has a 60% miss chance (50% + 50% * 20%).

An in-between position would be to say that since the wall of fire renders other visual considerations moot, but the 20% portion of blink’s miss chance would still apply, then the barbarians should be contending with a 50% miss chance and a 20% miss chance (aggregate of 60%). Still another interpretation would be that see invisibility reduces blink’s miss chance because you can see the subject on both planes, but the Blind Fight feat doesn’t help because... you pick the mental and physiological reason that makes sense to you, so the 75% total should be reduced, but only to some other value between 75% and 60%.

In the event that no definitive answer to this already exists, happy debating! :)

I've seen a couple threads for variations on this question, but the most interesting wrinkle has yet to get an official answer.

From the alchemist bomb class feature, tired and true.

Bomb (Su): Splash damage from an alchemist bomb is always equal to the bomb’s minimum damage (so if the bomb would deal 2d6+4 points of fire damage on a direct hit, its splash damage would be 6 points of fire damage). Those caught in the splash damage can attempt a Reflex save for half damage. The DC of this save is equal to 10 + 1/2 the alchemist’s level + the alchemist’s Intelligence modifier.

Alchemists also get the Throw Anything feat as a bonus.

Throw Anything (Ex): All alchemists gain the Throw Anything feat as a bonus feat at 1st level. An alchemist adds his Intelligence modifier to damage done with splash weapons, including the splash damage if any. This bonus damage is already included in the bomb class feature.

So clearly an alchemist throwing a flask of acid does 1d6+Int mod damage on a direct hit, and does 1+Int mod splash damage to everyone who's adjacent to the target. The operative question is: do the victims of the splash damage get a Reflex save as they would against the splash damage from the Alchemist's bombs?

I've got one player trying to argue that they don't, and he's been using it to just target squares (touch AC of 5) to get basically automatic souped up splash damage on larger groups of foes with vials of acid.

Related secondary question that I don't think I've seen answered either: unlike acid, alchemist's fire does extra damage on the following round. Same player wants to argue that he should get to add his Int mod to both damage rolls. Yes or no?

Alchemist's Fire: A direct hit deals 1d6 points of fire damage. Every creature within 5 feet of the point where the flask hits takes 1 point of fire damage from the splash. On the round following a direct hit, the target takes an additional 1d6 points of damage.

Automatic misses and hits portion of the Combat section in the CRB states that a roll of 1 on an attack roll always misses and a 20 always hits.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/combat.html

Mirror Image's spell text reads as follows:
"Whenever you are attacked... if the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your images is destroyed by the near miss."
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/spells/mirrorImage.html

Obviously someone who attacks the caster and rolls a natural 1 misses - if its attack modifiers are enough to still get within 5 of the AC (caster AC of 18, attacker modifier of +14 for example's sake), will the natural 1 still pop an image since it misses by 5 or less?

There's already been some discussion on this on potions specifically, and there's some awareness that there seems to be a can of worms in play with the updated Unchained version of the Barbarian.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2tlp0?Does-a-Superstitious-Barbarian-have-to-sa ve

At any rate, here's the "chained" version of the Superstition rage power:
Superstition (Ex)
Benefit: The barbarian gains a +2 morale bonus on saving throws made to resist spells, supernatural abilities, and spell-like abilities. This bonus increases by +1 for every 4 levels the barbarian has attained. While raging, the barbarian cannot be a willing target of any spell and must make saving throws to resist all spells, even those cast by allies.

And here's the new "unchained" version of the power:
Superstition (Ex): The barbarian gains a +2 competence bonus on saving throws made to resist spells and spell-like abilities. This bonus increases by 1 for every 4 levels the barbarian has. The barbarian cannot be the willing target of any spell and must attempt saving throws to resist all spells, even those cast by allies.

There's also this key caveat from the Unchained Barbarian Rage Powers entry: "A barbarian gains the benefits of rage powers only while raging."

So the bonus type changes from morale to competence, supernatural abilities fall out of the unchained version, and the bonus scales up with the unchained version. But in both cases it only applies while the barbarian is raging.

Finally, the actual rules question:
Does the requirement for making saves against spells and spell-like abilities as if you were an unwilling target while raging also apply to the Barbarian's own command word activation items (e.g. Unfettered Shirt, Winged Boots, Ring of Invisibility, etc.). I know other sections of the rules stipulate that you're usually considered your own ally, so whether you're forcing a spell in liquid form down your own throat or trying to activate you trusty boots to let you fly up and hit the monster, in both cases it seems like Superstition's requirement that you make a Will save should apply. This may make for some grumpy Barbarians until they get rage cycling down pat, but is there anyone who can make a case for the barbarian's command word magic items not being subject to Superstition?

A particularly evil GM might even push it in the opposite direction, and note that the rules state that you only get the benefits of Superstition and other unchained rage powers while raging, but the penalties of something like Superstition might apply all the time.

Given the number of Barbarians running around with this rage power (either "just because" or as a pre-req to things like Witch Hunter and Eater of Magic), this feels like it could use some clarification.

The two feats in question:

Ki Throw
--------
Prerequisites: Improved Trip, Improved Unarmed Strike.

Benefit: On a successful unarmed trip attack against a target your size or smaller, you may throw the target prone in any square you threaten rather than its own square. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity, and you cannot throw the creature into a space occupied by other creatures.

Special: A monk may gain Ki Throw as a bonus feat at 10th level. A monk with this feat can affect creatures larger than his own size by spending 1 ki point per size category difference.

Greater Trip
------------
Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, base attack bonus +6, Int 13.

Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to trip a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Trip. Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.

Normal: Creatures do not provoke attacks of opportunity from being tripped.

Application issue: so, cut and dry, the movement of the foe you're tripping and ki throwing doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity. But Greater Trip still applies, so the creature being tripped should still provoke Attacks of Opportunity based on that factor. The question becomes - at what point in this maneuver do the Greater Trip Attacks of Opportunity trigger against the foe for the tripper and their allies? Is it based on those who threaten the tripped foe in their original square? Those who threaten the tripped foe in the square they're "Ki Thrown" into? Both? Neither?

The practical case involves an enlarged brawler with Greater Trip and Ki Throw in the front line with a rogue ally by his side, and a cleric and a fighter behind the two of them. If the brawler trips a foe that he and the rogue currently threaten, and in the process that same foe is ki thrown towards the party's back line into a square that the brawler, fighter and cleric threaten (but the rogue doesn't), which combination of the PCs get an attack of opportunity? Brawler and Rogue? Brawler, Cleric and Fighter? All Four? Brawler only? None of them?

Rules question. Here's the feat in question (Pin Down):

Pin Down (Combat)

You easily block enemy escapes.

Prerequisite: Combat Reflexes, fighter level 11th.

Benefit: Whenever an opponent you threaten takes a 5-foot step or uses the withdraw action, that opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If the attack hits, you deal no damage, but the targeted creature is prevented from making the move action that granted a 5-foot step or the withdraw action and does not move.

And there here is the entry on 5' steps in the Combat section:

Take 5-Foot Step

You can move 5 feet in any round when you don't perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. You can't take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can't take a 5-foot step in the same round that you move any distance.

You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.

You can only take a 5-foot-step if your movement isn't hampered by difficult terrain or darkness. Any creature with a speed of 5 feet or less can't take a 5-foot step, since moving even 5 feet requires a move action for such a slow creature.

You may not take a 5-foot step using a form of movement for which you do not have a listed speed.
-------------------------------------------------------------

So here's the scenario - Combatant A (Polearm Fighter) has the Pin Down feat and a reach weapon. Combatant B (Brawler) doesn't have reach, and needs to move 5' to get into range to be able to hit Combatant A.

The Brawler's turn starts, and he has his normal options for a full round of actions, either two move actions, a move action and a standard action, or a full round action. All of those combinations also allow him a swift or immediate action, as well as a 5' step provided he didn't use a move action to physically move during his turn.

The Brawler starts by trying to take a 5' step to get in close with the Polearm Fighter so that he can have the chance of a full attack. This triggers an attack of opportunity for the Polearm Fighter thanks to the Pin Down feat. Attack hits, and the Brawler remains in his original space, as he "is prevented from making the move action that granted a 5-foot step or the withdraw action and does not move."

Now that the Brawler has tried to take a 5' step but was prevented from doing so, can he use a normal move action to try and move in close (presumably provoking a second Attack of Opportunity since the Polearm Fighter has to have Combat Reflexes as a prerequisite for Pin Down)?

Or does the fact that the Brawler tried to take a 5' step and was prevented from doing so mean that he can't use his move actions to physically move during this turn?

So this has been debated in various threads before, but I'm not sure a single consensus view has emerged on these issues, nor an FAQ answer, so here we go again:

Situation: Polearm Master with a Fauchard, wants to use Whirlwind attack.

Per the language of the feat, you're using the full attack action, and giving up your normal iterative attacks to gain a single attack at your highest BAB vs. every foe within reach.

1) Can the character attempt to disarm, trip or sunder his targets rather than using standard attacks against them during the Whirlwind Attack?
1a) If yes, must the character choose a single mode of attack for ALL of his targets, or can he pick and choose (i.e. attack everyone, trip everyone, disarm everyone, sunder everyone, but not mix and match)?

2) Do the normal "actions during a full attack" allowances and restrictions still apply? This would include:
2a) Can the character still take a 5' step either before, after or in between the individual attacks included in the full attack?
2b) Can the character take a free action, swift action or immediate action (swift and immediates can be taken any time that a free action could be taken) either before, after or IN BETWEEN the attacks. This is particularly relevant to the Polearm Master because they have the ability to shorten their reach from 10' to 5' as an immediate action, taking an attack roll penalty in the process.

3) Are the viable targets for the attacks granted by the feat calculated at the point when the character begins to use the feat, or can they also gain new eligible targets during the series of attacks by using either:
3a) a 5' step?
3b) the Polearm Master's "Pole Fighting" ability as an immediate action, changing his weapon from 10' reach to 5' reach (or vice versa)?
3c) (not relevant to this character, but put forward in other hypothetical versions of this question, so I'll ask it again) different weapons, i.e. a polearm to threaten with reach, and a spiked gauntlet to threaten adjacent foes?

4) The feat specifically prohibits extra attacks gained by means of feats, spells or abilities - if the character also has the Greater Trip feat and is tripping the foes he's attacking with Whirlwind Attack, do they still provoke attacks of opportunity from him?

My current inclinations are:
1) Yes
1a) Maybe okay to mix and match
2) Yes
2a) Yes
2b) Maybe, no explicit citation to answer the question, but you can put together a chain of logic (immediate action treated as a swift action that need not be taken on your turn --> swift action can be taken anytime you could take a free action --> free action takes no time --> if you can take a 5' step in between the attacks of a full attack, why wouldn't it be permissible to take free actions, which take no time at all?)
3a) Yes
3b) Yes
3c) Not if the reach weapon requires two hands, but this could be okay in the case of someone wielding a Dorn-dergar/Dwarven chain flail one-handed, though if 3a and 3b are both yes, this seems likely to be moot most of the time.
4) Maybe, as the intent seems to be to rule out automatically getting two attacks on every target instead of one by means of Haste, Blessing of Fervor, Two Weapon Fighting, Cleave, etc. Then again, you wouldn't get an AoO on a foe you had tripped without having taken the feat Greater Trip, so maybe the intent is to preclude those attacks too.

And.... go. ;)

Several people around our table seem to remember something along the lines of "when the average party level (APL) is X amount higher than the encounter's challenge rating, you don't gain any experience." This is for stuff like a 10th level party encountering a single goblin sentry and slitting his throat, or bypassing a pretty easy CR2 trap. Problem is, none of us can agree on how many levels "X" is (guesses include 5, 8 and 10), and none of us can remember where in the rules to look to find something that officially backs this up. Google Fu has been unhelpful to this point.

Any rules lawyers with eidetic memories know if/where this rule officially exists?

Okay, I count at least two threads related to this subject, and they include multiple references to an official ruling, but none of those links seems to quite answer the question. Point blank (ha!) does anyone have a link to an official ruling or errata on this specific question:

Can a rogue with a bow or other ranged weapon use the Gang Up feat to get sneak attacks against a non-flat-footed opponent (within 30' unless you've got certain magic items) if two or more of the rogue's allies are threatening the same foe?

If yes, it seems like something most every ranged rogue should take - hang back and snipe away when your party's meat shields bum rush your foes. If no, it seems utterly useless for ranged rogues, and mostly useless for melee rogues, as it requires the pre-requisite of Combat Expertise.

Here's the feat's language:
Gang Up (Combat)
You are adept at using greater numbers against foes.
Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise.
Benefit: You are considered to be flanking an opponent if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponent, regardless of your actual positioning.
Normal: You must be positioned opposite an ally to flank an opponent.
-----

There's absolutely nothing there to indicate that you yourself have to be "threatening" to be considered flanking with this feat.

So the Grapple Rules are rather "intricately" written - here are the disputes in question.

If you're using Greater Grapple (which is a pre-req for Pinning Knockout anyway) and/or Rapid Grappler to maintain a grapple or pin in a way that doesn't spend your your standard action for the round, that standard action can be used to roll a normal non-two-handed attack (unarmed strike included) against any target you threaten, including the one you've grappled.

If that's the case, why would anyone take Pinning Knockout, when it's a situational and only non-lethal version of Vital Strike (double damage, nonlethal only, only if you've established a pin)?

By the same token, why take Stunning Pin, when you can just use that same preserved standard action to use Stunning Fist in the normal fashion?

Yeesh... this seems like it would be a great feat for a Zen Archer, but who in their right mind is going to spend 2 feats on pre-requisites that are literally worthless in and of themselves?

Snap Shot is a pre-req for Improved Snap Shot, but does absolutely nothing for a Zen Archer that isn't already granted by Point-Blank Master (bonus at 3rd) and Reflexive Shot (class feature at 9th).

Rapid Shot (and Manyshot) are asinine feats for a Zen Archer to take, even if they're available as bonus feats. Rapid Shot has the same mechanical effect as the Zen Archer's Flurry of Blows (pre-8th level, extra attack, all attacks take a -2 to hit), and Manyshot is like Flurry of Blows at 8th-15th, with the added flexibility of giving up the extra attack to negate the -2 attack penalty, and the trade-off that your additional attack can't inflict sneak attack or critical hit damage (because so many Zen Archers are frequently dealing that sort of damage anyway).

Is there any logical reason to not hand-wave this away by removing Rapid Shot and Manyshot from the Zen Archer's list of bonus feats options at 1st and 6th level, and including Improved Snap Shot among the 10th level+ options?

Designing an antagonist - can a vampire use a conductive weapon to do the energy drain damage usually done by its slam attack? Energy Drain is listed as a supernatural ability in the Vampire's stat block, which would fit, but it also notes that the vampire can only use energy drain once in a round. The conductive weapon property says you have to expend two uses of a supernatural or spell-like ability to get the effect to apply to a hit with the weapon. But at the same time, it says that if you have no daily limit on the number of times/day you can use an ability, you can use it once per round (not more) through the weapon. Which would apply here?

I was thinking of an old series of 3.5 modules for Eberon which included an adventure called Whispers of the Vampire's Blade, where the vampire was compelled to use its sword rather than unarmed slams that drained levels. Frankly, I like the idea of a vampire with a sword and shield having the PCs thinking that the lack of a free hand means they won't get level drained by a hit, and then getting a nasty shock the first time they get slashed with the sword.

Here's the verbiage of Conductive:
CONDUCTIVE
Price +1 bonus; Aura moderate necromancy; CL 8th; Weight —
A conductive weapon is able to channel the energy of a spell-like or supernatural ability that relies on a melee or ranged touch attack to hit its target (such as from a cleric's domain granted power, sorcerer's bloodline power, oracle's mystery revelation, or wizard's arcane school power). When the wielder makes a successful attack of the appropriate type, he may choose to expend two uses of his magical ability to channel it through the weapon to the struck opponent, which suffers the effects of both the weapon attack and the special ability. (If the wielder has unlimited uses of a special ability, she may channel through the weapon every round.) For example, a paladin who strikes an undead opponent with her conductive greatsword can expend two uses of her lay on hands ability (a supernatural melee touch attack) to deal both greatsword damage and damage from one use of lay on hands. This weapon special ability can only be used once per round, and only works with magical abilities of the same type as the weapon (melee or ranged).

CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Cost +1 bonus
Craft Magic Arms and Armor, spectral hand

Just looking for a straight answer (preferably not just a guess) on this: how should the Intimidation efforts of two different PCs (or NPCs or foes for that matter) interact in terms of duration and DC?

Party now has two PCs in it, both of whom want to utilize the Intimidate skill an awful lot: an Inquisitor who likes to use the Blistering Invective spell (curse at your foes, make an Intimidate check and they can become shaken, take 1d10 fire damage and make a Reflex save to avoid catching on fire), and a high-Charisma performance combat Fighter with a couple levels of Bard.

The Fighter has Dazzling Display (Intimidate vs. all foes in a 30' radius as a full-round action), and has just taken the necessary feats (Performing Combatant and Hero's Display) to be able to use Dazzling Display as a swift action in any combat (not just performance combats) whenever he makes a Performance Combat check. Given that they can be prompted by hitting on a charge attack, getting a critical hit with an energy burst weapon, rolling maximum weapon damage or scoring multiple hits against the same foe in a single round, he's likely to make more than a few.

Bottom line: both of them can try to demoralize a whole bunch of enemies multiple times during a typical combat.

My question - what should happen with the DC and duration of their effects? Demoralize can't stack with itself to make a foe frightened or panicked, all it can ever do is make the foes shaken. By the rules, same character using Intimidate's "demoralize" effect multiple times just extends the duration of the effect (though they're not explicit as to whether the new duration is added to the old one, or just replaces it). However:

1) Does the "try again" aspect of Intimidate apply to successive successful uses of demoralize, or just failures? In other words, does each successive attempt to demoralize have it's DC increase by 5?

2) How do their efforts interact? Are the DCs and durations independent, or do their durations and DCs stack with each other? For example:
a) Separate Minds option - Ogres with an Intimidate DC of 14 - Inquisitor casts Blistering Invective, rolls an Intimidate check of 27, demoralizing them for 3 rounds. Fighter charges in and hits, succeeds on his Performance Combat check, and makes an Intimidate check of 29, demoralizing them for 4 rounds. His effect is longer than the Intimidator's and completely subsumes it, so the end result is that the ogres are shaken for 4 rounds (plus the fire damage from the spell).

b) Team Players option - Ogres with an Intimidate DC of 14 - Inquisitor casts Blistering Invective, with an Intimidate check of 27, demoralizing them for 3 rounds. Fighter charges in and hits, succeeds on his Performance Combat check, and makes an Intimidate check of 29 (but the ogres now have an Intimidate DC of 19, assuming the +5 to DC modifier applies to successes as well as failures), demoralizing them for 3 rounds. The durations stack, so the ogres are shaken for 6 rounds.

c) Nerf Bat option - the durations don't stack, but the DCs do - DC for the fighter to use Intimidate still goes up to 19 after the Inquisitor casts Blistering Invective, and they both wind up demoralizing the ogres for 3 rounds, but the effects are concurrent, meaning the Fighter would have been better off waiting until the Inquisitor's effect expired.

Prepping for a big day tomorrow (large party of veteran players, and a GM who's been licking his chops and sending us evil messages about the massive encounter he's spent the last month building for us, so we're expecting the worst). Hoping to get an answer to a tactical question, since this is the first time our party will be up against a large number of foes with more than 2HD.

Our party includes three characters with significant Intimidate bonuses, an Inquisitor with a love of Blistering Invective, a Fighter/Bard with Dazzling Display and a half-orc Paladin. Ordinarily, encounters haven't lasted long enough or weren't filled with enough "stand and fight" melee threats for us to need much more than the Inquisitor's Blistering Invective.

Our Party's three-part rules question: it's well established that multiple uses of the Demoralize function of Intimidate can't/don't create a worse fear condition (Frightened, Panicked), and that if you want to try it against the same opponent multiple times, you take an interative +5 to the DC (unless an hour has passed), and this extends the length of the shaken effect. So...

1) If multiple players Intimidate (Demoralize) the same opponent, do the durations stack/extend in the same way as it does when done twice by the same player?
2) Do you add the rounds of Shaken resulting from the 2nd Intimidate roll to the end of the existing Shaken effect, does it replace the original duration, or does it exist independently? e.g. 1st round, Inquisitor does Blistering Invective and demoralizes a 30' radius of ogres for 4 rounds. 2nd round, Fighter/Bard performs Dazzling Display on the same group of ogres and demoralizes them for 4 rounds. Does that mean the Shaken effect will last through round 8, or does the Fighter/Bard's effect replace or not affect the first effect, meaning the Inquisitor's will expire after Round 4, and the Fighter/Bard's will expire after Round 5? If the latter, it make it pointless for a second Intimidator to try to demoralize the foes until the first effect had or was about to expire, or if they had a mostly new group of foes in their 30' radius.
3) Would the second player trying to Intimidate an already demoralized foe take a +5 to the DC like he/she would if it was the same player trying it twice? Or does the fact that you're making them scared of a new person nullify that? Suspect that all 3 of these questions can't resolve in the party's favor, but I'm hoping.