Howie23's page

Spectral hand along with touch divine spells.

Just a starter.

Traits are optional additional character resources. From a game power standpoint they bump the power level of the game in a way that scales from trivial to significant. The game is totally playable with or without traits.

Absolutely needed and long overdue.

The spell creates the effect. The effect makes the grapple attempt. There is no statblock for the effect, so we don't know which of the implied statblocks are in play. Is the implied statblock one that assumes that the invisibility is negated, so only states the summary result. (Miss chance)+(ability to ignore miss chance)=(just do it)? Or is it one in which all stats are described, and now apply all other rules?

Gauss' answer appears correct to a more abstract reading of the rules, Dave's more accurate to the concrete approach to what is going on.

The action economy is part of the game. It is also something that some don't find important and instead prefer to focus on the story telling portion of the game. But from a rules perspective, it is there and vital. It's portant to understand what actions are required or else the characters get, effectively, extra actions. Extra actions are the root of any builds that are viewed as being on the higher tiers of play. Understand them or they get out of control.

There is a difference between rules and procedures. Creatures must have objects in hand to use them in most cases. This is a rule. What a character has in hand by default is a matter of procedure. For example, I ask players to decide what's in hand. That's my procedure no trust my players to act like adults playing a game (even the teens) until they prove me wrong. I assume that characters are always armed in dangerous county, such as a dungeon, approaching a ruin, in game world environment, walking down the road outside of town. I don't see that as being the case in a settlement.

Where an item is in inventory determines the action needed to draw it. That is a rule. Wands are weapon like in almost all situations. However you want to justify it is up to you, but the distinction exists between items that are carried as accessible and those that are packed away or stowed. Likewise with potions. How many can be readily carried at a time is a matter of procedure and style until an item surfaces in your game that states a limit . For on GM, that's one potion and one want. For another it is all owned. For a third, it is up to 3, 5, or 10 each.

Distinguish between rule and procedure. Procedure is a matter of style, not rule.

It's not covered in the rules. There is no RAW answer.

Quote:

Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.

Please keep in mind that every 'Move' action provokes an AoO. So if you use two move actions to circles around and enemy you provoke two AoO, one for each move action.

AoOs are provoked by opportunity. There is no relationship between the number of AoOs and actions. A single action can provoke multiple times (cast a ranged attack spell, full attack with ranged weapon, etc.), and movement only provokes once. Read the text in the first post.

There is no general rule about trading actions down on some ordinal hierarchy. There are specific action exchanges that are spelled out. No FAQ is needed about this. Of you want the rule to be different, houserule it to be different.

The option to ready a an action to take a swift action was added by Paizo to the 3.5 SRD when making PF; it didn't exist in 3.5, as the swift action was not part of the SRD. The ready swift option coexists with the limit on one swift action. To ready a swift action, you have to have a swift action available.

I don't think there's really confusion on the rule, there is dissatisfaction.

I believe it involved fatal walrus beachings due to loss of polar ice, which in turn is due to global warming. This in turn, (sigh) according to many American politicians of the Republican Party, is due to a spell of the illusion school, Gore's Inconvenient Truth.

Given that the spellcasting abilities of this archetype of the Politician class are limited to spells of the bull pucky school, knowledgeable sages disagree.

FAQed.

The accidental activation issue is a screwy leftover from the Gygaxian "gotcha!" School of thought.

I don't refer to my figure as a pawn. I don't refer to my character as a toon. I don't talk about tapping a spell when my character casts it . None if this has to do with my age, however grey in the beard I've become. It is a recognition that different games use different jargon and that using the jargon appropriate to the game in question is an indication that you take the game seriously and you have enough respect for the people that invest their time in it to adopt the local terms. When in Rome...,

The Rules of the Game articles are still available, although direct links to specific articles no longer work. Go to the archive, navigate to RotG on the right, then scroll through the various articles to find the ones on mounted combat.

I would like to thank Stereofm for illustrating the difference seen in this matter between Francophones and Anglophones.

For more fun and entertaining examples of historiography, look into the difference seen between English speaking accounts of the Battle of Waterloo in contrast to Continental Europe's perspective. Let's just say the views of the contributions of the British-Dutch and the Prussians are a tad bit different.

Why can't someone make an Efficient Quiver but in the form of a Repeating Crossbow's magazine? I see absolutely no reason why not.

Because the D&D family originated in miniature historical gaming and in an English speaking country (sort of, but I digress). Or, if you prefer, the world of, "The English Yeoman Longbowmen were gods, as demonstrated at Agincourt," along with a seasoning of, "Richard I was killed by a dastardly and cowardly crossbow. obviously this weapon should not be considered by anyone why has the time to develop real skill."

Disclaimer: this post is intended as humor. Please rebut in kind.

You must make the AoO with the weapon that threatens. So, to grab the potion, you would need to threaten with unarmed strike.

To the best of my knowledge, the AoO needing to be made with the weapon that threatens is implied and is not explicitly stated. For those who care, it is explicitly stated in the 3.5 FAQ.

The FAQ doesn't directly address it. The FAQ explains how to handle it for cases A..X. This is case Y. That said, I would certainly expect this to be ruled as divine if a PTB ruling were to be made.

In the interim, the standard advice on unclear rules ares in PFS are to only commit to the rules resource if you're willing to accept the worst case GM ruling. Since using this for entry to go into MT would result in an unplayable character, it's probably best to avoid it for this purpose.

If PFS admin wants to avoid the neef bat fallout that inevitably occurs whenever anyone fails to follow that standard advice, they have the option to kill the feat in the additional resource guide; doing so doesn't put them at the mercy of the design team's schedule in ever getting to a FAQ on the corner case.

Claxon wrote:

Basically, you are required to stop at the first square from which you can attack on your charge line.

This. The intent of the "attack from nearest square line was that, once you've selected the line of your charge, you must attack your target from the first legal square along the path of the charge, not necessarily the square that is absolutely the closest from your starting point in a general sense. Let me go pull up SKR's convo on it.

EDIT: Here's some good posts from SKR on the subject.

I was heavily involved in the thread that is linked above. The posts linked above were the ones written by SKR before he realized, later in the thread, that he was using the 3.0 charge rules, rather than the 3.5 rules that are also used in PF, with respect to charging. His mea culpa is in post #57 of the same thread.

There is one charge line; it must be directly toward the target. (Sean realized he wasn't using this point in my linked post above.) If it isn't valid, you can't charge. The charge line must be to the closest square to you, not the closest square to the target, as all square from which you can attack are the same distance from the target. There can certainly be corner cases to this, but this is the general case. See this post in that thread for the highlighted relevant areas of the charge rules.

This is a great example of one of the reasons why the developers point out that their contributions in threads are not binding rulings. In this thread, Sean was erroneous in his description of the rules. He was describing 3.0. He later acknowledged this. Yet, people keep linking to his posts prior to his understanding that he was in error, and do so treating it as authoritative.

Am I the only one thinking Wizard, dump strength and make the party carry your stuff?

Shadow bait.

The combat system essentially assumes that you can only take actions on your turn, unless as excepted. The Immediate action was added subsequent to the original design of the combat system although it has always been part of PF.

A five foot step can be taken on your turn, or as part of a readied action; in either case, it cannot be combined with other movement.

General opinions in the forums have increasingly made arguments to expand the scope of when a free action can be used. The primary discussion is around the description of a free action being taken while taking another action. This was interpreted more strictly in 3.5. Now it becomes the basis for then applying it along with any other action. As a result, the discussion becomes what situations are actions.

You'll get differences of opinion about whether the contingent element of a readied action is an action, whether an AoO is an action, etc.

When coming to the forums for a clear answer on a complex topic can be frustrating due to the exposure to multiple opinions. You are best of viewing the forums as a place to be exposed to different arguments in such cases rather than a definitive source.

OP is correct in his understanding of when he can come out of delay. It can be done between the end of one combatant's turn ends and the next starts. The support for doing so in the midst of batches opponents is found at the beginning of the combat section in the description of how initiative works. Each combatant rolls initiative and they act in turn.

Grouping combatants on the NPC side is common practice. It is a matter of convenience and has a long history. The problem is when GMs fail to recognize that their use of this procedure doesn't make the individuals in an initiative group a monolithic and indivisible whole. Alternatively, they can't be bothered to break up the group, for the same reason as they grouped them in the first place: convenience.

Interesting question. Many spells are essentially fire and forget. The caster has no further control over them. Others have effects that are controlled by the caster. Finally, some spells can be dismissed my the caster.

By RAW, casters know whether spells have been effective re: saving throws. This doesn't answer your question, but is related tangentially. By RAW, dispelling or activating an event triggered spell isn't know by the caster. The whole point of the alarm spell is to provide that information. However, in the case of a spell that is controllable after being cast, or which can be dismissed, there reasonably seems to be some ongoing feedback. This really starts to get into corner cases and on the fly rulings, though. What you might do really is a matter of play style.

While I understand that you can certainly think of circumstances where disable device might not really be effective, the idea of needing to explain how the device is being disabled is a mindset out of prior editions in and old school vein. In older editions, there was a certain degree of expecting the player to come up with such solutions. On the 3e family, including PF, the idea of the skills is that the character is the one with the expertise, rather than the player.

In the case of the thin floor surface over the bit, it almost comes off to me as a concealed opening rather than a trap that can be defeated or disarmed. If you had an open pit with no concealment, the issue wouldn't come up. It becomes terrain rather than a trap. In such a circumstance, it might be reasonable to treat it simply as terrain once found. I see this as the exception rather than the rule with respect to traps.

There is a degree of abstraction in these editions. While either style is playable, the social contract implies that you're playing in the spirit of the ruleset unless its agreed otherwise.

I'm talking about the composite ability to add your strength modifier to damage, not the magical quality of +1.

In that case, he's right. It could me a +0 strength composite bow. A +0 meets the requirement, that it be a composite bow. If a +1 were required, the requirement would state that.

If it helps, a +0 strength composite bow isn't just a non-composite bow. It's build differently. It has layers of materials rather than being merely a length of shaped wood. It has a longer range than a regular bow. It is built to a specific strength rating, which happens to be +0.

If that doesn't satisfy, perhaps you can give us your rationale so that we can see why you're thinking the bow must have a +1 strength rating.

For any magical quality, such as adaptive, to be placed on a weapon, the weapon must first be enchanted to +1. The composite bow itself could initially have a +0 strength modifier. It's possible that you could both be right and are talking about two different pluses.

Tons of women play in the Minneapolis area. I looked through the 54 tables i have played/Gmed and found that at least 28 of them included women.

How many included men?

Found under the "ride" skill not handle animal a different skill.

Guide with your knees, found in the ride skill allows you to "command" your mount. It does not state the nature of the commands; however, combat is stated in the description.

Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount: If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action. Free action order Fluffy to kill.

Guide with Knees: You can guide your mount with your knees so you can use both hands in combat. Make your Ride check at the start of your turn. If you fail, you can use only one hand this round because you need to use the other to control your mount. This does not take an action.

Two abilities of the RIDE skill that allow a player to control a mount in combat without any actions. Freeing up a full round action perfect for charging.

Are you suggesting that you can command a mount with your knees to do so you couldn't do while using one hand on the reins? Guiding with knees is a rider's ability to substitute knees for a hand to allow that hand to be used in other ways. Guiding with knees grants no command capability that doesn't already exist. It just changes the medium of command.

Fight with a combat trained mount has been discussed in detail. It isn't a free action to order Fluffy to kill. Rather it is a free action for the rider to fight, given that the mount already is doing so.

There is no ride or handle animal check required to move a combat trained mount around during battle. Ride says everything stuff doesn't take a check. You just move where you want.

The issue is with the attack. Handle animal has the attack trick. It requires a move action for a non-companion or other situation where it is a free action.

The fight with war-trained mount section in the ride skill grammatically identifies what you need to do to fight with your mount. "If you direct your war-trained mount to attack...." How does one direct a mount to attack? It says right in Handle Animal how....with a trick. Having done so, "....you can still make your own attack..." How do you do this? You make a Ride check. This usage of the Ride check, the topic of the passage, is a free action. What does it do? It allows you to attack along with your mount, who has been directed to attack via HA.

The idea that the attack at the end of a charge doesn't work to solve the problem vcharge is an integrated action that includes an attack. The animal must be commanded to attack before it can charge. Getting it NOT to attack at the end of a charge actually requires an ADDITIONAL command, the down trick. Likewise, defend doesn't do the job because of the need to issue the active attack that is part of the charge.

The idea that the ride skill replaces the need for varied HA tricks is invented out of whole cloth. It does not exist in the rules. The idea exists because of the nature in which rules are learned, which is mainly from others. We have repeatedly seen the idea of viral rules...where an influential player gets an entire community off on the wrong track via a misunderstanding. This is an example of the same process.

I agree with Ssalarn's position regarding the different role that the rules identify for Handle Animal and Ride. I apologize that this post is long. If you care about the issue, please read it. I know I am pretty wordy.

I also understand that this is an unpopular position. It's my opinion that it stems out of how people want the rules to work rather than how the rules are written. Mounted combat is broken; that word gets thrown around a lot, so to be clear, it doesn't work as written. I think everyone has an idea of how it should work, even if those ideas are not the same. The FAQ seems simple, but when pealed back, it results in more problems than it solves.

Anyone seeking to make mounted combat work has to decide upon compromises that they will make in the rules to some degree. This was the case in 3.5 and it remains the case. Unfortunately, the FAQ is directly at odds with the set of compromises that is the closest thing we have had to date that describes a standard set of compromises, the 3.5 era Rules of the Game articles on mounted combat. ( see my profile for a link.)

Should it work? Yes. Ssalarn has done an excellent job, with an incredible degree of patience, of communicating the disconnect that the FAQ has created in something that should just plain work. The campaign he is on hopefully will result in future changes that will improve the game.

I encourage anyone who is interested in this topic to read the relevant mounted combat rules again, including the ride skill, handle animal skill, mounted comat section, FAQ entries, and related feats, with fresh eyes to see what they really say. Going so will result in additional voices communicating to the developers how bad the problem is, particularly with how the FAQ fits in. The various portions of the mounted combat system do not work together.

The biggest thing that I see in preventing people from seeing the rules as they are written is some variation on, "Handle Animal doesn't figure in when mounted; only the Ride skill matters." This is an invention. It doesn't exist in the rules. It is often supported by readings of the ride check to attack with a mount that relies on reading it differently than the words on the page. This isn't an attack or dome egotistical statement that I'm right and others are wrong. It is a recognition that reading comprehension can be influenced by what we think is fact before we read a passage in question.

It's a messed up area. Defending it as being just fine as is is a disservice to the game and prevents it from being fixed. Thank you for your patience in getting to the end of this post.

Back on page 1 I was asked to to cite unlimited circumstance modifiers were permitted. This merely turned around my request for the +/-2. Not playing the prove a negative game.

This thread has a tone that I have no interest in participating in further and is rapidly on its way to a 1000 post thread merely on the basis of people saying the same thing repeatedly and refusing to acknowledge points. Enjoy.

To the best of my knowledge there is no maximum circumstance modifier that can be applied to a given situation. It's your understanding. Please cite it. I'm happy to learn. Note, I'm not saying it's cool to do whatever, but I don't think it's quantified. While PFS doesn't support houserules,it also doesn't hamstring a GM from applying reasonable modifiers for a circumstance. Please note I'm not making a comment about whether the described example are reasonable.

I'm not sure what you're looking for here. This is the advice forum. If you want rules advice, go to the rules forum. If you want to know how to deal with GM abuse of rules go to the PFS forums.

In 3.5, diplomacy abuse was a problem in organized play. In PF, intimidate seems to have gotten some of that. Social skills killing off combat encounters rarely are dealt with well in organized play, primarily because expectations can vary a lot from person to person. This variance is why the 3e family tried to formalize them; and they still don't work as formalized skills vary well.

If you're looking for advice: building a character that relies on diplomacy or intimidate to walk around combat encounters is not always going to be well received in organized play, regardless of how close to written rules they should be run or what variability is acceptable. If you like playing at the guys tables, then consider a different character that doesn't hit one of his buttons regarding response. You may have more assertive actions you could take, but you've indicated you don't want to, and there is some relationship risk in doing so.

Just weighing in. This may be much too late for the conversation based on where it's gone.

"Wield" has not been used as a consistent game term at the level of detail that people want a clarification to cover. If such a clarification comes as an FAQ, it would spin off more problems than it would solve, such as has happened with the mounted charging FAQ.

What is appropriate is a blog that is covering the general case and an appeal to common sense related to intentions and play style.

A strict definition of wielding doesn't matter to most games. It is pervasive in some rules conversations and for the mythical perfect PFS table. In both cases, it involves corner cases and optimization builds. For normal play: a fixed definition isn't needed. For rules discussions, it's largely theory that can't be fixed to a degree of uniformity at this juncture.

For PFS, table variation does exist. It is a myth that all tables will play all rules exactly the same. Given that fact, selecting a grey area build that relies on a preferred interpretation is a recipe for disappointment. Expect table variation. If you wouldn't want to play with the least favorable ruling at the frequency it might come up, don't use it.

If you've been blindsided or god bad advice about a questionable build, reconsider how you select your options for PFS.

Useless: has no use.

Magic missile: a first level spell that is a force effect, has no to hit roll and no saving throw. It does damage. These aspects have utility.

QED

Spell components strictly are aspects of generating the spell effect at the time of casting, not for controlling the spell after it is cast.

Without confirming specific components for another spell, if bull strength has a somantic component, would you expect that the caster, much less the recipient, had to make said movements through out its duration? I thing it might make for an amusing aspect of the game, but it would be a different game. Fun to play at midnight of a convention. A great in-game special magical zone effect, etc. but, this isn't part of the standard game's ruleset.

"A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act."

You can't act. So you can't take a Move Action.

This is taken out of context. The condition goes on to say you can take solely mental actions. You could, for example, use a standard action to continue concentrating on a spell, or to cast a spell that did not require components or only required material components that were already in hand.

Yes, you can move through space under a fly spell while paralyzed.

The paralyzed condition says you cannot move or act. It goes on to say you can take purely mental action.

The fly spell says it takes as much concentration as walking. This refers to the need of some spells that require concentration, which in itself is a standard action. So, the fact that it refers to walking shouldn't be seen as really having to do with movement per se.

Magical flight generally is assumed to not require physical activity by most people. In other words, control of the spell seems to be a solely mental activity. The prohibition on moving in the paralyzed condition reasonably refers to physical motions of the body, not the game term related to movement through space.

So, you can move through physical space solely by mental action.

Edit: cleaned up auto correct error and edited brain-o to "...solely mental activity..."

I've FAQed this, both of the first two posts. I'll let the devs figure out what's important. This area is long overdue to be addressed, and I welcome the carnage caused by the current FAQ as a mechanism to address it.

It should work. This is the pithiest thing that Dan be said about it behaving attempted to tackle it a few times myself, I totally appreciate that it's a tough subject to handle. Please do so anyway.

On the topic of the relevance of 3.5 to PF: I understand this perspective and it has become more common as the player base has migrated from 3.5 players who have adopted 3.5 to players who are new to d20 via 3.5.

However: my post was in response to people posting that this wasn't an issue in 3.5. It was. It was just one that was poorly understood, had not changed, and yet the FAQ makes worse. The fact is that the PF rules are based on the 3.5 rules. Mounted combat is an area that has very little change from those rules, other than through various FAQ entries. The distance grows as time goes on. And, while some players don't have 3.5 experience, many do. Highlighting the problems in this area of the rules, and indicating that the problem goes back to 3.5 days, serves to point out that this is a long standing problem. For me, personally, having a deep understanding of how problematic the 3.5 mounted combat rules were, the lack of addressing them in PF was a big disappointment. I understood why: they are obscure.

For everyone saying this is a non problem: look at the text. See the problem instead of projecting your own assumptions. Call for change. Call for a better game.

With respect to HA when charging being new in response to charging: no, it isn't new , as I've indicated. I haven't provided links, but the reference is there for people who want to look into it. Whether Ssalarn has changed his stance is immaterial to that point. He's serving as the point person on this discussion. His personal position is irrelevant, as is whether he's changed his position. The rules text is what is material. The entire area of mounted combat, which is a bastard child of the rules, is poorly understood. Ssalarn's observation that it is easier to run the less it is understood is dead on. The FAQ merely brings it into focus. This is a good thing.

We're talking about an area of the rules where SKR, one of the designers of 3.5 as well as PF, acknowledged years ago that he was effectively using the 3.0 version of the rules, even within the PF era, much less the 3.5 era. I don't have the link handy, but it's in this forum on the topic of Ride By Attack.

Getting an animal to move requires no action requires no action. Getting an animal to attack requires an HA skill check. A charge is a special action to attack. An animal charging therefore requires an HA check to attack. The Ride skill does not obviate this; the Ride check to attack with a mount has to do with the rider's ability to attack along with the mount. It doesnt address the requirement for the mount's attack at all. These are the RAW.

How did we get to this point where we have an FAQ that makes stuff impossible that shouldn't be? Simply put, the designers inherited the rules and don't personally play in a style that requires intense knowledge of this area. Mounted combat rarely comes up on everyday games. It DOES come up in PFS, where specialized builds are common. Your experience may be different. Mine is not. In LG days, I had a handout that I provided to players for mounted combat because the subject was so poorly understood. Talking about it highlights the problem, so that it can be addressed. This is a good thing. It will result in a better game. What we are dealing with right now is just the transition. Saying that there is no problem just perpetuates a problem that has existed since 2003 and needs to be addressed. Digging your heals in and saying that this isn't an issue is counterproductive.

To the question as to whether there has ever been prior discussion about Handle Animal while riding: Yes, there has. I've been involved in a number of these conversations going back to 2005. It was discussed on the old Infinite Monkeys yahoo group as well as in the the WotC forums. For those who saw my post in the PFS forum saying that the FAQ was opening a new can of worms, the handle animal check for charging is one of the things I had in mind.

It's an often overlooked area, but in a lot of groups so is Handle Animal for companions as well. And, the perspective that Ride substitutes for HA or otherwise is the only needed skill when mounted is common; I'm pretty sure that there is a JJ post from a few years ago that says this, for example.

Mounted Combat has always been a problem. The FAQ brings focus on it and by formally saying its both mount and rider who are charging, it kills the wiggle room that has been there before. Similarly with the problem for when mount and rider have different reach.

Dwarf.

My take on the hit roll and damage roll is that these are separate events at the game table as a matter of game mechanics. They are not separate events in the game world. At the time a creature is hit, it is also damaged, and takes the other possible effects of that hot, and possible effects of the damage.

A character hit into negative HP or death is no longer able to cast a spell.

My experience is that this isn't a particularly popular position, not on the basis of the rationale, but on the basis of not liking the consequences of it. YMMV

The rules are not provided only for PCs, but for the game world as a whole.

The design of a given campaign to exclude down time, or to pace events at such a time as to limit down time is a campaign specific decision, not a game based decision. Many feats, class ability choices, and other rules resources can be rendered ineffective based ion campaign specific choices.

Pathfinder was originally marketed mainly to to D&D 3.5 players as an improved 3.5. It is based on the SRD 3.5 rules, without the addition of the D&D 3.5 specific examples and clarifying language, and with intentional changes, additions, and omissions from the SRD 3.5. During the early days, it embraced that history with the marketing phrase, "3.5 Thrives!" As it established it's own position, it has moved away from emphasizing that history, with the developers saying they are different games.

SRD 3.5, on it's own, has gaps. In publishing D&D 3.5 from the SRD, WotC plugged some of those gaps with clarifying language and examples. Through the 5 year history of publishing and supporting D&D 3.5, it plugged other gaps and provided additional clarifying languages, rulings, and suggestions through the Rules of the Game articles, Sage Advice (which largely served as the source for the D&D FAQ), errata, Rules Compendium, etc. All of this additional insight and rules coverage was a value added layer that materially improved players' understanding of the game. It made a better game from the original SRD.

Paizo effectively picked up SRD 3.5 c. 2003, made intentional changes, and excluded all of the additional clarifying language, rulings, etc. that was added to to the SRD 3.5 to make the game that was D&D 3.5 in 2008. This was a necessary process given the nature of the development of PF for many reasons. The decision to follow this necessary process was intentional. On a macro scale, this was an intentional decision. On a micro scale, though, these are not individual intentional decisions, and they have consequences that have sometimes been unintended.

************************************************

When PF is missing rules coverage, and yet that coverage is provided in the the layer that created mature D&D 3.5 out of the SRD, I use that material. I use it to provide insight into the intent of the rules. I do not treat it as PF RAW. As the player base has changed from what was originally nearly 100% D&D 3.5 players to a current base where many never played 3.5, I have changed my expectations that others necessarily see this as reasonable. When I tap the D&D 3.5 layer, I try to clearly point it out; this allows those of like mind to understand where it comes from while allowing those who reject the D&D 3.5 layer wholesale to reject what I have to say for their own understanding.

I suspect that the vast majority of players who came from 3.5 tap that D&D 3.5 layer, and that the vast majority of those who reject the D&D 3.5 layer either never played 3.5 or were not seriously invested in the game. We use the tools we have, and everyone has a different toolkit.

I suspect that there are few players who were heavily invested in 3.5 that, when faced with an area that isn't adequately addressed in PF, but which is addressed in the D&D 3.5 layer, knowingly reject the coverage from that layer, unless they actively didn't like what the layer provided in the first place.

Not my style of game, but if you are embracing it or tolerating it, enjoy.

Command undead. 2nd level wiz spell, so you'll need a delivery vehicle or buddy. If he wants to be a zombie bully, make him YOUR zombie bully.

There is a very narrow range here between "trivial input, just let him do it himself" and "dude, you forced me to do something stupid/lame/etc.

Strong suggestion to let him handle the voices himself. If GMs can handle multiple characters, so can players.

Yes and no. There are no Paizo rules on alloys that I'm aware of. However, the game system supports you working up rules for whatever you want.

If you wanted to stat out an alloy of two special materials, go for it. Decide what would be affected in terms of game stats you now have rules.

Santa Barbara: where the goat rolled his first d20. Welcome.

The concern with this FAQ isn't about the rules. The concern with this FAQ is people expressing lack of trust in GMs making reasonable rulings, or in the grey areas about what is reasonable. Have some faith in your fellow players.

I assume they are talking about the silly rulings like Spiritual Weapon, which specifically state that Wisdom is used (and not a casting stat). This makes Spirtual Weapon effectively terrible as a spell for most oracles.

How is it a silly ruling when the function of the FAQ is not to make changes to the rules, but to clarify them? Should the rule be changed from Wisdom to casting stat? Yes..if the developers thought otherwise they would have just responded to the FAQ with No Reply Needed. But the FAQ isn't the vehicle for such changes. Errata is the vehicle. In this case, the rule is so embedded in the text of multiple spells that errata would be an extensive undertaking.

Playing groups generally have the ability to make the change; if they choose not to, that's on them, not the developers. PFS meets different needs, and those are deemed to take precedence over a finesse of the rules.