Kthanid's page

I have never had not heard of this problem except on these boards. However, the term circles has a history of hierarchy and other RPGs have made good use of the term (Earthdawn, various GURPS Magic supplements), so I don't see that the change would be anything but neutral to positive.

Don't like "circles"? Fine, find any other evocative and fitting word

Just like it wasn't even written. Twice.

Long story short: The reason the term "level" has been used in everything from Character level, to spell level, to dungeon level, to (now) Monster level, is that it is well-known and understood after 40 years of use in RPGs and video games. While it would be no doubt cooler to have "Character Ranks" and "spell circle" or "spell power", people would likely just fall back to using "level" anyway, because that's just humans using language...

Even shorter story: "circles" (or whatever) is crystal clear, cuts a problem, and fits in-game.

I could give deeper suggestions about spells, but there are lots of reasons not to.
One, however, is to change the defining term "spell levels" into "spell circles". Or whatever else, really, but not levels.
There are already levels in the game, and spell levels only ever caused people to lose time specifying between character levels, caster levels, and spell levels.
Using "circles" simplifies everything while also being more evocative and also being a term that can be used in-game, where "I will keep them at bay with a 5th-level spell!" sounds extremely silly in-game.
Don't like "circles"? Fine, find any other evocative and fitting word, but for the sake of all that is good, get rid of spell "levels". That definition has lasted far beyond what it should have, through editions.

In any case, not everything that's in a stat-block is meant to be used in normal combat.
Blood Drain is used to feed and create spawn, and it's not a good idea to feed while fighting, unless the enemies are weak enough. It's more for when the Vampire is one vs. one, or has snatched someone and feeds till the victim dies, making it a spawn in the safety of its own lair.

Say a creature has 15 ft. reach and grabs someone at that distance (usually with the Grab ability, but that's irrelevant).
Between the grappler and the grappled there are two empty squares (at 5 and 10 ft.).
While the grapple remains in place, the limbs of the grappler are in the empty spaces.
Now, the question isn't about the limbs actually occupying those squares and acting as obstacles or what (I think that's totally GM fiat, since it depends on many factors... they may be thick arms, thin tendrils, the grappler may be very high so the limbs aren't merely at soil height, etc.).
The question is: what if someone (either the grappled creature or a third one) wants to attack those limbs?
I couldn't find rules about this, as far as I can see, RAW, the grappler is still physically only in the squares he actually occupies, so no one can attack him by targetting one of the empty squares where his limbs are supposed to be.
And yet, it doesn't make sense. Rather, it's really common sense that if one friend of yours (or yourself) get grabbed by long tentacles, the first thing you try is cutting them off.
So, how would (or how DO) you handle it mechanically? Let the creatures attack the limbs in empty spaces? And what happens? How do they get cut off? How does the grappler release the grapple?

I don't think there's any magic solution... you have to bring up the issue with the group and discuss it.
Maybe starting with the calm half and hearing their opinions and ideas, or just the guy who brought the disruptive guys.
Or maybe just throw subtle to heavy hints that the game is not progressing, that doing certain things needs time spent with just this or that character while the others wait and get bored, and so on. But asinine people tend to not understand that way.

I wanted to know the official ruling, to avoid talking about it aimlessly at the table.
Well, the animal itself does exist (unless the GM comes up with the bizarre idea that anything unstatted in some book doesn't exist)...
Common house flies do exist... they don't have stat blocks just because no adventurer is ever going to consider them a challenge.
Anyway, any source on the matter of "can/cannot"?

The simple plain question is: as an 8th level Druid, with Wild Shape ranging from diminutive to huge animals, can I turn into a diminutive species of lizard?
Common sense would say yes, but the "problem" is that the smallest lizard in the Bestiary is the one in the Familiar group, and it's tiny, not diminutive.
Can I use its stat block, except consider it as if it was diminutive?

Yesterday, I wanted to turn into such a diminutive lizard and go stealthing in a lizardfolk camp to scout, but I only found the tiny familiar lizard and turned into that (diminutive would have also given me an additional +1 Dex bonus and a further +4 to Stealth, so, just by transforming, I would have had an additional total of +15, instead of the +10 of being tiny.
I didn't even bring the matter to the GM to avoid losing time discussing it, but in case it happens again, I'd like to know if I'm limited to what's in the Bestiary or can do what I described above.

The text of the Robe of Bones says:
"This sinister item functions much like a robe of useful items for the serious necromancer."

It looks to me like a fluff text saying "cool necromancers wear this", but from rules perspective it looks like this robe can be used by anyone, rather than specifically "Wizard Necromancers".

What's the truth?

Your problem might be that you fell into the common trap of prioritizing wisdom over your physical stats.

It's not my character, but anyway I just noticed that Str and Wis are both at 15, so using Wis to hit would change nothing.

Looking at the body wraps, they do cost less than the amulet, but the limited use per round doesn't really make them good. They're also bad from a gameplay perspective, since the player must always declare the use, do the math, and keep track of remaining uses, whereas with the amulet you always get the same bonus, no need to waste any time.
The slot doesn't change much. Unless the GM has blinders (ours luckily doesn't) and every item must absolutely be as it is in the book, you can use the Amulet of Mighty Fists and get the effects of other amulets in an item that uses a different slot.

About the Amulet of Mighty Fists, I seem to recall there was a debate that led to some revision, does anyone else remember any detail?
Because the cost is really disproportionate, it costs double than a weapon with the same bonus (basically, bonus^2 * 4, that's crazy).

Searching about this seems to only produce results tied to the confusion about a Monk's normal and flurry attacks.
Well, I'm looking for something else.

How to get a Monk to hit better.
Other than the Amulet of Mighty Fists and any item than can boost anyone's attack bonuses (such as Ioun Stones or other things), are there any other ways to increase the total attack bonus?
A feat that lets a Monk add his Wis modifier in place of Str modifier to hit would already be great, for example, but does it exist in any core book?

The cases I brought all use the highest BAB, as far as iterative attacks are concerned (I used examples with BAB < 6 exactly to avoid making confusion with iterative attacks). But the highest varies depending on the perspective. The Monk has two different "highest", and the two-weapon penalty isn't part of the flurry BAB, nor is it openly stated that it must be applied to the extra attack.

Edit: Also I want to make sure the distinction of BAB is understood because it is important. BAB is granted only by your class levels. It does not include bonuses to attack rolls such as strength and enhancement, nor does it include penalties.

You're teaching a fish how to swim, here. :D

True, good point. The TWF character would be attacking at +5/+5/+5 and the monk at +4/+4/+4, with that +1 increase being from haste not because of the weird way in which the OP was trying to calculate the attack bonus (I believe due to a misunderstanding about the nature of BAB and penalties to attack rolls).

Dunno what the weird part was...

Don't forget the +1 to all attacks granted by Haste.

The character would be attacking at +5/+5/+5

Yep, I wasn't adding it just because it wasn't relevant for the question (especially since my focus was on the flurry).

Anyway, thanks. Using the highest bonus of of the full attack you're making sure is the easiest association, but I got the doubt because... well, because the words "highest attack bonus" don't consider there may be different "highest" ones at the same time, depending on the perspective given to the attack.

Suppose a 3rd-level character has Two-Weapon Fighting and fights with two short swords.
If his normal attack bonus with the short sword is +6, when making a full attack with both hands, it becomes +4/+4.

Now suppose he benefits from Haste.

When he makes a full attack, does the extra attack get the full normal bonus +6, his actual highest bonus (as if making a two-handed full attack AND a bonus single-handed one), or the highest among the attacks of the full attack he's making, thus +4 (so the extra attack becomes somewhat part of the full attack)?

This question came from looking at the Monk's Ki Pool, so now imagine the above character is a Monk.
At level 3, he has a real BAB of +2, and let's say he has +2 from Strength. A single unarmed strike from him has a +4 bonus.
On a Flurry of Blows, his BAB is considered +3, and he takes a -2 to both attacks (which are made as if using Two-Weapon Fighting), thus +3/+3.
Now, when he's either hasted or spends 1 point from his Ki Pool to get an extra attack during the flurry, what's the "highest attack bonus" to use? His normal +4, his full attack flurry +3, or his flurry bonus but as if he wasn't fighting two-handed for this attack, thus +5?

I don't have time to answer to all questions, but...

1) Yes, anytime you don't satisfy the prerequisites for something, you can't use it until you meet them again (unless it's specified that you don't need to satisfy the prerequisites for it, such as Monks' bonus feats and others).

I'll have to keep in mind characters are defined by their class names from now on.

Did you really just say that carbon copies have more character?

Yes, you two are born comedians. But you know what I meant. Especially since it's literally black on white. Unless you like to play dumb just for pointless trolling.

We still have access to 3rd level spells only, and can't have our Wizard fill all his slots with Phantom Steeds or do similar things.
Nature's Paths looked nice at first, but the 8 hours duration reeks of bad design. Who travels for 8 hours straight? During days of full travel, we have a break of at least two hours around noon to eat and rest.

I think we'd need a custom magic item that casts Nature's Path 2/day, so tell me if I'm getting magic item creation rules right:
An item activated on command costs spell level x caster level x 1800 gp = 1 x 6 (we need 6 additional beneficiaries other than the initial target) x 1800 = 10800
Then, an item with charges/day is to be divided by (5/ number of charges/day), so 10800 / (5/2) = 4320 gp.
Then, if we want it as a slotless item (which we won't, at this price), it's 4320 x 2 = 8640 gp.
Correct?

Why are your horses moving so slow? A Pony has a 40ft move speed and at medium-heavy load should still be moving at 30ft.

Sorry, I meant 50 ft. and 40 ft., no idea why I wrote that, but now I edited.

Hand wave. Poof! Time has passed and you are at you're destination.

It's not like we play every second of in-game time...

We're at the beginning of Kingmaker's second book, and the land is becoming quite large. Going from an end to the other of the map gets more and more time consuming.
We have horses that could go at a 50 ft. base speed, but we're slowed by a Halfling's mount that moves at 40 ft.

Looking at the Horseshoes of Speed, the price is too high to waste on all our mounts (3000 gp each, for seven PCs), or even four horses pulling carts in couples.
Are there any other reliable means of fast travel that wouldn't overkill our treasury?

Eh, I'm not into dips, I like characters with character; a druid who is a Druid, a fighter who is a Fighter, etc., not ugly meltin' pots of classes made for mere numerical convenience.

Ah, that's right, but you still have to waste a huge amount of skill ranks, or you're not meeting the prerequisites.
Really, really not worth it. You have to completely devote your PC to the use of that ability, and it's not even like it gets any real strong.

Problem is if only the first feats in the chains are style feats, there is no point in this archetype.
If you get the wildcard slots, you can use ONLY the first feat of any chain (since you don't have them as fixed-slot feats, and thus cannot take the other feats in their chains with your normal feat slots), and ONLY if you meet the prerequisites.
It's far better to not use this archetype, keep your Flurry of Blows, and take one style chain that you like with your normal feats.

Also, I think it's been clarified that the feats in the style chain are not actually Style feats. Only the base feat marked with <Style> is considered a Style feat. So you can't take the 2nd feat in the chain with your bonus feat at 2nd level even if you meet the prerequisite. Only starting at 6th level can you take the Wildcard Style Slot, which will let you pick up feats in the chain temporarily when you enter the style, but even then, you need to meet the prerequisite.

So basically, no Snake Fang before 9th level. Which makes me not feel so bad that I went the long way around with my Monk in the first place.

The link you provided to the PRD has the full text of the errata'd archetype.

Master of Many Styles wrote:

Bonus Feat: At 1st level, 2nd level, and every four levels thereafter, a master of many styles may select a bonus style feat or the Elemental Fist feat. He does not need to meet the prerequisites of that feat, except the Elemental Fist feat. Starting at 6th level, a master of many styles can choose to instead gain a wildcard style slot. Whenever he enters one or more styles, he can spend his wildcard style slots to gain feats in those styles' feat paths (such as Earth Child Topple) as long as he meets the prerequisites. Each time the master of many styles changes styles, he can also change these wildcard style slots. This ability replaces a monk's standard bonus feats.

Ah, sorry, I was writing while you were posting. Well, the fact that the other feats aren't style feats clarifies everything.

The wildcard slot is alright alright, as far as rules go*, but I was talking about actually taking the third feat as a fixed slot (for example, at 2nd level, when you don't even have access to wildcards).
Fixed slots remain within the "no prerequisites needed" area, so, by RAW, you can jump straight to the end of the chain.

*Well, actually, wildcard isn't alright at all, since by RAW it forces you to meet ALL the prerequisites, and most style feats require wasting lots of ranks in various skills, so it's probably better to swap the wildcard slots for fixed slots that don't ask for prerequisites.

Master of Many Styles says:

Bonus Feat: At 1st level, 2nd level, and every four levels thereafter, a master of many styles may select a bonus style feat or the Elemental Fist feat. He does not need to meet the prerequisites of that feat

So I was wondering if one who has Snake Style can use one of those bonus feats to take Snake Fang (third feat in the chain) without having Snake Sidewind (second in the chain and prerequisite for Snake Fang).
RAW, I see nothing preventing it, although it seems too good to take the third feat in the chain without having the second.

So I looked up the messageboards here, but the closest thing related to this matter I found was this thread, where they talk about errata.
But looking at the PRD, D20PFSRD, and actual book, I see no difference, and moreover I see nothing preventing the skipping of the second feat in the chain.
Am I missing something, or were they talking about something else and one can simply skip the second feat?

Wherever you want to put #2 is irrelevant, since it won't flank anyway.
If you want to consider that #5's proper square should be the one to the south-west of #4's, you'd have #5 in the same unclear situation as #3, where by rotating the grid again #5 would clearly not be on the opposite side, so it would still not flank, as it didn't in the starting picture.

If you adjust the positions, #3 is even less on an opposite side, and #4 is exactly as it was previously.

But as I said above, if you just rotate the grid while keeping the positions (here; or you could reposition the creatures, I just rotated the grid for a more immediate graphic feedback), #3 is clearly nowhere on an opposite side. How do you reconcile with that?

Since I couldn't find any faq about it, and the other threads were quite confusing, I'm going to be the 34153879th to ask.

Looking at this picture, who is creature #1 flanking with? Surely with #4, who is diametrally opposite, but does #1 flank with anyone else?
#2 and #5 should not flank with #1, since the lines between them don't cross opposite borders.
But what about #3? Does #1 flank with #3?

When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.

When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.

Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.

Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.

Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can't flank an opponent.

And what does "including corners of those borders" mean?

Also, I tried an experiment here.
I did nothing more than rotate the grid. The creatures are in the exact same location, but now, if you tilt your head a little, you can see that #1 and #3 are no way on opposite borders of the bear, while #1 and #4 still are (yes, the grid is a little off, but you can see for yourself).

Also, it's really, really rare that you need to waste a higher slot for an additional cantrip.

The point is that if you have high enough bonus to prepare extra spells that are progressively more complex to cast, it's a bit ridiculous that you can't prepare one more cantrip.
The fact that cantrips are at will is exactly because they're very easy to use and expend a negligible amount of the caster's magic energy.
Exactly for that reason, rather than being more limited, they should be more un-limited (of course, I'm not pledging for at-will use of all cantrips, a limit must always exist; but I see no reason for keeping it below the limit of more powerful things).

When you have 9th-level bonus spells due to high ability score, it's kind of odd that you don't get bonus 0-level spells.

Spontaneous spellcasters end up having a lot of 0-level spells, since they can cast at will all they know, and they end with quite a few.
Preparing spellcasters, instead, after about class level 2, are stuck with only 4 cantrips/orisons per day forever.

How would you give 0-level bonus spells?
The same amount as 1st level ones?

Yesterday we had an issue (small one, but still left me wondering) with cylinders, particularly with Ice Storm.

The relevant bits:

Area cylinder (20-ft. radius, 40 ft. high)

Great magical hailstones pound down upon casting this spell, dealing 3d6 points of bludgeoning damage and 2d6 points of cold damage to every creature in the area.

The zone had a small house in it, with an undefined height ranging maybe between 10 and 15 ft. (GM said just that it was less tall than Ice Storm's 40 ft.).

I'll speak in terms of X, Y, Z axis to give a more clear idea (with a perspective from above, so that the Z axis is exactly the line of sight of the viewer, X is horizontal and Y is vertical).

Ice Storm was cast so that the guy in the house was inside the circle of the spell on the X/Y plane, but as said he had the roof above his head.
Now, since the spell says "Great magical hailstones pound down", the GM ruled it that the hail goes straight down and hits the roof, so the enemy was unaffected (as well as the floor of his space, so the ice sheet of Ice Storm didn't form either), and that would look fine, even supported by the CRB rules on line of effect:

A burst, cone, cylinder, or emanation spell affects only an area, creature, or object to which it has line of effect from its origin (a spherical burst's center point, a cone-shaped burst's starting point, a cylinder's circle, or an emanation's point of origin).

From the circle straight down along the Z axis, line of effect is blocked by a solid barrier.

However, the entry for cylinders themselves in the CRB says:

When casting a cylinder-shaped spell, you select the spell's point of origin. This point is the center of a horizontal circle, and the spell shoots down from the circle, filling a cylinder. A cylinder-shaped spell ignores any obstructions within its area.

Which seems to say that even if the hail cannot rain down from straight above, it still manages to reach inside the door (since its space is still within the cylinder).

So, what's the actual meaning of that "ignores any obstructions within its area"?
Is it just a contradictory artifact that should be ignored or what?

If you really feel this way, then 5E is the answer for you.

And other than trolling, the reason is...?

Kthanid wrote:

(when every character concept could already be done with the CRB classes and, at worst, with those nice archetypes)

Unless your the least imaginative person on the planet (which I severely doubt any of us are), this is blatantly untrue... So untrue I cannot tell if it's just elaborate sarcasm or what.

Which concept is there that you couldn't use the base classes for?

Want a new game system, even still tied to Golarion? Fine, but it has to be a NEW system, not a .5 or 2.0.
NEW, significantly different. Possibly not in a bad direction like D&D 4 did at the time, of course.
But no X.Y anything. I don't want to see X.Y stuff ever again till the end of times. Never ever.
Bad idea. Awful customer care.

That said, yes, Pathfinder has long since fallen into the trap of bloat. That's for a great part customers' fault. People always want new classes (when every character concept could already be done with the CRB classes and, at worst, with those nice archetypes), new feats, new spells, new magic items... when 90% of all this stuff will probably never be seen in any game ever, primarily because it's not as good and useful as other options.

So, even if you could fix the system (or build a new one), how can you fix the players? They'll always ask for more, and that "more" will always be roughly 90% crap, 5% okay, and 5% overpowered. Hence, bloat. There's no escaping it, especially if you add marketing laws in the equation.

Maybe it'd take a very courageous approach to try and change the mindset of the average Pathfinder/D&D player, so that future sourcebooks will bring rules to improve the quality of games, not mere added rules to build more characters. Not rules that are going to be just a waste of ink and paper.

Power Attack does improve with the character.

Many more feats should, but I don't remember any official book having rules for that.

Note, Drahl said misuse of the spell.

I knew it would be pointed out, but what I wrote above implicitly asked: how can you define its misuse?

I can't think however of a more severe violation of druidic ethics than this misuse of the spell.

Well, these *are* Druid spells, so, technically, they can't be against druidic ethics.

There is a really simple fix: follow the actual rules for market.

I've seen too many games ran as if you can buy anything whose book price is lower than your character sheet gold. Just go to any city, and everything is available, if you have the money.
Don't do that.
Maybe put in game a recurring Mercane who (for some mysterious reason that may even lead to side quests) always has the exact item a player wants. But that Mercane will be encountered "randomly" and rarely, not just whenever players ask.
Other than that, make sure that PCs have an appropriate wealth by level not by letting them buy any exact item they wish, but making them find appropriate loot (useful for their characters without necessarily being the mathematical best they'd buy with money) that is there for a reason and with a story.

Of course. Actually, I was thinking more about Spike Growth (which is mundanely undetectable) and other things.

The part relevant to the question:
"The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear."

So, just to be sure if I read that right... I can cast area spells, like Entangle, for example, and leave them there, as long as the area doesn't include foes at the very moment of casting, and if later on anyone steps in the area, I'm still invisible and comfy.
Correct?

If you want to get through a palisade wood shape is the obvious spell, right? Stone shape if you need to get through something more solid.

With Wood Shape I could technically bend the palisade as an inward arc easy to climb, but there are two problems with that: first, I have to touch the target, meaning at least me (maybe the others too) would have to be right under watchtowers, getting arrows on our heads; second, it's one casting per object, and depending on how large each pole of the palisade is, to create a decent passage I'd have to cast it on at least two (maybe more) poles.

You guys have a bard, a rogue, and you, a shapeshifter, and you didn't want to try bluffing your way in by posing as bandits? If I remember correctly, the bandit leaders in the early encounters wore trinkets identifying them as leaders. My group dressed like the bandit bands they fought earlier, took some loot they'd found and held onto and went up to the gates like "Hey, fellow bandits!" then waited til an opportune time to take out bandits individually late at night and even better, a couple while they were asleep.

With your bard and rogue you should have a decent Bluff bonus somewhere in the mix. You'd have to lay low for a few days to get them to relax at this point, though. But maybe your paladin wouldn't go for that?

Assaulting the fort head on is asking to get peppered with arrows to not much effect. We didn't have a temple of Gyronna under the fort, so I can't say whether that might be worth a try.

Eh, subtlety was our initial approach, but we dropped it for many reasons. Roaming the lands, we saw wanted posters with our faces on them, and we suppose the bandits may have made them, in which case trying such subtle approaches would only get us trapped and/or more easily killed. Second, even if they don't know our faces, Bard and Rogue may succeed at passing themselves for bandits, but Barbarian, Paladin and me are really crappy at that, and the Bard doesn't have endless spells to supply to aid disguises. Also, the Barbarian is the "charge anything head on" type, so he'd hardly stay put (the Paladin may have been alright with the plan, as long as he didn't have to do ambiguous or straight evil things... we're not playing Paladins' code as "must never ever ever lie, not even to the worst scum, not even to do the most good of actions", but given the other facts, it doesn't matter much).

First, I am a player on the Kingmaker AP, so NO SPOILERS.

We're about to attack the fort of the Stag Lord, so if you're also playing Kingmaker and aren't at that point yet, BEWARE, there may be SPOILERS AHEAD for you.

I'm a 6th level Druid (got Air Domain, instead of the animal companion to not make the party too crowded). The others are a Barbarian 4, a Bard 6, a Paladin 4, and a Rogue 6.

First thing, since I have the Natural Spells feat, I used Wild Shape to turn into a seemingly harmless raven and flew around the fort, taking a look at first, then decided to wreak some havoc, throwing some area spells in the most crowded zones. I ended up killing a couple of the cannon-fodder bandits and wounding many others, before one of the bigger dudes understood it was the mouthy crow to bring the death on them, so I flew away before they hit me with one too many arrows.

Now.
I don't know what of the following is actually in the book and what was added or changed by the GM, and I don't need nor want to know that, I'm just going to give you a briefing of what we know in game:
- The Stag Lord is said to be incredibly strong, but he's a drunkard and, moreover, he's probably the puppet of some dark unknown man (or entity; I'd suspect a priest of Gyronna, since the fort seems to have been built over a temple to that evil deity); we spilled this out of the mouth of the bandit captain we captured earlier.
- Among the biggest guys who serve the Stag Lord, one is a bit different from the other maggots; a sort of knight in disgrace, if I recall correctly, who still has a bit of honor and doesn't always follow the Stag Lord's orders. But still, he's there with them, so he sure isn't the nicest guy ever. This too was spilled from captured bandits.
- All around the fort except on the trail that goes to and from its gate, there are fast zombies who spawn endlessly. Actually, they seem to come in waves each day, and are limited in number for that day, but it will start all over the next day, if they're killed. We discovered this because, when I scouted as a raven and fled after my little havoc, I noticed a trapdoor just south of the fort (within arrow distance from there). When I told about it to my fellows, they wanted to get close to inspect it, and we just had the time to discover it bears the symbol of Gyronna, then the zombies came out of the ground to attack us. They were few, at first, but then new ones came each round (up to the 4th or maybe 5th round), and the fight ended up being very tough (the bandits even noticed and were shooting arrows at us, and besides, I had already cast all my best spells on those guys).
So, we backed off after that fight to spend a day in curing ourselves. Last session ended with me turning into an eagle and going for a new scouting (saw the zombies all around the fort, and saw the bandits seem very attentive).

At this point, for me the best strategy would be to keep throwing spells at them. I still have surprise, since they can't know if every bird around the fort is a death-dealing spellslinger, and even when that will be gone, with a couple buffs, I could stand/avoid more arrows. So unless they bring out a caster of their own, I will be able to at least kill some more cannon-fodder (there's a ton of them, in there). Personally, I'd keep doing that every day until the remaining bandits don't decide to bunk inside the fort's covered buildings and never come out again (at which point my fellows would have clear way through the main door) or until they pose against me anything that will change the odds (I know, there's the risk they crush me with something as simple as a successful Hold Person spell, but I feel like trying, they didn't show any magic ability yet, and I have good saves).
I'm also aware doing this would be boring for the other players, since I'd be taking all the attention, but from an in-game perspective, I think it's really the best strategy we have.

The rest of the party except the Rogue, though, shows a strong will to go through that trapdoor (hoping we can distract the zombies with a Minor Image from the Bard), supposing that it will lead inside the temple/fort, given the Gyronna symbol/Gyronna temple apparent connection.
Truth is, the GM (who may be playing helpful or cruel, can't know) hinted that's a good option, so they flew on it like pigeons on breadcrumbs; but in-game it really looks like a bad idea. We don't know at all what may lurk down there, the layout (may be a labyrinth or anything), traps, hidden alarms that would make enemies prepare an ambush... it really looks like going into death's mouth.
Also, it doesn't help that most of them really like to play the bold guys who never back off and rush into things straight off, rather than choose safer routes.

Got any advice on the situation? Including the use of Druid spells (up to 3rd level) I may have underestimated, to bring on stage something clever (anything from official books of the core line is allowed; I mean... Ultimate Magic, Advanced Class Guide, and so on, but not Player Companion books, Campaign Settings, etc.).
For example, I had thought about using Soften Earth and Stone on the earth under the fort's palisade, but we'd probably still have to dig though the sand that remains, to actually form a passage, and that would only make the game more complex, rather than help us.

I just discovered Cyclic Reincarnation (source: Arcane Anthology).

Well, am I missing something, or is it one of the best ways ever to resurrect a PC? (Well, a Humanoid one, but they're absolutely the most common PCs.) You only need to couple it with something to remove the negative levels. Apart from that, it sounds too amazing. Under certain circumstances, one may even want to suicide and have Cyclic Reincarnation used on him.

It functions as Reincarnate except this:
1) Its material components cost 5000 gp (Reincarnate's ones cost 1000), just like an "ugly" Raise Dead.
2) Resurrects creatures who died within the past year (Raise Dead only resurrects creatures dead since no more than 1 day per CL; Resurrection and True Resurrection go as far as 10 years per CL*).
3) Body remains don't matter, you just need to have any kind of remains that were part of the creature at the moment of death (just like Resurrection).
4) You avoid the randomness of Reincarnate. You get in a new body of the same race which closely resembles your old body, but not really the same. (Which can easily aid with disguises or getting out of troubles if you're wanted or whatnot; these are some of the "certain circumstances" I mentioned above.)
5) Your new body is young adult (just like Reincarnate). This is one of the best things. As long as you don't keep the same body long enough to die of old age, you can use Cyclic Reincarnation endlessly to return to youth over and over. (More "circumstances".) You can even pass your new self for your old identity's offspring, to keep rumors low. Also, with this, comes the question about age ability modifiers. Your physical ability scores get penalties with age advancement for obvious reasons: the body slowly fails more and more. So, a new young body has them removed instantly. The mental scores' modifiers, though, aren't penalties for the mind failing too (just as is common in real life with senile age), but rather they're bonuses for (supposed) life experience (expanded knowledge, consciousness, manners, etc.). So, since resurrecting doesn't alter in any way your memories and personality, the mental ability score bonuses should be kept, it seems. And guess what? They're untyped bonuses, and untyped bonuses stack... just keep getting old and accrue them. Many reincarnations done as soon as you reach venerable age = skyrocketing Int, Wis, and Cha?

* Shouldn't the time for Resurrection be 1 year per CL? How come it caps just like True Resurrection, when Raise Dead starts at 1 day per CL?