Lifat's page

I understand this is a holy necro, but I needed it to be said:

Evil Subtype

This subtype is usually applied to Outsiders native to the evil-aligned Outer Planes. Evil Outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields are evil-aligned.

This text implies that an evil subtype can attain a different alignment. However it spells out in no uncertain terms that you will be considered both evil and whatever alignment you have for all abilities.

That means even if you are LG with evil subtype, then holy word will affect you as if you were evil, so will smite. And unholy word will ALSO affect you due to your alignment.

Now. Getting the Half-Fiend template does not grant you evil subtype

Hi there paizo forum. I was looking into blood intensity.

Mark of Justice is also a cleric spell.

I see it's quite tempting to view everything one doesn't like as a designer's mistake.
Mark of justice has been around for 15 years now. Don't you think that, in the various incarnations of D&D and Pathfinder, someone would have noticed and said "Oh wait, Mark of Justice makes no sense, lets drop it"? No, because it makes sense, and fills a niche that Bestow Curse doesn't.

Want an example of a useless spell that has been around for a long time without being errataed? Take a look at the spells Damp Powder and Weaken Powder...

As far as I can tell there are no rules that disallow the cleric from flanking with the rogue. So for RAW we have to say that yes the cleric grants flanking.

Looking at RAI, I understand the people who are saying that it doesn't make sense, but ruling that the cleric doesn't grant flanking because the fighter hasn't percieved him introduces a lot more headaches. As others have mentioned, what about illusions? Take the OP's example and replace the cleric with an illusion that the fighter failed his will save against? Is the rogue now flanking with the illusion? Because according to the rules that I've read that doesn't appear to be so. What can we take away from this? Well it appears that flanking ISN'T based off percieved threats, and now I ask, if that is true then why shouldn't the invisible cleric grant flanking?

Personally speaking I to find it a bit weird, but given that I don't see any easy solution that won't introduce new problems, I'm inclined to just go with it and not try to houserule it.

No I don't mean that she will stay in stealth after casting. I just want her to be able to move there with no one noticing and observe. Once she engages then all bets are off and the PCs will know she is there. I just thought with the PCs engaged with the ghost that they wouldn't notice her on the ceiling. So just need to know if they get a perception vs stealth check every round, or just the first round as long as she doesn't engage.

To be able to stealth you need to qualify for stealth. Normally you cannot stealth while directly observed and you cannot stealth in the open either. This doesn't change because of combat. The characters have 60ft darkvision, so outside that range the vampire can easily stealth with no need for cover or other way to do it. Inside the 60ft range, the vampire either needs some ability like hide in plain sight or invisibility or cover to maintain stealth. Each round the vampire can move from one cover to another without breaking stealth. Being on the ceiling, which granted is an unusual place to be, is not enough to grant stealth. Every time the vampire does something that potentially lets the group spot/hear her (such as moving from cover to cover) they get a reactive perception.

Not sure what the RAW/RAI would actually be, but I like the heat metal idea that "Some Call Me Tim" suggested because it makes sense and doesn't seem overly powerful or weak. I would run it like that in a home game.

This is what Unchained Rogue actually says:

Whenever she makes a successful melee attack with the selected weapon, she adds her Dexterity modifier instead of her Strength modifier to the damage roll. If any effect would prevent the rogue from adding her Strength modifier to the damage roll, she does not add her Dexterity modifier.

This is the relevant part (to our discussion) of the text.

This is what Agile Weapon says:

Agile weapons are unusually well balanced and responsive. A wielder with the Weapon Finesse feat can choose to apply her Dexterity modifier to damage rolls with the weapon in place of her Strength modifier. This modifier to damage is not increased for two-handed weapons, but is still reduced for off-hand weapons. The agile weapon enhancement can only be placed on melee weapons that are usable with the Weapon Finesse feat.

Here they use "In place of" to indicat how you switch from strength to dex.

Whether or not the rule SHOULD be different is irrelevant in a rules forum. Personally speaking though I honestly fail to see why it should be different.

Teleport says:

"You may also bring one additional willing Medium or smaller creature (carrying gear or objects up to its maximum load) or its equivalent per three caster levels."

So I'd say that indicates that if the caster isn't going then he can't bring along anyone else. The spell fails.

Ashram wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Lifat wrote:

Alrighty. Wraithstrike clearly showed that my shenanigans couldn't be done within the rules. I am very happy with that. Doesn't remove the potential in game reasons to make a more narrow option bane weapon, which is what we are left with.

What do you mean by more narrow option? Do you mean something like Bane <evil outsiders> which would allow you to cover more creatures in most games?

More narrow would be, say, demon-bane, or daemon-bane, as opposed to evil outsider-bane.

I completely misread what you were trying to say. I agree that there would be potential in-game reasons to go after demons instead of chaotic outsiders as an example, with regard to bane.

I actually don't think you misread it. My post was in 2 section. One of them was indeed about stacking by having a weapon that was bane both against demon and evil outsiders... I also wrote that I wasn't sure if there was a ruling against it. You showed there was a ruling against it. But the second section of my post was about in-game reasons for having a demon bane weapon (narrow option) versus a evil outsider bane (broad option).

Jeff Merola wrote:

In fact, I'm probably going to reintroduce the Cure Minor Wounds spell in the next game I run.

Have pity of the poor caster sore throat. ;-)

Make it a cantrip that give fast healing 1 that last as long as you concentrate and touch the target creature.

LOL!

Okay... This is the rules forum and the only real answer we can give you is that the GM is the FINAL arbiter of which magic items will be allowed in your home games. If he allows an item as descriped in the OP, then the game will be very different from a standard game.
Does that automatically mean that it will be a worse game?
Personally speaking I have tried both ways of playing multiple times (both as player and GM) and I can honestly say that I like both ways, maybe with a slight preference towards not needing a healer at all (aka playing with a variant where you either automatically regain a large portion of the lost health with a short rest of about 5 mins or where healing is easy & cheap to come by).
The truth is that there is only one way to play this game right! The way that your group enjoys it the most!

The only real rules on this subject is that you should compare the potential item to other established items and see if it matches reasonably in power.
On top of that the GM should ALWAYS be the final arbiter on any item you decide to craft.
Personally speaking I think it might be to powerful but then again it is only healing, so if your GM is comfortable with it, then by all means go ahead.

MAJOR EDIT. I changed to a site using more books and easier math :P
Note that I used THIS PAGE as my source on the 25th of january 2015, so the numbers are probably going to change in the future as more books come out.
Also note that the list does NOT include third party spells.

0-lvl spells Total: 30 spells
01 Abjuration
02 Conjuration
03 Divination
01 Enchantment
08 Evocation
02 Illusion
04 Necromancy
07 Transmutation
02 Universal

1st lvl spells Total: 169 spells
19 Abjuration
20 Conjuration
18 Divination
12 Enchantment
11 Evocation
17 Illusion
12 Necromancy
60 Transmutation
00 Universal

2nd lvl spells Total: 211 spells
19 Abjuration
26 Conjuration
17 Divination
15 Enchantment
26 Evocation
20 Illusion
26 Necromancy
62 Transmutation
00 Universal

3rd lvl spells Total: 209 spells
20 Abjuration
25 Conjuration
19 Divination
16 Enchantment
28 Evocation
15 Illusion
23 Necromancy
61 Transmutation
02 Universal

4th lvl spells Total: 157 spells
17 Abjuration
20 Conjuration
08 Divination
18 Enchantment
20 Evocation
13 Illusion
22 Necromancy
38 Transmutation
01 Universal

5th lvl spells Total: 134 spells
12 Abjuration
21 Conjuration
07 Divination
10 Enchantment
11 Evocation
12 Illusion
18 Necromancy
42 Transmutation
01 Universal

6th lvl spells Total: 101 spells
09 Abjuration
14 Conjuration
07 Divination
10 Enchantment
14 Evocation
05 Illusion
12 Necromancy
30 Transmutation
00 Universal

7th lvl spells Total: 86 spells
10 Abjuration
18 Conjuration
03 Divination
06 Enchantment
10 Evocation
06 Illusion
09 Necromancy
23 Transmutation
01 Universal

8th lvl spells Total: 61 spells
08 Abjuration
13 Conjuration
04 Divination
10 Enchantment
06 Evocation
03 Illusion
08 Necromancy
09 Transmutation
00 Universal

9th lvl spells Total: 55 spells
09 Abjuration
13 Conjuration
01 Divination
06 Enchantment
05 Evocation
02 Illusion
09 Necromancy
08 Transmutation
02 Universal

In total there are 1213 spell
Abjuration is 124 spells and is 10.2% of all spells
Conjuration is 172 spells and is 14.2% of all spells
Divination is 087 spells and is 07.2% of all spells
Enchantment is 104 spells and is 08.6% of all spells
Evocation is 139 spells and is 11.5% of all spells
Illusion is 095 spells and is 07.8% of all spells
Necromancy is 143 spells and is 11.8% of all spells
Transmutation is 340 spells and is 28.0% of all spells
Universal is 009 spells and is 00.7% of all spells

To actually find out how much it costs to know all spells we have to make some assumptions on how you go about it. In the following cost I will assume only blessed books used and that the character can actually make all of them himself. I will also assume that you get 2 known spells per level, and I will assume a starting intelligence of 20. On top of that I will assume that you can buy access to other wizards spellbooks at standard rates. If you cannot fulfill all these assumptions it will be more expensive (And I assume that you can't because starting out with a blessed book that you made yourself is highly unrealistic :P)

First I'll find out how many blessed books you actually need:
30+169+(211*2)+(209*3)+(157*4)+(134*5)+(101*6)+(86*7)+(61*8)+(55*9)=4737 pages used. That means 5 blessed books. Price tag is 5*6250 = 31250 gp.

Lets pay for the cost of looking over the shoulder of another wizard to copy his spells assuming that you yourself is a 20th lvl wizard:
(159*5)+(207*20)+(205*45)+(153*80)+(130*125)+(97*180)+(82*245)+(57*320)+(51 *405) = 119095 gp.
In grand total to know all spells assuming the shennanigans I already mentioned: 31250gp + 119095 gp = 150345 gp.
That is 17.1% of a lvl 20th's starting wealth to know all wizard spells.

Also... HOLY WALL OF TEXT.... And I need to get a life :P

Dasrak and Ciaran Barnes are correct, and here is a link to wands.
As you can see in that link the market price of a wand is as follows:
(750 x CL x spell level) + (50 x material component cost)

Normally wands are created at minimum caster level to cast the spell but you can as mentioned during wand creation increase caster level up to creators caster level but the price goes up as noted in the formula above. Also note that unless the material component is costly the second part of the formula is ignored.

Yeah. I think it is extremely clear what RAW is, and I don't believe that the NPC codex can be used to show the RAI. Personally speaking I'd say that RAI is that eschew materials doesn't cover focus components... I would however houserule that it did (as long as the focus costs 1 gp or less), because eschew materials isn't that powerful to begin with and adding that little bit of extra is both thematically appropriate and not a problem from a power perspective.

I see no reason why a cleric of an evil god couldn't cast protection from evil. A cleric of an evil god would have as much to worry about from another evil cleric of another evil faith as they would from the clergy of a good faith.

Come to think of it, a cleric of a NE faith would have to also worry about members of his own faith as well.

School abjuration [good];

Taken from protection from evil

A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaotic, evil, good, and lawful descriptors in their spell descriptions.

Taken from the cleric class description.

I will amend my comment from earlier though. The cleric spell list isn't expressly changed because of the alignment feature, thus a cleric of an evil god can use a wand with a spell with the good descriptor without UMD as long as it is also a cleric spell.
Casting spells with opposed alignment descriptors can have consequences if it pisses of the deity that the cleric worships, which is fully under GM territory.
I previously stated that with the case mentioned in the OPs example I would not have the deity be angry, and I want to amend that aswell. It depends solely on why and how it is used. But I would be relatively lenient and I would always warn the player if his character was about to do something that I believed would anger the deity.

Diego Rossi wrote:

LazarX wrote:

daimaru wrote:

The description for each of the three compartments specifically state that they can hold "...objects of the same general size and shape..." so why not wands? Why do people argue that they can't?

Internet loves nothing better than argument, unless it's bacon.

Only Americans love bacon so much.

Why are you lying on the internet?

I'm from Denmark (northern Europe) and me and my friends love bacon! In fact we have amended the periodic table to include bacon as one of the elements, because clearly it was a mistake that it was left out!

But this particular "flavor text" as you call it is right smack in the middle of explaining when you get to sneak attack. The only claim you have to it being flavor text is that "vital spot" isn't defined in game terms. To me that sounds like a flimsy way of getting rid of ruletext that somewhat contradicts your point of view.
And what about the rest of my post? Have you considered my other points?

Not clear by RAW. I'd say a soul knows it's being reincarnated, but not in what new body (otherwise there's too much incentive to cast repeatedly until you get a beneficial race, which subverts the intent).

I'd say the same as Weirdo. I haven't been able to answer this satisfyingly using RAW, but at my tables we allow the target to know the alignment and religion of the caster and which spell is being used. In case of reincarnate the random body is rolled after a yes.

I usually run it like this:
If you want to make it slotless then that is acceptable as long as you pay twice the normal cost.
If you want to move it to a different slot then that is acceptable as long as you pay 1.5 times the normal cost.
If you want to add different abilities to an existing magic item then that is acceptable as long as you pay 1.5 times the cost.

Notice how adding to existing magic items and moving it to a different item slot cost the same? The reason I allow reslotting is if the player want it for styling purpose, and if that is the case he shouldn't get off cheaper.

No matter what rules we quote, those rules have no power to change a GMs ruling. The only way that could be possible would be in PFS, and you can't create custom items there. In this particular case the rules are very clear about GM permission, so you really have no case at all.

Personally speaking I would allow it on a case by case basis. The more difficult it is to figure out how to price the item the less likely I would allow it.

First: This thread has been doubled and people have responded to both. It would be a good idea to merge them.
I'm absolutely certain that the adopted trait doesn't allow you to pick a bonus feat, because then you'd be able to pick +2 to a stat. It has also been clarified. Your GM was correct.
I'm less certain about whether or not you have to use both your traits to get a single one from your adopted race.
I think the GM is being a little weird in locking you into the choice when there is a rule confusion about it.

First: You didn't start any trouble. The discussion remained civil, if veering slightly of course but that wasn't your fault.

Second: I do agree with you that -7 to saves is strong, but remember that it is only for a single saving throw and remember that this spell costs 1500 gp to cast every time. True strike is not an auto hit but with +20 and you don't hit (outside a natural 1) then you are in deep trouble anyway... And remember this spell is 6 levels higher AND costs 1500 gp. I don't think those two effects are unreasonable.

Thirdly: Some creatures are entirely immune to vorpal or the loss of a head simply doesn't affect them, but I'd say that an autocrit is not unreasonable for a 9th lvl spell that cost 25000 gp to cast. I get that it creates a stronger effect if said autocrit is done with a vorpal weapon, but still. If you don't like that suggested function then change it to be full-round autohits or maybe full-round +20 to hit or something else that you are more comfortable with.

Fourthly: The penalty from limited wish / wish do seem to be typeless, but remember that penalties from the same source does not stack. That means casting two limited wishes to reduce saves doesn't reduce the save beyond -7.

Fifthly: If you are uncomfortable with the spells then talk to your players about it and explain why you are uncomfortable with them and simply state that those spells cannot be used in your games. Or tell them that they cannot be used to do anything beyond the expressly stated stuff.

The main thing I use wishes for at high levels is as a guaranteed escape route when I really, really need to get out of Dodge while flipping the bird to dimensional locks and similar defenses. Alternately, to add on inherent bonuses.

Miracle is a much better option, because it's only limited to the alignment of whoever you're requesting it from and otherwise should always succeed. A wish, on the other hand, invites GM scrutiny.

I would probably allow a wish to invoke a -9 untyped penalty on a target's next save or an automatic critical hit, provided that the granter had chosen to be reasonable towards the grantee.

Miracle is subject to GM purview. The difference between miracle and wish is that miracle is simply denied if something requested is either too powerful or not what the god wants. The wish could either be denied or twisted depending on the wording and how powerful a thing you ask for.

The reason it isn't on here is because those spells have been left completely in GM territory outside the suggested ways to use them.
I'd say Wish should have a vast difference in power to limited wish when it comes to save penalty and automatic hits because not only is it two levels higher it is also 16 times as expensive (minimum)

What is this "Li t ch" template you are talking about?
And with that highly intelligent joke aside the other people are right... Asking the GM is the only way to go about doing this as the template specifically states that every soul is unique and needs a unique ritual that the GM should create. They also mention the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of gold pieces and possibly decades of trials to succeed.

If you are the GM, then you are out of luck. You will have to come up with the ritual yourself :P

*breathe* remember forum rules...

*breathe deeper*

Not really sure what you are angry about here. The OP asked a question politely and indicated that he had doubts about how to handle it.

Found your guide in another place. Rogue Eidolon's Guide to Fighters

First, select your new class level. You must be able to qualify for this level before any of the following adjustments are made. Second, apply any ability score increases due to gaining a level. Third, integrate all of the level's class abilities and then roll for additional hit points. Finally, add new skills and feats.

I do believe that the bolded part shows that you can do what you described. Combat trick is a class ability, which would resolve before you start to take feats and thus you qualify for the second feat before getting to the "select feats" part of leveling up.

But that said, I do rename the spell to cure deadly wounds in my games so clerics can swap it out and cast it spontaneously...

I actually think that is an awesome change. Joinked for my home games. I never liked Breath of Life as written in the books, because I always thought it was a little silly to prepare for a situation where you'd need it, and I also thought of it as a semi-weak spell. But if a cleric can spontaneously cast it, it becomes so much better,

It specifically does not ever affect mental stats, so yes.

I am however reasonably sure you could not rack up another +3 to each mental stat by aging back up in your new body.

The effect of each aging step are cumulative, so by a very strict RAW reading, then yes you could. But that is why we have GMs, because that is OBVIOUSLY not the intent, and anyone allowing it should have his/her head checked.

Lifat wrote:

Tacticslion wrote:

Either way, that's all we've got to work with.

As we don't have anything but "young adult" to work with, we really don't know. This falls under GM discretion I think, as long as it is within the age category of adult.

I may be missing something, but were you disagreeing with me, or just agreeing with me?

The tone sounds like the former, but the words sound like the latter.

If you were disagreeing with me... what were you disagreeing with me on? I'm curious.

The Sleeper wrote:

you seem to like complex dice rolls, 1D12+1D5+12 to make it simpler or simpler still 3D6+11.

Not so much "like" as, "hey, here's a thing that I come up with really quick: closest-largest dice to the target numbers, then fiddle until I come up with the correct range" - I'm quite happy with simplified things, I'm just not good at coming up with them. :)

I was partly agreeing with you. I agree with you that we have nothing real to go on, but I didn't like your system of randomizing the age... That was all.

The reincarnate spell says that the created body is a "young adult".
I'd say that you'd use the standard starting age for the new race to determine age.

I don't get why you are so much against the people saying that by RAW you cannot jump less than your acrobatics check indicate. It is there for everyone to see. The rules are actually clear.
When I say something is RAW it doesn't automatically mean that I support it. All it means is that I've read the text and come to the conclusion of how it works by RAW. Would I sometimes like RAW to be changed from what it is? Of course. This is one such example. But I don't let it bother me because I never play pathfinder by RAW. I always play by RAI. And in RAI you are meant to try and understand how the author of the rules wanted it to work. In this case, there is no doubt in my mind that the author meant that you CAN jump up to your check result, but that you don't have to if you don't want to.

Benefit: You gain +3 hit points.

For every Hit Die you possess beyond 3, you gain an additional +1 hit point.

If you have more than 3 Hit Dice, you gain +1 hit points whenever you gain a Hit Die (such as when you gain a level).

This sentence is telling us that when we gain a level after taking the feat we still get +1 hit point, assuming it is above the 3 HD minimum.

I will agree that the feat could probably have been written so that it was more easily understood, but when you dig into them, they cannot be interpreted differently.

Llyarden wrote:

CraziFuzzy wrote:

The surprise round doesn't even start until you get into combat.

Surely withdrawing the dagger would count as getting into combat?

Sneaky draws his dagger as part of the same round he attacks.

(as a free action and then attacks with a standard action)
before sneaky makes his attack, he isn't holding or brandishing any weapon.

-LO

The talent clearly states that he has to do the attack in the surprise round. Sneaky McRogue needs to both draw his weapon AND attack in a surprise round... But a surprise round has a standard action only... And drawing a concealed weapon is a move action (if you have quick draw, otherwise it is a standard action)... I'm pretty sure that the writer of this talent screwed up.

In my opinion those other players should be forced to play characters with a 4 in a stat of their choice. See if they like being limited like they want to limit this guy.

Ever seen a movie where a helicopter with machine gun fills up an entire room to kill 1 guy and the guy dodges all the bullets... Explain that? Same thing here. I know that it isn't realistic, and it may not even be possible within the laws of physics, but the system has magic, so unless it really irks your suspension of disbelief then live with it. If you think that improved evasion is to powerful and that is the real motivation, then get over it. This ability is in no way to powerful

In Shattered Star capaign "this ioun stone's associated skill is Knowledge [history]". So analogy with headband is pretty sure correct.

Which strengthens the belief that RAI is to handle the Ioun Stone the same way as the headband, but it still doesn't make it RAW so technically RAW is that Ioun Stones is handled differently.

Personally speaking I never run my games RAW. I always run it RAI. That doesn't mean that RAW is insignificant, because how are we supposed to know what RAI is without RAW? Most of my rulings are according to RAW and only deviates in cases like this where there are such strong indications that RAI is different from what RAW states.
Of course my rulings are only according to RAW whenever I know what RAW is, when I don't I usually try to make a fair judgment call and move on. Then I read up on it between sessions or in a natural break.

EDIT: DAMN YOU NEFREET! :D I guess that RAW is that Ioun Stones are handled the same way as a headband.

I have searched high and low for a dev answer to this. I can't find it.
The only thing is that James Jacobs specifically stated how the Headband was supposed to work, ie. granting skill ranks decided at item creation and therefore not switchable by the user.

He also stated that this was to avoid the switching around. Now... Considering the reason behind the decision to handle Headbands that way I think it is very reasonable to say that RAI is that the Ioun Stone should work the same way as the Headband. That said, as nothing about the Ioun Stone states it by RAW, then you could rule that you can switch around with it. I do think we need a FAQ on this.

@Nearyn... I love your way of handling it. And I also loved your descriptions.

Well... Please don't get me wrong. I'd also be questioning any GM that both required me to only choose specialist school spells as my free spells and limited availability of extra spells. That just seems overly restrictive and in that case, then yes I'd either choose a different class or generalist wizard... But it would take both of those things to scare me away from specialist wizard. (If I wanted to play a wizard).

Lifat wrote:

LordSynos wrote:

18

+2 racial
+6 enhancement (Headband of Vast Intelligence)
+5 inherent (Tome of Clear Thought + 5 or Wish * 5 in close succession)
+5 untyped (Character Advancement - Level Ups)
+3 untyped (Age Effects - Venerable Age Category)
+2 untyped (Lich Template)
+8 alchemical (Alchemist 16 Discovery - Grand Cognatogen)
+2 untyped (Alchemist 20 Grand Discovery - Awakened Intellect)
+2 profane (Demon, Succubus - Profane Gift (Su))
---------------------------
53 Intelligence total

There also seems to be a suggestion that you can get a +4 profane bonus from some creature, which would bring you to 55, but I cannot find it on the PRD, and can't access the SRD currently. There's also the mention of epic, which goes as high as it goes, mythic, which I'm not overly familiar with, and home-brew races, at which point you can do whatever you like anyways.

So anyone but alchemists can go as high as 45 (assuming +4 profane and willingness to turn lich)...

Apparently non-alchemists and non-evil people get screwed :P (I wonder if the indication that evil people are smarter was intentional?)

43 for...

You only included +2 profane, so it is 45.

I think Jeera has pretty much pointed to the relevant places of the spell... But really... You shouldn't fight your GM on this. You should simply abuse it by having levitate running on yourself to avoid grapple, trip, bull rush, reposition and other such things... What? You can't move me! You said so yourself! :D (EDIT: And remember to spout your very best troll face while you say it :P)

If I were the GM and a player asked me this, I'd pretty much be smacking my head against a wall over and over again until he stopped asking.
Technically speaking when cooked I guess that it would be edible.

Yeah! Trait bonuses CLEARLY does NOT stack. But a trait tat gives an untyped bonus would stack with a trait giving either another untyped bonus or a trait bonus.
Also, when choosing traits, be aware that you are allowed only 1 from each category like "Religion" and "Magic" traits.

In any case a flatrate reduction in your class levels based on a templates CR might not be the most fair system. A wizard gains FAR less (if anything) by being a minotaur than a fighter would.

The rules state that it is complete DM fiat territory and the only place where that isn't true is in pathfinder society play, where such templates would be banned for PC use.
I support that it is DM fiat territory. The 3.5 system was a decent attempt at standardizing but it still failed to take into consideration what the different classes got out of the deal.

Basically the GM is god and should never be questioned by the plebs (players).

How is that kind of thing EVER going to lead to good play?

I think we have all covered the fact that the rules are guide lines and when creating custom magic items you should ALWAYS refer to your GM and let him decide.
The interesting part of this thread was this:

The 20k price for the regular Ring of Invisibility is use-activated, and each use lasts for 3 minutes.

The duration of your Ring of Vanish is only 1 round.

QFT!

For rules info:

Caster Level (CL): The next item in a notational entry gives the caster level of the item, indicating its relative power. The caster level determines the item's saving throw bonus, as well as range or other level-dependent aspects of the powers of the item (if variable). It also determines the level that must be contended with should the item come under the effect of a dispel magic spell or similar situation.

Unless stated otherwise, activating a use-activated magic item is either a standard action or not an action at all and does not provoke attacks of opportunity, unless the use involves performing an action that provokes an attack of opportunity in itself. If the use of the item takes time before a magical effect occurs, then use activation is a standard action. If the item's activation is subsumed in its use and takes no extra time use, activation is not an action at all.

By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell.

It would suck if your enemy were smart enough to destroy your corpse, which is a regular practice in my party for any spell casters we kill.

No one likes someone coming back. Usually using animate dead is the preferred method. Turn their corpse into a mindless undead. It blocks raise dead, resurrection, and reincarnation from working, and would block this as well.

We don't frak around and we don't underestimate casters.

Oh wauw. That reminds me of Legacy of Fire.