MechE_'s page

It is on occasion necessary for a GM to mediate such issues - this is an unfortunate requirement of us. In your specific case, I can see both parties concerns here and without personally experiencing it, I can't say to what extent each player is in the right and in the wrong. (Though generally in these situations, each player is wrong to some extent.)

My advice
Sit them down outside of a game session, just you and the two of them and have an honest conversation, starting it off by telling each of them to explain how they "feel" about the recent tension in their friendship. If necessary, begin by sharing how the tensions during the gaming session have made you "feel". Continue asking them "feel" questions and try to open a dialogue. (This sounds ultra cheesy, but neither person can argue how the other "feels", so using that word reduces the experience from argument to sharing of emotions... It's a standard move in relationship counseling.) If your group is the kind that doesn't mind a few libations, I suggest starting the conversation off with a single cool drink in each person's hand to relax the mood just a bit.

After some (hopefully positive) conversation between the three of you, simply explain to them that the tension between the two of them is unsustainable and if it continues, you will be forced to remove one of them. Stress that this is NOT the desired outcome and that you enjoy playing with each of them and would like to continue doing so. But also raise the point that the current situation is sapping the fun from the game and that is unfair to the group as a whole. Conclude this brief warning by pointing out that you're sorry to see their friendship deteriorate, but that being friends is not necessary for both of them to continue playing, they just need to dial the tension way down and take it easy on each other.

Did anyone else catch this Unchained Spoiler in the FAQs?

I love it - Rogues should be able to more reliably get sneak attack, even if other classes that have access to sneak attack cannot. Hopefully there's more stuff in Unchained to help Rogues be more consistent.

I'm also very excited for the Full Attack replacement alternative rules. I had thought up a houserule that I'm considering using, but I'll see what Unchained has to offer first.

Devilkiller wrote:

Has Paizo actually revealed any details about the new Summoner, or is the idea that they're limiting the eidolon to a menu of a few choices purely conjecture?

No one from Paizo has stated that. In fact, as a rogue eidolon myself, if evolutions no longer existed and you were unable to customize your eidolon at all beyond selecting from a menu of a few choices, I would be pretty shocked at this point. I know this is just one post, though, and the common wisdom on the internet holds the opposite view, but I would urge you to consider that I am pretty likely to be correct, as a rogue eidolon.

"Never mind that I'm also a Paizo Designer and that Unchained is the first major project I've worked on." lol

The witch in my old Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign tied some straw to the end of her Staff of Necromancy and flew around with it between her legs. Good stuff.

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

Saying that traits break the game is silly.

Saying that is silly is much more silly.

The traits you mentioned are more powerful than many feats.

Saying that anything "breaks the game" is silly. Pathfinder is a huge system used differently by each and every person and group that plays. Traits as currently written are very easily used for optimization and with certain builds they are more important than feats. For those of us who want to keep Pathfinder from creeping up in power with each new source of material, taking traits out of the equation is often just one of many steps. Does this mean that I think there's anything wrong with using traits? Of course not, some people just prefer to play a different game of Pathfinder.

Mark - With this change it would probably be a good idea to remove the last line in the Antimagic Field spell text.
"Should a creature be larger than the area enclosed by the barrier, any part of it that lies outside the barrier is unaffected by the field."

I was never a fan of the original ruling Paizo made, but as with everything, I spoke with my group about it so that we're all on the same page about how the rules work. It was then that I knew this ruling was a poor idea. Tt took me 10 minutes of explaining it for the more experienced guys to understand it and their response was "You're pulling our chain, right? That is the silliest rule I've ever heard."

Had the original ruling been what it is now, the response from most people would have been "Duh, it's been that way for ~14 years of 3.Xe." Instead, a ruling was made that required a much higher than average level of system mastery and changed many of the subtly accepted "rules" of the game. (Spell-like abilities normally aren't super valuable unless it's a decent spell, Prestige classes required 5-6 levels of a base class, etc.)

The real misstep Paizo made in this whole ordeal was ruling the way they did on the original FAQ a year and a half ago.

So this just turned into another Player vs GM thread, eh?

It's been debated as often as Alignment and Paladin Codes, guys.

Can't we just agree to disagree and get back to the original topic at hand?

In general, this thread has been civil and the varying philosophies behind different opinions on which sourcebooks to use is absolutely pertinent to the original discussion. It just happens that players and GMs (frequently) tend to fall on opposite ends of the philosophy spectrum which result in competing interests. Having a discussion about what expectations are reasonable from both sides and where middle ground can be found is hardly a Player vs GM thread.

Kryzbyn - I'd like to believe they don't purposefully publish crappy and/or broken options, but stuff like Sacred Geometry, Blood Money, extra make it hard. I find it difficult to believe that at least a fair amount of Paizo's designers don't ascribe to the philosophy of Timmy Cards.

Blood Money & Sacred Geometry were both published in settings books, where the focus of the authors was in building a fun and creative world. In the very limited context of the original RotRL campgin books, and in the 3.5e publishing context, Blood Money was fine as it was used by a creative author to make for an interesting story. (Sure, it has since been republished, but I doubt that it was given much balance thought at that point.) I have a great deal of respect for the setting team and James Jacobs in particular. I absolutely love Golarion! However, when it comes to rules text and balance, this is not their forte. This is a fact of having multiple teams with multiple focuses and is a necessary part of Paizo's current (profitable) business model. This is not to say that everything in the Core line or Rulebooks is perfect. It is, however, my opinion that when mechanics are the focus, they are gotten right a much higher amount of the time. (And for this, I greatly respect Jason Bulmahn and the rest of the rules guys.)

On the topic of "trap options", I want to point out that the designers have said a number of times that they try to avoid power creep - and they have done a relatively good job of that by most people's approximation. This means that the target for each individual feat, archetype, spell, or class is not the top end of the optimization scale, but rather the middle of the road. Thus, if you play in a game where high optimization is the normal (90% optimized or higher, for example), then it is a good guess that unless you're willing to take less optimal choices than "normal", only X% (10%) of the options in any new book will be "worthwhile" and the rest will be "trap options". If, however, you play in a more casual group of gamers where the rogue is not dead and someone actually played the core monk one time and didn't feel completely worthless, then I'm sure a lot more of the options in any new book would seem worthwhile.

One man's trap feat is another's obvious choice for flavor reasons.

BADWRONGFUN.

I have to agree with this position. Remember that everyone plays the game differently. Just because something doesn't work for you or your group doesn't mean there isn't another person or group out there who loves it.

As a DM, I normally bake 3 weeks to a month of downtime into intermissions between each adventure path book (book 1 to book 2, book 2 to book 3, etc.). This time can be used to accomplish personal character objectives or to upgrade your magical items, normally done by hiring an NPC crafter.

When the samurai found an Elven Blade of historical make (+1 Elven Cured Blade) at level 3, she waited until level 7 to upgrade that same sword to a +2 bonus, then at level 11 she upgraded it to a +2 holy blade. She still remembers where it came from, and the fact that it was finely crafted by her ancestors 10 Elven generations ago is still in the character's mind, but it now provides the benefits she needs for it to "keep up".

Similarly, the Warpriest just found an ancient Thassilonian purple cloak which seems to slip out of your grasp (a cloak of minor displacement). When they get done with this AP book, I fully expect him to pay an extra 50% to add the effects of a cloak of resistance +2 or +3 to the cloak of displacement. This will allow him to keep the cool bonus and the ancient, mysterious nature of the cloak, while also getting the bonuses he "mechanically needs".

T;DR - With some baked in downtime and DM allowances for combined items (at the suggested 50% markup) you can add mechanical "big six bonuses" to acquired "cool, flavorful items" and get the best of both worlds.

MechE_ wrote:

I don't mean to sound abrasive, but it's discussions like this that remind me of why I (1) don't allow summoners or their spell list

How come?

Due to time constraints, the summoner was rushed to print and needed some additional testing. The designers have admitted this. (Sorry, I'm not going to dig up their quotes at the moment, but they're out there.) As a result, there are a number of things about the summoner that many people consider to be problems - myself included, obviously. The high quantity of early access spells that inadvertently bipass many intended limitations of certain abilities/items based on spell level is only one of many. The possibility for a full spellcaster to poach those already early access spells with certain abilities, making them even earlier access, is another one.

MechE_ wrote:

(2) don't use anything that isn't printed in a Paizo hardcover book without giving it serious thought. These things just seem to cause more problems than the benefit they bring to the table.

I didn't realize it wasn't in a book, I got it from the website and didn't think otherwise.

This one is a big one for me personally. What some people don't realize/understand is that Paizo has different product lines that include different personnel with different primary focuses. Thus, a new spell published by the adventure path team may have great flavor and can be used to create a great story by a few key monsters without causing any problems. But in the hands of players who are searching for advantages, it can be more problematic. The Blood Money spell, for example. This happens because the focus of the writers for the Rise of the Runelord adventure path weren't thinking about the Pathfinder system wide implications of the spell when they wrote it over 10 years ago (hint, pathfinder didn't exist then!) The Elixer of Shadewalking that you're discussing falls into this exact same category, so I can see how your GM would have a problem with you using it outside of the Curse of the Crimson Throne adventure path.

MechE_ wrote:

The value of having an open discussion with your GM cannot be overstated.

He is hard to get a discussion with.

If you cannot get an open discussion with your GM about this, then I would honestly suggest gracefully removing yourself from the game. Whether the problem is you, him, or the relationship the two of you have created is irrelevant. If you can't talk like adults, issues will build up and eventually blow up at the table ruining the game for more than just the two of you. My 2 cp.

I don't mean to sound abrasive, but it's discussions like this that remind me of why I (1) don't allow summoners or their spell list and (2) don't use anything that isn't printed in a Paizo hardcover book without giving it serious thought. These things just seem to cause more problems than the benefit they bring to the table.

That said, I agree that the best thing anyone can do in this situation is sit down their GM and have a nice long discussion about what you FEEL is happening and that makes you FEEL. And yes, use the word FEEL a lot - nobody can argue your feelings. Of equal importance, it's a non-accusatory word that avoids placing blame on another party, thus opening up the situation to a real discussion. It's best to do this outside of the context of a normal gaming session and I also suggest bringing the GM a 6 pack of his favorite beer and splitting it with him.

The value of having an open discussion with your GM cannot be overstated.

I ran a very successful chase in my Shattered Star campaign a few sessions back. It started in a building, moved into the streets, then ended in a hotel. Feel free to use as little or as much of this as you want. If nothing else, it should help with inspiration.

Ask your team-mates to shoot at you instead of the giant. When they miss your AC 30 the giant takes the damage. :-)

And don't let the DM forget that they take a -4 penalty for shooting at you in melee.

Edit: Also, you should have a conversation with you DM. I would start the conversation by asking him if he feels that your character's saves and armor class are too high. (I suspect that this may be your GM's problem, though I can't say for sure.) Continue the conversation by asking him "how he feels" about your character and his impact on the game. You can then respond with "how you feel" about your character and his contribution to the party. I know this sounds silly, but "feelings" are not something that can be argued. Using this tactic should (1) avoid escalation if there are any underlying issues and (2) facilitate open conversation of the actual concerns on both sides. (As with most situations, there are most likely legitimate concerns on both sides, you just need to understand each other.)

Every table is different - this is absolutely the most important part of this thread.

The Regenerate spell should be affordable at your level (1,365 gp standard price) and available in any major metropolis for the standard price. (A metropolis should have access to 8th level spellcasting services and regenerate is only a 7th level spell. Granted, I don't know the local setting of the Wrath of the Righteous adventure path.)

I would advocate that it's easier to balance MAD vs SAD classes with a standard array as opposed to point buy. My group uses 15, 14, 14, 13, 12, 10 - This gives SAD characters an 18 at level 4 with no dump stats, but also enables MAD characters to have three 16's at level 4 if their racial bonus line up right. Of course, you could always power that up to 30 point buy - 16, 16, 14, 13, 12, 10.

The stat power level you decide on (whether point buy, rolled array, standard arrays, etc.) really just determines how much you (the DM) will be required to modify challenges (monster, traps, puzzles, NPCs) to keep the game challenging - unless your group wants a game they can breeze through with minimal challenge, then 40 point buy would certainly accomplish that.

My real beef with point buy as compared to a standard array is that point buy tends to favor players who were already going to build more optimal builds than the average member of the group. Said another way, point buy is another tool for min-maxing - alongside everything else, this lets "optimizers" get even further ahead of the rest of the group.

Just my 2cp.

New class. New opportunity to not make the same design mistake choice I disagree with.

Fixed for you again.

New class. New opportunity to not make the same design mistake. At this point though it's more like intentional negative design. Maybe I won't like it, but others might.

That one was a little harder, but I think I managed to pull it off.

Seriously though, why wait until the class is released already? This isn't the playtest thread - nothing you say has any chance of influencing the designers or resulting in any chances to the class. All you're doing is complaining about a class whose details you haven't seen to a bunch of other people... who also haven't seen the details.

2 skill points per level on the fighter and to a lesser extent on the Cleric was a mistake design choice I disagree with.

Fixed that for you.

As much as I wanted extra skills on my Fighter/Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple, I found that placing a 12 into my intelligence and putting the few favored class bonuses I got into skill points was a decent enough solution to my lower skill ranks. I also invested in upping my intelligence via a headband around level 10 when I wanted ranks into the fly skill. The difference between a starting intelligence of 7 and 10, or 8 and 12 is only 4 points on the point buy scale, but those 4 points grant 2 skill ranks per level... If you play a character with only 2 skill ranks per level, and you'd like some capability to contribute outside of combat, don't dump your intelligence! The Warpriest now has no need for Charisma, so swinging a 12 intelligence shouldn't be a major issue. The Warpriest also gets enough bonus feats that you can afford to grab Toughness somewhere along the way and then place some favored class bonuses into skill points. And if you're REALlY concerned about skill ranks, there's always the idea of playing a Human with the Fast Learner feat.

Ross Byers wrote:

DM Beckett wrote:

In fact, it really seemed like just about everyone suggested making it a straight Full BaB class, even if that meant only 4th level spells.

Confirmation bias is a hell of a thing.

It doesn't make it less true.

Confirmation bias is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way.

Actually, it does make it less true.

i hope sacred weapon enhancement gets buffed to a min per lvl

I think this might be appropriate, though I'm not certain it is this way, or that it's necessary. I also like the idea of having the fervor and spellcasting based off the same mental stat. This is what was done for Paladins in the transition from 3.5e to Pathfinder, so I think it would be acceptable here. Then again, the Cleric (one of the "parent" classes of the Warpriest, though that distinction is basically moot now) has two separate stats for channel energy and casting, but the cleric is less martial focused than the Warpriest...

For now, I think that the Warpriest class will be just fine, and I'm ok if the class ends up being "middle of the pack", power-wise. (I think that should be the goal, no?) Regardless, I'm reserving final judgement until I see the full class, at a minimum, preferably see how it plays out on the table for a few months through a few class levels.

The Warpriest playtest was a playtest. There was no feat support for the class. There were no archetypes to specialize the class. There were no favored class bonuses to support the class. The blessings were still in their early stages (many "sanctuary" like blessings) and fervor was also recently conceived. The class did not have it's own unique spell list, nor were there any magic items to support or advance new class abilities... If a playtest class in that early of stages held up well against the Inquisitor THEN I would be worried.

The fact that it seems a bit behind with the adjustment to remove the pseudo full BAB of Sacred Weapon is a good thing! This leaves room for things like magic items, feats, blessings, etc. to actually be helpful without putting the Warpriest in a position where it is superior to what currently exists. I don't want a Warpriest that is better than the Inquisitor or Paladin or Fighter/Cleric or Crusader Cleric, or whatever comparison you want to make... I want a Warpriest that is capable of holding it's own against (on par with) similar classes but with it's own abilities - fervor, blessings, and sacred weapon is still awesome!

My thoughts - Should it work: No. Does it work by RAW: Apparently yes...?

It seems odd to me, but the FAQ reads as if a Wizard 3 / Cleric 1 could lose his 2nd level wizard spell to cast a cure moderate wounds. Would I allow a player this option in my home game? Depends on the situation and intent of the player.

Is this a reason for that particular FAQ to be reworded/reconsidered/clarified as an exception? Maybe. Both Sean and SRM posted in the link upthread that they agreed with Sean's statement ("All classes are written assuming you are a single-classed caster."). I'm more inclined to believe that the original FAQ was an attempt to give some love to blasting and not intended to be used the way this thread is suggesting it can be used. Those are just my thoughts though.

MechE_ wrote:

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

The attack and damage rolls are for melee attacks. The bonus to damage is not an insight bonus (it is just a bonus) that is why the sentence is parsed like that.

There are ways that you can get studied strike with ranged attacks, so no worries about that for the folk who want it.

Awesome!

Thanks for the speedy reply SRM and glad I coaxed a few more spoilers out of you. =)

Poor MechE_. Unaware of the price he shall pay for bargaining with Stephen.

Stephen wanted to punch Jason, his close coworker and friend, in the face with a metal gauntlet. What do you think shall happen to you?

Picks up d20

Yeah, but Stephen wanted to do that for the children...

Will Save: 3 + 3 = 6

MechE_ is shaken.

The attack and damage rolls are for melee attacks. The bonus to damage is not an insight bonus (it is just a bonus) that is why the sentence is parsed like that.

There are ways that you can get studied strike with ranged attacks, so no worries about that for the folk who want it.

Awesome!

Thanks for the speedy reply SRM and glad I coaxed a few more spoilers out of you. =)

On the subject of ranged attacks and Studied Combat - If I'm parsing the phrasing for Studied Combat correctly, then it reads as if you may get the bonus from Studied Combat on damage rolls with ranged attacks...

Studied Combat: "With a keen eye and calculating mind, an investigator can assess the mettle of his opponent to take advantage of gaps in talent and training. At 4th level, an investigator can use a move action to study a single enemy that he can see. Upon doing so, he adds 1/2 his investigator level as an insight bonus on melee attack rolls and as a bonus on damage rolls against the creature. This effect lasts for a number of rounds equal to his Intelligence modifier (minimum 1) or until he deals damage with a studied strike, whichever comes first. The bonus on damage rolls is precision damage, and is not multiplied on a critical hit."

If Studied Combat was intended to apply to melee attack and melee damage rolls only, then I would have worded it "as an insight bonus on melee attack and damage rolls against the creature". The splitting of "melee attack rolls" and "as a bonus on damage rolls" seems to indicate that you do get the bonus to damage with ranged weapons. Then again, it may be worded that was in order to designate bonus to attack rolls as as insight bonus type, but leave the bonus on damage rolls untyped. This would be a bit odd, because I don't think there would be a conflict with making the bonus to damage rolls an insight typed bonus. Then again, I'm not certain anything else exists that gives an insight bonus to damage, so maybe this was done to keep damage bonuses untyped...?

Anyone else reading this the same way I am?

Any chance we can get a quick thought on design intent, SRM?

Edit One: If you can get the Studied Combat bonus to damage rolls, then we're talking about a bonus that scales very similarity to that from the Deadly Aim feat, without the attack roll penalty. Granted, your still behind on BAB when it comes to meeting feat prerequisites, it still could make for a decent ranged attacker.

Edit Two: Just talked to my friend who's a contract laywer (yes, our group has a literal rules lawyer - we point that out to him on a regular basis, lol) and he said that if this were a legal contract, the lack of a comma prior to the word "and" in the sentence I've highlighted would indicate that adverbs and adjectives, such as the word "melee", should be carried over to the second half of the sentence. This interpretation would mean that the bonus to damage rolls only applies to melee attacks. (Not sure Paizo has a contracts lawyer on staff, or if this is a common interpretation in any other sectors of business/profession, but just figured I'd share.)

Protoman wrote:

LoneKnave wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

You just activate it and then charge in the first round (when you wouldn't get a Full Attack anyway), and receive some very shiny bonuses.

Charging is a full-round action.

Studying itself is activated with a swift.

That's only if the Quick Study talent gets updated/still exists.

True, but I'd bet on it still being around.

The fact that SRM is talking about being able to use Studied Combat as a swift action at all indicates with 95% certainty that some version of the Quick Study talent still exists - or a similar ability with similar benefits, at the very least.

Also, I'm really liking the Investigator class - really solid work gentlemen!

DrDeth wrote:

Scrying a creature isn't scrying a location, therefore you can't scry on a creature and then teleport to it.

So, wait, if the BBEG is in a village, slaughtering all townsfolk, all we'll see him do is wave his arms? Scrying won't tell us where he is and, per this interpretation, won't show us his surroundings, nor his victims, nor presumably the visual spell effects?

For the record, I just want to point something out to observers...

DrDeth thinks "Scry & Fry" is not great for the game. DrDeth is looking for a clarification from Paizo Developers that officially removes/limits the use of "Scry & Fry" from the Pathfinder game.

Kirth Gersen thinks "Scry & Fry" is not great for the game. Kirth has houseruled in his own games that teleportation and scrying spells and effects cannot penetrate through an area completely enclosed in 3 feet of common earth, 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of metal, or a thin lead sheet.

Personally, I think that both of these solutions are fine. After reading Kirth's houserules, I've implemented this one and a few others. I also would like to see this fix applied in a larger scale and support DrDeth's campaign to request Paizo to consider clarifying the abilities. (They may decide to leave them be. Even though I don't agree, if that's their direction, then I fall back to the house rule and let it go.) It would be nice to hear their thoughts on it.

Basically... DrDeth & Kirth (and myself) all agree that "Scry & Fry" could use a fix, but we each have our own methods of addressing the same issue. Don't let the minor disagreements derail the fact that we agree on 90% of the current issue.

This reminds me of disagreements between different Christian denominations who will argue about small things despite agreeing on all but 3 specific points of doctrine... Probably the same for other religions, but this is the one I'm most familiar with. /Can'tWeAllJustGetAlongRant

Anonymous Visitor 163 576 wrote:

It's a zero level spell. House rule it to be touch only, and you're most of the way there.

If they want to put the resources into arcane sight, or something like that, then fine.

This was the solution that Jess Door brought to our home game during the Parhfinder Beta playtest, and it worked wonders. We've used it ever since.

I sort of like this idea as it also eliminates the use of detect magic to find magical traps - unless touch does not activate them.

RAW - Casting a spell cannot be done quietly. (Verbal components must be spoken in a firm voice.) If a party walks through every hallway casting detect magic every 30 feet, then the enemies should have a surprise round against the party each and every single time.

Is that sufficient?

It appears that my comedic attempt at warning fellow forum-goers on the nature of threads like this was removed. As such, here is a less comedic attempt at the same:

Fellow Forum-Goers:
Vaguely worded threads often take forever to go anywhere and rarely make it there. If you want to actually discuss the problems with the summoner class, I advise starting your own thread rather than participating in this one. Or you can use the search function, as this topic has been discussed in great detail in the past.

To the OP:
Please give a SIGNIFICANT amount more information in your original topic posts if you'd like them to be taken seriously. Otherwise, you may get responses similar to this one from old, grouchy, people like me.

First, I'd advise against this. There is no way in the game (short of Mythic rules which I'm unfamiliar with) to polymorph into anything bigger than "Huge" sized. This is a balancing point of the game, IMO.

If you are insistent on doing it, at least cut the bonuses down a bit. By this table the size changes for large to huge and huge to gargantuan result in the same stat changes (save that you get 1 more point of natural armor for the later). If you're going to create the spell, use stats that are in line with the power of the spell, so increase the stats for Form of the Dragon IV by the same amount they increase from FotD II to FotD III - +14 Strength, +12 Con, +10 Natural Armor, Fly 150 feet. Likewise, the Breath weapon should be 16d8 and be 120 feet long for lines or 60 foot cones. Fly speed should be 150 feet (poor) and DR 15/Magic. Finally, the attack damages should scale by 1 size category each over Form of the Dragon III.

Sorry, no, I had not looked up the torch entry in this instance.

For the purposes of that example, we'll just replace torch with some other light-creating effect I suppose. I didn't see a general blanket rule, and surely every effect doesn't share the same verbiage.

A lamp illuminates a small area, providing normal light in a 15-foot radius and increasing the light level by one step for an additional 15 feet beyond that area (darkness becomes dim light and dim light becomes normal light). A lamp does not increase the light level in normal light or bright light. A lamp burns for 6 hours on one pint of oil. You can carry a lamp in one hand.

A bullseye lantern provides normal light in a 60-foot cone and increases the light level by one step in the area beyond that, out to a 120-foot cone (darkness becomes dim light and dim light becomes normal light). A bullseye lantern does not increase the light level in normal light or bright light. A lantern burns for 6 hours on one pint of oil. You can carry a lantern in one hand.

A hooded lantern sheds normal light in a 30-foot radius and increases the light level by one step for an additional 30 feet beyond that area (darkness becomes dim light and dim light becomes normal light). A hooded lantern does not increase the light level in normal light or bright light. A lantern burns for 6 hours on one pint of oil. You can carry a lantern in one hand.

This 1-foot-long, gold-tipped, iron rod glows brightly when struck as a standard action. It sheds normal light in a 30-foot radius and increases the light level by one step for an additional 30 feet beyond that area (darkness becomes dim light and dim light becomes normal light). A sunrod does not increase the light level in normal light or bright light. It glows for 6 hours, after which the gold tip is burned out and worthless.

A candle dimly illuminates a small area, increasing the light level in a 5-foot radius by one step (darkness becomes dim light and dim light becomes normal light). A candle cannot increase the light level above normal light. A candle burns for 1 hour.

Add the torch to that list, and we're at 6 out of 6 light sources with that specific line in them. Enough, I would argue that it is basically a blanket rule and even if you can find a mundane light source that is missing the verbiage, it should be applied anyways.

No FAQ required.

My first houserule is The Most Important Rule. My second houserule is "The GM interprets rules as intended (RAI), not strictly as written (RAW)."

So let me get this straight, removing a few words for a character sheet is going to stop immature players from playing characters that follow the Chaotic Stupid trope...? Also, I didn't realize that having to write those two words on my character sheet was going to prevent me from developing a personality for them... Who knew! /Sarcasm

But seriously, I couldn't agree LESS with this thread if I possibly tried, as a player or a DM.

As a DM, I try my best to limit the interaction of alignment with the system, but when I feel a player is not following that which they have written on their sheet, I inform them of it and ask them to verify their characters actions against their alignment. Some of my players don't necessarily like this, but others appreciate that the sense of good and evil in the world is real and consistent (or at least as consistent as a single human mind can be). The players who feel differently than I have talked with me about it a quite a bit and we've agreed to disagree. Now that the expectations of the game are clear, they play their characters accordingly and have fun doing it. Were I playing with a group of 6 players who all thought alignment was stupid, I'd be disappointed, but I would drop it.

As a player, I love the challenge of role playing. I'm not great at it yet, but I'm getting better with each new character. My current character, a Druid of Gozreh attempts to emulate Gozreh's principles in every way. She is, obviously true neutral (as Gozreh is the very essences of neutrality), but to call her that only scratches the surface of her. To her, rivers which breath life into the surrounding lands are just as natural as the deadly floods they are capable of bringing. Likewise, the freedom of the strong is no less natural than the enslaving of the weak. Were I to write "True Neutral" on my sheet and stop there, I feel that I would be doing a disservice to myself and everyone else at my table.

It is my opinion that alignment issues are generally one of differences between players and DMs and their expectations of the game. The tabletop gaming experience is a shared one, and I would argue that alignment is likely not the cause of many group's problems, but a symptom of unclear of differing expectations of the game.

Common Sense wrote:

I say that you can attempt to trip a prone target.

But I also say that you will fail.

"Trip: When a prone character stands up and provokes an attack of opportunity, can I use that attack to trip the character again?

No. The attack of opportunity is triggered before the action that triggered it is resolved. In this case, the target is still prone when the attack of opportunity occurs (and you get the normal bonuses when making such an attack). Since the trip combat maneuver does not prevent the target's action, the target then stands up."

So, yes, you can try it. But it doesn't do anything, you automatically fail.

I don't think you really understand what it is I'm asking with this question. My question has absolutely nothing to do with the FAQ about making an AoO on a prone character trying to stand up.

Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.

If you succeed at a trip attempt with a meteor hammer, you can drag your opponent 5 feet closer to you rather than knocking her prone.

I'm pretty sure that you fact that you cannot actually be successful on a trip attempt against a prone target (as the FAQ that "common sense" referenced indicates) does answer your question fully. In order to gain benefits from the two methods that you mentioned (such as an AoO from Greater Trip, or a drag from a Meteor Hammer), the trip has to actually be successful, which it cannot be if the target is already prone.

Unless I'm also misunderstanding the question/intentions of the question (in which case, please feel free to correct me) there is no FAQ needed.

I like DMing. I love telling a story that the players can get into and being the facilitator of fun. It's like being the guy who hosts the best parties in college, but you don't have to spend hours cleaning the beer bottles and pizza stains off your carpet the next morning. (I don't always like the baggage that often comes with it - managing a group of people who become friends and often having to be the bearer of bad news, etc., but I'm adapted to handle it than most, so I do.)

And house rules. I like those a lot! I don't necessarily like every house rule I come across, but I like the concept of house rules - making the game your/your group's own.

If you're looking for game mechanics, I'd say that making friends is probably closest to Gather Information which is a Diplomacy check. Since Diplomacy is also a Charisma based skill, I would say that a Diplomacy check is the most appropriate for making friends. As for seduction, I'd call it both a Diplomacy and a Bluff check. Diplomacy to convince the person to be friendly to you, Bluff to prevent them from seeing your ulterior motives.

Of course, if you have a very good role player, I would give them some bonuses to the skill if they're willing to act it out and bring some fun to the table. I would, however, still force a skill check - Just because your player happens to have spent 4 years in theater does not mean he can build a 7 charisma female orc fighter and go off seducing the BBEG bard. Your abilities as a role player should enhance your character, not totally define it - otherwise how in the world does anyone play a bard before their 20-somethings? (Face it, we were all introverts then.)

Simulacrum nerfed to appropriate levels with some basic math, applying the RAW of monster scores, and a dash of common sense.

Unfortunately, common sense is not all that common...

Ideally, I'd hope to get some "guidance" on common sense for increasing and decreasing the special abilities of monsters as you increase or decrease their hit dice, followed by an example that says "For this reason, a Simulacrum made from an Efreeti would not retain the ability to grant wishes." But that's just want I want.

Edit: Also, I agree with Kirth.

It might not be what's best for the game, but without going through extensive mental gymnastics and rationalizing things away I have a hard time seeing the statement as meaning anything other than scrying once on a location probably fulfilling the "viewed once" requirement.

If that's not what they meant it's a profoundly badly worded statement from the rules. Not only does it need to be clarified, but if that's the case it needs to be rewritten.

There is a lot of legacy wording that carried over from 3.5e to Pathfinder. In a few cases, specific wording was overlooked in the transition to Pathfinder due to the VERY short turnaround time from Pathfinder Beta to Pathfinder Core Rulebook printing.

This is the reason for some similar errors. Example: Wording in the concentration section which says that in order to cast a spell while grappled, you must have the material components in your hand.

As a matter of fact, what DrDeth is suggesting (that it's legacy wording which should be removed) is exactly the way James Jacobs (Paizo's creative director) suggests us to view it.

I did, I edited my OP to include some of your ideas, thanks.

Ahh, so you did. Guess that's what I get for skimming a post in 5 seconds... And it wasn't even a long one! I've edited my previous post to make myself look less silly.

Now you're just exposing my silliness putting evil, evil, paladin falling words in my mouth!

I don't see a clear question here DrDeth... Perhaps you can modify your original post to include the following question and as much or as little of my supporting text as desired?

Main Question:
Does a Simulacrum made from an Efreeti retain the ability to grant 3 wishes per day?

Related Questions:
What about other similar cases of decreasing the hit dice of monsters - should the new creature have some of it's more powerful special abilities removed or reduced? Does this same logic hold true for adding special abilities or increasing their power in the case of increasing a monsters hit dice?

Comments on Questions:
Note that in most cases (other than simulacrum), custom monsters are well within the GM's scope of allowed modification, but developer "guidance" can be helpful and may be directly required in the case of Simulacrum.

Argument for an Efreeti Simulacrum retaining it's wish granting abilities...
No where does it state that such a creature loses the ability to grant these abilities. "It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD)" The simulacrum spell even references retaining those abilities, since they are not dependent on level or hit dice but rather the creature's base form.

Argument against an Efreeti Simulacrum retaining it's wish granting abilities...
The simulacrum spell states that "It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD)." Since there are no creatures with half the hit dice of an Efreeti and the ability to grant wishes, this is not an appropriate ability for a creature of that hit dice.

I wrote a background story for my last character that was 8 pages long. A guy playing in the game I'm starting up next month made that look like a child's book with a 16 page background story that had my eyes watering up a few times throughout.

DM_aka_Dudemeister - I like those 4 questions. They are perfect for giving the DM what he needs from players who aren't as into the story or just new to the game. I'll certainly use those in the future.

Not sure my contributions are the most helpful on all of these topics, but I'll give it a quick shot (except for planar binding - I have no clue about that one.)

2. Crossblooded Sorcerer

I have no personal experience with a one level crossblooded sorcerer dip, though I do consider it more than a bit cheesy and would certainly be sure such a player noticed me giving them a disapproving eye roll. However, Evocation magic is the one, as a DM, that I am most comfortable with my party trying to min-max. It's usually fairly consistent, easy to measure, and easy to counter when it's necessary. If I had a caster who was really blowing enemies up with Evocation magic, I'd make sure to let them thoroughly enjoy their toys part of the time and then make sure that other areas of the game involved long dungeon crawls, heavy with SR and energy resistant critters. This way, you encourage casters to avoid "going all in" on one area.

3. GP limit on Blood Money

No personal experience with this one either, though I think the spell is something that shouldn't have made it into any book as an option for players, since it allows completely bi-passing what I would call the intended cost prohibitive nature of some powerful spells.

4. Simulacrum: “sno-cone wish machine”?

For a third time, I have no personal experience here, but I do have strong feelings on the topic. Quick simply, I CANNOT imagine a world (Golarion, for example.) in which a developer thought that a "sno-cone wish machine" would be a good idea, so I'll have to agree with you on this one - Some very minor errata or an FAQ about what level spell-like abilities are appropriate for lower HD versions of creatures, etc. would clear it up well in my opinion.

(Even if we're only talking about reducing the hit dice on a monster as part of a CR reduction, removing one or two of it's more powerful abilities if it drops more than 1/4 of it's hit dice is just a good idea - every GM who cares about their PC's survival know that...)

5. "Scry & Fry."

I would be 100% in support of a FAQ ruling that established Scrying on a person sitting within an obscure room as not being enough for teleportation. (In the past, I had allowed Scry and Fry, though my party only used it once, so it wasn't an issue. But in the future, I think I'll utilize skill checks to resolve similar situations... "The evil cult leader just mentioned a meeting at 'The Black Panther' bar. Give me a knowledge local check to see if you can determine which city that is in.", etc.)

Thought process...

"What the heck is Cockatrice Grit...?"

*Opens Pathfinder PRD*

"Hmm... Nothing there, must be something from a campaign setting book..."

*Opens d20pfsrd.com*

"Yup, something from a campaign setting book. Good thing I don't allow anything from those books without prior approval..."

/thread

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I love the campaign setting books for the flavor they bring to the world, but the content in them is not always mechanically sound.

It's one attack. If the player moves away, he provokes an AoO and is limited to 1 attack himself. He's not invulnerable or even particularly resilient.

He ignores ONE attack.

He invested 2~4 feats and/or delayed his caster level, BAB and class features by 2 levels just so he could have a good defense. What is the problem with a character having good defenses instead of putting all his resources in DPR for a change?

With a high armor class (which most crane wing users have little problem achieving), it isn't just ONE attack - it is the one attack (sometimes out of 3 or more) that was going to hit.

This is by far the best thread I've seen in the past 8 days. Many thanks!

Also, pancakes, waffles, or crepes - as long as you put strawberries on top they're going to be amazing!

@MechE: I had read all of those separately but not gleaned the necessary connection - thanks! I do think that I would allow Dimensional Agility to work with his abilities though.

I would strongly recommend NOT allowing Dimensional Agility to work. Remember that this is an ability that the wizard gained access to at 1st level and that it replaced this power: Acid Dart (Sp): As a standard action you can unleash an acid dart targeting any foe within 30 feet as a ranged touch attack. The acid dart deals 1d6 points of acid damage + 1 for every two wizard levels you possess. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier. This attack ignores spell resistance.

Just my 2 cp.

You know when Bruce Banner says, "You are making me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry."

He is about to Hulk out.

He is not yelling, and could almost be considered close to a whisper.

He is still speaking, in what I would call, a strong voice.

That is how I imagine many Verbal components of spells.

Also weak. Bruce Banner's transformation is clearly a supernatural ability and therefore has no verbal, somatic, or material components.