Morbios's page

It all depends on your campaign's notion of the power scale, really. Old-school D&D was a lot like Greek mythology, assuming that powerful mortals (level 14-20 or so) could challenge gods directly. Nowadays, most campaign settings have numerous high-level NPCs as fixtures of the world - for example, the king of a country being 15th level, and served by underlings of levels up to 12.

Personally, I favor the former interpretation. A lot of traditional storylines have difficulty maintaining verisimilitude if NPCs over level 6 are common... mostly because certain high-level spells have far-reaching consequences. The downside is that popular monsters like balors, solars, and the like make little sense if interpreted as followers of a deity. Dragons of sufficient age would also become tantamount to gods in their own right.

Personally, if trying to make a capstone encounter with a deity, I'd give them freeform abilities not easily converted into measurable statistics or challenge rating - make players think of solutions outside the normal combat "box." For example...

The benefit is that the combat is meaningfully different, at least in some small way, than just beating on the deity with sword and spell until it inevitably succumbs like any other entity. This is a pretty similar idea to 3.5 Loyalist's mention of everything having a weakness. In this case, I think style should dictate that the weakness is actually the downside of some phenomenal cosmic power tied to the deity's portfolio. A god of might could be ponderously slow, for example, or a god of nature could be poisoned by the merest touch of an alloyed or forged metal. Try to think of extremes of ability or spirituality that would be a double-edged sword to actually possess.

and i don't know how to put traps into combat, other than just putting them on the ground randomly and hoping the players will run into them.

Traps in combat are really cool if done well. Don't just drop them randomly - have a rationale for why they exist where they are and how they are tied to the combat part. Usually the trap going off will gate to a combat scene, or a combat scene will end with a trap, instead of the trap going off in the middle of the fight. Examples:

1) A falling block trap crushes 1 (or more) PCs for some damage. It leaves a hole in the ceiling, and swarms of bats fly down into the room. Roll initiative!

2) The party gets in a fight with some trogs, and mows down the minions. Without his meat wall to protect him, the evil cleric leader flees down the corridor. He knows a specific path that avoids the pressure plates tied to a variety of traps along the length of the hallway... but the PCs aren't so lucky. Chasing after him, they trigger one - likely stopping their pursuit to avoid blundering into further nastiness, and allowing the cleric to find more minions and buff them up for a climactic engagement (or just escape to become a recurring villain).

But mainly I want to be secure, I need to permanently geas a few fighters, antipaladins and other characters which would be useful on a ship.

Just keep in mind that a geas won't turn them into mind slaves per se (admittedly, you used that term in another post, so could be planning to use other spells)...

The geased creature must follow the given instructions until the geas is completed, no matter how long it takes. [...] A clever recipient can subvert some instructions.

Make sure to keep both considerations of the spell in mind. A ship full of blackguards would doubtless hate your for commanding their servitude in such a way, and could likely communally find at least one loophole in your wording. Just be careful. ;)

new calculations

I think these are reasonable, as long as they're used as a baseline. Some skills are flat-out weak, though, and others are very strong - meaning few characters will even dabble in the former (e.g. swim), while the whole party might be almost specialized in the latter (e.g. perception).

An important factoid to keep in mind is that a lot of folks drop one (and only one) skill rank in all their class skills just to take advantage of the free +3. So for a fringe skill like swim, while it's realistic to expect a smaller range (like +4 to +8) at low levels and a slightly larger range (like +4 to +14) at high levels due to variable PC investment in the linked ability score, the low end of the range won't really change from 1-20.

Also, consider the effect of armor check penalty on Dex/Str skills, which also doesn't meaningfully change as levels increase.

*Continual Flame - Upside is, you get a light source that won't risk fouling the air in enclosed spaces, won't start fires, and can be used underwater. Downside is it costs 50gp a pop to cast. At higher levels, combined with Heighten Spell, you can make nearly un-dispellable light sources for key areas.

It's a little cheesy, but you can use that same slot to summon a lantern archon with continual flame as a spell-like ability at will, thereby getting you one permanent torch per caster level without the added expense. You'll need the real version to make the heightened, difficult-to-dispel version, though.

If you have a potter, you can cast the continual flame on a pebble and then encase it in some easily-breakable ceramic. In case of a night attack, fling it into the orc ranks. The casing breaks, revealing the light source and illuminating your targets quite nicely.

Golems are classic for this, in that they're not just immune to a lot of effects but also get benefits from being hit by things that hurt the party.

A flesh golem surrounded by shocker lizards is really nasty, for example. The shocker lizards' area of effect shock ability is nothing to sneeze at if they're encountered in large groups. Combine nice damage with healing the golem and preventing the heroes from slowing it with cold/fire, the encounter becomes a nightmare. At higher levels, iron golems with fire-based monsters are very similar.

Other than golems, NPCs who can channel negative energy are natural pairings for undead, especially large hordes of weaker undead.

Anything with area of effect damage works well with flanking buddies or meat shields that are immune to the damage type of their area attack. An NPC pyromancer (sorcerer, alchemist, etc) with a bunch of salamander or fire giant minions can be pretty dangerous.

Some monsters (namely the withfire from Bestiary 2, though maybe others I'm forgetting) can bestow vulnerability to an element. Any other monsters in the encounter also deal +50% damage to the affected target. Consider giving the witchfire some hell hound pets, or giving a red dragon a witchfire minion.

Finally, nightmares make great mounts for really any higher-level NPC, and can be bound with lesser planar binding. Anyone with the resources to bind a nightmare also has the resources to guard his and the nightmare's senseless forms while the two spread misery via astral projection.

EDIT: It seems nightmares lost astral projection in the Pathfinder conversion. Very sensible. Binding them still gives access to a nice mount and the ability to plane shift, though.

Wizard/Cleric/Druid remain in Tier 1.

Oracles and Witches join Sorcerers in Tier 2.
Tier 3 consists of all the 6-level casters, although Summoners are pushing Tier 2. Call them Tier 2.5
Everyone else is in Tier 4.
Tier 5 includes only poorly built characters, but Cavaliers, Monks and Rogues are probably at the highest risk of falling from 4 to 5.

For the most part, I agree. However, it might help to point out to new players that the archetyping boom in Pathfinder has made it very difficult to conclusively tier each class as a whole (and each person's ranking was always somewhat subjective to begin with by the system's nature, at least for tiers 2-4). The quinggong monk, for example, is pretty much a straight buff to the core class (not to imply that that is a bad thing, or that it was implemented poorly - it's not/wasn't).

I'm not convinced that tier 1 actually exists anymore, though - at least to the degree it did in 3.5. As more splatbooks are published, I can easily see it emerging again.

Back in 3.5 days, a poster named JaronK wrote a seminal post (here) describing the issues with character versatility, codifying it into a tier system. The first few posts of that thread explain why the tier system was conceived, ranks classes (albeit 3.5 classes, which have almost universally been changed/deleted/replaced in PF), and provides a Q&A explaining how best to use the system.

Very good reading for anyone interested in game design, especially the "how to kill a dragon" section (hidden with spoiler tags in the Q&A section).

Note, of course, that it's not an indication that your game needs to change. Everything is subject to how individual games are organized by players and GMs in question. Merely, this was an attempt to codify objectively the options for bypassing given objectives available to a wide variety of very disparate class designs.

I don't think we can use the Prc classes in the book or feats. Only the equipment and regional feats are allowed. So I was thinking militia would be good because I only lose one caster level, right? Also how about the Arcane/Sage bloodline for a sorcerer build instead of a wizard. Would that be more helpful for a EK build?

If Militia is allowed, take it. Losing caster levels is a pain. The only way I would go in for a fighter level is if you come across a way to remove arcane spell failure and plan to wear armor heavier than light, or if you find you really need one more combat feat.

Your backstory (found during a skirmish he unexpectedly knew how to use magic) screams sorcerer over wizard. Sorcerers are frowned on by some (myself included) in a mash-up with Eldritch Knight, since it takes you a level longer to qualify for the prestige class. However, since you can take the Militia feat, you're coming out even with a standard wiz5/ftr1 (not that the feat doesn't allow you to qualify as wiz5 instead, of course). Sorcerer also allows you to pick up levels in Dragon Disciple if you ever finish your EK progression.

Arcane/Sage bloodlines are very nice. Abyssal is good for a fighter-mage because of the bloodline power that increases strength. You can access it via Eldritch Heritage feats if you don't want to take the bloodline, but you'll like by feat-starved as it is. You can crossblood with Arcane/Sage to get the best of both worlds, and then use the alternate human favored class ability to offset the spell known loss - but then you're behind in HP. I'd focus on non-AC defenses (e.g. mirror image, displacement) and play smart - you should be OK.

Also note that humans can trade their racial bonus feat for a second +2 to an ability score if the Advanced Race Guide is on the table - very good for someone needing both strength and a casting stat. The feats you listed taking above could do without Toughness as long as you play proactively and hold back to use spells against large bruiser opponents.

If going the sorcerer route, I'd suggest crossblooding the Elemental (air) bloodline with Draconic (blue/bronze) so you can add damage to electricity spells - successful blasting requires some investment. You can offset having fewer spells known using the human alternate favored class ability.

As to the druid - I assume you mean the Super Genius Storm Lord, which I'm not that impressed with. The UM Storm Druid is very nice, though, if only for the domain spontaneity and the (eventual) second domain - though you won't get any blasting spells to convert into until at least 5th level.

Overall, for the concept you're going for I think the sorcerer is stronger. The druid has a lot of neat tricks, though, in exchange for being less versatile in the lightning blasting department, and will play very differently. All depends on how much you want to invest in that concept.

WBL is per character regardless of group size. A 6th level character should have roughly 16,000 gp as a party of 1 or in a party of 100.

However, the treasure value per encounter table assumes a party of 4. If there are 6 players, 150% of the values on that table is what should be handed out. So, each encounter at 6th level for a party of 6 using Medium progression should yield 3,000 gp if you want to end up matching up with the WBL table.

I agree on WBL being uniform regardless of group size. However, GMs shouldn't need to increase treasure for a larger group as the XP awarded is split among party members just as treasure is.

In handling larger parties, it's often recommended to increase encounter CR by adding more monsters. This will increase both XP and treasure awarded (ideally) to the same amount per encounter that would be awarded to a standard-sized party. Simply increasing the strength of individual opponents instead of adding more of them often results in higher difficulty than intended (AC, attack/damage, and save DCs are higher than the norm and can swiftly kill off the whole party).

Do you think an archer bard in this party is a bad idea? As in, I'm leaving the Magus to die alone in melee combat?

I'd be more worried about the lack of control than the lack of a second frontliner. Without others to take the heat from him, the magus will likely need to open combat with a defensive self-buff (e.g. mirror image) if he can't pre-cast it. That's not a bad thing. Magi can be very durable if they want, and with this party composition, it should be evident that it might be needed.

The only role that benefits more from static bonuses to attack/damage (i.e. inspire courage) than archer is dual wielder (and arguably summoner). The gunslinger likely won't need the attack bonus, but otherwise that's one of the better party synergies with inspire courage I've seen. If playing a bard, definitely don't archetype out of it!

Are you totally sold on being a wizard? Gnomes make great illusion-based sorcerers. Bonus points: you don't need to worry about Preferred Spell.

I do think Greater Spell Penetration is excessive at 10th level (especially as an illusionist), unless the campaign is outsider-related or otherwise chock-full of critters with SR.

It's been said before, but allow me to add another vote to the "do not take defensive feats" (Toughness, Dodge, Defensive Maneuver Training, etc) crowd. Teleportation subschool is really too good. And as a summoner, you should be invisible or mirror imaged up any time you think danger could be around. Grab a ring of invisibility as soon as you can if you find that normal castings of the spell aren't keeping up. Between shifting as a swift action if needed and an "AC alternative" defensive spell cast before combat, you don't really need HP, AC, or CMD.

I'm a big fan of Opposition Research. It comes into play only slightly later than you'd really want the likely standouts from that school anyway (often enervation, fear, and waves of fatigue from necromancy, as was previously mentioned).

Most metamagics are hard to afford at low levels, even those at only +1 spell level, unless you have a mechanism to decrease the cost. I consider them a later-game strategy. Improved initiative will always be useful, though.

The trait for +2 concentration gets my vote.

Finally, I'm with rpewin1 on con > dex (especially as a summoner, you'll rarely need rays; fort > ref; and AC will be miserably low anyway) and arcane bond over the familiar for party reasons. If you're good at the summoning schtick and don't play with other optimizers, it's really easy to marginalize them in combat. Plus, the bond can save the entire party's bacon when you need that one spell right now.

I like "Should I be denied proper control over the actions of my person using an effect that can be ended by break enchantment, that spell shall immediately come into effect targeting me."

Break enchantment has advantages over dispel magic in that it can even end instantaneous effects (e.g. flesh to stone), and that it can free you from multiple status effects (though it would be unusual to be carrying one already without triggering the spell). The downsides are that some status afflictions aren't enchantment, transmutation, or curse - these are mainly in necromancy (e.g. magic jar) - and that it can strip you of your beneficial enchantments (e.g. heroism) and transmutations (e.g. haste).

I've read others (maybe Treantmonk? I forget exactly) who like resilient sphere in the event you drop below X% of your HP.

If you're a mystic theurge or have ranks in Use Magic Device, you can tie a heal to it in the event you eat one of the conditions that can cure, or if you drop below X% HP.

If you're the type to keep a sanctum, you can key it to teleport you into a predetermined (and well-defended!) area in the bowels of your hideout. Ideally that area would be armed with several proximity-triggered magic "traps" designed to rid you of any and all status ailments and heal you back to full HP - say three or four casting greater dispel magic and one casting heal, for starters. You'll then be free to teleport back to the action on your turn. Some GMs might balk at the tactic, but I fail to see why high-level arcanists wouldn't be resourceful...

After looking over the posts about level "docking" following player death, I'm amazed at the sense of entitlement that some folks have.

I don't consider it a sense of entitlement (or at least a false one). If I earned my way from level 1 to level 7 on a character, and he dies in some fashion preventing his resurrection, do I suddenly lose the hours (days?) I put into getting him there? My new PC might not have earned all those XP, but I sure did. I would feel punished to be forced back to level 6 on a new character with no way to catch back up. That's the big deal - in the changes from 3.5 to Pathfinder, differential XP gain went out the window along with XP loss due to energy drain / death / magic item crafting / etc.

Now you can argue side questing, attendance disparities, and the like as a way to catch back up, but I wouldn't assume that everyone around here plays that way. When these threads pop up, there's absolutely a sub-population that espouses identical XP gain across PCs since that's what the most recent edition seems to support.

In previous editions, my group always docked a level for bringing in a new character, but I felt like we did that to discourage folks from trying to cheat the raise dead/resurrection level penalty - and you could always catch up, so I never minded... though I find I prefer it the new way. If you don't, that's great, but you may want to consider houseruling the differential XP gain back in.

As to the discussion about cover provided by a 5ft wall - there are 4 degrees of cover:

Partial Cover: more than half visible, +2 AC, +1 Ref
Cover: half or less visible, +4 AC, +2 Ref
Improved Cover: barely visible (e.g. arrow slit), +8 AC, +4 Ref
Total Cover: completely obscured, cannot normally make attacks

I got the impression that you guys were giving either partial cover or total cover, skipping the default "cover" category in between (improved cover omitted since it's pretty rare). Or maybe treating the default as "partial" cover, and missing that this term refers something more specific. Sorry if I misunderstood.

When DMing, I treat all medium creatures as 5ft high for simplicity - this way they occupy a 5ft cube. A 5ft wall in this case would provide total cover and prevent attacks. My rationale is that even tall PCs can slouch 4-12 inches to duck behind the wall. Some might be able to peek over the top, but making attacks over the wall would be very difficult unless arcing something over with indirect fire.

Being able to ignore the cover by being closer to it than your target is specifically under the "Low Obstacles and Cover" heading (specifying a wall no higher than half your height), which I interpret to be mutually exclusive to total cover.

Very large creatures often have many hit dice also, which can make even their "bad" saves pretty good. What they don't often have is a lot of Dex. I'd focus on touch spells that don't allow a saving throw. For example, enervation is a great spell all around, and doubly useful against these guys. Doubtful you'll actually kill them with it (high HD and all), but you can pretty quickly rack up penalties that make it unlikely to succeed at much of anything.

Ray of exhaustion is another good example (and a level lower). They'll probably save against the first one, but fatigue is nothing to scoff at to a big bruiser - and the second one makes them exhausted whether they save or not.

Depending on how far the campaign goes, she could also pick up Skill Focus (knowledge: planes), Eldritch Heritage (abyssal), and Improved Eldritch Heritage for more uses of the claws ability and heightened strength. Finding out her dragon ancestor was even more naughty than previously feared can be great for roleplaying, also...

Oterisk's Guide to Dragon Disciples has all sorts of good advice for this character concept.

Should they roll individually and if two people beat the DC, what info do we get the same of and what do we get different.

By all means, if you don't like rolling individually, then don't. However, I feel this is the best method to maximize the party's chances of success unless one member has a much better modifier than the others.

Logistically, there's no reason why two separate successful checks should reveal the same information - different means of education (magic schools, self-teaching, etc) might emphasize different areas of knowledge. You can simulate this by rolling randomly for which monster attributes are given by each successful check.

On a separate but related note: if more than one PC has invested resources into knowledge skills, requiring them to pool effort via aid another negates the benefit of their investment. Consider an example:

Situation 1 - Wizard A sees a gargoyle and rolls Knowledge (nature) at +8, getting a result of 16. His ranger buddy B also rolls an 8 for aid another at +6, succeeding, raising A's total check to 18. The gargoyle is CR 4, DC 14. The pair successfully identify it, and receive one bit of useful information - its ability to Freeze. They are 1 point short from getting an additional bit (DC 19), and might have difficulty damaging it since they fail to identify its DR.

Situation 2 - Wizard A and ranger B roll independently against the gargoyle. With the same rolls, A gets 16 and B gets 14, each identifying the gargoyle and netting one bit of useful information. The DM rolls randomly for each, resulting in the wizard knowing the gargoyle's ability to Freeze and the ranger knowing about its DR 10/magic.

In situation 1, the party is penalized for investment in redundant skills. Situation 2 allows for their investments to each yield fruit. Some could argue that redundant investment shouldn't be rewarded, but I think the system is robust enough that it can - especially given the in-character rationalizations that could be used in two alternatively-schooled individuals.

If you're keen on pyromancy, I would be tempted to play a crossblooded sorcerer with Elemental (fire) and Draconic (red/gold) bloodlines. The ability to change any energy damage spell to fire synergizes well with the increased damage dealt by fire spells you cast. There are good guides to spell blasting floating around the boards - it's something that requires some investment to really shine at.

Against fire resistant / immune enemies, your Fire Affinity racial has the side benefit of increasing the DC of save-or-lose spells you may care to know. And, with an effective charisma score higher than any other race available for play, you'll have a ton of spell slots and a very nice DC. I'd advise learning a non-fire (when possible) energy damage spell and a non-damaging attack spell (save-or-lose) as your first priorities.

The build does suffer from having very few spells known, but you can buy scrolls, and later staves, to compensate for your lack of utility when you really need it.

You could draw up a short list that begins as a minor ability and grows in power as the characters advance. The progression should be thematic. A few examples:

Mentalism: charm person --> charm monster --> mass charm monster
Unlife: ray of enfeeblement --> enervation --> energy drain
Flame: burning hands --> fireball --> meteor swarm

I'd give the upgrades as soon as a cleric / wizard would gain access to the appropriate level of spell (so burning hands would improve to fireball at character level 5). This keeps the abilities in line so you don't have to worry about someone picking time stop as their superpower at level 1. Then all you have to do is decide how often the ability can be used. If you don't like limiting "superpowers" to X/day like traditional Vancian spellcasting, you can set a once per X rounds internal timer (like dragon breath weapons).

"While your challenge is accepted, Paladin. Your Delivery is lackluster" said the Lich. and then proceeded to kick his ass. But the Paladin still had fun because that was a funny line.

I love this. I'd have to be likewise good-natured about being on the receiving end of a beatdown after a line like that.

Sounds quirky - in a fun way. At first I was worried about over-troping it, but I think it's fine when taking in the totality. After all, the presence of a few tropes makes a setting approachable, even if the presence of too many makes it unpalatable. Just be careful around players who are big fans of Fallout, Stephen King's Dark Tower, or the old school AD&D D1-3 modules, as those folks might project their preconceptions onto the campaign setting.

When looking for adventure hooks, keep in mind that life underground is a constant struggle for resources. Glowthorn's access to natural sunlight is a huge advantage, and will have to be defended from time to time. You could easily turn the setting very gritty - but if you don't wish to, specialized magic / magical creatures can ease the competition somewhat.

I must say, I love the sliding scale of magic vs. technology idea. I think it would be even better if you emphasize that, while magic and technology can often accomplish the same goals, they are more efficient in different areas. Technology is great for long-distance communication (cell phones are essentially use-activated items allowing sending at will) and moving objects (telekinesis caps at 375 lb). On the other hand, magic allows faster-than-light (or at least relativistic) travel and the rapid fabrication of objects (or more generally, anything dealing with time) - which technology has problems with.

Unfortunately, your level 2 pick must be a hex, not a feat. That's why some of us are advocating Slumber at level 2, since you're locked into a subset of choices (feats can give you hexes, but hexes cannot give you feats).

Not a big deal, since you can just use your level 3 feat to get Accursed Hex.

I'm not a big fan of wisdom penalties, since Perception and Will saves work from it. But I did advocate the 20 Int, and I suppose the points have to come from somewhere... decreasing your Dex is an option, since your AC is going to be weak anyway and failing Reflex saves is not as bad as failing Fort/Will - but your choice here.

Regarding mounts, Handle Animal is used in teaching tricks (attack, stay, guard, etc) while Ride is used in combat. As a spellcaster, most Ride checks are unnecessary; moreover, you can buy war-trained animals to ride, negating the need for teaching tricks yourself. Couple that with store-bought mounts becoming untenably fragile in combat after level 4-5 and I'd say you can avoid investing in either unless your GM allows riding exotic mounts or you have one as a class ability.

Time for instance in PFS gives you access to 5 spells that you will find a way/need to cast every scenario without fail.

Deception on the other hand gives you a bunch of spells you will probably never use but gives you invisibility, is it worth it?

Time patron standouts 1-12 are haste and teleport (situationally silence). Deception standouts are invisibility and confusion (situationally passwall). Each has a strong spell witches already get, and another strong spell (plus one situationally very nice) they don't. You could make an argument based on the remaining two from each (since the 1st level spell is shared between), but all are spells I could comfortably do without.

Considering haste is one of the major reasons to go for Time, it sounds like you and I agree more than the tone of your post would indicate. Sorry if I misread your intent.

I would go for a 20 int. Yes, it's that important to witches.

Slumber should be taken at first level. It ends fights, and is therefore really strong.

I agree on the 20 Int, but gotta respectfully disagree on slumber. It only lasts 1 round at level 1, meaning you're unlikely to be able to deliver the coup. Still strong, since they have to waste a move action standing (and maybe eat an AoO), but Evil Eye synergizes with Cackle, can penalize other stats, and has an effect even if they save - helping your party on the whole hit or avoid damage.

Slumber is highly recommended for level 2, though.

Regarding patron, the strongest choices are those that give spells from outside the witch class list (mirror image, invisibility, and haste are good things to look for in PFS play). Some patrons look really fun, but are just made up of a bunch of thematic witch spells you can learn anyway through level advancement / scrolls / other witches' familiars...

Mobius - No dedicated cleric or wizard, I'm afraid.

The Heroes: Alchemist, Druid, Fighter/Paladin (grappler), Rage Prophet, Fighter (with sunder), Sorcerer (undead bloodline), Arcane Trickster, Summoner (might not make it to the final battle)

Most of the key spells you should be able to get via scrolls for the sorcerer / trickster, pre-buffs from the cohorts, or spell list overlap with druid / alchemist / summoner. And they're not all mandatory, of course - just a starting point to customize for your party.

The villains (as far was we can tell classes): Sorc, Arcane Archer, Wizard, Oracle, Alchemist, Bard.

Be careful around that archer, tagging spell effects to arrows he shoots can be a nightmare (I'm looking at you, antimagic field). That one is a bard makes me laugh a little - I'm assuming he's archetyped, or at least has a way to affect his undead brethren with his mind-affecting performances... otherwise, half his special abilities are somewhat wasted. Heroes' feast will help against his dirge of doom and frightening tune, and it works fine in scroll form.

Unfortunately we don't have the luxury of choosing our battlefield and fleeing might not even be an option. A reasonably reliable source indicated that they are in fact only vulnerable within their sanctum. (also where they keep the phylacteries). The whole place is riddled with anti-teleportation magic.

I would strongly consider astral projection (via scroll or some bound nightmares), then. Have the absent party members and cohorts guard the bodies of those who project, using telepathic bond or sending to alert you if your sanctum gets bushwhacked. If your projections die, you get 2 negative levels - but better than dying in truth.

Regarding anti-teleportation, see if you can find out the exact mechanism. If it's fiat (they can teleport and you can't), it's going to be rough - hopefully your GM isn't that heavy-handed. If it affects them as well, grappling and wall spells (notably wall of stone) just got a lot better. Divide, incapacitate, and take them apart piecemeal.

Side note: if they've used forbiddance, be prepared to take some damage when entering. And you won't be able to summon into the area, but I'm unsure based on the wording if it prohibits summoned creatures from just walking in. Through some liberal use of telepathic bond, arcane eye, and summoning, you could just stand outside and send in waves of disposable minions... though that's a little cheesy and arguably not very heroic. ;)

Good luck!

I'm especially worried about Dispel Magic from the liches given that we will probably be pre-buffing. Any thoughts about putting a high-level communal buff on the party solely for the purpose of soaking the "highest level effect first" on an area dispel?

Passively buffing against dispel magic can be done by boosting your CL. Look at candle of invocation, orange prism ioun stone, and strand of prayer beads. I'm sure there are other methods I'm missing, especially for arcane casters.

Ring of counterspells is great against a targeted greater dispel magic. Area dispels are trickier, but if you spread out you should be fine - it can only nail one spell per target per casting when used in this way. And if you have spell slots to burn, you can just layer on two castings of the key buffs - pretty sure that's legit.

I'm going to assume that with seven 13th-level characters, you have at least one dedicated (full-CL / non-multiclass) cleric and wizard. If not, some of this won't apply, since you'll be short the necessary 7th-level spells.

Cleric Recommendations
7: greater scrying, summon monster VII
6: greater dispel magic, heal, heroes' feast, undeath to death, word of recall
5: mass cure light wounds, dispel evil, disrupting weapon, spell resistance, true seeing
4: death ward, dimensional anchor, freedom of movement, spell immunity

Wizard Recommendations
7: spell turning, summon monster VII, greater teleport, greater arcane sight, greater scrying, project image, control undead
6: antimagic field, greater dispel magic, globe of invulnerability, true seeing, greater heroism, contingency, undeath to death
5: break enchantment, wall of stone, overland flight, telekinesis
4: dimensional anchor, lesser globe of invulnerability, black tentacles, resilient sphere

Spell Rationale (in no particular order):
A) Disrupting weapon, undeath to death, and control undead help with the clearing of mooks - read their descriptions carefully, however, as they have some significant limitations.
B) Mass cure X wounds in most circumstances are crap - but you can target up to 13 creatures per casting, and if you know 90% or more of your foes are undead, it simultaneously heals your allies and harms your enemies - nothing to scoff at when better tactics are not forthcoming, especially since your cleric can likely spontaneously convert unneeded spells into them. Heal is the other end of the spectrum, but same tactic.
C) Spell resistance can be a double-edged sword, based on your GM's interpretation - but against a cadre of liches, probably worth it.
D) Dispel evil is useful if you know one or more of the liches is heavily into enchantment; spell immunity is great if you know some favored spells ahead of time (use greater scrying if possible to evaluate these - read the wizard-liches' spellbooks over their shoulders?) - make sure you cast it differentially on party members to shore up against the spells that would be worst for them.
E) Word of recall or greater teleport - get out of death free in case things go south. Beware of scry-n-fry retaliation at this level.
F) Dimensional anchor - stop them from using E.
G) Liches weigh very little and often have low CMD - use telekinesis, black tentacles, and summons to grapple them and otherwise push them around. They may all have freedom of movement... but they may not. You brought greater arcane sight to find out. ;)
H) Project image - I have line of sight, you do not.
I) Antimagic field - one wizard turns off 6 liches (though additionally himself), if they position poorly.

Generic Advice:
1) When possible, have your damage-dealers ready actions to interrupt spellcasting with an attack. At this level, concentration DCs will be very high if they hit.
2) Buff to the gills before combat and fight on grounds of your choosing. Spellcasters shine when prepared and in their sanctum. If the fight starts poorly, retreat, regroup, and try again.
3) Some access to quickened spells is mandatory at this level.
4) Scrolls of mass heal. See advice on mass cure X wounds above, with relation to simultaneously targeting allies and undead enemies.

PS: Ashiel ninja'd some of my suggestions while I was typing this, but I'll leave in for posterity / reinforcement. :)

People write themselves up as great heroes but then start at level 1?

Obviously, it's good to use some judgment here - but level 1 PCs are pretty heroic. Most NPCs are commoners (10s and 11s in all abilities, +0 saves and attack, 3hp, 2 skill points), or at best, experts (4hp, 6 skill points). Older editions of the game referred to a 1st-level fighter as a "veteran," and for good reason - he's head and shoulders above the supporting cast.

The Alexandrian has a very good (but lengthy) read on expectations for PC and NPC power levels, though it does tend to fly in the face of most folks' preconceptions about the game world.

Morbios, according to the FAQ on WBL you cannot knock down the cost for a whole party. A crafter can only benefit him/herself cash-wise.

The FAQ on WBL is for use in making characters above level 1 who possess item creation feats before the game begins. It says nothing about other characters there, because it doesn't need to - most PCs meet and become allies during the course of the adventure, not before it. Claiming that this extends to items made during play is a fair bit of induction, one I would argue is not justified. After all, if crafted items can only benefit oneself, how can magic items be bought and sold?

I can understand the desire to balance item creation by restricting crafted items to a single PC (such feats can nearly double a party's available wealth), but doing so severely breaks the logic of the game world. In my mind, it's not far off from the following (hypothetical) situation: "I know half the party's down and I could probably use the fallen fighter's dragonbane greatsword to pull us out of this one, but that's his sword so I can't pick it up..."

If party wealth becomes an issue, I'd much rather (as a GM) a) restrict player access to certain feats, or b) put an RP time constraint on them forcing choice on what to do in a given window than make blanket conclusions that bring up questions about the inner workings of the game world.

You're free to interpret the FAQ as you wish for your own table, of course.

Regarding readied actions: I would say it depends on the situation. If a potential enemy is visible then yes, I would say that readied actions are available. It depends on how the GM runs his/her table.

Example: Two guys approaching each other. Guy A readies an action if Guy B does something.

Readying is a special initiative action:

Special Initiative Actions

Here are ways to change when you act during combat by altering your place in the initiative order.

(emphasis mine)

Readying actions outside the context of combat (initiative already rolled) is dangerous territory, in my mind. Granted, you specified both parties see each other, but in that case both sides are likely "getting ready for" a showdown - in which case normal initiative (no surprise round) is called for, without either side possessing readied actions (as they're essentially just jumping into the fray as soon as they see each other). If Guy A plans to approach B innocently and then attack when close enough, but not vice versa, I'd give B a sense motive vs. A's bluff (or perception vs. sleight of hand if drawing a hidden weapon), and award a surprise round to A if he pulls off the opposed check. That way the awarding of a tactical benefit to one side of the combat is based on differential character statistics, and not bare GM fiat - and if Guy B gets tired of being stabbed in the back so often, he can put ranks in perception/sense motive next level.

This seems most balanced to me. As you say, GM's rule at the table.

Unfortunately, readying an action is only valid in combat (i.e. can't walk around doing it until combat starts in order to get the jump) - doing otherwise defeats the initiative roll. I don't have a link on hand right now, but I've seen this clarified many times in FAQ.

Not sure on the fighting defensively bit, but considering it's a dodge bonus, you won't get it until you get to act in combat anyway - so short of uncanny dodge, it's moot.

Encourage folks who eat lots of alpha strikes early in combat to beef up their flat-footed ACs and initiative scores. No amount of healing (short of actual heal) can undo guys getting shredded in round 1.

Alternatively, have the whole party invest in rings of invisibility as soon as they can afford them, then just walk around cloaked all the time... though that's less reliable around a bunch of outsiders.

If you have Craft Wondrous Item, is the wizard sporting any item creation from his bonus feats every 5th level? Lots of folks don't like trading feats for cash, but Wondrous Item and Arms & Armor can make a big difference if you knock down the cost for the whole party.

I consider it an asset of Pathfinder (and the systems it grew out of) that running away is difficult at low levels. If it weren't, then there'd be a possibility to look at every encounter with the option to flee a legitimate tactical consideration - and let's face it, that isn't very heroic.

I've been in some meat-grinder adventures (converted AD&D stuff, mostly) where, due to poor party composition, our standard procedure became a) move slowly ahead until we are jumped by bad guys; b) survive long enough to evaluate their tactics; c) retreat, regroup, return with a successful plan. It worked, since we started at higher level, but it wasn't very fun for this to become the norm.

At low levels, it is a nice change of pace to come up against something really deadly and have to tactically withdraw, though. Especially since it would stretch suspension of disbelief for relatively inexperienced adventurers to always come out on top.

The skew of the rules against running away just requires some thinking outside the box - headlong flight isn't (and in my opinion shouldn't be) an option. Some examples:

1) Skill characters - find some cover/concealment, withdraw/tumble away and make a stealth check as part of movement into the terrain. Likely take -5 due to moving over half your speed, but between skill and distance modifiers you've still got good odds. As the bandits pursue your warriors and casters, snipe at them from cover. You're likely in the middle of a patch of difficult terrain, so they can't charge you (and would have to eat an AoO from your teammate to do so anyway). Once you've bought some breathing room for your buddies to pull out, melt into the shadows.

2) Combat characters - disarm / trip / bull rush if you're skilled in it and only in melee with a single enemy, then move away with less chance of reprisal; find a bottleneck, move into it, fight defensively / total defense while your party members get behind you and toss offense over your shoulder; in addition to either of the above, find some cover - this stops you from provoking AoOs, allowing you to potentially run the following turn. Unfortunately, the tactical withdrawal is hardest for these guys.

3) Casters - try to keep at least a few utility spells available to help your party retreat if things go sour. Even at low levels, there are a lot of standouts here...

Bard / Sorcerer / Wizard: daze, cause fear, charm person (all these on the nearest pursuit), expeditious retreat, grease (between party and pursuit), silent image (of a scary monster along the path between your party and the pursuing bad guys, or at least an opaque barrier they can't see through to shoot), sleep

Cleric: obscuring mist (along your path of retreat, but hide to the left and right of the obvious lane - as long as you keep 1 empty square of fog between yourself and the pursuit, they will never see you), sanctuary (and then clog a choke point like the combat guy - or just put it on him in the first place)

Druid: entangle, longstrider, obscuring mist, pass without trace (though honestly, if you need this last one, those are the most dogged bandits I've ever seen in my life)

All of the above spells can help you escape, 100% RAW (except maybe the silent image, but if your GM fiats a bunch of bandits pursuing you through a big scary monster you just "summoned" from thin air...).

Remember that Perception takes -1 for every intervening 10 feet, so if you can get some cover or concealment between you and the pursuit, you don't even have to get too far away for their chances to catch up to you (at least in significant numbers) to approach zero - even for those unskilled in stealth / with high armor check penalties.

I agree with Blueluck - get an improved familiar with opposable thumbs and a voice, and give it some ranks in Use Magic Device (inherently or via its ability to share your ranks). It can then use wands (DC 20) in combat to stabilize / heal party members or cast debilitating spells that aren't heavily DC-dependent (e.g. web).

Your offensive options are pretty good. I'm not a huge fan of searing light (only single-target damage) or curses (save negates, only one target), but have seen both used to decent effect, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. If available, try to focus on debilitating (penalties are more combat-effective than hp damage, since you have a rogue and paladin) spells that affect multiple targets (higher chance for at least one opponent to botch the save). This is pretty standard optimization advice, of course, so apologies if you've heard it before. Admittedly, the cleric list isn't the best for these types, and if you're having to drop them for cures anyway, the entire issue is transparent.

I haven't heard you talking about the wizard much, though. I'd have a talk with that player - he has a fantastic spell list for disabling the enemies' ability to hurt your party through debuffs, battlefield control, and summoning. A party effectively buffed by a cleric and effectively supported by an arcanist should take very little damage. My guess is a) the wizard spends too much time taking dirt naps; b) the wizard spends too much time blasting; or c) the DM's challenges are way out of line for a party with two new players. Two of these three are easily fixable.

PS: Full defense and readying actions are terrible for your action economy. They both have their place, but shouldn't be standard MO for a successful adventuring party. I think your DM is leading you down a false path, here.

First of all, a disclaimer: I'll be commenting mechanically, but feel free to ignore anything in favor of RP value if that's your preference. I do it all the time.

On stats: You can really afford to dump dexterity as a paladin, especially in low point buy. It even makes sense with your backstory, as Treygan was assumed to be less sneaky than Rufus. To be more sneaky, Rufus would have to be trained in mischief (unlikely by age 10, beyond typical kiddo hyjinx) or higher than 13 dex (unlikely in most demographics, especially a small town like Sandpoint). Between shield (if you choose to go that route) and heavy armor (when you can afford it), your AC will be fine at levels when AC matters most. Reflex saves won't be much of a problem once you get divine grace, assuming you keep your charisma in good shape. Constitution is a little low, though - I'd advocate a bit more there, and more charisma can't hurt if you can free up the points. 15 point-buy is tough on paladins, though.

Skills: If you choose to dump dex, I'd move focus away from acrobatics. Perception especially, but also spellcraft, see a lot of use in typical games, and they're "make-or-break" skills as passing generally matters. For example, noticing that a mage is actually casting, say, minor image instead of summon monster VI will change the tactical situation drastically. Sense motive bears at least a tangential investment; 1 skill rank and the class skill bonus will defeat unaccomplished liars and allow a much better shot at hunches.

Feats: You look good to go here. I'm not the biggest fan of cleave, but have seen it used to good effect regardless.

Traits: Again, if dumping dex to pick up con/cha, I'd lean away from the acrobatics rescued option. Your diplomacy should be good enough without the trait bonus, also - the big deal on traits like this is adding to your class skill list for the +3, a redundant option for a paladin. I'd advocate one that gives perception as a class skill (if such a thing exists), or the ever-popular reactionary for +2 initiative.

Gear: Good choices for level 1. After you line up some full plate, I'd ditch the shield and grab a falchion as you are pondering. With str 16 and only light armor, you have plenty of encumbrance to fiddle with - grab some daggers, javelins, and miscellaneous adventuring gear with your 42gp of leftovers. Gold is just dead weight in a dungeon, and even mundane gear has many uses. Good examples include a signal whistle and a small mirror, but you'll definitely be able to come up with others given time.

That's all for now. Check back in after a few levels if you need more assistance, though your party dynamic over levels 1 and 2 should suggest some good feat options for you at 3, as well as skills in the interim. Most importantly, have fun!

First of all, thanks for your keen eye and relentless guide-making. I'm old hat at optimization these days, but got that way primarily by standing on the shoulders of giants (yourself included of course). And having a second opinion never hurts, even now that I can mostly make informed decisions.

My feedback is concerning illusory script. Though the wording is somewhat vague on legality, many DMs would allow this to apply to the spells recorded in your spellbook (and at anything <10lb., should cover the whole contents with one casting). Casting it once a week or so should be a non-issue. Hinders your enemies from pilfering your vast arcane might in case you and your book get separated (and what DM doesn't try this at least once a campaign?).

More importantly, use the suggestion feature for something like, "Return this book to Treantmonk, and in 30 minutes, forget that you know anything of its contents." The reader then will, ideally, go on a cycle of opening out of curiosity and making progress toward finding you. Anyone with resources to challenge you, especially at high levels, will only need to fail the save once... and, potentially, an enemy of yours will have just delivered himself to you on a silver platter. Should be used as a supplement to backup spellbooks, of course, not a replacement.

+2 INT ioun stone with a scroll. He used it once, shoved it in a backpack, and forgot about it.

AM GOOD TACTIC. AM ADVISING FRIEND JUST LAST WEEKEND HOW GOOD UMD AM IN INT ITEM.

To each their own. I'm personally glad martials got nice things for once, and I'm thoroughly casty.

AM AGREE ON BOTH COUNTS. AM GM IN OTHER LIFE, AM GLAD KID GLOVES AM ABLE TO COME OFF AT WIDER LEVELRANGE. AM ALSO HAPPY WHEN PLAYERS AM SURPRISING WITH INGENUITY. AM MUCH MORE FREQUENT FROM MARSHUL PCS IF OPTIONS AM EXISTING BEYOND "AM FULLATTACK AGAIN FOR DAMAGING."

Didn't know castys ever took catch off guard. Maybe one's an alchemist? I guess you could throw goalposts. :P

AM TAKE CATCH OFFGUARD AS NOTED ABOVE. HOWEVER, AM NEEDING POLYMORF FOR ADEQUATE STRENGTH, AS CATCH OFFGUARD AM WORK ONLY FOR MELEE GOALPOST. AM NOT CARING ABOUT SILLY ALCHY CASTY, EVEN IF RANGED VERSION OF FEAT AM FREE AND MUTAGEN AM BETTER THAN POLYMORF FOR RAISE STRENGTH.

On second thought, after Oterisk's 3327-reminiscent strategy, I'm going to hazard coming out of my hole and donning my pointy hat again. Fairly sure I'm below AM BARBARIAN's threat radar. For now.

AM CURRENTLY LEVEL 7 DIVINER. AM REALIZE AFTER MANY DEAD LVL20 CASTYS THAT SOON AM NEEDING PLAN TO DEAL WITH BARBARIAN. AM HOPE FOR NOW THAT TALKY LIKE BARBARIAN AND THROW AWAY POINTY HAT AM BUY TIME. AM ALSO LIVE IN HOLE IN GROUND TO HIDE CASTY AURAS. ON SIDE NOTE: AM UNSURE CONCERNING RULES LEGITIMACY OF FEW BARBARIAN STRATEGIES, SUCH AS PERMANENT ARCANE SIGHT WITHOUT UMD AND BATTY BLINDSENSE RANGE.

HOWEVER, AM ALSO HAVE CONFIDENCE IN BARBARIAN PLAYER RULES-FU FOR THESE AND OTHER ISSUES. AM THINKING THINGS EXPLAINED IN OTHER THREAD. AM UNABLE TO CHECK, TO DO NEED TO LEAVE HOLE IN GROUND THEREBY EXPOSING SELF TO RAGELANCEPOUNCE. AM WILLING TO LET ISSUE REST, THOUGH AM STILL CURIOUS. AM BEING GRATEFUL FOR EXPLAINATION SO LONG AS EXPLAINY-PERSON AM NOT SHOWING BARBARIAN WHERE FIND HIDEY-HOLE.

TIME SPENT HIDE IN CAVE GOOD FOR THINK, THOUGH. AFTER MANY ARGUMENT AM SEEMING LIKE RAW AM BARBARIAN BEST FRIEND. FURTHER, AM REALIZING RAW AM PURVIEW OF FIGHTY ONE-ON-ONE. AM THEREFORE LIKELY THAT TRY BEAT BARBARIAN AT OWN GAME AM WASTED EFFORT, ESPECIALLY FOR ME SMART CASTY. AM SUGGESTING BEST WAY TO SURVIVE VS BARBARIAN TO CHANGE PLAYSTYLE. AM PLAN TO USE TALKY AND WIDELY UNPOPULAR ENCHANTMENT SCHOOL TO USE FRIEND AND MINION VS BARBARIAN FROM LONG DISTANCE. AM EXPECTING BARBARIAN DO MIND-READY SOMEHOW OR AT LEAST SCARE TRUTH FROM MINION WITH ADD LOTS INTIMIDATE, SO AM THINKING MANY DEGREES SEPARATION BETWEEN SELF AND AGENTS BEST IDEA. MINION TALKY INEVITABLE, SO ALSO AM PLAN USE DISGUISE, MOVE LOTS, AND MAYBE CUT OUT MINION TONGUE ON REGULAR BASIS (AM LAWFUL NEUTRAL, SOMETIME EVIL TENDENCIES). AM THINKING STRATEGERY CAN FAIL MANY TIME BUT NEED WORK JUST ONE.

AM REALIZE PLAN HAVE MANY PROBLEM, LIST OF WHICH TOO LONG FOR EXISTING POST (TOO LONG EVEN WITHOUT, ME THINK). AM ALSO REALIZE AM MOVING GOALPOST. IS OK, AM TAKING PAGE FROM BARBARIAN PLAYBOOK AND USE CATCH OFFGUARD SO PROFICIENT WITH MOVING GOALPOST. AM NEEDING FEWER CASTY FEAT WITH INDIRECT STRATEGERY SO AM HAVING OPEN SLOT FOR POINTLESS FEAT.

AM GOOD PLAN?

Clerics are fantastic proactive characters with healing to boot, only forced out of that role by the king of proactive spellcasting, the oracle.

I need to disagree with this (admittedly semantic and tangential) point - prepared casters are specifically designed to benefit more from proactivity than spontaneous casters. In any situation that you see coming, spontaneous casters are limited to the same preparation as non-casters (i.e. buy items to compensate). Prepared casters - especially clerics, due to automatic access to their full spell list - can completely change their signature class ability when given forewarning. Spontaneous casters are much better when reacting to an unforeseen situation.

But back to the main topic, the consensus remains that clerics are immensely powerful, and I can't disagree in the slightest.

The nature of having more choices will mean that there is more powerful combos. There is no way to release additional material with out there being power creep unless you nerf the new stuff so much that it doesn't matter at all.

It's the nature of the game, I don't know how so many people thought this would be different when Pathfinder came out and they were revelling in the glory of it being different from WOTC's 3.5 stuff.

It's the same thing. People like options. Options mean more synergy. More synergy means more power.

This is on the money. Typically I don't mind it, since well-planned supplements will make the new combos only incrementally better than the old combos, and/or more situational. The problem emerges when the new spells follow the flawed paradigm:

Combine new spells with prepared casters (or anyone with access to spell mimicry through items, etc.) who do their homework - then those really situational spells can be applied when needed for greatest effect, and dropped in all other cases. Feat and class ability synergies that are a marginal improvement are no big deal, since they can't be cherry-picked or carried around in a scroll case for that time they're exactly needed. To summarize - I think the biggest challenge to avoiding power creep is printing spells that are both exciting and useful while not setting up one-shots capable of destroying specific encounter types.

Not trying to fuel the fire of caster vs. noncaster - my main beef is with Vancian spellcasting in general.

Finally, the biggest problem I have with power creep is CR-scale disconnect. I remember playing in a 3.5 game with a DM who didn't have a really good head for numbers. He was under the false assumption that CRs were comparable between the first and third monster manuals, and wondered aloud (quite vehemently) when we obliterated "challenging" dragons in two rounds but had major trouble with a gloom golem. I may be better than he was at accounting for changes in difficulty scaling, but needing to constantly re-evaluate the CR of any monster I want to use from a book becomes tedious and defeats the purpose of using the book in the first place.

I don't say use whatever i like, i most certainly don't like this change to brass knuckles and what it means for monks. I always try to use the latest version of something.

Fair enough. By this argument I'd still go with the APG, since it's the newer source, and newer errata to an older book don't quite cut the mustard in my opinion. Doesn't explain why the two sources are different at all, though, and then boils down to an argument based on semantics. So, I'll decline further argument since I feel it likely that we'd both just go around in circles.

However, do note that the errata usually get posted to the PRD rather quickly (stuff there is already current to 2nd printing, and has been for awhile). If official APG errata, or a change to the PRD for that matter, show up soon then we'll be able to put the issue to rest.

The other way around it is to design traps so that this tactic is a bad idea. IE make the trap with a large AoE kill zone, that the players are better off not setting it off in the first place.

The trap triggers a lightning bolt that hits everything in the hallway, including the players who are hanging back 60 feet behind the summoned critters.

The trap locks a door behind the players, and fills a large area with poison gas.

Another option would be to throw a series of weak traps that do are a minimal damage to the players, but are just strong enough to kill low level summons just to see how many summon spells you can make the players burn though.

For sure. Most folks use SM I for trap disarmament, which is only going to spring a single trap before getting liquefied. Dead monkeys need not apply for clearing out the Hallway of Doom.

Not sure that just increasing the deathzone is a perfect fix, though. I'm in the camp that believes traps aren't good challenges by themselves under current rules - need to be part of a larger whole, whether it be monsters with tactics built around the trap or part of a series of obstacles to overcome. Sure, it counters the tactic of using summons to overcome traps... but most traps just aren't nasty enough for that to become a huge issue. I could see it being thrown in the mix occasionally for flavor, but I wouldn't do it on a regular basis.

Never quite though of using chase rules for the collapsing temple trope, though - nice advice Tim.

5) I mercilessly mock players who try cheesy tactics like summoning monsters and driving them into a dungeon to set off all traps. Doing something like that once can be clever play. Using it as a regular tactic is pure cheese, IMHO.

It's only cheese if every trap they come across doesn't reset automatically. Likewise, it's utter DM cheese to make every trap automatically reset or introduce GM fiat where a tactic that should work instead doesn't. I'm not assuming you'd do so, just anticipating the possibility that someone will counter with that suggestion.

Essentially, I'm curious why using finite resources (in this case, summon spells) to increase the likelihood of not getting hit by traps is a pressing concern. After all, traps going off have consequences that have been mentioned here (like alerting nearby badguys) beyond just doing bad things to poor schmucks that get caught in the death zone.

A player must announce they are checking for traps--although I also require that they describe what they're doing--in what vicinity, what are they looking at, what kind of things they are looking for (because RARELY, but some traps have touch triggers that could go off if they aren't checking carefully). A detailed description of how one goes about checking for traps lowers the Perception DC by at least 2, if not more depending on how good the description is---or an excellent description might even bypass the roll (for example, "I pour water into the tile to see where it goes." And if the water pours into cracks around a hidden trap door, then they've obviously found SOMETHING).

Then I ask them to roll the dice (I use VERY few secret rolls--I'd rather PC abilities be rolled by the players, always. I've got enough work to do!).

If someone has Trap Spotter or a similar ability where they autocheck, I might roll for them, or more likely have the player roll several checks in advance, which I can cross off as they come to the areas that have traps or other unusual things to spot (I also do this for general awareness checks for the whole party).

I like all of this. Historically, I had houseruled that searching an area for traps can only effectively be done once, in order to crack down on metagaming poor rolls. Under this system, the first character to search could ask for a second opinion, but the best they would get would be a +2 from aid another, even if the second roll is astronomically higher. Since this sounds (and is!) pretty harsh, I was pretty lenient on atypical situations - for example, the barbarian running up to a door and finishing his search first just by virtue of being fastest and positioned at the front of the marching order wouldn't preclude the party rogue (presumably with a much better chance to find things) from giving it a go; likewise, if a party had two competent trapfinders, I allowed both rolls to count if they announced before either rolled that both would case the door.

However, I might be changing my tune and espousing DeathQuaker's system. It's much more elegant, requires less improv to deal with corner cases, and encourages roleplaying over rollplaying. So, again, well said!

Agreed, but the vast majority of traps are not triggered by a failed perception roll.

As an aside, I find it amusing that anyone named "Charender" would make a PC-lenient statement in any fashion. ;)

Why is that a factor? I originally cited the official site as my source of incorrect info. I only went there because I remembered they normally get things updated faster. When both sites had the same info.....

I agree. To put a finer point on it, why do I need to reference Adventurer's Armory (a book I don't own) and its associated errata to make my APG work? Pretty sure there's nothing in either book that indicates you need one for the other. Now I see that some things in the APG were reprints of AA designed to reach a wider audience, but each book should stand alone. The APG errata (and the corresponding info on the Paizo-official PRD here) make no mention of a change, so I use them as printed.

At the risk of sounding like a neo-grognard, when this kind of stuff came up in 3.X, my group and I just used whichever book's version we liked more. So what if your Adventurer's Armory says brass knuckles are crap? These here on my fists are APG brass knuckles. Boo ya! ;)

And, on-topic: I agree with the argument separating the effects of amulet of mighty fists based on type of attack used, but I don't like it taking different items to do so. I know this is counterintuitive based on price, but how's this for a compromise:

You buy an amulet +X at the listed price. It works as advertised for natural weapons. However, when used for unarmed strikes, it grants an enhancement bonus equal to a "normal" weapon with equivalent price, rounded down. So, if you have the 5000gp amulet, it's +1 across the board. The 20,000gp amulet, though, would be +2 for natural attacks and +3 for unarmed strikes (since the nearest standard weapon price to this in the downward direction is 18,000gp = +3). This way a party can shuffle the item back and forth between the monk and the druid if necessary (a current option). Might be a corner case, but I like compatibility with current rules.

In my own games I have removed the feat tax from weapons that are not superior to existing weapons, and have placed them in their appropriate category (simple for most monk weapons, for example). For weapons that actually use the Exotic Proficiency, they are either innately better or in most cases get better when you take the feat.

I've been playing around with something similar recently. What I've done is to remove exotic as a category all together. Than I've added a line to each weapon that grants it some sort of bonus or trick if you have the weapon focus feat (another insultingly bad feat in dire need of a pick me up).

I for one would be interested to see the weapon tables under these two (similar) systems, beyond Ashiel's teaser about the spiked chain. I agree wholeheartedly that the vast majority of exotics aren't worthy of a feat slot, which to me is a much bigger issue than the prerequisite in my book. Such a table would definitely be a candidate for inclusion in my games... so c'mon, give me a starting point already. ;)

Humans get an extra skill point, not an extra HP.

Human would be good if you can think of an extra feat you'd really like. More feats = better at fighting of course.

I believe the statement that prompted this was advocating human over elf (the OP's original race choice). When you look at it in terms of opportunity cost, humans do in fact get +1 hp / level and have the same skill point totals, compared to an elf with all other considerations being equal, due to the differences in constitution and intelligence balancing against bonus skill ranks.

I'd agree that human is likely the go-to race for an eldritch knight build - elves are great casters due to the spell penetration equivalent, but that's much less of a draw if your focus is self-buffing for combat ability. Probably not worth taking a hit to con. Plus, EK tends to be rather feat intensive, so human helps. I'd stay away from half-elf unless you're planning to put a roughly equal number of levels in fighter and wizard. Having two favored classes gives you exactly 1 hit point if your end goal is fighter 1 / wizard 9 / EK 10... and even if you balance fighter/wizard, you could just be a human and take Toughness as your bonus feat. You'd pick up far more HP and skill ranks than the extra favored class would give you, and only lose out on Skill Focus and some ancillary benefits.

They slide out of their skin when they're shedding, and if anything is closer or more attached to their body than their skin, I dunno what it is.

I agree to an extent, just wanted to note that snakes have to really work at shedding that skin - rubbing up against rough objects several times over to get it loose enough to slither out of. Skin is certainly different than armor, but they do have to want to slither out of out. It's not like the snake is trundling along and then, "Whoops! Where'd my skin go?!" Not trying to be inflammatory, I just couldn't resist the urge to make a funny.

More on-topic - I agree with the "too cool to pass up" crowd, for what it's worth.