There's a lot of tips to make even the rolling segments go faster. For example:
1. Generally speaking, always encourage your players to plan ahead for their turn, each new round. After they take their turn, they should start planning for the next one, with contingencies depending on how things go between now and then.
2. Inline with the previous idea, ask players to roll all the dice (attack and damage) together. If there are miss chances using d%s, then ask the player to roll it, instead of you, as that really makes no difference, but now, they can quickly look at the percentile (above what you need to hit?, If yes), the attack (is it high enough for you to hit? If yes), then tally the damage.
Speeding combat up is important, because it encourages players to feel like it's happening at a fast pace. If combat drags on, then all the player will want to do, is whack until it's dead. Faster paced combat can get a little bit more adrenaline back into the play.
3. Its good that you focus on the monster's tactics, which helps you to understand when things are, or aren't going swell for your NPCs. Add a touch of flavour to the combat by letting your NPCs taunt your players for their failures, and shout curses at their successes. Enemies who provoke attacks of opportunity in moments of desperation are very likely to howl in anger, when that attack connects, or worse, hinders their goal.
4. I don't need to talk much more about description than everyone else has said, but it helps to focus on what you feel is happening, and communicate that to the players. If the players are suspicious of what ambush you're laying in wait for them, play up their fears by making them feel like they're right up on it (and then surprise them, when they think they're in the clear). Not everyone is good at expressing the ambience with poetic prose, but anyone can explain what the situation feels like.
5. Give your memorable foes something to actually be memorable about. A lasting impression often comes from a quirk or tell-tale give that acts not only as a calling card, but a warning. In Peter Pan, the ticking of a clock reminds Hook of his nemesis, the crocodile who took his hand (and his pocket watch), so incorporate such a feeling into your recurring villains.
Savage Tides game:
Playing through Paizo's Savage Tides, a villain named Vanderborn fought us three times, and each repeat of that conflict, we were more vested to make sure that he'd NEVER come back, again. The second time, we cast his body into lava, and thought that was the end of it, but he hated us so much, he came back in spectral form.
6. Sometimes, let the players do the work. Some of the best combat stories involve curious situations, in which a player thought outside the box, and came up with another solution. These are often radical, and go outside the circle of just rolling dice. Encourage these ideas, and allow slight bending of the rules, if there's no significant harm in doing so. As a partial tip, if one player thinks up a clever idea, and everyone is interested in how it turns out, ask the other players how they'd like to contribute. This way, everyone feels like they're doing their part.
Also, just wanted to say, I was actually looking forward to Words of Power that dealt with Undead, so it was actually pertinent to my interests, as well as support to see more of what comes out of it.
I'm not going to get into hard commitments at this point (way, WAY too early for that), but my current line of thinking at the moment is that the odd level damage spells be instantaneous damage spells and the even number levels be a lower damage dealing spell but does duration. This is similar to how wall of fire deals much less damage than fireball, despite wall of fire being a higher level spell. This keeps the duration rule in place and allowing for high damage when you need it while allowing for damage spells to be combined with condition spells.
I didn't say that the barrier word should be removed. I mean that the grouping of words of "wall" should be removed. Why should fire wall not be a fire word? And for what reason (other than wall of fire is a vancian spell) can I not make a cone of fire that stays in a place for a while? Or a burst? The wall group each require the spell use the barrier word. Barrier requires it be grounded to a surface. Why can't I have a ball of fire hanging in the air? If a bunch of flying zombies are coming through a hole in the ceiling, why can't I place a duration ball of fire infront of the hole and weaken or eliminate them all? The rules as they stand right now forbid it for no good reason. That's what I want to fix.
Right on, I'm glad that I initially misunderstood you on both counts.
I also said "wall spells" when I meant "wall words" because I thought you were getting rid of all the words in the wall grouping, but I see your intention, now; its a good question, why wall words couldn't be a part of other relevant groupings (which would also allow you to combine such spells for a crude prismatic wall, maybe)! In any case, I think that, already, some effect words with a duration longer than instantaneous, that can be used with non-Barrier, area Target words - such as Cone, Burst or Line - will remain, just as the Barrier would, only playing by the rules of the different target word.
^This spell produces a line effect that lasts the entire round. I think it's the only one, thus far, but it would be interesting for it to be a cone as well.
I think that most spells used as a Cone, currently, are instantaneous pulses, which can deliver lasting effects or instant damage, but do not stay on the field. Meanwhile, Burst also specifies that some spells are emanations, which explicitly occupy the area of effect, but "typically", can't be moved, from the area they manifested in. I think this is confusing, as plenty of spells which suggest that they stay on the field, to harass other combatants, are not emanations, such as Caustic Cloud (below). I'm curious how you'd tackle cleaning up that keyword's use, and other target restrictions, so I look forward to your work.
CAUSTIC CLOUD (ACID):
School conjuration (creation) [acid]; Level sorcerer/wizard 7, witch 6
Duration 1 round/level
Saving Throw Fortitude half; Spell Resistance no
Target Restrictions burst
A wordspell with this effect word creates a cloud of noxious green vapor that obscures vision. Creatures caught in the cloud take 1d6 points of acid damage per caster level (maximum 20d6) and are fatigued. Creatures caught in the cloud receive a Fortitude save to halve the damage and to negate the fatigued effect. Creatures that remain in the cloud take a cumulative –2 penalty on the save each round they remain in the cloud, but spending just 1 round outside the cloud's area resets this penalty. Creatures in the cloud that are fatigued become exhausted on a failed saving throw. A strong wind, such as that created by a gust of wind, disperses this cloud immediately.
If you're stating that a spell is broken, I think you have to prove that through analysis of the spell, versus the other options to achieve the same goal. We did that. The conclusion was that Fabricate's description wasn't plainly explicit on 1. if it could create masterwork items, 2. if it could create non-magical items in the Magic Items list, and 3. That material quality referred to cost of the raw material (which, as per item creation, should be equal to the cost of 1/2 the market price of the item created), but with these factors unclear, it is neither broken nor balanced, hinging upon the truth behind our interpretations.
Nonetheless, it's also observed that it has suggestive answers, which most people would rationally lean towards; that masterwork is possible (and makes no real difference to your argument against it, by itself), and that there is no profit involved in this undertaking, but time, however, the possible fabrication of non-magical Magic Items are likely not possible, including the production of holy water, which is irrelevant, because they're produced by another spell, instead. Pretty safe to say that Fabricate wasn't intended to make anything, but a sufficiently large number of things, such that problems that came up with the crafting system were hot-fixed, such as the case where going from medium to heavy armour required several weeks of downtime, if the player wished to craft their own new piece. Given this interpretation (and that's largely my main contingency), the spell is great, and a really great choice, but not broken, as there's still niches for the Craft skill that cannot be replicated by the skill.
There's a couple arguments as to which interpretation you're siding on.
If the argument is "why punish the player for doing something that the spell states?" then you have a symptom of a problem. A player is doing something you don't want to happen, BUT the rules allow it. Part of the problem is that you see something that makes it undesirable. So if the rules allow it, we have to ask, both, 'why you don't want it?', and 'why the rules allow it?', and the answers should help fix the real problem.
Why you don't want it?
Earlier you said something along the lines of "because Fabricate lets you go through a process for pure profit", and that's something I wouldn't have come to the conclusion to, because there's a suggestive wording that seems to imply the opposite; there is no profit from my perspective (I'm referring to the very awkwardly writ statement "The quality of items made by this spell is commensurate with the quality of material used as the basis for the new fabrication"). However, it stands to explain your issue (or at least, partly) with it. Another would be the ease of creating FP out of Adamantine or like expensive material, with relative ease. If there are other issues, would you state them?
Why the rules allow it?
All I see is a spell that makes money, material and trade goods isomorphic to any item (and not a creature) that isn't a 'Magic Item', in six seconds, versus six months. I ask you this, is there anything wrong with a spell that, if it were more explicitly stated to simply function as I am interpreting it? Honestly, I think this paragraph could replace the spell description, but I'm interested in forum's opinion and if there anything in the spell's description that explicitly suggests otherwise from my perspective.
My point is that leaning either way on what it does, without the description explicitly stating something - but vaguely suggesting it - still requires RAI either way (it doesn't say MW /cannot/ be created, for example), and your interpretation has the liberty to accommodate the spell's intention based on what's made available, to it's best effect, just as much as mine did. The addition of a spell that allows players to skip a tedious and undesirable process isn't a bad thing - its quite the opposite!
However, if you're pointing out that the spell disturbs the positive metagame, then economics and interpretations aren't the answer: it's human motivation and the rationale of the players. Having said that, the motivation is a balance of character profit, versus the motivation towards fair play, and using the spell as it was likely intended is an option every player has, just as much as abusing the lack of explicit terms, simply because they can. Anyone trying to create adamantine FP out of a small nugget of Adamantine (~with a value of significant disparity), is most certainly trying to abuse it, and my example with the Darkwood buckler is that there's precedence for why a nonmagical Magic Item would not qualify to be fabricated; because it's made from a magical material.
Its time to build a hyper realistic economy into my game because of a Craft debate on the message boards.
*adds a maximum gold cap based on economic power of each and every town/thorp/city/polis from some 3.e supplement out there*
I'm done.
No seriously, are we really making the point that a mundane smith would be put out of business, because every wizard has nothing better to do than use fabricate, all day, and just make money? And that's a problem?
I think someone explored that concept, a while back. I think it was called Eberron.
A few points I'd like to make out.
1. Magic breaks mundane rules 100% of the time. That's why it's called magic. A wizard can instantly create flames that deal damage comparable to taking a dip in an active volcano, and beyond. How long until your mundane fire does the same thing?
2. Fabricate explicitly states: "The quality of items made by this spell is commensurate with the quality of material used" and clearly states that "Creatures or magic items cannot be created or transmuted by the fabricate spell". A form exists under which a header "magical items" includes the likes of certain, actually non-magical items. This, I think, should have a specific question asked, instead of to say that verbatim, Fabricate denies the creation of such things. Regardless, see point 4.
3. When fabricate says "You must make an appropriate Craft check to fabricate articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship." I instantly understand that as follows:
'You must make' (obligation)
'an appropriate' (matching)
'Craft check' (-)
to fabricate' (objective)
'requiring a high degree of craftmanship' (conditional quality)
Thus, if any craft check should be made, however many there are, at whatever period of the act of crafting, only those which satisfy the conditional quality (such as masterwork does), must be made.
Nowhere in Fabricate does the exception apply to regular masterwork items, only the question of special materials, of which products are listed as 'magical'. This isn't explicit, but I agree that this statement was appended specifically for the purpose of fabricating masterwork articles, be that even MW armours.
4. For what it's worth, I have this damning piece to add, when it comes to using special materials, such as Adamantine and Mithral, and it's about Darkwood:
Darkwood Buckler:
DARKWOOD BUCKLER
Aura no aura (nonmagical); CL —
Slot shield; Price 203 gp; Weight 2.5 lbs.
DESCRIPTION
This nonmagical light wooden shield is made out of darkwood. It has no enhancement bonus, but its construction material makes it lighter than a normal wooden shield. It has no armor check penalty.
Darkwood:
Darkwood: This rare magic wood is as hard as normal wood but very light. Any wooden or mostly wooden item (such as a bow or spear) made from darkwood is considered a masterwork item and weighs only half as much as a normal wooden item of that type. Items not normally made of wood or only partially of wood (such as a battleaxe or a mace) either cannot be made from darkwood or do not gain any special benefit from being made of darkwood. The armor check penalty of a darkwood shield is lessened by 2 compared to an ordinary shield of its type. To determine the price of a darkwood item, use the original weight but add 10 gp per pound to the price of a masterwork version of that item.
Darkwood has 10 hit points per inch of thickness and hardness 5.
I'm afraid, that without an absolute rules siding, the implicit understanding behind fabricate is: Masterworks? Normally, yes. Special Materials that are magically non-magical? No... Maybe... Judge?
