Pizza Lord's page

66. Laughing Gas Grenade II. As #65, except the pin also explodes in a similar 10-foot radius cloud when the grenade does. The clouds only last half as long, 10 minutes, so still the entire combat.

62. +4 Cape of Cork Girl
A purple, merlot-colored cape of light satin. A silver stitching emblem on the back shows a stoppered wine jug and a jar of what might be pickles.

63. Sword of Drastic Pricks
The user draws forth a sword that they are proficient with (shortsword, longsword, or greatsword). If not proficient with any of these, it will be a shortsword and they will count as proficient with it. The blade is luminous red steel with a pronounced needle-like point.

64. Animal Totem Pole
A thick, 1-foot piece of carved wood, smooth and polished with crude, indecipherable animal shapes. It's about as heavy and thick as a human's forearm.

97. Small nail file or emery board (faint Transmutation) for filing nails.

This looks like you did a lot of work and effort. It's certainly a very powerful and well-designed creature that fills the role you wanted. I admit I have some trouble reading and parsing some of it. There's a lot of abbreviations I have to sit and ponder. I was looking over the Attacks and going, "He has how many hug attacks, Oh, that's 'Huge'! Would it have really been so hard to add the E's on there?".

Is First World (I assume that's what 'FW' stands for) Regeneration different from normal that it works at the end of the round (is that Initiative 0 or after the last creature takes their action or presumably just before the whompa's turn starts)? Or did you mean they heal at the end of their turn. I assumed Regen normally happens at the start of a creature's turn, unless they took damage that disabled it during the round.

I also note that Fire doesn't bypass their Regen, obviously it doesn't have to, it's your design, it just seems odd since they're otherwise vulnerable to fire. Seems they could lurk in a pool of water and be pretty much safe from anything by electricity (which would still have to pass their SR and Saves, and their Resist Energy spell from their scroll).

I also wonder why their Charisma bonus (specifically bonus is called out instead of mod/modifier, which I guess means penalties don't apply?) gets added to their Spell Resistance. I don't think that's normal. Obviously it can be if you wish it to be, but it kind of seems like if you want it higher, just make it higher and not have it linked to an ability and have to be adjusted if it changes (Their Charisma is listed as 18 (16) presumably because of their magic headband), so why not just set it at a higher base (8 or 9 + HD for example instead of base 5) and note there's a racial bonus of +x and not have GMs worry if they step in an AMF or lose the headband or something?

Other than that, for forum formatting, I might have used some Spoiler tags to set off sections, like Statistics, Attacks, Special Qualities, Gear and Equipment, and Description/Ecology to just help with reading and parsing it a bit.

Otherwise, this looks like a very impressive and dangerous creature to throw against parties in need of a fight that isn't reliant on a good or evil creature.

I would rule that babbling would count as a 1 round reduction despite it saying they're basically doing nothing else. Even though it isn't a strenuous activity (I wouldn't make someone drop to –1 if they were staggered and did it) I would rule that it is expending air faster than holding your breath.

There are some actions that I would rule use up your whole, or most of, your held breath, like gasping or blowing up a balloon, in which case I would reduce the remaining time by some number of rounds or all of them. Similar to if someone was trapped underwater and a character was swimming down and transferring breath or doing CPR, I would cut the rounds (and add some to the other). But those are specific situations and calls.

B has a +10 in swim, so he can only ascend if he rolls a 10 (45% chance) ...

Is it self-destructive or just dangerous to follow A to the ground? I mean there is still a chance he succeeds 6 times in a row and hits to surface after he was on the ground of the river.
On the other hand its a very slim chance to survive this sort of dive for B.

Like you said, he has a 45% of success. There's a difference between dangerous and certain death or self-destruction. Ordering someone to attack a dragon is dangerous, but combat has enough chance and variables that anything is possible (even if the odds are highly against it). Ordering someone to stand in place and let a dragon try and bite them over an over is clearly self-destructive, even if the dragon might roll a miss on the bite attack a few times.

Even so, there becomes certain points where a reasonable action becomes dangerous then becomes unreasonable or obviously impossible. Asking someone to jump in the river and hold their breath for 1 minute is reasonable, asking them to go 2 minutes is probably going to be attempted, but they'll be 'forced' to surface for air if they can't. Asking someone to stay underwater for 5 minutes is not (unless they know they can, or can breathe water). The character will probably try to attack the other, but at a point, self-preservation will kick in (assuming the effect they're under allows or takes it into account).

Is it a bad situation? Sure, but that would likely be the same case if both characters just fell into the middle of the river without any effects on them (they'd just have more chances to try and make Swim checks).

96: Anvil. ... If you drop it on someone or something it will do about 2D20. These are guestimations so I'm open to polite correction.

Falling objects seem to do damage based on size predominantly, with height and material affecting the damage secondarily. Looking at the chart, an anvil is probably Small size, so would be 2d6, but a GM could probably up this to 3d6 (Medium-sized). That's 3–18 damage as opposed to the 2–40 you want. This is just for dropping an anvil on someone yourself or it getting pushed from above. If it's a falling anvil trap, then it would use Trap rules for damage and CR and such.

In case neither is able to kill the other one and one of them keeps failing the swim check each round, both will just drown.

Is that correct?

Technically, yes, it is correct. The insane person (A) is generally beholden to the whims of random action (a GM can adjust this for specific situations). The dominated one (B) will have a bit more agency depending on the specific command. If ordered to attack A, then B can take actions that would move them into position or give them a better advantage, they can also try and breathe if they start to run out of breath, but trying to say they need to breathe every round is not a reasonable excuse to avoid following the command (in a game where you can generally hold you breath at least a number of rounds equal to your Con while performing strenuous activity).

If the two continue to remain in combat range and keep attacking each other, however, then that's just what happens, assuming the current doesn't carry them into shallower water.

And thats my next question:

Will B still swim after A until both drown?

They will if they were dominated and the command was to specifically swim after them and attack them. This is assuming a relatively normal situation; two humans in a lake or something. Ordering a dwarf to swim out after a fish or mermaid, or chase a ship out into the open ocean purely by swimming is obviously self-destructive on its face (again, barring a specific factor to the unique situation).

Or will the "sef-destructive line" from dominate person kick in and let him surface to prevent B's death?

It won't kick in (in this example), since the command isn't to drown or stay underwater for an absurd amount of time. Just like a command to attack a dragon or storm giant isn't 'obviously self-destructive' (unlike "Jump into that lake of lava and attack that red dragon"), swimming isn't innately harmful, even in possibly contaminated water (though a lake of acid would be different). B can still take steps to breathe as long as they are continuing to try and attack A. If A is below the surface, they will try and swim down to attack, they could even conceivably try and swim a little ahead and prepare to hit them as they pass, as long as the action is a reasonable attempt and not an attempt to cheese or negate being dominated or follow a command (like trying to waste time or run out the duration).

While we are at the topic.

If you hit a 26-50% (babble) or 51-74% (hit yourself) on the confusion chart, you aren't allowed to move, so are you allowed to make swim checks to reach the other shore or to stay above water? Or are you just start to sink if you hit one of these two.

The babble option specifically says 'do nothing else', the damaging one isn't quite so clear. A GM could reasonably rule that damaging yourself is a standard and let them take a move action to do something (as long as it was reasonable to the situation or environment), but that's a GM's call and based entirely on an individual situation.

14. Stepping Stool (Betrayal, Teamwork)
Description: You knock your allies prone so you can stand upon them for height advantage or boosts.
Prerequisites: Acrobatics 1 rank
Benefits: When you move into the space of an ally who also has this feat, you can choose to knock them prone with a swift action and step upon them for a boost in height. If your ally is within one size category of you, you receive a +1 higher ground bonus against opponents the same size or smaller than you or your ally (whichever is larger). You can also use your ally as a springboard to add +2 to Acrobatics or jumping checks for leaps or similar actions from their space or just continue moving (but usually you can already pass through a willing ally's space).
If an attack is made while standing on an ally, the initiator may then move to an open, adjacent square (provoking attacks of opportunity for movement) or remain in place, likely preventing their ally from standing up on their turn. An initiator with Spring Attack or a similar ability to move, attack, and move again can use it with this feat.
Once the initiator's action is finished, the abettor may use an immediate action to make a DC 20 Acrobatics check to stand back up (if their space is free) or crawl to an adjacent square (leaving the initiator behind) without provoking attacks of opportunity.
Normal: You cannot charge through occupied spaces. Knocking an ally prone requires a bull rush, overrun, or other action.
Notes: This feat does work on allies that are already prone, but they do not get an Acrobatics check to move or stand up afterwards, and they must be conscious to provide any benefits since the feat requires the abettor to assist and help boost the initiator in conscious ways. It does not work on allies that cannot be knocked prone, like snakes or a gelatinous cube. Abettors may take damage if the initiator has claws, dangerous or spiky footwear, leaves caustic or fiery trails, or other instances at a GM's discretion from being stepped on.

13. Quick Correction (Betrayal, Teamwork)
Description: When an ally says something you believe is stupid, you can swiftly correct them.
Prerequisites:Sleight of Hand 1 rank, Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate 1 rank.
Benefits: As an immediate action, if an adjacent ally that also has this feat says something you feel is inappropriate, inconvenient, or stupid (whether it was or not), you can make a Sleight of Hand check and deal 1d4 nonlethal damage to them to cut them off. You then make a Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate to interject with a plausible diversion. The type of excuse or diversion determines the skill used (Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate) and the manner must be one in which you have at least 1 skill rank.
The abettor may also use an immediate or swift action to Aid Another and back you up by making a making a DC 10 skill check using the same skill you did, but only if they possess at least 1 skill rank in it. If they do, you add +2 to your check. They receive a –1 penalty to their check for each point of damage they've taken this round.
Observers receive a Perception check against your Sleight of Hand to note the subtle (or not-so-subtle) rebuke and those who succeed receive a +4 bonus to resist your diversion.
If used to interrupt an ally's attempt to cast a verbal spell or use a command word or other vocal trigger or ability, the abettor may attempt a Concentration check to continue if they wish.
Normal: Once your ally says something stupid, you can try and explain it away afterward, but that may require more interaction, time, and include penalties based on what was said and heard.
Note: This can not stop a creature from speaking or making noise. If the party is trying to be silent or stealthy, it will be clear that the abettor said something and it will even be heard, but the initiator has a chance to divert, distract, or otherwise prevent those from hearing it from taking the words (not the sound or noise) seriously or processing what was said fully. For instance, you can't make guards think the talking they heard was just boards creaking and not investigate, but if your ally said something like, "I hope the guards don't catch us sneaking around here," You can quickly add or interject something like, "...because maybe the lord of the house didn't tell them he'd hired exterminators to clear the basement," and possibly avert or offset any reasonable penalties from what they heard when they do confront you.

If a creature is squeezing, it gets a –4 penalty to attacks and AC (and movement cost increases). If a creature is climbing (and still squeezing), it will have these penalties, but will need both hands free to climb, can't use a shield and will lose its Dex to AC (and has a chance to fall if it takes damage). Climbing is typically at half speed, so this might be reduced even further for squeezing (but likely the climb check will have a –10 DC bonus for being able to brace against both sides, so they could likely take the accelerated climbing penalty of +5 DC and counter it).

The only time a tall vs long quality will come into play would be if a space was narrow, but only about half as high as the creature (I can't remember where I read this, full disclosure). For instance, imagine you are moving between the bumpers of two parked cars, the narrow part is just around your legs, not your torso, so a GM might apply the squeezing penalty of movement, but not to your AC or attack, since your applicable area isn't truly squeezing or impeded.

Other than that, it can depend on a creature's actual anatomy. A Large-sized snake can fairly be ruled as being unimpeded by a narrow pipe (movement-wise) where a horse just wouldn't be able to even squeeze in with an Escape Artist check.

Normally, yes. For instance, if someone has an unhallow spell that somehow affects an entire dungeon level, a detect magic will detect it anywhere in that area (not just where it's centered or placed. Note that unhallow wouldn't normally bypass barriers, but just for this example). The caster of detect magic would have a chance to make a Knowledge (arcana) check, DC 20 (15 + 5 spell level) to determine that it's an evocation aura (and a detect evil spell would detect the area as evil as well, since it's an [evil] spell).

It wouldn't tell the caster that it was unhallow. It requires a DC 20 + spell level check to determine that, but there usually has to be something observable for that to be allowed (like a wall of fire or some other visible effect or interaction).

If the level-wide effect was created by a magic item or creature that somehow emanated or created it, say some unique or powerful darkskull that sat on a magical podium and as long as it was there, it warded the whole level with unhallow, then detect magic would work as above, but the caster would have to be able to see (and have within the detection range) the actual item or creature to determine the abilities or 'identify' its qualities.

A guards and wards causes its entire area to radiate strong abjuration. It has numerous separate spell effects within it, and those will also give off their own auras once within range. Note that some pervasive or large areas of magic can obscure or conceal smaller or lesser auras at a GM's discretion.

It doesn't just apply at implantation, if their Int or Con drops (drain) then it applies as well.

DeathlessOne is correct that it would be hard to get someone's INT or CON below 4 normally, but it's the combined total of all cybertech, so if there's multiple implants, say two legs worth 4 each and the user's Con or Int dropped below 8, then you'd likely have to determine which one malfunctions, either based on the newest implant or at random until the total was within range again.

12: Extensive Spell Research

...
I don't think this would be OP, do you?

I don't want to turn the thread into a debate, or stifle creativity. As for whether this is OP, that depends on the GM and their game.

You are correct. Even on a Natural 20 (or if they spend 2 minutes to Take 20 if allowed), they will still have the –1 penalty, giving them a 19. There is not automatic success on a skill or ability check for rolling a 20.

X begins a full attack against Y while Y is unaware of X. Because of this, Y is denied their Dexterity Bonus to AC. X has 4 attack iterations in their full attack. Y would technically "become aware" of X after the first attack. Does Y regain their Dexterity Bonus to AC immediately after the first attack iteration, and therefore have it for the remaining 3? Or does a "Full Attack" count as one single action that takes place so quickly the target cannot react to it?

Assuming the only reason Dex is denied is because the defender is unaware of the attacker (rather than flat-footed or something else), then only the first attack gets the benefit. Like others have mentioned, it depends on why the Dex bonus is denied.

The reason I want to see it written that way is it makes 0 sense that a target *can* regain their dexterity bonus within the time frame of a full attack, but *cannot* regain their dexterity bonus within the time frame of a standard attack, even though both of these time frames are exactly 3 seconds.

It's not about a Dex bonus 'coming back', it's about whether it applies to any specific attack or not. For example, if you know your ally is invisible (presumably can see them), and you ready to attack your opponent as soon as your invisible ally makes their attack (for whatever reason, flanking, etc.) When your ally attacks, the target is denied their Dex against that attack, but your Ready action triggers and you attack, they still have their Dex against you. So yes, you need to adjust AC based on the attacks that happen, sometimes in the middle of an attack action, whether it be a full-round attack, a standard action, or 6 seconds or less than 1 second or even because someone charged, getting a –2 penalty to AC until their next turn, but during the charge provoked an Attack of Opportunity... but they have Mobility, so you have to adjust it up by +4 (+2 total) against that one particular AoO during the acting character's charge attack.

Granted, that last example (charging and Mobility) isn't about denying Dex, but it just shows that AC needs to be calculated based on the attack and the situation. Similarly, if you launch a full attack with claw/claw/bite from invisibility but your invisibility breaks from the first attack, then you aren't invisible for the second claw and the bite. If the invisibility is what denied their Dex bonus, then they aren't denied it while you aren't invisible. Similarly, your second attack wouldn't get the +2 bonus that an invisible attacker usually gets. Only the attacks made while invisible.

... that "Denied Dexterity Bonus to AC" is an applied condition that can end in .00000000000000000000001 seconds in the instance of a full attack,

It's not about 'ending' it's about whether it is applied or not to a specific attack. In the 'unaware of attacker' instance that your question is based on, that isn't some condition like being 'Flat-footed' that ends or not at a specific time or having been feinted with a Bluff check that denies your Dex bonus against that one particular person's next attack, which may come immediately or later in the round (as long as it's before the feinter's next turn).

is there *also* a RAW entry somewhere that says "Targets can actively regain their Dexterity bonus to AC in the middle of being the subject of a full attack."

No, because it depends on why it's denied. And it would be absurd to have that rule, since it usually isn't a creature's choice about whether or not their Dex is denied, any more than it's their 'choice' about being flat-footed in combat or when their turn starts.

Are the Sahuagin dazzled?

They are dazzled (after 1 round of being blinded) if the area they are in is bright light. Whether it's outdoors, indoors, underwater or not. Whether the light was bright in your particular scenario is unknown, that depends on the brightness of the light and the distance through the water and whether the water was murky or not.

can they use blind sense in this situation to sense the invisible rogue?

Blindsense is based off various conditions (usually keen hearing). Unfortunately, unless it's specified (and Pathfinder did a poor job of that, unlike 3.5), it's really up to the GM. For instance, grimlocks (which are hard to find since they arespecific IP) are specifically noted as using sound. Orzar could also be considered sound-based blindsense, since their description mentions sonar as their primary form of hunting. Also, Pathfinder rarely goes into actual (real-world) animal details, likely to save space, assuming most GMs know, or can easily find out, details about their real-world capabilities. Things like bats or dolphins (which have blindsight), which don't specify the details of their abilities, but which most people know are based on sonar or keen hearing.

In the case of sahuagin, a made up creature, we don't get any such indication. Is their blindsense from keen hearing? Is it from an innate sense of vibration in the water (or air, if out of water)? A detection of energy fields? It could even be a combination of many of them that add up to a blindsense.

We know they're akin and acquainted to sharks in many ways, but looking at the shark's entry doesn't give us details. Ultimately it's up to a GM to determine if it's strictly sound-based or not. If it is, then telekinetic invisibilty (specifically) will work differently on them.

After determining the above, could they see his "bubble"?

Yes, they can see the air bubble just like any other creature can see it in the same situation. In light, dim, or even darkness (they have darkvision 60 feet), they can see it unless there's cover or concealment. In bright light, they can almost definitely see it (unless there's cover) since it's hard to have concealment in bright light (obviously the concealment from invisibility doesn't apply to the air bubble, which is created by the invisibility). They would have a –1 penalty to their sight-based Perception if dazzled, but since you don't usually need a Perception check to see something in bright light, it's moot. Even so, since Perception is a mash of visual and hearing, they'd still get one to hear someone (with distance penalties and other factors, of course).

do he get concealment, or full concealment?

Normally, he would have full concealment. Blindsense doesn't change that. The creature with blindsense would know what square they were in, so they'd always be able to pick the right one (picking the wrong one will obviously always miss). They'd still have a 50% miss chance.

Being underwater and invisible leaves a noticeable bubble ('noticeable' being relative, obviously a bigger creature has a bigger 'bubble'). So an attacker can see where the invisible creature is, and the miss chance is reduced to concealment (20%) instead of total concealment (50%). This isn't just a reduction in the miss chance, it's an actual difference between total concealment and concealment, so something requiring total concealment, will not apply when invisible and underwater. For instance, you can cast magic missile or charm person (though, you'd just be guessing/hoping that it's a humanoid) at an invisible target underwater, since it doesn't have total concealment, even though it would out of water.

Does he get 20% miss or 50% miss?

Underwater, attackers have a 20% miss chance and can see what square he's in.

Does he get sneak attack?

No. To get sneak attack, the target must be denied their Dex (or flanked). A concealed attacker does not typically deny the target their Dex bonus. It has to be an attacker the defender can't see or react to. Out of water, the invisible creature would have total concealment, in water, it is very clearly stated as being concealment. Unless there's some other factor or reason that the sneak attack would work, then no. The invisible attacker themselves would be protected against sneak attack damage, since that doesn't work against a creature with concealment.

150: Snozzberry. If this has been listed before, like that but slightly different.

Snozzberry? Who ever heard of snozzberry?

The effects are similar to the spells they emulate. The pipe's sleep effect will not work on creatures with 5 or more HD. The ability would have to say otherwise, like a witch's slumber hex, or be written in a way that doesn't reference the sleep spell, like a pixie's sleep arrow effect.

Using the pipe's does allow the satyr to affect all creatures in a 60-foot radius, unlike sleep's 10-foot burst (because it says it does). You'll note that the satyr itself can cast charm person, sleep, and suggestion at will, but using its pipe ups the affected area and targets dramatically (and has a higher DC).

37. Unflammable Plane
This small, finite, and flat plane is ringed by impassable mountains of black rock before disappearing into featureless void. The physical dimensions are approximately 10,000 square miles (about 100 miles across). The ground does have depth, with an earth and rock substrate of about 10 miles before dropping out into the void. Dripping rivers of oil stream from vents or openings beneath the plane, trailing off into the void or boiling away.

Have you considered adventuring in planes or locations that have shorter days?

139. Irish cream

140. Gingerbread

141. Raspberry Rum

142. Orange creamsicle

143. Kiwi

144. Dark chocolate

145. Oatmeal raisin

146. Unsweetened chocolate

116. Guava

117. Orange

118. Tamarind

119. Huckleberry

120. Grape

121. Ugli fruit

122. Rum raisin

123. Udon noodle

111. Dates

112. Almonds

113. Oats

114. Figs

115. Saltwater taffy

So if i cast charm person does he count as willing?

If you successfully charm the target, it will regard you as a trusted friend or ally. In most cases, people are willing to accept spells or effects from trusted allies. Even if you lie and say it's something else (they'd get a check, but they'd still probably figure you have a good reason for lying it they do suspect). Even so, Chain of Eyes isn't really bad or harmful, so even if you told them exactly what it does, you'd likely be fine (though whether you want them to know that when their memory returns is a different story).

If they are willing (and they should be in all but the most suspicious or untrusting characters, ie. superstitious barbarians), you can implant the trick.

Using false belief can then make them forget about you putting the trick on them (assuming they know that's what you did), but when the duration ends they'll remember what you did (which might just be that you said you were going to do something helpful and closed your eyes for a moment).

Memory lapse would be more permanent, but since it only goes back to their last turn when you cast it, you probably won't get the implant memory unless you can do both in a round.

Can I use a move action to activate a 2nd or even 3rd (2 move actions and 1 swift) in 1 turn?

The purpose of this topic, was whether the OP could substitute a move or standard action to take more than 1 swift action on their turn (and there was a skirmish question in there too). You continuing to claim that Readying is a standard that lets you take a swift is irrelevant, because a Readied action must be triggered between turns (specifically, 'before your next action'), therefore it cannot be used to take a second swift action in that turn. Whether you believe the Ready action does or does not start a new turn, it is not 'that' turn. And if you did think that it was just an extension of the original turn... then you can't take more than one swift action in that turn.

I get there that there can be some tangents once in a while, but at some point it detracts from the actual topic and I don't want to continue to be a factor in that. I am not saying you can't reply or continue on with it, but I am not going to continue to clutter up the topic here with it. If you want to go into more depth on it, start a new topic and I might engage more there. This is about whether you can convert standard, move, or other actions into a swift action to get more in a turn, not about whether Readying an action means you're getting more standard (or swift) actions in a round.

Can you explain why readying allows more than one standard or move in a round, but not more than one swift in around?

Yes. Because it says it does. Ready (and Delay) are actually Special Initiative Actions.

Special Initiative Actions

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

Readying and Delaying change your initiative. They move your turn to another point in Initiative.

Archives of Nethys lists Ready under Standard actions (for ease of reference), but it clearly says

Ready (triggers a standard action)

They are a special maneuver that does that

Ready requires a standard action, but isn't considered a Standard action. Just like Fast Mounting a horse isn't a move action, but you must have one available to attempt it (and use it if you fail the check).

You don't get to cast a Swift spell and then Ready another Swift spell to trigger once your 'current turn' ends to immediately cast another Swift spell. Readying does not refresh or allow taking more actions in a turn than you have. It is a special action that requires a standard action to be available to trigger it whether that actions is a standard, move, or swift or free action itself and wouldn't require a standard action.

Ready allows you to perform a standard action when the stated event triggers because it says it does and that's what it does but it will require a standard action whether that action is a standard, move, or any other action.

Er, no. We actually covered this entire subject in another thread: Does taking a readied action count as ending your turn again?

I know. I was the 2nd post in the thread. I made it very clear that Readying doesn't cause start or end of turn events to occur twice in a round. If you haven't checked or saved against an effect that would apply to you, then you do check (you don't check again at the start or end of the initiative order that you used to have). Note: this means specific start or end of turn events not occurring more than once (which we agree on), not that there's some 'End of Turn' phase like in Magic: The Gathering that occurs after a player's turn and that's all they get.

Taking a Swift action either at the start of the round on your turn or Delaying or Readying (and then taking) a Swift action later in the round will use up your Swift (and Immediate) action until your next turn.

The conclusion was that readied actions, when triggered, take place outside your turn and change your position in the turn order afterwards.

First of all, that wasn't the conclusion. The question was whether a character was affected by an 'end of turn' effect (that they hadn't been subjected to) at the point of their original action. No one ever in that thread questioned whether a Ready action takes place outside or inside your 'turn'. That's not the issue there.

They do not count as part of your turn, and this ruling is directly supported by the rules text of readying ("The ready action lets you prepare to take an action later, after your turn is over but before your next one has begun." <- Clearly, the readied action takes place between your turns, not during them, so it is not your turn while the readied action triggers.)

Incorrect. The Ready action occurs on your turn. It 100% requires it to be your turn to prepare/ready an action. The 'trigger' that 'triggers' the Ready action occurs outside of your turn (actually you get the option when it occurs to take it, you don't have to, you can wait for a second, similar trigger later if you think it might happen).

You 'use/prepare' the Ready action on your turn, the trigger occurs when it isn't your turn, but the triggered/readied action is considered your turn, because your initiative/turn is now then. During a Ready action you can also do free or other actions as well as long as they don't violate other time rules placed on characters in a round.
For instance: You can take a 5-foot step during a Ready if you haven't during your original point in initiative. You could also speak or say a line, again, some GMs restrict speech to a set amount of words or time, which means if you used that all up earlier, you might not be able to, because a round is about 6 seconds and if you already spoke 6 seconds earlier,
"Guys, I need you to move out of the way, so I can move up and attack the orc with the greataxe, so back up after you attack!"
(To GM) "I ready to 5-foot step forward and attack when a space opens up."
GM is perfectly in line to not allow any more speech if the Ready action triggers.

The only time this causes problems is with effects triggering twice when they clearly shouldn't, which would be the case with allowing more Swift or Immediate (or any) actions than you can normally take in a round. They also have nothing to do with this post, which is about whether you can use a Standard or move action in place of a Swift/Immediate action (which you cannot). You can use a Standard action to Ready and prepare to use a Swift action, but if you don't have a Swift action available at the time of the triggering event (possibly because you used an Immediate action in the meantime), you can't do it.

This is no different than if you had a move-action ability that you could only do once per round and you did it, then you used your remaining standard action to Ready to try and take that move-action again later in the round (or at the start of the next round before your turn). You can't do it.

TL/DR
The Ready action does allow you to take an action between your turns, but once it triggers, that action point then becomes your turn. Your turn is now there, so there's no more between your turns, because your next turn will be 'there'.

Your interpretation of 'The ready action lets you prepare to take an action later, after your turn is over but before your next one has begun.' is misinterpreting the meaning, which is when a trigger occurs between your turns that it means the readied action is outside your turn. It is not. Once you opt to take the Readied action, it becomes your new initiative and turn, but you've still used up any round restricted actions (normally moot, since you can usually only ready a single action, but there are others, like free actions such as a free AoO from Improved Trip if your Readied action was a trip attempt (but not if you've already used all your AoOs before that point in the round) or a 5-foot step that might still be available (but not if you've moved or taken a 5-foot step prior during the round).

So 'No', Readying to take a Swift action later in the round will not give you more than one Swift (or Immediate) action if you've taken one already in the round.

When you Ready or Delay, you are preparing to take an action outside of your current turn, but once triggered, your initiative becomes set at that new time. That is now your turn (not a new turn), it very clearly isn't a new round or extra turn. It's just your turn that was broken up, just like if your normal turn was interrupted by someone else's Ready action. You're just continuing it from the point where a Special Combat Action altered it.

If your initiative is at 20, and you Ready to perform an action (any action, not just a swift) and it triggers on Initiative 10, your initiative becomes 10 and it is your turn (or 10.1 or whatever will set you just before the current actor's turn that triggered it).

You won't make another Poison save at that time if you already did it, your spell durations won't count down at the start or end of that new turn. Just like you can't constantly Delay to make your spell durations last longer. If you took a swift action during your original turn (or an immediate action in between that time and whatever triggered your Ready action) you can't take another swift or immediate action even though they normally would refesh at the start (swift) or end of a character's turn (immediate).

103. Blueberry

104. Raspberry

105. Blue raspberry

106. Silversheen (next bite attack made within 1 minute bypasses DR/silver)

You have a standard, a move, and a swift/immediate action (and technically a full-round action, but that uses your standard and move actions, or at least prevents them). You can use a standard action in place of a move action, but there is no conversion for turning other actions into swift/immediate actions (unless they make an ability or feat that does so).

No, you cannot 'activate' three swift/immediate actions by using your swift, move, and standard actions. Even if you could substitute another action in place of a swift action, the rules very specifically say that you can only perform one swift/immediate action per turn, regardless of your other actions (unless the ability or action very specifically says so).

You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take

You calculate the total damage it would take, then reduce the damage with resistance.
A creature with fire resistance 10 caught in a fireball that deals 20 fire damage would take 10 fire damage. Its partner next to it that has fire resistance 10 and fire vulnerability would take 30 fire damage reduced by 10 to 20 fire damage.

No. They did away with it. Your character can be as handy (no pun intended) with either hand they wish. It's only when they try and use both simultaneously in combat do the penalties start applying. So theoretically you can pull the old "I'm not really left-handed!" move and swap hands and be able to attack just as well (which is kind of pointless, since you were attacking just as well with your left).

Obviously unless the GM rules it differently for some actions or reasons (like you have definitely stated that you are most definitely right handed.

Basically, they got rid of the Ambidexterity feat in 3.5, since they felt requiring it for two-weapon fighting required too many feats.

Agree with the others, without some ability to accurately determine time or track the time, it would be nearly impossible for an ordinary (and even some extraordinary) people to get it right within a minute or two. It's just not logical. Just like it's just game mechanics that make it '24 hours later', it doesn't necessarily actually mean to the very second.

You could certainly roll a random chance (with modifiers for duration) to try and see if they hit the window, but even with a reference point for a day, not everything is exactly 24 hours. Let's say you got hit at dawn or dusk, not every dawn or dusk occurs exactly 24 hours. Granted, only a day apart would be close, but every minute or ten that you're off the mark of dawn, dusk, noon, or midnight is just basically guesswork.

So unless they start a timer when hit (or very immediately after) and start using hourglasses or counting down themselves and making Intelligence checks to keep count (because even a few microseconds off an accurate count will add up over 24 hours), it's really not feasible or believable. Basically it's a luck check to hit the window with a spell and the duration of it will be the factor that really determines if it should be up at the time. I would likely rule a 10-minute window (ie. spell with that duration) to be fair and close enough.

At 9th level gains 'Stalwart'; A Resilient Bulk Monk can use mental & physical resiliency to avoid certain attacks. If she makes a Fortitude or Will saving throw against an attack that has a halved damage on a successful save, she instead avoids the damage entirely. This ability can only be used if the Monk is wearing no armor.

I think the phrasing is 'avoids the effect entirely', not just the damage.

Also, is it intended to allow these abilities to work with shields? While possible, since it's your creation, most monk abilities also state they don't function while using or carrying a shield.

I guess have some funding laying around. Let's see how that hardcover book turns out.

I have never set up an underground greenhouse (or a regular greenhouse), either in real life or in game. Fungus would be the easiest and most likely plantlife in an underground situation.

It's a hard question to answer, because not all plants need sunlight or at least as much. How much they need for photosynthesis and growing varies wildly. They mostly need photons or light, it doesn't have to be sunlight, but not all interior lights are the same (That's why special grow lights exist for indoor terrariums and greenhouses).

Potato plants aren't going to need the same light as sunflowers or corn or grapes (and there's numerous strains and varieties of each of those).

Assuming we are talking about plants that need light, a continual flame (I know you said continual light), or a light probably won't do it. That's about torchlight level. A continual daylight effect probably could. It's as bright as daylight (note that it doesn't count as sunlight or daylight for creatures affected by it), so it probably is bright enough light, but whether any magical light gives off enough photons or whatever 'real' light gives off is not something I can state definitively.

Obviously if you get into spells that do function as daylight, like sunbeam or morning sun, and assuming you could capture or create an item that emanated such light, that's pretty much a fair 'yes'. But otherwise, it really comes down to the plant and how much light it needs for how long (some plants need a full day of light (at least 8 hours or more). Some won't.

So I'd say that a continual lightsource can work, but it would probably have to be at least daylight strength and it depends on the plants.

Why is there no Metamagic Feat that, I dunno, Doubles(?) the Skill Bonus given?

As other's have touched on, it would be too hard to balance. There's plenty of spells where doubling their Skill bonus would be balanced, or lackluster, or overpowered for just a +1 spell level increase.

For instance, Crafter's Fortune would be a 2nd-level slot and let you hold onto it for at least 3 days and would double the +5 Luck bonus to +10 on a Craft check.

Whereas now things like disguise self or even beastshape are giving +20 bonuses to your disguise. and glibness is getting +40 to your Bluff check for lying.

It's just so hard to balance every bonus with every skill with every spell, since a +1 or +2 bonus to one skill doesn't equal the value to another.

The best way to do this is to create or add more spells specifically. For instance, an improved disguise self or greater disguise self or disguise self II or greater jump where they basically do the same thing but increase the bonuses granted by the spell in a manner where the amount and impact can be controlled rather than allowing an open-ended feat and some obscure spell to break things wide open. It also lets you set the spell slot at a point where that bonus would be appropriate, rather than trying to balance a +1 or +2 increase that would work universally for every spell and every skill and every increase.

When a druid uses wildshape he is in the form of an animal. When a humanoid sorcerer uses his bloodline power to grow claws he is in the form of a humanoid.

No one is saying you can't have claws, or pointy teeth, a tail. But if the appearance would fall into the parameters of another creature type. You cannot take that appearance. That is RAW.

There are also humanoid races that grant the characters those features.

No one is saying that you can't look like a creature with any of those features. It is NOT the features that are in question. It is the extent of the change. If you are a Humanoid, you 100% can use disguise self to look like a creature that has claws. Like a tabaxi. You can turn into a kitsune and have one, two, or nine tails. Those are reasonable. You could even have no tail and have it look like a stump where it was cut off.

Once you start trying to claim you look like a kitsune with 15 tails, or that they look like tentacles or have scorpion stingers on them, then you are going too far. How far is too far? It varies, because expecting there to be 72 pages of exacting limits for what is undoubtedly and undeniably such an open-ended option as any illusion spell is unreasonable. Some humans are below 4 feet in height or greater than 7. That doesn't make them sub-human or less than human (or greater than human). That doesn't mean that every single human using disguise self will be able to appear at any height that a human can be. There are clearly limits imposed on the spell, both stated, and implied.

Disguise self can 100% allow you to look like a Medusa. You 100% can look like a Choker. You 100% can look like a Beholder... [wait for it]... IF you are already that Creature type (Monstrous Humanoid or Aberration) and are within 1 foot of its height. But that doesn't mean all Monstrous Humanoids or all Aberrations can look like a Medusa or a Choker or a Beholder.

There are limits based on the wording that DOES exist in the spell. While that wording at first says 'you can't change your creature type' we know that doesn't mean actually changing your creature type, because the spell doesn't do that, we know it means the appearance of another creature type, and that's reinforced when they next say 'although you can appear as another subtype'. That second line doesn't change the limitations before it. You still can't appear as the same creature type taller or shorter than one foot.

So if you are are a Humanoid (the default assumption here so I don't have to keep spelling it out all the time) the extent of your changes can't go across a threshold where something would appear to be a Monstrous Humanoid (or an Animal, or a Dragon, or an Aberration). That is RAW.

Unfortunately for people that want to make a form with new features, RAW states that a Monstrous Humanoid resembles a Humanoid with Monstrous or Animalistic features.

Monstrous humanoids are similar to humanoids, but with monstrous or animalistic features. They often have magical abilities as well.

I think we all reasonably consider claws, fangs, fur, tails, etc. as animalistic features, even if some humans can have those features "In a world where magic is a thing and anything is possible!" That is because it is written in common language and speech. That is RAW.

So yes, if a Humanoid subtype has those features they are an exception and loophole (good on you for buying their splatbook or expanded rule guide or using Google Search), but once you step beyond what that creature type (not class) typically looks like, and start adding in features, you would be appearing as a Monstrous Humanoid. This is like you trying to claim "Police officers and EMTs can exceed the speed limit sometimes, so I can exceed the speed limit (even adding 'sometimes') even though I am not a police officer or EMT.'

Even the OP knows that it isn't directly stated, because it would take tomes and tomes of descriptions to cover everything for a topic that ultimately will always fall to the GM deciding "this is okay, and that is okay... but this and that is not okay."

One thing people are forgetting is that some characters have the ability to add features through race or class abilities. Are those not able to be duplicated with disguise self. Both the Abyssal and Draconic sorcerer bloodlines allow the sorcerer to grow claws; there are at least 3 bloodlines that allow the sorcerer to grow wings. Multiple martial classes allow the character to gain a variety of natural weapons including bites and claws.

Nobody is forgetting that. But the disguise self spell has limitations on what it can do. It doesn't matter if five, ten, or even 100 other spells can. First off, just realize that disguise self cannot let you take the guise of another creature type. If you aren't an animal, you can't disguise yourself as a bear. If you disagree with this, then we are so far apart that you will not be able to understand that, otherwise, it would be pointless to have a creature type restriction. And from a good faith standpoint, we have to assume there's a reason for it.

There may be classes that can grow claws, or teeth, or wings. I bet if we look hard enough, we can find a class that can turn itself into a sheep, or a bear, or some other shape out of the wilds. That doesn't mean you can appear as a bear, because:
Player: "I'm appearing as a human with moss in their hair and leather robes and a silver sickle and holly and mistletoe and they have a beard with twigs in it and the robes have symbols of a druidic order."
GM: "That all sounds within the spell parameters, some people might mistake you for a druid so you might be able to get past the guards and..."
Player: "No wait! I'm not done... I'm in the guise of a human druid... who's wildshaped into a bear! Because that's still a Humanoid (Human), it doesn't change your type!"
GM: "No!"

There's a reason there is a restriction on what you can look like (whether you agree or disagree). If you can't look like a bear or look like a frost giant, you can't look like a wizard that cast a polymorph spell or "I'm disguised a wizard that could take the form of a dragon with disguise self!"

That would be allowing the spell to do something it is clearly stated that it can't do.

Disguise self can specifies it affects your equipment including clothing, armor and weapons. This allows a caster with no weapons or armor to appear to be a paladin wearing full plate carrying a flaming sword. If that is the case, why cannot it make the same sorcerer appear as if they are a dragon disciple with the fangs claws and wings the character they are imitating has? If they can appear as the dragon disciple, why cannot they change the appearance of the fangs, claws and wings to something else?

First, let's be clear this topic is about changing the user's form moreso than equipment (which really isn't disputed). Saying that, disguise self can't make you look like a paladin or dragon disciple because those aren't equipment or gear nor are they creatures or things with a creature type, so they can't be your creature type. Those are classes. The spell can give you the equipment or appearance or clothing that might make people assume or mistake you for a paladin or dragon disciple or a plumber or a beggar. OOC you might say to the GM you are trying to pass as a plumber just to make it easier for them to visualize it (and probably understand why you went with a bushy mustache and overalls), but you would first have to be a human (or elf or half-orc or gnome) who is wearing illusory clothing or carrying illusory tools that a plumber or paladin might have. That has to happen before anything else, because you can't be a hill giant plumber (unless you're very, very tall already) or a medusa plumber. Have to get the creature type first.

You could very legitimately have your disguise self spell give you a glowing longsword, a shining breastplate, and holy symbol of a devout and good church, and even a medallion that only members of a paladin's order can wear... and you can still have someone that doesn't recognize the symbol or has a poor Knowledge check and they just think you're a human fighter with shiny armor and a magic sword and some really cool noble crest. They could also think you're a human wizard using a disguise spell to look like a paladin too, though, but you can't look like a minotaur that gets mistaken for a paladin or a plumber or a fighter.

The point is, equipment and clothing are a separate aspect of the spell, and have their own restrictions and limitations (not many) compared to the aspects of the user's form and what they can appear as. It would be like saying, "disguise self can make my 4-foot greatsword look like an 8-inch dagger, so it can make me look three feet shorter. Because Science!" Except, it can't, because it says it can't.

In a world where magic is real any humanoid could have nearly any feature. Saying disguise self cannot add features unless it is the norm for the race is not RAW.

Because Core spells and rules are not written to be parsed and applied to every possible thing that can happen in an individual game. It would be impossible. There could be games where humans have claws (when we know they don't). There are feats or abilities that let casters change the types or targets or ranges of spells, but it's those abilities that have to allow it, not require every general rule to spell out or say, "Unless it's different in your game." or "Unless you don't use creature types or don't want to have the one-foot height restriction at your table."

It's also not RAW to say that disguise self lets you make yourself look like a creature that wouldn't be your creature type or that talking to someone under a purely visual glamer counts as interacting and being able to see through it, whether you can see them or not, such as hearing them around a corner or while wearing a blindfold.

When you try and say something like, "Anything is possible with magic!" so there's no limits! That kind of falls flat when the spells themselves have limits or at least stated power scope or parameters. It's like you arguing with your GM that you should be able to cast true strike and get a +5 bonus to attacks over 4 rounds... "because magic exists!" And you try and convince them by saying the math adds up (true) and you'll only get the 'ignores miss chance' on the first round to keep it fair. That can all be true, but it's not the spell. It would be like you claiming bless should give a higher to hit bonus because another 1st-level spell can give +20 to hit. It's all true, but that's not how the spells work.

You end up like [some people] who act like they're being generous or clever when they see a spell that reads "...deals 1d6 fire damage per caster level (maximum 50 fire damage per casting)" and claim that changing the damage type with Energy Admixture or some other ability is intended to break the damage limitation of the spell "because they said 'fire'", when it clearly isn't intended. They certainly could have just said 'damage' but it's also unreasonable to require them to predict every possible alteration or interaction possible in a game where you are literally saying "Anything's possible!"

Pizza Lord wrote:

You are not going to use disguise self to make your halfing look like a choker. ...

or whether you know it's an Aberration, or whether you're under some delusion that you yourself are an Aberration

It's statements like this that make this discussion feel like you either don't understand what is being discussed or that you are jumping to unwarranted conclusions. A Choker is an abomination, not a humanoid, and so would be an invalid target for disguise self.

It's statements like this that make it very obvious that you're being very disingenuous about this discussion. One, you claim that medusas have disguise self spell-like abilities and have been designed to just break rules but never addressed it when asked.

It would also clash with entities like Medusa being designed to disguise their snake hair using their sla Disguise Self castings to pass as a normal humanoid.

Two, you keep claiming that people are trying to deceptively give you 'official' answers when they very clearly say that you ARE NOT GOING TO GET ONE, but they are happy to offer you their advice and interpretation to further your discussion, and you then use to tell THEM that they're posting in the wrong forum.

Three, You literally QUOTE a post, above, where the post says that YOU CANNOT USE DISGUISE SELF TO MAKE YOUR HALFLING APPEAR AS A CHOKER. BECAUSE A CHOKER IS AN ABERRATION!
And you somehow think, "I know, I'll quote that post... and reply that a Choker is an Abomination ... and tell the person that I just quoted that from... that they don't know what a Choker is and that disguise self can't do that, and claim they don't know that, and not address a single actual point or contradictory fact or statement that doesn't match the outcome or answer I want!"

... in your game you can have Humans with wings and snake hair and Spell Resistance, and they can turn people to stone... but then, you can just allow disguise self to turn you into a demigod. Hell, two demigods! Go ahead.

Again, this is fundamentally wrong, the rules around polymorph spells are very clear that they don't automatically give the creature abilities or even inherent attack effects like a poisonous bite or sting.

What in the Hell are you talking about? What does polymorph have to do with disguise self? Where are you bringing polymorph into your reply that you quoted? That quote clearly says that you, as the GM, can rule, however the [Heck] you want or let disguise self do what you want, but that you asked for limitations on rules, but then get upset when people actually give limitations (and provide reasons and examples to back up why that makes sense over 'no limitations') that don't fit your desired and preconceived notions.

For someone so quick to try and bawl out people for 'not discussing in good faith' you've done zero to actually acknowledge or reply or say, "Yeah, the spell isn't supposed to do that!" (Other than repeating when I said "The spell isn't supposed to do that!" and you then said I somehow didn't know the spell couldn't do that).
AND YOU ARE STILL WRONG! A CHOKER IS NOT AN ABOMINATION! IT IS AN ABERRATION! YOU LITERALLY QUOTED THE POST!

Seriously, are you in the wrong forum? Are you playing PF.2e? Are the creature types listed as Abominations there? Maybe you're in the wrong forum, since you're claiming medusa have SLAs and Chokers are abominations. That might be the whole issue you're having.

Hold up now, that means your earlier posts weren't good faith discussion. This is the "Rules Questions" 1e forum, not the "Advice" or "Homebrew and House Rules" forums.

Incorrect. Don't even try and pull that garbage. In fact, my very first sentence makes it clear that you aren't going to get a hard and fast 'Official' ruling. It doesn't matter what forum you post in. Go back and read it. You are not going to have some dev delineate every single acceptable change from the millions of possible anatomical, biological, and hypothetical possibilities of every single creature possible in Pathfinder. If that's what you demand of anyone, then don't expect any replies. All we can give you is advice and quote rules you already know with our interpretation. (I know others have given their houserules that directly contradict stated rulings and examples, but that was on tangential topics, like seeing through disguise self, not what the guise might be).

My stance, from the very first statement, is that you aren't going to get an official rule and I am only saying how it would be viewed by me, as a GM. That is the best you will get from anyone.

The best overall table ruling, for the broadest use of all tables, not just mine or yours (you can always change yours, as can any GM), has always been that by taking the creature type restriction into account (assuming a Humanoid caster, as per your examples), less so the height restriction, it is clear that disguise self is not intended to allow the user to become some 'monstrous' humanoid. You might be confusing me with others that allow no limits as long as the creature is within one foot of your height. I think it would be foolish to allow that, even if your type was Monstrous Humanoid (and to be clear, I mean adding a bunch of new features to the form of a Monstrous Human you're in the guise of, like webbed feet on a minotaur instead of hooves and eyestalks on a medusa).

Taking the creature type restriction into account, having the caster state the creature they are turning into, and give the generalities. Strong, male drow. Fat, human male. Skinny, goblin woman. Then you can let them add on details, like hair, eye color, what clothing or equipment they wear. The second they say something that goes 'that don't sound like a [insert creature here]' should make you stop. "Fat, human man with blue eyes. My shortsword looks like a dagger and he has tentacles for fingers and his nose is an elephant's trunk." It's too far, that's not a Humanoid (human), or Humanoid (elf), or Humanoid (goblin). So unless they can find a [Humanoid] race with those traits, disguise self can't do it. Use another illusion spell that isn't limited to that. Otherwise you are directly ignoring the creature type restriction, and that would be 'Homebrew' or 'Advice (because "Here's why I ignore it")

I'm asking about how the spell actually works, not how you would preemptively balance it for your own table.

I have been very clear that my opinion on the matter comes from what would be the simplest, easiest to explain and fairest ruling (in my opinion) among all tables to avoid table variance or game-shock (which is how rules should be rated and balanced, obviously in your game you can have Humans with wings and snake hair and Spell Resistance, and they can turn people to stone... but then, you can just allow disguise self to turn you into a demigod. Hell, two demigods! Go ahead.

Every reply I've made has been based on the rules. I still haven't seen the medusa you mentioned with a disguise self spell-like ability you quoted in your original post that specifically uses it to take Humanoid guises and how this was one of the basis and foundations of your confusion. I'm thinking you made it up, so don't get surprised when you get answers that are also skewed or sidetracked. If a race says their ability functions like disguise self but they can appear as [some creature of a different type]', then it works.

I have consistently been on the side of not allowing fictitious and preposterous additions to a creature's form that are not in their normal parameters. Perhaps you're confusing me with people that definitely ignore the rulings and consider a visual illusion to be interacted with just by hearing the creature's voice or stating that a white shirt glamered to look red sounds different and triggers an auto-save. Or that you can look like something you've never seen or know what it looks like.

TL;DR
You are not going to use disguise self to make your halfing look like a choker. It doesn't matter that you fit the height requirement exactly. The spell cannot do that for you. It doesn't matter whether you know what a choker is, or whether you know it's an Aberration, or whether you're under some delusion that you yourself are an Aberration or secretly a choker cursed to look like a halfling and you just want to appear as your 'true form'.

That also means you are not going to become a halfling with long choker arms, or even short choker arms, or even halfling tentacles because maybe you're in the guise of a 'mutant halfling'. Stop it.

You want red hair? Do halflings have red hair? Great. You want luminescent, glowing hair that radiates sparkles and rainbows? No!
You can make an illusory headpiece or wig that shines and sparkles with a rainbow sheen, because you can alter the look of your clothing and gear. You want gloves with no fingers and long sleeves that look like tentacles? Yes, but that's going to affect your Disguise check and has nothing to do with the form or creature you appear as. It just means using Assumed Form would make your change to a halfling 'real', and so would the gloves that look like you have tentacles, but they wouldn't be tentacles. The same if you wanted wings. Halflings don't have wings. Make it look like you have wings of flying for equipment, but then when you use Assumed Form, you'd be a 'real' halfling with (illusory) wings of flying. They wouldn't become a real magic item even though your illusory halfling guise became real and polymorph-like.

When I said that's why I didn't allow fictitious additions, it's not because you just did your 'big reveal', it's because I have always said that, because I am not an idiot and I know how players try to pull Gotcha! surprises and finding obscure interactions. Your big trap would work with other GMs, and others repliers here. Don't get angry and try and claim I am being disingenuous because your clever ability wouldn't work at my table. It shouldn't work at ANY table (and by that, I mean where you specifically use disguise self to add a bunch of limbs and features, not that disguise self or Assumed Form wouldn't work, they would, just not in the clearly abuseable way you are insinuating).

They don’t need to study the target carefully but do have to be doing something with them.

Sure, but let's be clear, studying a person carefully is definitely grounds to make a save against disguise self (assuming you can see what's altered. For instance, if they've disguised a tattoo on their back and you can't see their back, shaking their hand or talking to them or making a Sense Motive Check against a Bluff they make isn't going to let you disbelieve the illusion. It's not intended and it's not stated to be that way.

Using that as a basis, interacting generally means spending a move action, standard action, or greater on a character’s part (1). For example, if there were a major image of an ogre, a character who tried to attack the ogre would receive a saving throw to disbelieve, as would a character who spent 1 minute attempting a Diplomacy check on the ogre. A character who just traded witty banter with the ogre as a free action would not, nor would a character who simply cast spells on herself or her allies and never directly confronted the illusory ogre. For a glamer, interacting generally works the same as for a figment, except that the interaction must be limited to something the glamer affects. For instance, grabbing a creature’s ear would be an interaction for a human using disguise self to appear as an elf, but not for someone using a glamer to change his hair color. Similarly, visually studying someone would not grant a save against a glamer that purely changed her voice.(2)

(1) Generally mean if the guised creature touched your or hit you with a glamered weapon, you'd get a chance to save without using an action or some other reason.

I'd say it's why I didn't allow fictitious aspects, since the possibility of somehow creating or stumbling on a shadow illusion (which doesn't exist, but some variant of shadow conjuration that worked on illusions) or other effect (something that made the illusion at least partially real) would be vastly abuseable. It's to prevent things like that. The safest guideline is to keep it in the parameters of the creature you are disguised as (while still having vast amounts of detail and options, but still existing and viable properties of the creature.

My vision of what "interact [with the illusion]" means is somewhat different.

... as long as you interact with the glamoured person you are interacting with the spell.

That is most definitely different than the rules and norms. If that house rule works for you, that's fine. The wording of the CRB and other definite rules are that you normally do not count as interacting (for purposes of getting a disbelief saving through or to see through the illusion), just by standing near or talking or seeing someone unless you use an action of some kind to interact with (talking and looking do not).

If you see someone who's 5'10 walk through a 6-foot high doorway, that's not unusual just because they didn't duck. Maybe they've walked through that doorway a hundred times or... just didn't duck. If you saw their head pass through it, then yes.

Now, if you've declared that your character is intently studying someone to the point where you're calculating that someone passes through a doorway with an inch of clearance and doesn't flinch or duck their head... then you might have call to be considered studying the creature. But not just because you see a creature walking. Different people, even human males of the same height and weight, could walk in entirely different ways. Expecting your character to make some advanced deduction just seeing someone make a 5-foot step and knowing their shoe size, how comfortable or worn their boots are, whether they have swollen ankles or sore feet from walking all day, or anything else and somehow getting to make a free saving through is not the norm. You need to at least say, "I am studying them for anything that looks off" first. Just hearing a squeak of leather when a woman walks by isn't enough (because the rulings have said so). It might lead to you taking time to study or look for something and then get a save.

When the disguise fails ... the person making the check gets to make a save against the illusion.

Fair enough, assuming the took time to try and look and sense there was a disguise or had a reason to study them, then noting someone's in a disguise (when that wouldn't be normal, ie. someone in a costume at a costume party or masquerade ball isn't).

If the save succeeds the illusion is canceled against the guy that made the save, if the save fails, he dismisses the result of the perception check result as "something seems amiss, but nothing important".

No, he doesn't dismiss is, he just doesn't know the disguise is an illusion or be able to see through it. He's already made the check to realize the person he's looking at is disguised, he just doesn't disbelieve the illusion, so if their hair was altered, he might think it was a wig or dye or otherwise fake. He doesn't forget it's a disguise and think nothing's amiss because he doesn't realize the disguise is illusory, as opposed to practical (ie. from a disguise kit or just natural skill at mimicry).

... It also allows for a will save if you interact with the target of the spell. ...

For completeness sake, not that I think you necessarily intended different. It is not 'interacting with the target' (the caster of disguise self, in this case), it has to actively be interacting with an aspect of the glamer.

In some things the GM is going to need to use some common sense. Trying to make up a fictitious race that looks like a beholder is obviously an abuse of the spell, but changing your skin color to green or appearing as a winged human should be fine.

I think those 'should' be fine too, but I was under the impression the OP is looking for at least some actual limit or guideline or something they can use for their game or ruling with a reasonable explanation should they need to explain it to one of their players. Not just a list of things that are okay. "Claws are okay... but only if you're a Humanoid... you have to say 'Catfolk claws' not 'cat claws'."

If it's only "Taller or shorter by one foot and as long as they don't specifically say a creature type that isn't theirs, everything in existence is allowed," that might be acceptable to them as a GM in their game, but I still think they know that would be asking for trouble and needless complications (not the end of the world or a game-breaking situation, but something better to avoid).

My recommendation (which is all this is), is that a safe guideline and easy to explain limit is features available (even possibly extreme ones or genetic flaws) to the race you are guising as (before adding in tattoos or scars or birthmarks or equipment).

If you can't find a winged humanoid (let alone a specific winged human creature), then you could always do different things, like have it appear that you're wearing wings of flying that are active and have bird or bat wings showing (obviously can't fly). Or unless your world has drow with bright, green, Hulk-like skin, it's either best to have your 'equipment' or covering be (illusory) bodypaint. A blue [creature that is three-apples high, I am not saying the name] is not out of the ordinary. A similarly blue-skinned drow would be. I am not saying there isn't a way for disguise self to pull off those guises (and obviously in your game where anything other than height and type is allowed that's even easier), I am just talking about a good, easy to define and explain limit and guideline. Don't like it, err one way or the other, more or less lenient.

Others can disagree, I just don't think the intent or power-scope of the spell is intended to be a creature of any size and appearance and features and qualities as long as its vertical height is in a 2-foot range regardless of its body length or weight or size or girth or dimensions. Allowing a 6-foot human female to look like a 5-foot fat human man, even an obese or albino one with no hair that looks like they have an orange toupee (equipment) is fine. Letting them be a five-foot tall human male (within parameters for height and type) with 20-foot tentacles for arms, a snail shell on their back, a quilled bearded devil beard, and a spider/drider lower half, with glowing purple eyes (not contact lenses or goggles that are luminescent purple) and taking up a 15-foot space (long, not tall, because the spell doesn't mention any dimensions other than Y) with the leg and spider abdomen width... is not something that should be allowed without understanding just how much that can effect things.

As far as I know there is no rule that states all saves are made when they target the creature.

Agreed. While that's likely the method for most spells, I think it isn't always the case. It just wouldn't make sense for all of them.

There is a set of sequences that you have to go through. The save happens right after targeting the creature as there's no variance in the spell description from the normal rules.

It would certainly help if all spells stated such things, but it's not how it works. Sometimes things aren't parsed out in perfect order or it's believed (or hoped) that the reader will understand the intent.

Triggered hallucination does have such text, and checks for Spell Resistance when cast (so you'd know in that case if it failed), but there's no saving throw until the trigger occurs, which you might not even be around for. You don't get to know ahead of time whether they'll fail or not when it triggers. There's no save to stop the spell from being cast. Theoretically there could be 15 triggered hallucinations on a target and there's nothing they could do about it (barring Spell Resistance or dispelling them before the trigger occurs). No save or anything, just hope they can pass it when it happens.
You don't check first and know, "Oh, it's not gonna work when it happens." Nor should the target,

Marks of Forbiddance doesn't say it, but reading the intent, it doesn't look like it checks when it's cast, only when the targets try to attack each other. Otherwise you are having a spell that can fail based on two creatures making a save and if one passes the spell is wasted (obviously if one passes the spell shouldn't work just one-way), and then having a save again for each attack just for the spell to do anything. It just doesn't seem intended that such a short-lived spell, with conditions that make it harmless (just don't attack each other), would be intended to require the caster to beat two saving throws and require another each round to have any effect.

Same with discern lies. While I agree all the targets (let's say up to 7 at the level you can cast it) have to be in range (and within 30 feet of each other at casting), I don't think you make the save until you concentrate on one and try to discern the lies. Otherwise, you know which ones passed already, and why would you ever concentrate on that target (and they're not even technically a target anymore, since they passed and Negated it), they shouldn't still have a negated magic aura visible or be under it's effect after saving, even if you can't do anything. It just makes logical sense that when you actually concentrate on that one, you make the check.

So while the save at casting thing is probably correct 95%+ of the time, it's not always the case, and I don't think it works for confess as smoothly as only requiring the save when/if they lie and would take damage.

There is no reason you cannot alter your looks to be something total fictitious. The only limits to what the spell can accomplish are listed in the spell.

That's an okay way of looking at it, but unfortunately there's 'looks good on paper' and 'can be described in actual gameplay.'

We have the height restriction and the can't change your creature type restriction. That doesn't mean a 1st-level spell is meant to have unlimited power and potential because it wasn't specifically listed out with parameters for every single creature, anatomy, creature type, and feature of each individual creature (be it the caster or the intended guise).

The creature type restriction isn't meant to be specifically the creature type, because you know that logically in game no player ever says, "I cast disguise self to look like an 'Undead' or 'Outsider (Evil)'." It clearly means trying to look like a creature that is a type other than yours (barring ones that specifically look like another creature type, like Medusa or Maenads looking like human women). Just like a player trying to say, "I cast the spell and look like a human skeleton (Undead). Oh, I can't become an Undead...? Well... then I'm just a Humanoid (Human) with no eyes, muscles, organs, or skin." Clearly, they're trying to look like an Undead.

No. If a player (Humanoid) said, "I want to look like a medusa," you know that isn't in the parameters or scope of the spell. To then let them go, "Oh... then I'll just be a human woman with medusa snakes for hair," clearly is not the intention of the spell.

With your method a gnome could look like a Medusa (just a two to four-foot tall one) if they wanted. Or you allow a player to make a statement like, "Well, a horse is Large, but many horses can be 5 to 7 feet tall, as a 6-foot tall human, I want to look like a horse animal... err... I mean 'a humanoid (human)' ::wink-wink:: with a horse-face and mane standing 7-feet tall, with four legs and a 6-foot long horse body."
Or "Some snakes that get 12 to 20 feet long are still less than a foot-tall, so I am going to say there's a fictitious snake that would be 6-feet tall in heighhhhht!, and... by reasonable math... have a 75-foot long body. I know a snake's an Animal, but I, a 6-foot tall Humanoid (Human) am just in the guise of a 6-foot tall Humanoid (halfling) that has a snake head and a snake's 75-foot long... not high!... snake body. It also has wings... but bat-like, not feathered, cause I don't want to be a Couatl. And mirror-like reflective scales! Also... I decided I want gray eyes! I promise to keep myself coiled up in a 5-foot space, though, because I'm not looking to cause you any problems or anything! It'll just look like a coiled snake sliding along the floor while wrapped around itself... but that won't be unusual for anyone... because that's just how this creature that doesn't exist moves... so no one will find it odd or worthy of further investigation."

Or allowing them to claim they're making up a fictitious race, they'd have to make up a fictitious creature type for that race.
Player: "I am disguising myself an immense (but only +1 foot of my height) orb surrounded by eyeballs!"
GM: "That's a [copyright]! That's an aberration. The spell can't do that."
Player: "Oh... This is a fictitious, made-up creature... It's a... ummm... 'Humanoid' with the...uhh... 'Bee...hol...durr' subtype in parenthesis. Spelled with a 'U', so it's totally different. Yeah, they look exactly like a ... thing you said... but their eyes are just normal eyes..."
GM: "Oh, well... as long as it's only your height +/– one foot, then I guess that's clearly allowed and intended."

It's nice on paper or in argument, but doesn't work in reality or actual gameplay.

I understand what you mean now, I think I got thrown off on a medusa snake-hair tangent when you said they had a disguise self spell-like ability and that's how they looked human.

I think the generally accepted guideline is that if you use disguise self to look like another creature (basically other than yourself with some changed features), the 'extent' of the changes called out in the spell should likely fall into the race's parameters (other than height restriction, which is called out in the spell). This could still be extremes for the race that aren't in the racial 'norms' or averages', so obesity or even albinism would be possible, but not turning into an elf with medusa snake-hair. Turning into a Strix is probably fine, but not one with batwings or glowing red eyes, unless that's a common or known trait type. But you could probably look like a Strix that's had its wing feathers shaved or plucked.

A human guise with six-fingers is probably acceptable, but not squid tentacles or four arms. A one-legged guise for a humanoid is probably fine (as long as you aren't walking around on your two legs, which would probably call for immediate disbelief from observers, even though most humanoids have two arms and two legs, but it's not unheard of for one to be lost or even born without one or the other (but it is believably more likely to get people looking and studying you more, even if it's only when they think you aren't looking). And even though conjoined twins are a thing, it's probably beyond the spell to make such a thing where even joined, they're considered separate individuals. A non-sentient parasitic twin might be acceptable, but not one that can talk or take actions, since that probably goes a bit beyond the spell's intentions.

The spell can do things like scars or tattoos (or conceal them) or clothing and equipment, so technically if your GM allows it (and contact lenses are a thing you know about in the game) the spell could give you such lenses as 'equipment' and your disguised form's eye color could be different than the racial eye color norms of the race you are pretending to be... but then an observer should be able to note that you seem to have contact lenses if they look close enough (whether they know they're illusory or not). Kind of like you probably can't turn into a human with blue skin, but you could maybe convince your GM that your disguise is a human covered in blue body-paint. Or a bald, hairless race wearing a colored wig, or a drow with dyed blonde hair (which would require people to examine to tell, in case they wondered if it was dyed or a wig and they might just see that's it's an illusion, but if they fail, they might think it's just dyed, as you intended).