Shiroi's page

Because not all games go to level 20, this offers the viability of having the sword be a slightly more generic brand of paladin based weapon accessible to more games without being world breaking. This is then followed by the option to add runes and such to make it stronger, or the DM Fiat to introduce a name brand Excalibur or some such that's more suitable to end game.

Shiroi wrote:

I have a concept.

Assurance:
Select a skill to which assurance applies. If the skill is untrained, you may never critically fail any check in which the DC is equal or below a trivial DC for your level. If this skill is trained, you may never critically fail a check which is equal or below a Low DC for your level, or fail a task which is trivial. If the skill is expert, these limits become High and Low DC for your level. At master, you may not critically fail a Severe DC for your level, and at legendary you may not fail a High DC for your level.

Now the lowest mark for your assurance feats scales to your character and the DC of the tasks they might attempt and consider trivial, but also rewards putting more effort into the skill. It's useful for athletics for swim check for a fighter who has it at trained because they can't possibly drown in calm water, and probably won't drown as quickly in moving water. It's also very useful for a legendary rogue in acrobatics, because they can accomplish many impressive tasks without any effort and can at least avoid severe harm during all but the most insane stunts.

That could also work, though it is more complex than either the feat as it exists now or taking 10.

It is, I'd like a better wording it was just a conceptual design really. The idea is to make assurance work off the concept of not necessarily being better at the skill (as in broader knowledge of technique) so much as becoming more confident and practiced in the things you do know of the skill. You might not know any more about religion than before, but you have absolutely memorized what you have been told and won't misremember it. If assurance functions off changing the degree of success, then it allows a roll but reduces the consequences of a bad roll.

Perhaps that might be the ideal shortcut right there, for a very simple implementation.

Assurance
Choose a skill in which you are trained. Treat your degree of success as one step higher to a maximum of failure in that skill. If you are master or better, your may treat it as one step higher to a maximum of success instead.

I have a concept.
Assurance:
Select a skill to which assurance applies. If the skill is untrained, you may never critically fail any check in which the DC is equal or below a trivial DC for your level. If this skill is trained, you may never critically fail a check which is equal or below a Low DC for your level, or fail a task which is trivial. If the skill is expert, these limits become High and Low DC for your level. At master, you may not critically fail a Severe DC for your level, and at legendary you may not fail a High DC for your level.

Now the lowest mark for your assurance feats scales to your character and the DC of the tasks they might attempt and consider trivial, but also rewards putting more effort into the skill. It's useful for athletics for swim check for a fighter who has it at trained because they can't possibly drown in calm water, and probably won't drown as quickly in moving water. It's also very useful for a legendary rogue in acrobatics, because they can accomplish many impressive tasks without any effort and can at least avoid severe harm during all but the most insane stunts.

I've been meaning to make a post about the low DCs for rituals, one pointing out how the DC16 check for control weather was all but assured for a player able to be expert in nature.

In the process of getting the numbers correct, I had a realization and found myself moving to the GM section for skills, and noticed that 'severe DC' is a game term, not hyperbole or description.

Severe DC should be italicized or in some way set apart to make it clear that it references the GM skill chart, and possibly including the DC in the ritual itself will prevent errors and make it obvious that just doubling the spell level isn't the correct calculation for the DC.

It almost feels like they made the format to use as a blog, and abandoned putting any more research into it. I was super sold on the idea of action economy gating the power and efficiency of spells. I can see a lot of potential for combining spells - featherfall->anthaul>fly adding duration and then power/control. I can see a lot of potential for additional range, changing the shape of the blast, or adding piercing or other secondary effects to nuke spells, I can see all kinds of things that can make spell craft more than just 3/day fireball, 3/day dispel magic and a few cantrips.

This system can be expanded greatly, and it wouldn't hurt my feelings in the slightest.

Note use of the term "reset". Until you Prepare, you keep all your previous day's resources, even after resting. The obvious reason would be so that the party can survive the ever-popular night ambush.

One would think, but reset is used in the bullet section for points and per day abilities, where "they'll use that day" is used for spells, and the other sections lack the term as well. I think it's mostly just a wording choice.

I get the impression that as written not much thought was put to the idea of failing to use your hour upon waking up. Personally I never have liked that method, and omit it from home games, so I'm hoping for at least better wording if not outright removal of the mechanic.

To my understanding, your spells are only prepared until the next time you rest.

When initially setting out to explore, or after a night’s
rest, the PCs spend time to prepare for the adventuring
day over the span of 30 minutes to an hour. This typically
happens in the morning, but always after 8 full hours of
rest. Daily preparations include the following.
• Spellcasters who prepare spells need to spend time
choosing which spells they’ll use that day.
• Resonance Points, Spell Points, and other effects and
abilities that reset during preparation all reset at this point.
This includes abilities that can be used a certain number of
times per day.
• Each character equips their gear. This includes donning
their armor and strapping on their weapons.
• Characters invest magic items to use the items’ magical
abilities for the day, as described on page 377.

This indicates you lose your spells and attunements for the day after your rest, and must prepare them or do without. It looks like you -might- keep resonance/spell points from the day before up until the prep time, but seems to call out most other things as having been lost during the night.

October of 2015. This thread is from when chaokineticists were new.

Shiroi wrote:

This was also impossible for me to find, including using the appendix for over half an hour. Apart from the fact that I strongly dislike this rule, I'd at least like it to be more easily located (directly next to the weight chart for weapons, in a clearly important spot would be nice) so I know the giant totem barbarian isn't getting much of anything besides flavor until he picks up class feats.

What couldn't you find? There is no entry about damage for different sized weapons because different sized weapons have no mechanical effect.

And that's a thing which makes little to no sense, because if I hit a goblin with a longsword sized for a goblin, I'll cut his armor and barely nick skin. If I hit him with a full sized longsword, the added mass and length will disembowel him, and if I hit him with a longsword of appropriate size for a giant I'll cleave him in two.

If there isn't any relationship between hitting someone with a twig (size tiny staff) vs a tree trunk (size huge staff) then there should absolutely be something stating that clearly and in no uncertain terms, or people who can think about the physics or have any experience in Pathfinder 1st edition will be looking for ages for non-existent information.

This was also impossible for me to find, including using the appendix for over half an hour. Apart from the fact that I strongly dislike this rule, I'd at least like it to be more easily located (directly next to the weight chart for weapons, in a clearly important spot would be nice) so I know the giant totem barbarian isn't getting much of anything besides flavor until he picks up class feats.

Personally I can't help but feel that at 1 feat per skill, assurance would be far more tempting to take if it was retroactive. I roll my stealth, I nat 1, my assurance takes over as a minimum value of 10 so I know I probably won't sneak past the captain of the guard but even on my worst days I'll get past the half asleep drunkard at the gate.

I cast a favorable vote on making race matter more from the start with room to expand. I think doubling the number of racial feat choices and granting 3-5 at first level would be plenty.

I use F°, being part of that one silly country, and I approve and appreciate any measure to get rid of it. If I saw C° and meters used more often here I'd get used to it and be able to use it fluently, and if the rest of us did similarly we could abandon the "standard system" and all of it's absurdity within a generation or two.

It stacks with the liquid ice, and if I read it correctly it stops opening doors, activating the lever to the trap, drawing a weapon or potion, casting a spell...

Size small NPC trying to ring an alarm bell to get the guards? He's going to need twice as many move actions to get across the room, and could fail to get his hand off his own shirt. If you happen to use both, he now has to spend both actions just to get to the bell, and next turn still have a chance of failing to ring it (though failing a flat 5 check twice would be rather unfortunate).

I'm not saying it isn't possible to have it do more, in fact I'd like to see hampered 10 slow 1, but it's possible that could be an improved version. Alchemist feat maybe, make tanglefoot bombs that hamper 15 and slow 1 instead of normal? Or a few item levels higher for the stronger version.

A final version would be roots the target altogether, and slow 2. That basically reduces them to only being able to struggle to break free or take a swing at someone nearby. That's a save-or-suck though, so it would need to be handled at the appropriate...

Ah, now there's an idea.

Tanglefoot Bag Reflex DC15
Critical success: no effect
Success: hamper 5
Failure: hamper 10 slow 1
Critical failure: rooted and slow 2

I don't think 80% of the feedback is disheartening. There are some vocal unhappy players, sure, and some vocal happy players too. Then there is a big chunk of players who are just in the middle, more cautious, or that like some things and don't like some others.

But take a look at this thread for example:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2vafs?If-Paizo-was-to-start-PF2e-over

Even a thread which starts with the premise that PF2 should start over, there is a lot of positive feedback on it. From action economy, to heightened spells, to item rarity, to class feats, to gear traits, a lot of people gave positive reactions to a lot of things. Even among people who are not 100% behind the new edition, there is praise.

That's a good thing to see, I suppose I'm mostly seeing the unpleasant jump out at me, the tone of the boards in general seems contentious to me. I'm glad it's not necessarily perceived as such for others.

I know 80% or more of the feedback I've read appears very disheartening. I know so much is changing and so many people are unhappy with change. I know this is stressful, and necessary, and that in a play test it's more important to hear the truth about what needs to be fixed than to be complimented constantly and think things are perfect when they aren't.

That being said, I'd like to take a moment to boost the moral of our excellent development team at Paizo, for working so hard on this new content and putting so many ideas on the table. I'd like to take this moment to show that even when there is work to be done making Pathfinder second edition the best product it can be, that I appreciate how far they have gone and how many hours they have worked to bring it to this point.

Nothing is ever first drafted as perfect, and nothing will ever make every person happy (except chocolate, and you can't change my mind), but I know a lot of frustration and a lot of work and a lot of hand cramps went into this product, and I'd like to clarify that even when I'm criticizing it in part or in whole, it's only because I know I need to do my part in making sure that everything is brought together across the finish line in the best shape it can be.

Thank you everyone for your hard work, and I hope you can keep a strong, upbeat +3 moral bonus while you round this next corner of a massive product design!

Perhaps changing to spell points, or allowing you to make a specific number of alchemical items for free each day which expire as normal?

Example:
Advanced Alchemy
You may produce a number of alchemical items for free each day, these items do not cost resonance for you to use but clearly have no gold value and may not be sold or used by others. You may use these items, such as elixers, on another player. You have a pool of resources available each day equal to your level plus your intelligence modifier, each item you produce in this manner costs two points if it is one item level higher than your character level, one point if it is the same level as your character, and half a point if it is at least one level lower. Items with the bomb trait gain levels towards this effect when modified by bomb feats such as smoke bomb, as listed in their description, and may be produced at a higher level for greater effect as noted under your Empowered Bombs class feature.

I forgot the name of the class ability that makes bombs more powerful, replace empowered bombs as needed. The idea is that you can make progressively more and stronger items for free each day, all up front, without resonance cost. Your bomb feats can stack because they now require the bomb to add up to your level in value, smoking is 1 level and sticky is 1 level so you may or may not be able to empower it fully and still get as many. Later on you might see 3/level or 4/level of particularly weak items that are 5+ levels below you. You might get a feat which increases your effective alchemist level for the purposes of advanced alchemy, making everything cheaper, or only increases the pool of resource points it provides without affecting the level. Eventually, getting two dozen fully empowered sticky bombs will easy and come with a good dozen elixers as well.

Agreed, strongly agreed. There's too few and not enough choice.

I think there should be about two more, perhaps a racial and a background, or since those might overlap and fail to actually get you anything then just two free choices. A racial and a background and 'if it already is a signature skill from you, pick a new skill of your choice'.

To my understanding, one other important distinction is most of your feats apply to the quick alchemy stuff- you can't prepare your better items ahead of schedule, you must make them in the heat of battle.

Yes, you had a number of bombs in pf1, it was easy to ramp that up to being more than you'd reasonably use though (which I felt was fair, except for once you started throwing them with both hands using TWF and rapid bomber to nuke things into puddles).

So I'll be honest and upfront, I haven't had a chance to bring anything to a table yet. I'm going off the feel of the system compared to Pathfinder, having built a level 9 gnomish alchemist to see what it can do. I'm attempting to rebuild an old character from 1st edition, so my choices aren't mechanical but rather fluff in nature to try to bring over what used to be a very viable character.

My initial results is that I need twice as many racial feats to feel like a proper gnome, because all the things I was able to get by the level I could get them felt like stuff a human could probably do in 1st edition by the same point.

I need twice as many skill selections despite my 4 starting int mod, because he's a bookworm who uses a lot of knowledge skills from a bad part of town so he has some talent with thievery and lying.

I need twice as many skill feats because even if I got bluff and thievery added to my list of trained skills, I don't have any extra feats to make them do anything fun.

I need more general feats because I felt pressed into extra resonance (more bombs and elixers) and gnomes basically require fleet due to it being a full 25% more move speed (nearly a whole extra action when running). This leaves me nothing for iron will or lightning reflexes, which would have been early choices for my build before.

I can make smoke bombs (for a full resonance each since it doesn't seem to work with your early morning two-for-one special) and exclude my allies from my spash zones at my full class DC, but can't do much in the way of multiple bombs per round. Some of this should be part of class features, some of this makes no sense, and some of this should be quicker to come online. Even after all that, I feel I need more.

The problem may not properly exist at the table, and I may be well within balance of other characters, but before I'm even picking up a d20 I'm already disappointed in my build. I feel undeveloped and undiversified, when focusing on bombs and skills I lack the progression I'm used to seeing and feel very little choice in how I could have done this: my path was made clear, and all other bomb alchemists will probably look very similar. When trying to diversify even slightly I felt constrained, it felt punitive to ask to be marginally passable in more than a few things.

What am I missing in this system, besides more of literally everything?

I have a question too : Advanced Alchemy gives four common 1st-level alchemical formulas. The Formula Book states that your formula book contains formulas for your choice of 4 common 1st level alchemical items. Does this mean you get 8 common 1st level alchemical items, or only 4 ?

Per the sidebar which details a generic formula kit for a lvl 1, you get 8.

Perhaps for simplicity of knowing that you do have the sign language feat and also know gnomish, you know you can communicate with gnomes of all kind without remembering which languages you know verbal and sign for?

As a separate justification if need be, it's easy to say there's a universal phonetic sign language in use with all civilized species, invented somewhat more recently during the age of cooperation (based on drow hand signs or way simpler than theirs and stolen by them,I sincell know they aren't cooperating). Being phonetic, it would be universal to any language you understand the sounds to.

I can see justification if needed for a lot of things. Environmentally activated suppressed genes improving ability to see in reduced lighting over time, I've always hated stone Giants I'm just getting better at killing them, I finally grew my big goblin teeth back after that thing with the armored horse...

But I wouldn't mind making a dwarf feel more dwarven first level.

...

I'd say just putting the DC into the ritual itself instead of making it necessary to attempt any formula no matter how simple. Doubling the ritual level obviously isn't high enough unless I'm missing something, I'd say if it's set at assuming a +2 stat bonus, a 10 on the d20, no equipment or spells, the minimum proficiency allowed, and the minimum level you could attain that proficiency (unless noted as a minimum level higher than this) would be fair. You can then get +3 more from stats, +5 or so from items and spells, and maybe be at a higher proficiency and level to get to doing lower level rituals easily... But if you're only mildly invested in the things involved, it'll be 50/50 with a small chance of crit either way. In this case, since I don't recall the level to be master I'll assume 13 is the minimum level.

13 level + 2 proficiency M + 2 stat + 10 non-roll = DC 27 to use the control weather ritual. For the average player presumed, this means the first time they could try it they'd have at worst a -1 stat for a total of d20+14. On a 1-3 this is a critical failure, on a 4-12 a failure, and only a critical success on a nat 20. That's fairly decent odds for a PC, you won't see too many critical fails there. If they manage a +5 stat and +2 items instead, this becomes d20+22, or a 5 and below is a fail, only a natural 1 is a critical fail, and anything over a 15 is a critical success. Not bad at all.

If that formula works for the DCs of rituals, then next to the ritual level it should specify DC 27 and be done with it. The math can be on the devs side, and briefly touched on in the GM book or a footnote in rituals regarding making your own.

Making press and audible more noticeable than dwarf and harm? Yeah, I could see that being a helpful thing if it was organized correctly. Perhaps a middle ground of using a different color to make the text stand out?

I noticed that I could not find the specific rules for what minimum level you could reach higher proficiencies at (for example, I believe even if you otherwise could you can't attain legendary before level 17 according to the blog? I didn't see that noted in the book, which at the low end means it probably wasn't featured heavily enough.

I went to find that information when determining how easy rituals are to pull off. DC equal to double the ritual level? Control weather requires master proficiency, and it's a level 8 ritual. By the time I hit level 8 if I have a +5 from ability score, +2 from master proficiency, and 8 from level, I have a 15 bonus. DC 16 automatically succeeds (a true natural 1 should cause fail but not critical fail) and 11 or better on the die is a critical success. This is before figuring out if I can even BE master at nature lore by that level. If it requires level 13 to be a master, I basically succeed on a 5 even with a -1 int. That DC can't be correct, so I'm guessing it's just not reading correctly.

There's a force field spell I fail to recall the name of, it mentioned it could survive 'two more dents than normal'. Just say 4 dents, it's lower word count and saves me remembering that normal stuff has 2.

Lots of spells are listed as (a) verbal (a) somatic (a) material, I think it would be easier to say (AAA) verbal, somatic, material unless there is a very specific reason casting a spell is three separate actions and not an activity. In addition, I did not see where it clarified if you could begin casting on your turn and complete the remainder of the spell on the following turn (similarly for any other activities).

Some of this may be me being blind, but it's definitely eluding a casual glance and since the book won't have a search feature I believe most info should be easy to spot.

Less than 5 minutes, and I was in the first five minutes, with only two refreshes. I'd say that's a huge round of applause for the team, y'all did awesome and I appreciate it.

Honestly, I'd look at the build of the other players.

If you see three places player 1 chose badly, 2 places player 2 chose badly, and 3 places player 3 chose badly, I'd say to tone down by taking 2-3 optimal feats and replacing them with sub-optimal feats, or replacing one really important feat for a purely fluff feat. You'll never be able to balance yourself against someone else's niche when you're damage and they're not, but you can rate their character build efficiency and decide how much better your character is at your niche than they are at their own.

Factoring in the tier of the class may also help some, monk (even uc) isn't the strongest class in the game. It'll take fewer mistakes to bring a monk down to sub par even if it's easier to mess up a bard.

While we're here, create pit should work fine if I'm not missing anything, provided you either blindly pick the spell direction and distance (point to a square) and roll miss chance to see if you manage to tag the target or fail the spell, or far easier cast it on the ground and it'll either be or not be in a useful place.

Okay, raw is a tiny, itty bit murky on this because it says you can make two, not 'up to two, not in excess of your normal ability to make or not make two'. If you had only one dagger to throw, only one arrow left, or a crossbow that can't be fired more than once a round the same questions would be asked.

The answer, in what I feel is very clear RAI, is that you may make UP TO two attacks, which this feat in no way empowers you to perform if you don't otherwise have the ability to perform them. Technically, in fact, both the sniping base skill and this feat share the same wording issue and in many RAW ways could be implied to allow you to make a ranged attack regardless of if you even -have- a ranged weapon.

For practical purposes, this will allow Flurry of Blasts to give two hits per round while sniping if you'd like.

Honestly the best way to deal with a sticky thing you can barely identify is to cover it with a sheet and beat it with a baseball bat until it goes away.

That being said, this could go either way as a DM rule. Azothath has excellent advice about how hard this will be to pull off, but I will add that going prone (with or without the PC being dragged to the ground with it) may affect it's CMD by the dropped dex, if I recall.

I'll add one small note: kineticists hurt really bad when they miss, because they get -one- shot to do a full attack action or more worth of effort. As such, accuracy is very important to them, but it's just as important to remember that the fighter misses with his last attack or two fairly often and the rogue even more so. Most classes use iterative strikes and miss with some of their hits every turn or so, a kineticist hits more often than not but loses the whole thing when they miss. I'd carefully observe average DPS (in comparison to effort spent on being a damage dealer and what other effects are occurring and such) before custom fixing a problem that may honestly be one of the biggest balancing factors of your party.

Shiroi wrote:

In what case can you consider the sla->ranged attack roll scenario having two provoke points to be a necessary or useful piece of information (worthy of a FAQ) without it provoking twice? There's a reason the FAQ was written, can you please name an example of why it might exist if your single-provoke method is correct?

Because there are plenty of faq's that get written for stupid reasons there are also plenty of people wanting faq's to be written for stupid reasons, all the faq does is clarify yes this thing provokes twice that does not mean people get 2 attacks vs it. A ranged character who full attacks with a bow gets 1 aoo on them despite making 4+ ranged attacks(4+ events that provoke an aoo) because its 1 action 1 aoo.

... So your argument that you're right is that people who aren't you are stupid? Yeah I think we're done here.

In what case can you consider the sla->ranged attack roll scenario having two provoke points to be a necessary or useful piece of information (worthy of a FAQ) without it provoking twice? There's a reason the FAQ was written, can you please name an example of why it might exist if your single-provoke method is correct?

You say melee can be 5' step solved, there should be 2 people on him some time, it'll really mess him up. I hadn't heard anything about a kineticist getting emotion dependant problems, but I can tell you that a ranged SLA provokes once for the spell like ability and then again for the ranged attack roll. That means if he's crowded, he's going to suffer hard or skip his turn on full defense.

Are you being sure to track his burn, which should lower his max hp by quite a lot?

Are the other players reasonably optimized or is he the only one who put his stats in the right place?

Kineticist has a very high optimization floor, meaning you kind of have to work a bit to make a bad kineticist. They don't have a super high optimization ceiling, which means you have to work very, very hard to really break them. Still, there are some things this class just does better than others (like any class does something best). The kineticist will almost universally excell at mid ranged combat, and can be great as a utility debuffer with the right build choices. They don't stack well with most magic items and normal feats though, so their power almost exclusively comes from the class itself. Remember that defense bonus from water is either a shield or an armor bonus: it doesn't stack with the usual +1 chainmail and a buckler, it'll overwrite one of them (and it's a smaller bonus if it's used as a shield than as an armor).

Elemental overflow is important to the class, be sure to calculate that right... But also pay close attention to what infusion specialization can and can't cover. It handles forms and substances - not meta like empower or composite.

A hydro kineticist can deal bludgeoning or cold at low levels, give Dr/slashing and his damage will drop (unless it's also able to be bypassed by magic, which the blast counts as). The same for cold energy resistance (though if he's doing cold he shouldn't be getting the full con bonus to damage, or the +1 per die).

He's going to be fairly accurate because he's using a dex based character if he's doing it right (to hit and armor class, stacks with my water shroud? Absolutely), and he'll have great con as well (can't get away from con in this class). What he won't have is great max hp after his daily burn (once he's using it to pump his shield up in the morning and trigger his overflow). He will have low will saves (dominate person, suggestion) unless he spends resources to protect against that. So he'll be hard to hit, but go down quickly to a good solid arrow to the chest, or a few thugs getting in close for lucky AoO hits.

Consider also that unless he gets the appropriate feats, he's vulnerable to hitting his allies in melee when you swarm them instead of him. You can just about put that 2d6+6 to work for you with the right planning and bad dice rolls.

There's a lot of ups and downs, but when people tell me the kineticist is broken, good or bad, I have a tendency to ask what home rules are in effect, what they've forgotten about the class, and what the other characters are doing that makes this so far out of power scale.

I hope this helps!

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Place your bets folks place your bets! Will it be humans? Rituals/other magics? Manuevers? Multiclassing (not likely, I agree)? A screenshot of the table of contents for the playtest books?

Actually that last one is probably the one I most want at the moment, but I feel that's even less likely than a blog about multiclassing, although I would wager far less likely to result in flame wars.

No idea, but personally, I am feeling evil today, so if it were my decision, I would post the Multiclassing details, and then go radio silence until after release next week.

Let the wars rage and the opponents tire themselves out, and whatnot.

I would be 110% okay with this.

Worse, PAO the bag into a living creature and have a cat inside a mouse. :)

I'll be honest, without looking through 11 pages of comments to see if someone else has brought it up, I don't see why you can't adapt this to every race and make your racial heritage a matter of picking your father and your mother.

My ancestry is dwarf/gnome. I get these bonuses for having a dwarf ancestor, these bonuses for having a gnome ancestor, these non-biological options from human because I was adopted and raised in a human settlement, and these bonuses from being a hybrid race instead of pure breed.

If each race had a half-x option, you could mark each racial feat and choice with small tags. (FB) (HB) (AH) would be full blood, half blood, adopted heritage. If you aren't full blood, you can't touch these stronger dwarf traits (something granting DR while standing on the ground) but could take something simpler (stone cunning). If you're adopted, you definitely can't get the dark vision but you can be proficient with dwarven weapons.

as long as you're consistent. though this makes me wonder which spells can even be said to do damage themselves at all...

I suppose the most pedantic reading besides 'none' would probably be 'instantaneous duration, allows spell resistance'.

Similar train of thought, don't tell anyone else it's detecting clouds. Deface the button, persuade people it's detecting vast treasure, the fountain of youth, or any number of other things it's definitely not detecting but you'd rather them keep you alive to help find.

Put me in the camp that says dazing aqueous orb is not legal.

I wasn't aware there was such a camp. Aqueous orb allows a reflex to negate and deals non lethal damage. Dazing affects a spell by causing dazing when the spell deals damage. If the spell doesn't allow a save, it creates one for it, but AO does so dazing doesn't need to add a save in this case.

There is some argument that you may need to place the orb on a target as you cast it to allow it to deal damage to a target and thus be immediately viable as a candidate for dazing metamagic, but personally I'm having trouble reading that as RAW. IMO it modifies any spell capable of dealing damage (through the spell itself rather than a sub effect of the spell like summoning) and when that spell later happens to deal damage the dazing rider kicks in (in this case on a failed reflex save, when the target is not immune to non-lethal and doesn't have DR equal or above, they also are dazed for three rounds).

I agree. You could probably move it less than 30 feet as a move action (to strike, damage, or engulf a foe), then possibly ready an action to move it up to the remaining distance if another enemy (who is currently beyond its 30 foot limit) comes closer.

And that would be the situation I couldn't think of that would make it worth a standard. Well done.

Up to 30' per round, not 30' per move action. I suppose if for some reason you couldn't move it a full 30' with your first move, you could finish the remaining distance by taking another move action. I can't think of any situation which might cause this though, or any time it would be worth doing since you're giving up a standard.

I know at minimum you'll calculate BAB, saves, hit points, save DCs, cmd and cmb all as if he was half level rounded down.

I'd also look at recalculating DR, SR, resistances, damage on all of the attacks including Eye Beam, and possibly dropping some abilities if any are still insane because the little smiter was definitely not born at this level of power and a spell that costs less than 10% of your wbl should not be insanely overpowered (excepting that such a spell is in many ways a risk because you might not get that gold back if it dies).

After all this recalculation, consider looking heavily at comparing your newly statted halferwok against a standard CR 12 creature, preferably a CR12 dragon, and also against a CR 12 NPC with 10-11 class levels depending on your NPCs WBL. This will help compare what he -could- have created with the spell. If you're not sure which would be stronger at a glance, you're in the ballpark of being fair.

EDIT:

While I'm at it...

Social ramifications, the king will probably need a servant to wipe down his chair before sending his strongest champions to behead this thing if he brings it near populated areas.

NPCs are not player characters, this is a chaotic evil magical beast with an intelligence just above the average salesman and well below the average wizard. It's going to have a slanted world view that will give it a variable interpretation of most commands. It's much more responsible to have the DM play the part of the jabberwok, using the tactics it would reasonably use instead of the exact thing the wizard needs at that second. The player can give instructions and exert control, but the spell specifies it isn't telepathic and isn't an extension of his will. It might have interesting interpretations of the phrase 'protect me from all harm' when someone tries to haggle him into a bad deal the financial harm might convince the fun toy to get a little eye-beamish.

As a final note, don't be afraid to renegotiate as things progress. Make it clear you're homebrewing a solution and may need to adjust the stat block up and down a bit over the next few sessions until you're all satisfied.

I think it's to do with long words or links which can't be displayed on a single screen width. I could test by displaying one here but I'd rather not disrupt the thread about disrupted threads.

Mental
A willing living creature may recall with greater clarity an event they are thinking about.
A willing creature willingly under the effects of an intoxicant may take one normal, non-combat action or speak briefly as if unaffected by their life choices.
A willing creature may experience drowsiness and readiness to sleep provided the surroundings allow for rest, even if not previously tired. This does not allow the creature to benefit from rest more than once per day.
A willing creature may gain a +1 bonus to perception checks related to a specific sense such as smell for one hour, provided they remain in a relaxed state of mind.

Perhaps then the simplest ruling for you to avoid having to individually decide would be something along the lines of 'any illusion which fully encompasses and contains all spaces occupied by the creature, rounded up...'

I think I would personally have to adjudicate as a DM whether the spell was providing effective invisibility at a drastically reduced spell slot, and if this was a fair thing to allow in the situation. If the spell used is far below cost for the value expected, I think I would have to say that particular spell may not create an illusion which shares space with any other illusion or real object, to the extent that you may hide behind the illusion of the tree but not within it.

Awakened minnows in a control water sphere with the coven bonuses going on all cast magic missile with whatever feats and metamagic you wish, killing 5 enemies each. You can fit a -lot- of awakened minnows in a control water spell. Blood money pays the bills.

AoE attacks, verbal communication with the team for where you're blasting or where they need you to blast.
If you have or can gain watersense (g) or windsight (g) they can overcome the majority of your troubles with a little effort. Watersense is probably the more precise way to do it but requires you to arrange the battlefield if it's not already a wet area, windsight greater is going to be awkward to fight with because it's like only being able to assess your position via a camera instead of your own eyes, but requires no setup as long as you're above ground (same with regular windsight if you're in a place that already has wind going).

You can also use spark of life and celerity to great effect, creating elementals that can see and do your dirty work and giving the whole party haste.

Unfortunately most of these are considered subpar build choices for the average power gamer, they'll be useful for you right now but may not see play once your eyes come back. It depends on how tight your build needs to be and whether you're going to survive without these choices, and whether you even can try to get them right now.

... Just spotted level 8, you're limited to WS/WS normal, not greater, and can't get spark of life yet...

If you think you can set up one of those senses, it'll help. Otherwise, celerity and AoE attacks may be your best bet.