Thebethia's page

<< My second pfs character was a sea witch with a flying octopus for a familiar.

A pretty blue skinned half elf nudges the ancient elven crone sitting in the back of the hall, upsetting an enormous black cat who glowers at the girl before stretching and settling himself back in the old woman's lap.

"Wake up mom."

"Ideals? I haven't heard any of them say nothing about Morilla's "innovators with justice, virtue, and industriousness." Just sounds like a bunch of nobles trying to hold on to their power. Ugh, Whatever, I just want to be out exploring the world, not sitting in some musty old hall with your nobles club."

The old woman sighs and shoes the girl away.

"Do me a favor Felicity, stay out of the sewer this time."

"Yes mom."

She flounces out, rolling her eyes. The crone settles back in her chair to watch the proceedings.

Pirate Queen Thebethia, The Hag of Abendego. Retired pathfinder

I carry unnatural lust as a standard spell on my witch and use it frequently. It is great for forcing flying opponents down to melee, making ranged opponents move in close, and making anyone provoke opportunity attacks and flank themselves. Also funny to cast when there's a body of water between you and them.

The problem with beguiling gift is that everything costs money in pfs, so unless you luck out in finding something useful to give away in the scenario, it's expensive for anything good. I stopped carrying it because I would never use it.

I took mainly beneficial hexes with my pfs witch. Coupled with the scar hex allows you to use any of your hexes on your teammates as long as they are within a mile of you. I got a lot of mileage out of the healing hex. One free cure sell per person is nice especially with the one mile range. Plus you can use it to bring npcs conscious for questioning without having to waste any resources and you can smack undead with it too. I prefer fortune over misfortune too. Misfortune debuffs martial opponents, which is nice but usually unnecessary. Fortune buffs your allies against caster opponents, which is far better in my opinion.

I supported The Empire, their decadence was good for business. Now this arrogant empty headed twit has to go and ruin a good deal with her talk of "virtue," and "justice." Ah well, all good things must come to an end. Perhaps it is time to cut my ties with the society and strike out on my own once more.

Thebethia the Pirate Queen, Hag of Abendego

And to join everyone else on the rogue tangent, they're not seen much because they are redundant. They can't do anything that another class can't do at least as well as them, so who wants to play a character when half the time someone else will just show you up? It's a team based game, so being a jack of all trades means that all you do is contribute a +2assist bonus to one of your other 5 teammates who can do the same thing better than you can. /rant.

I agree with Brian that there are regional differences. I began playing pfs on the west coast and later moved to the east coast and noticed a difference in play style and character choice. I think it's because the pfs community is small enough that there are some large influential personalities that set trends in their local groups.

I think theres a disproportionate number of strikers in pfs because every game will have combat and if you don't know who you will be playing with then you play it safe and make something you know will always be needed. Not having a skill might loose you a prestige point, but not being able to kill the monsters will leave you dead.

The caster level requirement on make whole seems to only matter if the weapon is destroyed, i.e. has 0hp left. As long as it has even 1hp left it can be repaired by any level of caster.

If you're really worried about your sword breaking, there are magic items and weapon enhancements you can get that will boost your weapon's hardness and hp (fortifying stone is 1,000g for +5hardness +20hp. impervious is 3,000g for +twice the enhancement vs sunder).

High level fighter types' CMD tends to actually be higher than their AC (bab+str can easily pass armor+natural armor bonus).

In pathfinder, monsters like the gray ooze got scaled way back, to the point where they can't actually damage weapons like they're supposed to with their meager 1d6 damage. Kinda kills the scare factor of those beasties.

If you do end up running in to npcs that can destroy your weapons, then smart players will change their tactics. Guy with an adamantine greatsword? he can't use it in a grapple. Rust monster? back off, fight defensively, let the wizard blast it, etc.

Sure, it is possible to be stupid, get unlucky and loose an expensive item. It's also possible to get killed, permanent ability damage, level drained, turned into a wraith, etc. Sundering isn't really the worst that's out there. If I actually lost a 128k gp item to sundering, then I did something really stupid and hopefully learned a valuable lesson from it.

After saying all that, there is a category of people who do have to worry about sundering, and that is dex based characters. Ranged weapons and light weapons like rapiers have low hardness and hp. Compared to the str based character, these builds often have high AC and lower CMD.

Yolanda wrote:

Make whole wrote:

This spell functions as mending, except that it repairs 1d6 points of damage per level when cast on a construct creature (maximum 5d6).

Make whole can fix destroyed magic items (at 0 hit points or less), and restores the magic properties of the item if your caster level is at least twice that of the item. Items with charges (such as wands) and single-use items (such as potions and scrolls) cannot be repaired in this way. When make whole is used on a construct creature, the spell bypasses any immunity to magic as if the spell did not allow spell resistance.

dm can sunder it, party cleric or friendly cleric in town can fix it...

I think the problem is that once a magical item gets powerful enough, you're going to have some problems finding someone who has a caster level high enough to fix it. A mere +3 sword requires an 18th level caster to cast Make Whole on it.

Past that you're going to need a highly specialized mythic character to cast the spell, and good luck convincing your GM that you should be able to buy a caster level 24 Make Whole scroll at a store.

Weapons/gear breaking is not a permanent loss in pathfinder. Make whole is a 2nd level wizard/cleric spell that can fix anything broken. Someone in your party will be able to do it. If you cant cast it yet, you don't own anything expensive that you really care about if it gets broken so whatever.

It takes so much damage to effectively sunder anything that it is a fairly ineffectual tactic. At low levels just breaking the 10 hardness on a weapon can be challenging. At high levels the fighter is carrying around a +4 adamantine greatsword with hardness 28 and 60hp. If I'm level 2 and you are hitting for over 10 damage a swing, I'd much rather you were going for my sword than for me.
The caster level on make whole only matters if the weapon is completely destroyed. A "mere" +3 greatsword has 16 hardness and 50hp. The fighter will kill the guy trying to sunder his sword long before the guy will completely destroy it.

Sundering can be irritating, but the PCs will repair any damage the next day so it's essentially on par with being poisoned or diseased (also a second level spell to remove ability damage). They have to get really unlucky for them to suffer any permanent damage, and that damage is only as permanent as "permanent" negative levels are; a high level caster can fix it.

If it's to be a beastlord then how about customizable animal companions? You get a training pool to be spent on special abilities, stat boosts, etc, similar to eidolon evolutions.

There're only two pieces of unclaimed territory for god botherers: 1/2 BAB pure caster and less constrained Paladin.

I'd therefore like to see full BAB, 4 level casting using the union of the paladin and antipaladin lists (and any law/chaos spells that were left off of them because in spite of being in corner alignments they lean towards good and evil), Cleric saves, weapon training, and probably lay-on-hands for survivability. Maybe domains or inquisitions if there's room.

If there's enough room for both Cavalier and Fighter to exist as mundane martials there's room for another full BAB god botherer without looking like an (anti)Paladin even when he happens to be in the LG or CE alignments, much less when in any other alignment.

I whole heartedly agree.

I'd rather see the non war priest class, since cleric is already a war priest, and we have no class to fit the robed priest archetype. But if we're stuck with another warrior oriented priest, then give us the paladin for all the religions that are not LG. (LG religions aren't the only one's with holy knights are they? I never understood that alignment restriction)

I second the desire to be able to identify magic items by skill roll. The investigator is supposed to be Sherlock Holmes, Myka from warehouse 13, Olivia from Fringe, or any other myriad heroes from detective stories. These characters look at the ancient sword you found lying in the back of the troll cave and exclaim "that's the sword Glamdring, it glows blue when orcs are nearby!" They identify items by deciphering runes, recognizing their designs like art historians, or recalling them from a book they read. Perhaps they would use knowledge arcana instead of spellcraft for their identifying. Or maybe they could identify an item with a successful use magic device roll. It's part of the investigator character type, so would be nice to be available. Doesn't have to be a base ability, could be something you could choose as an investigator talent. Call it eidetic memory.

If you really want a spontaneous druid, then maybe that could be the Hunter class. But for the Shaman, it's supposed to be oracle/witch, so I have to agree with keeping the druid list out of it.

I'd be down with the shaman as a spontaneous caster using the witch spell-list, that could be an interesting way to go.

The one thing I feel lacking the most from the current shaman is the inability to shoot lightning bolts. I mean, seriously, where's my lightning bolts?

It seems like everyone has a different idea of what a shaman is/does. And so has a different list of spells they think should be on the shaman list. I think the shaman should use the standard cleric spell list, but increase number of spirit magic spells to 2-3 per level. That way they have customizability and the feel of their own spell list without having to make a full blown new one.

Personally I see the cleric as a beneficent priest, whereas the shaman wields more destructive powers. My view of the shaman is a straight spell caster, not a warrior priest like the cleric. If I was designing the shaman, I'd drop their bab to 1/2, hd to d6, light armor, but not medium, and add a lot of offensive spells to their list, lightning bolt, meteor swarm and the like.

I'm wondering if some of the shaman hexes (why'd they call them hexes when they are the same as the oracle's mysteries? That's just confusing) are supposed to be charisma based or if that's a mistake because they copied and pasted them from the oracle.

And off on a tangent, how about making them charisma based? (they're supposed to be a cross between a witch - int based, and an oracle - cha based, but they use wisdom. huh, go figure). Charisma really gets neglected in the pathfinder system. While some classes have secondary abilities based off of charisma, only the oracle and the sorcerer are truly charisma focused, and the sorc even has an archetype to let you switch to int or wis. Maybe there could be a cha based shaman archetype.

Some people really love familiars and some people really hate them. Maybe the familiar could be an optional choice. Like for a wizard choosing between a familiar or a bonded object. The shaman could choose to take a familiar or a fetish or something like that.

I was super disappointed by the shaman. It's just a cleric that gets a familiar and swaps their domains for mysteries. That's it. Come on, give us something more. This class really needs it's own spell-list. Or tie in a bunch of extra spells associated with their spirits. Please give them something to make the class unique.

Thebethia wrote:

Why take warpriest instead of multi-classing one level of fighter and the rest cleric? This class just isn't different enough as written to warrant being a new base class.

You do realize this thread's been going on for 22 pages and counting, and you are far from the first person to say this, right? :p

Of course, but if only one person says it then paizo will likely ignore them, if 200 people say it they will be more likely to take it to heart and make some changes.

This is the only one of the new classes that I felt is better than the core classes. Bloodrager is basically a barbarian with better rage powers. They also get some spells that they can only use when raging, so they will pretty much never use them. But really, free enlarge self when you rage? doesn't even take an action. Or +5' reach, or free blur, Wow. And those are just the level 4 abilities.
At a glance it is a 3 stat required class, which would reduce its effectiveness, but really that's just an illusion. You only need charisma for spell casting (many of the bloodline powers scale off of con). So you need a 14 charisma to use all your class abilities, and you only need to get to 14 by level 10. You could even start with a 10 cha and still easily keep up with the min you need to cast all your spells (using level bumps and a +2 stat item).

Overall I like the class and the idea behind it, but I think the bloodline powers need to be pulled back a little bit as they are, on a whole, better than rage powers.

Why take warpriest instead of multi-classing one level of fighter and the rest cleric? This class just isn't different enough as written to warrant being a new base class.

The "hunter" class as written is a total misnomer, and huge letdown.
Hunter invokes images of: British men chasing foxes, African safari guys chasing the biggest animals they can find, a man and his dog shooting ducks. A hunter would be a ranger archetype that loses spell casting and gains a full progression animal companion. A hunter is not a nature worshiper; a hunter takes pleasure from murdering animals for sport, get rid of the alignment restriction.

But putting that aside, what is the hunter class here? a mediocre druid. Lets compare:

hit dice: same as druid
skills: same ranks/level as druid, gets 2 more class skills
alignment restriction: same as druid
BAB: same as druid
spell progession: worse than druid (same as bard)
saves: switched good from wil to ref, but still 2 good saves like druid.
animal companion: as druid, plus gets some bonus feats
wild empathy: same as druid, but gets a level later
woodland stride: same as druid but gets 3 levels later
loses: nature sense, trackless step, resist nature's lure, venom imunity, thousand faces, timeless body
gains: track, swift tracker as ranger, and master hunter at 20
loses: wild shape, gains animal focus. gets it at 1st level instead of 4th, but otherwise is a lesser form of wildshape. Wildshape gives size bonuses to stats stacking with your enhancement bonuses from spells, magic ites etc., animal focus gives non-stacking enhancement bonuses. Good at low levels, useless at higher levels.

In a nutshell, you lose some spell casting and reduce your wildshape ability to gain some bonus teamwork feats. Pretty poor trade.

I'd love to see an actual hunter class, no spellcasting, full bab, martial weapon profs, 6 skill points, d10hd, animal companion, change the animal focus to affect the companion instead of the hunter.

Or rename it to Warden. Still needs a major boost to bring it up to par with the core classes.

RAW specifically states that you can't retry a failed by 5+ check. This makes perfect sense if it's one shot. The ceiling already collapsed, the arrows already shot at you, etc, the trap is done. You can't disable it now. On a resetting trap it makes no sense why you can't retry, but the rules are explicit on this.

The trap system on a whole is pretty lame: roll a die, if you fail you take damage. Disable device makes it worse by being trained only.
If a PC comes up with an eloquent speech when trying to persuade an npc, you give him a circumstance bonus on his diplomacy roll. If a PC comes up with a clever way of disabling a trap based on its description, but has no ranks in the skill, he can't do it. Even if the trap is just a tripwire, you can't take out your knife and cut the cord unless you put a rank in the skill. RAW, if you roll bad on the dice roll, you will somehow trip yourself on said cord and fall over. That's idiotic.

So, unless it's PFS and you're stuck with RAW, houserule traps into something that works for your group.

Line of effect applies to everything and pretty much says what it means. If there is no line of effect, then you cannot affect.

Cackle doesn't require picking targets, so line of sight doesn't apply. There was a thread a while back debating whether cackle required you to hear the witch, or the witch to make a sound, but I don't recall if that was ever resolved.

again, I'm not trying to hand any items off. I want one person to hold the weapon while a second person loads it.

Sounds like there isn't any hard rules for it, so it'd be an at the call of the gm type of thing.

there are a few that can be combined, but not very many. Check out the d20pfsrd site, they list the archetypes for each class in a spreadsheet so you can see what class features they replace and compare them to see what is compatible. here's a link to the fighter page

Thematically speaking feinting is tricking your opponent into shifting their defense to the wrong spot. So it should be possible to fake out any creature that actively tries to defend itself. I would argue that a mindless creature should be easier to fake out (it's mindless, that should mean it has a hard time anticipating the movements of its opponent).

Conversely, it shouldn't be possible to fake out a creature that makes no effort to avoid attacks (like an ooze), but such a creature also shouldn't have any dodge modifiers to negate.

Think of it like a cannon crew. One person loads it, the second fires. The way I imagine it, there is no trading of the weapon. The eidolon is holding it the entire time.

I understand the everything happening at once concept makes that not make sense, but then again, nothing about taking turns makes sense if you think about it supposed to be happening at once. How can you full attack someone who charged you? They weren't standing there the entire turn, so why do you get to hit them more then they get to hit you? Why don't you both meet in the middle if you were intending to charge them but they beat you in initiative and charged first? It's all just arbitrary to make it function as a game and not be ridiculously complicated.

Balance-wise it seems perfectly fine. Instead of two people each firing their own gun once every other round, they fire one gun each round. It equals the same amount of shots. It's mostly just for thematics of the gnomish inventor riding his war machine.
Still looking for some rules basis to support (or refute) the idea.

So I had this idea of making a gnome mech pilot. IE a small summoner riding a medium eidolon. The eidolon takes exotic weapon prof fireams and shoots a musket.

The question is, as the gnome riding the eidolon, could you spend your full round actions to reload your mount's gun, allowing the eidolon to move and fire every turn?

Extending this line of thought, if the gnome could reload as a free action, could the eidolon full attack?

Thebethia wrote:

I have to say I don't really get the whole "balanced" character thing. Where's the fun in playing a character that is ok at everything and has no flaws/downsides?

Character stats aren't the only place to find flaws.

I can't think of any other rules based something to find character flaws. Lots of other rpg systems have an advantages/disadvantages system, but not pathfinder. I could just make something up, but personally I like my fluff and rules to mesh. Ability scores are the single most defining choice you get in pathfinder. Every physical or mental aspect of a person falls under one of the ability scores; even though a lot of them don't make sense (what does common sense have to do with eyesight?), it's just for game simplicities sake. If I choose all positive scores I'm saying there's nothing my character is particularly bad at.

Personally I would not use other people's game modules as a basis for good storytelling. Look at your favorite books or movies for what makes a great villain.
Game modules tend to be based off the idea of combat challenge, like a video game. You start off with simple/easy opponents and work your way up to the final boss fight. But a good villain has nothing to do with their challenge rating.
A good villain is someone who knows what they want, and doesn't let pesky society, rules, or anything stop them from taking it. And if not for the intervention of the heroes, the villain will achieve their goal.
I prefer to introduce my villains early. First the PCs meet the villain in a non-combat situation where they talk to each other. Maybe give them some reason to dislike the guy, but no reason to attack him... yet. Next give the PCs some clues that the villain is really behind things, a note on one of his henchmen, overhearing a conversation, etc. Then at least one confrontation where the villain gets away before the final showdown. PCs will always try their hardest to not let the villain get away. But even if they foil all your grand schemes and catch him early, remember it's a world full of magic. If all else fails, his minions can recover his body and get him resurrected.

Some great published villains:

Count Dracula (being able to turn into bats/mist or whatever. He comes and goes as he pleases and takes what he wants. It's up to the heroes to eventually track him to his lair for the final showdown).

Terminator (because who doesn't like an unstoppable killing machine. Forcing players to run away is a touchy subject, but could make an interesting villain being forced to flee until they can discover the monsters weakness to be able to defeat it)

The Joker (some low level lackey the heroes thought they killed comes back for revenge)

Darth Vader (ok it's really cheesy, but what would your players do if they found out the villain is one of their loved ones?)

One of the downsides of roleplaying games is that you are always stuck from one point of view. In most storytelling mediums you have break-aways where the villain gets their own scenes where their character/story gets fleshed out. As a gamemaster you have to figure out how to make up for that lost opportunity. That probably means finding out about the villain second hand from NPCs, diaries, etc, or more face time squaring off with the villain himself. If your villain constantly thwarts the PCs and keeps getting away it will make it all the sweeter when they finally catch the guy.

I have to say I don't really get the whole "balanced" character thing. Where's the fun in playing a character that is ok at everything and has no flaws/downsides? I'd much rather have the guy with the 20 and 5 then the two 14s. Having extreme stats gives something to roleplay to. You get to excel in one area and bumble around in another, both of which are fun to roleplay. Also, if you can do everything yourself, what do you need your other 3-5 companions for?
Sometimes a lot of fun comes from figuring out how to overcome players' weaknesses. I played in a game where we had to cross an ice bridge and one pc had a -18 acrobatics. If everyone had been balanced, we would have walked across and forgotten about it. Instead, we had some memorable wacky hijinks trying to devise a way to get the clumsy pc across without her plummeting to her doom.

Non-human races are simply an exaggeration of actual human racial differences, and many are based off racist stereotypes (why do you think many modern fantasy games tuned orcs green?). There are two ways people usually go with fantasy worlds:
1- the Tolkein way where humans are basically mono-cultured representing the "norm" (feudal Europe). Then other cultures are represented by different species. The classic version seems to be elves are Asian-esque, dwarves are Scottish or Germanic, orcs are African. When designing your own you can give any culture you want to any species, but if a species has different cultures, then each is labeled a subspecies. Such as wood elves, high elves, drow, hill dwarves, mountain dwarves, etc.
2- Humans are the only civilized species and have a myriad of different cultures. If other species exist they are rare and all npcs.

I haven't put the time into fleshing this out, but I was thinking of making Blanca. He'd be a half orc (for the green skin with orange hair). 2 levels of white haired witch and the rest alchemist. Feral mutagen. So he claws, bites and head bangs you to death. Haven't quite figured out how to get the electrocuting in there yet...

You don't HAVE to get within 30' to be effective. You are as much of a spellcaster as any wizard or sorc. Instead of sorcerer bloodline powers or wizard school powers (which are also mainly 30' range) you get witch hex powers. You can still sit back and cast longer range spells if that is your desire. Hexes are just another option in your arsenal.
You are a caster, you have lots of defensive and evasion spell options. Make yourself invisible, levitate or fly. Work with your teammates and don't be the one standing in front. There are ways of removing yourself as a viable target for that scary melee bruiser with the giant axe.
Witches have lots of options, every witch I've seen have been played differently. It's what makes them so fun.

Upgrading you gun is not crafting, it doesn't follow any of the crafting rules. It requires no ranks in craft, no skill rolls and no raw materials. It is simply the benefit of a feat. You spend your day and 300g and your starting gun becomes masterwork.

WHW is a cauldron full of hilarious potential waiting to be unleashed. Sure as a straight class it's not that exciting but it only takes one level to give you a natural attack that uses int for damage (and isn't limited uses per day like the prehensile hair hex). I was thinking of making a barbarian/alchemist/whw who rages, claws, bites, and headbangs people to death. Make him a half orc with orange hair and call him Blanca.

You suddenly had your morals switched from believing in individuality and freedom, to believing in conformity. Unless you had your memory wiped too you are aware of the sudden change in beliefs, you know how you acted before. Maybe now you find yourself doing the "right and honorable" thing, but you hate it and strive to find a way to remove this curse.
Or you could treat is like a midlife crisis, like you gained religion or were reformed from your sinful ways. You used to be capricious and wild but now you've seen the error of your ways. Maybe you should join a church.

Being a crusader type has nothing to do with law or good, it has to do with wanting to force your view upon others. Lawful means you follow a code of behavior (and believe it is right to do so). A lawful person believes in law and order, but not necessarily all the laws of the country. They may in fact be a politician who makes it their lives work to change the laws. Or they could be a freedom fighter seeking to overthrow the current establishment. Consider the american revolution, those were lawful people who wrote up the constitution and they were fighting the (British) law which they did not agree with. You could also think of it as going from being an anarchist to a revolutionary.

I think atheists in pathfinder are not people who say that deities don't exist, since they clearly do. There is a hierarchy of powerful beings in the pathfinder world from mortals to dragons to demon lords. Just because the deities sit at the top doesn't make them worthy of devotion. I think an atheist in this setting is one who believes that the deities should not be worshiped.

So your DM is an jerk. He's not the only person in the world that plays, either make him take his head out of his butt or quit and start your own game. Don't feel bad about shouting at him either, sounds like he deserves it.

This is a dangerous route to take in a game. I've seen similar things lead to breaking up the group for good. Make sure it's all in good fun and if you really are the villain, ideally you want to be like all other boss fights: make it challenging, but the heroes should triumph. The last thing you want is to lose friends or break up your group.

That aside, if you really are a "control wizard," then control the fight. Maneuver your victims into an area that is advantageous for you. Use wall spells to separate them. I have seen solid fog used to shut down monks quite well. Other fog effects like acid fog have no saves. Summoned swarms also due damage without saves or attack rolls. Fire shield would do damage back hit. Make sure to have freedom of movement up so he can't just grapple you or the fight will be over in 2 rounds. Black tentacles probably wont get the monk but would likely neutralize most of the rest of the group.

Alchemist discoveries that alter bombs use the base bomb effects unless stated otherwise. Bore bomb doesn't say instead of doing normal damage, so it is in addition.
Still no matter how you look at it, saboteur is just a terrible archetype. It replaces your good mutagen with a really lame one and gives you access to some awful discoveries. Like too many other archetypes, it's an interesting concept with a horrible execution.

Strange that FAQ is from 5 months ago, yet the online PRD still shows the original costs.
The issue is that it affects natural attacks and if you have 3+ natural attacks then it's cheaper than 3 magic weapons, but if you have less (like a monk) then it's more expensive. If you want to make some house rules for it, you could allow a version that is cheaper, but only affects unarmed attacks.

Swallow Whole (Ex) If a creature with this special attack begins its turn with an opponent grappled in its mouth (see Grab), it can attempt a new combat maneuver check (as though attempting to pin the opponent). If it succeeds, it swallows its prey, and the opponent takes bite damage. Unless otherwise noted, the opponent can be up to one size category smaller than the swallowing creature. Being swallowed causes a creature to take damage each round. The amount and type of damage varies and is given in the creature's statistics. A swallowed creature keeps the grappled condition, while the creature that did the swallowing does not. A swallowed creature can try to cut its way free with any light slashing or piercing weapon (the amount of cutting damage required to get free is equal to 1/10 the creature's total hit points), or it can just try to escape the grapple. The Armor Class of the interior of a creature that swallows whole is normally 10 + 1/2 its natural armor bonus, with no modifiers for size or Dexterity. If a swallowed creature cuts its way out, the swallowing creature cannot use swallow whole again until the damage is healed. If the swallowed creature escapes the grapple, success puts it back in the attacker's mouth, where it may be bitten or swallowed again.

Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that doesn't require two hands to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you.

So as long as you can draw your potion or your weapon with one hand you are allowed to. Old rules (3rd edition) made you make a grapple check to do so, but there's nothing saying you need to make one in pathfinder. I believe the developers were trying to mitigate the old grapple rules which made grappling too powerful. Being grabbed by a colossal assassin vine ment game over, you can't do anything; auto lose situations are no fun. At least now you can pull out your knife and poke at it.

The thing to consider is that this is a universal rule. The creature could be only only one size category larger than you, or it could be five. It may make sense if you were swallowed by a python to have the pinned condition, but not if you were swallowed by a giant whale. In a home game, feel free to house rule per the given circumstances, but the rules clearly state that being swallowed gives the grappled condition.

Fun pathfinder fact: it's often safer to sit in the belly of a giant beast then to stand in front of it. You take less damage from being swallowed then you do from being full attacked.

RAW you can't as the 5 foot catwalk is not a surface of sufficient size.

You create a 10-foot-by-10-foot extradimensional hole with a depth of 10 feet per two caster levels (maximum 30 feet). You must create the pit on a horizontal surface of sufficient size.

oops. my mistake. It was redward that posted that.

Current RAW aside, I think that the per weight price should only be for miscellaneous stuff like cauldrons, and that weapons should have their own set price. Maybe a scaling one like +500 for light weapons, +2000 for one handed, +4500 for two handed (though that still sounds pretty steep). Maybe just a flat +2000g for any weapon, that would make it comparable to cold iron. Most other weapon materials just have a set +X gold. Making a weapon mithral doesn't add near enough to justify the exorbitant costs for high weight weapons.

Yeah, they don't line up at all. In fact the per weight costs are all over twice the listed per armor category costs. The half weight cost would be much closer to the listed prices than the full weight cost. So do you think it makes sense that mithral armor costs 1/2 to 1/6th the price of other mithral items? Cause that's what paying 500/steel lb is. If a merchant could get 2-6 times as much for making other things out of mithral, then nobody would sell mithral armor. It just doesn't make sense to have that high of a price discrepancy.
Also, as Seraphimpunk pointed out, it the ultimate equipment guide agrees with this as the mithral items listed are based off the mithral weight, not the steel weight.

I'm pretty sure mithral price is based off the amount of mithral you are buying. Think of it as mithral costs 500g/lb. I originally thought it was based off of the steel weight until I looked at costs of other mithral items.

mithral chain shirt costs 1,100g. steel weight 25lbs. if paying per steel pound 25x500=12,500. per mithral pound = 6,250.

mithral breast plate costs 4,200g. steel weight 30lbs. if paying per steel pound 30x500=15,000. per mithral pound = 7,500.

mithral full plate 10,500g. steel weight 50lbs. if paying per steel pound 50x500=25,000. per mithral pound = 12,500.

mithral heavy shield 1020g. steel weight 15lbs. if paying per steel pound 15x500=7,500. per mithral pound = 3,750.

Yikes that's expensive. If mithral was meant to be worth 500g/steel lb, then armor should cost twice the price it is listed as. I can understand having some discount for mithral armor (as the armor is not made entirely of mithral, there is some backing/padding/straps etc), but not a 60% + discount. Would be nice to get an official ruling though.

According to the using skills section of the core rule book, (assuming you aren't distracted or threatened) you can take 20 to find traps. In fact, its one of the examples they list for common times to take 20:

Taking 20: When you have plenty of time, you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20. In other words, if you a d20 roll enough times, eventually you will get a 20. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20.

Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes 20 times as long as making a single check would take (usually 2 minutes for a skill that takes 1 round or less to perform).

Since taking 20 assumes that your character will fail many times before succeeding, your character would automatically incur any penalties for failure before he or she could complete the task (hence why it is generally not allowed with skills that carry such penalties). Common “take 20” skills include Disable Device (when used to open locks), Escape Artist, and Perception (when attempting to find traps).

Perception is a big change from search/spot in 3rd edition. In pathfinder, you can stand in a room, take a minute (Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action, you can take 2 move actions per round so 20 move actions = 10rounds = 1min) to carefully look all around you and find any traps within your sight (assuming you have line of sight to them and your perception modifier is high enough).

In the environment section under traps:

Magic: Many spells can be used to create dangerous traps. Unless the spell or item description states otherwise, assume the following to be true.

A successful Perception check (DC 25 + spell level) detects a magic trap before it goes off.
Magic traps permit a saving throw in order to avoid the effect (DC 10 + spell level × 1.5).
Magic traps may be disarmed by a character with the trapfinding class feature with a successful Disable Device skill check (DC 25 + spell level). Other characters have no chance to disarm a magic trap with a Disable Device check.

Note that is says a perception check detects the trap before it goes off. Everyone should get a passive perception check to notice a trap before they step on it. The distance from the trap at which you could spot it would be up to the game master and vary a lot depending on the design of the trap. However, even if your sight is blocked to see it until you are right on top of the trap, you still get a perception roll to notice before you set it off.

As far as spells like spiked growth go, my guess is that it's a holdover from 3rd edition, when only rogues could find traps with a spot DC over 20. They probably forgot or didn't think to change when they copied it into the new rules.

On a side note, both affects apply. so If you fire a blunderbuss against a swarm of tiny creatures it would take 150% damage (since guns do bludgeoning and piercing. If you were somehow attacking with an aoe piercing attack it would do 75% damage). If the dwarf with the blunderbuss were wearing a swarmbane clasp, he would do 150% damage to swarms of any size. Or he could carry around some alchemical dragon's breath cartridges.

RAW the blunderbuss would make one attack roll against the target of mirror image, since they roll against each creature in the area, and illusions are not creatures. Then, since it falls in the category of an attack and not area spell or an affect that doesn't require an attack roll, you would roll to see if it hit an image or the target. RAI however this makes no sense, I would treat it like an aoe spell.

When mirror image is cast, 1d4 images plus one image per three caster levels (maximum eight images total) are created. These images remain in your space and move with you, mimicking your movements, sounds, and actions exactly. Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll, there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead. If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. If it is a figment, the figment is destroyed. If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss. Area spells affect you normally and do not destroy any of your figments. Spells and effects that do not require an attack roll affect you normally and do not destroy any of your figments. Spells that require a touch attack are harmlessly discharged if used to destroy a figment.

Well feel free to disagree. But unfortunately this is how shield other works. The cleric gets the short end of the stick. If said barbarian with DR 4/- were to get hit for 4 damage, the cleric would still take 2 even though the barbarian would have taken none. It's another case of: if you have multiple overlapping defenses, you apply them in the way that is least favorable to you.
The line says "takes only half damage from wounds and attacks." To clarify, lets write this as two sentences:
The subject takes only half damage from all wounds. The subject takes only half damage from all attacks.
So if the subject is wounded, such as from falling, he only takes half the damage. If the subject is hit with an attack, he only takes half the damage the attack would have done. They include the word "wounds" in there because if they did not, then the spell would only affect damage that was received though an attack. If they meant for it to apply only to actual damage taken, then they would not have included "attacks" as a separate qualifier.
Also look at the description of DR, DR represents instantly healing or ignoring the pain "as though they were invulnerable." A creature with DR is not actually invulnerable. They are still taking the wounds, wounds which are still transferred to the cleric even if the subject of the spell would have ignored or healed them on his own.

The way its written, yeah you can still only use following step when the opponent takes a 5 foot step. As Umbranus pointed out, using step up makes you lose 5 feet of movement on your following turn, following step removes that penalty. The feat is not meant to allow you to follow someone who withdraws. Moving 10 feet would still provoke as normal. However consider that the feat is generally taken as an anti caster/ranged ability, where they often will not have a weapon to take the ao with. Combine this with stand still and you become very difficult to get away from.

This spell wards the subject and creates a mystic connection between you and the subject so that some of its wounds are transferred to you. The subject gains a +1 deflection bonus to AC and a +1 resistance bonus on saves. Additionally, the subject takes only half damage from all wounds and attacks (including those dealt by special abilities) that deal hit point damage. The amount of damage not taken by the warded creature is taken by you. Forms of harm that do not involve hit points, such as charm effects, temporary ability damage, level draining, and death effects, are not affected. If the subject suffers a reduction of hit points from a lowered Constitution score, the reduction is not split with you because it is not hit point damage. When the spell ends, subsequent damage is no longer divided between the subject and you, but damage already split is not reassigned to the subject.

Some magic creatures have the supernatural ability to instantly heal damage from weapons or ignore blows altogether as though they were invulnerable.

The numerical part of a creature's damage reduction (or DR) is the amount of damage the creature ignores from normal attacks.

The barbarians DR comes after the damage is halved. This is consistent with the way other half damage effects work. For instance if you have energy resistance fire, are hit by a fireball and save. You take the fireball damage, halve it, and then apply the energy resistance. So in the OP example, the the barbarian would take half of the damage, 4 which his DR reduces to 0, then the cleric would take the remaining 4 damage. The cleric however, is not getting hit by a "normal attack" and therefore his DR doesn't apply.