aegrisomnia's page

Not sure what this is supposed to be about. It seems like making a thread about what role potatoes have in Pathfinder.

Kelsey, is there some particular issue that needs to be addressed, or are things basically fine and this thread is about things being fine?

Also, I like potatoes and would gladly include potato themes in any of my games in which food was relevant. In games where food is not relevant, including explicit references to to potatoes would probably seem out of place, but that's not really a big deal.

This is the kind of thing that just makes me sick. Not everybody likes only potatoes - all edible plants are of equal value and importance, how can you not see that? I'm sorry, something must be done to stop your hateful stem-tuber rhetoric.

You know who else I bet liked potatoes? Hitler.

There are a lot of reasons a Neutral character might commit an Evil act without actually falling down to a full-on Evil Alignment.

In fact, I don't think anybody's even suggesting the paladin's alignment should change. Doesn't have to. Paladin still falls.

Wait, what were we talking about again?

Something something something, paladin falls, something, something something, paladin rules aren't fair, yadda yadda yadda, alignment shouldn't get in the way of optimizing my Smighter, etc.

That's the gist of it, as far as I can tell.

Whatever you choose, make sure to use a saddle.

-pause-

Otherwise, you might fall.

Record how much time you spend figuring out your initial stats, feats, skills, abilities, and growth plan.

Spend at least that amount of time finding or writing a paladin code, going over it with the GM, and making sure there aren't any philosophical differences that will cause you and/or your GM to come here and start another Paladin Falls thread.

He didn't. That is a pretty important detail to not give till like 6 pages in.

In fairness, he first admits that evidence on page 2, not page 6. I even reference it before page 6.

"I will personally take on this execution so that my people can live a happy life safe from the unwarranted savage attacks from this...<insert anything you feel like killing>. To leave <insert anything you feel like killing> alive would endanger my people as I cannot guarantee with absolute certainty that <insert anything you feel like killing> will not go on to harm more people in <insert anything you feel like killing>'s life."

Generalized that for you.

For my money, both the Wyvern and the Paladin committed evil acts. If the Wyvern were a Paladin, it would have fallen, too.

In other news, two wrongs don't make a right.

To atone, the Paladin should be fed alive to a pack of Wyverns. You can always resurrect him afterwards.

You're the GM. You think he willingly committed an Evil act, so he falls. End of discussion.

(It gets cold in Golarion. People dress in layers.)

Fun fact: I sleep walked to pick up my phone and typed this all out. Upon hitting the submit I regained awareness, and was shocked I could articulate things like this while in such a state. Woah

Give me a break. I'm mostly black-out drunk when I post on these forums, and you don't see me bragging about it.

only no nudity :(

Speak for yourself.

Just woke up and felt like killing, huh? Yup, let's go down to the docks and kill some thieves, nobody will miss them, and they deserve to die, right? Because they... uhhh.. kill people...

Evil.

An anarchic weapon is infused with the power of chaos. It makes the weapon chaotically aligned and thus bypasses the corresponding damage reduction. It deals an extra 2d6 points of damage against all creatures of lawful alignment. It bestows one permanent negative level (Core Rulebook 562) on any lawful creature attempting to wield it. The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer wielded. This negative level cannot be overcome in any way (including restoration spells) while the weapon is wielded.

This makes it sound a lot like "having the weapon in hand" is what is meant by "wielded" in this case. Or should we take this to mean that a Lawful creature only suffers from a negative level while actively trying to hit things with the sword?

This ability can only be placed on a melee weapon. When the wielder of a benevolent weapon uses the aid another action to grant an ally a bonus on attack rolls, he increases the aid another bonus by the enhancement bonus of the weapon.

You can't really be trying to hit anything in a round you use the Aid Another action (AoOs aside). I suppose this doesn't rule out "used recently", i.e., within the last round or so.

A called weapon can be teleported to the wielder's hand as a swift action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity, even if the weapon is in the possession of another creature.[b]

By RAW, the Called property cannot work, since you cannot possibly be wielding (and be the wielder of) a weapon you are not holding. Based on this, I'd say "wield" means something more like "own".

As a standard action, a dancing weapon can be loosed to attack on its own. It fights for 4 rounds using the base attack bonus of the one who loosed it and then drops. While dancing, it cannot make attacks of opportunity, and the activating character it is not considered armed with the weapon. [b]The weapon is considered wielded or attended by the activating character for all maneuvers and effects that target items. While dancing, the weapon shares the same space as the activating character and can attack adjacent foes (weapons with reach can attack opponents up to 10 feet away). The dancing weapon accompanies the activating character everywhere, whether she moves by physical or magical means. If the activating character has an unoccupied hand, she can grasp it while it is attacking on its own as a free action; when so retrieved, the weapon can't dance (attack on its own) again for 4 rounds. This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons.

By RAW, unless "wield" means something akin to "own", I fail to see how Dancing weapons are supposed to work. They're considered wielded for the purposes of maneuvers and effects that target items, but not explicitly for the purposes of determining whether or not the user benefits from the Dancing property itself. I concede this may be a simple oversight and not representative of any real intent.

A huntsman weapon helps its wielder locate and capture quarry. When the weapon is held in hand, the wielder gains an enhancement bonus on Survival checks made to track any creature the weapon has damaged in the past day. It also deals +1d6 points of damage to creatures the wielder has tracked with Survival in the past day.

Again, "owns" or "holds" seems appropriate here. "Own" (possibly also having proficiency in) remains the only interpretation that seems to apply universally.

This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons. A melee weapon crafted with this ability gains a range increment of 10 feet and can be thrown by a wielder proficient in its normal use.

This suggest ownership, not proficiency, is sufficient to be considered a "wielder". Otherwise, the bit about proficiency would be redundant.

Based on all of this, I'd propose something along the lines of the following:

You are considered to be the wielder of a weapon you own if you would have theoretically been capable of making an attack with it at the beginning of the current turn, had the weapon been in hand as a result of actions you could have taken during the previous turn and had there been an opponent within reach.

Examples:

Bob owns a +1 Called Ominous Greatsword and is interrogating Joe. The greatsword rests on a table across the room from Joe, and is not held by Bob. Since Bob could have called the weapon to his hand during the last turn, and because Bob could have attacked an enemy with his sword at the beginning of the current turn had one been adjacent to him (note: Joe is not within Bob's reach), Bob gains a +1 bonus to intimidate checks against Joe. Note: were the weapon not Called and were it far enough away that Joe couldn't have retrieved it and returned within a single round, he wouldn't have been considered to be wielding it.

Joe has a +1 Courageous longsword in its sheathe. He is suddenly attacked by Oscar and they begin a grapple. Because Joe could have unsheathed the sword during the last round and because Joe could theoretically attack Oscar using it if it were in hand, Joe benefits from Courageous.

You are considered to be the owner of a weapon which was at one point of time in your possession so long as either (a) no other creature has taken possession of the weapon or (b) any creature which has received possession of the weapon willingly acknowledges your continued ownership.

Examples:

Joe finds a masterwork shortsword lying on the ground. He picks it up, and is then surprised by Bob. Since the shortsword is in Joe's possession and no other creature has since taken ownership of the shortsword, Joe is considered the owner.

Joe drops the masterwork shortsword and runs away, Bob close on his heels. Joe remains the owner of the shortsword since nobody has claimed ownership.

Joe loses Bob, and on his way back home, Bob finds the shortsword. He picks it up and takes it with him, becoming the new owner (Joe is no longer the owner since (a) another creature has taken possession and (b) the creature does not willingly recognize continued ownership belonging to Joe).

Bob shows the sword to Jane, his trusted friend, and lets her hold it for a moment (the sword, that is). Joe crashes through the door with wild eyes. Bob is the owner of the shortsword iff Jane willingly intends to return the sword to Bob, or would do so if she were aware of the situation. Otherwise, if Jane is in league with Joe, she is unwilling and considered the owner.

(Maybe Paizo should hire some lawyers to interpret RAW? I find myself wanting to refer to parties and use "herein" a lot).

Hah! I love it. The intent seems 100% clear to me, but the OP is right: the RAW is 100% ambiguous. Delicious. FAQ'ed out of a perverse sense of glee. Why, devs, have you forsaken me? Why do you not hear my cries?

In seriousness: agreed with the others that you should take this to mean "(bonus or extra) (attacks)", not "(bonus) or (extra attacks)".

Your point is that "Immobile" means literally incapable of being moved, so therefore being paralyzed means you should be treated like an Immovable Rod. But Immovable Rods are not incapable of being moved. So, either you want to treat it like an Immovable Rod or you want it to be incapable of being moved.

My point is that Immobile and Immovable are very similar words; indeed, they are listed as synonyms and have the same primary definition in at least one (online) dictionary. It doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility to take "immobile" to mean "immovable" based on this. We can also support this interpretation from context:

He is rooted to the spot, frozen and helpless.

Rooted to the spot implies not only that he cannot move himself, but that he cannot be moved at all. Helpless implies even more: beyond not being able to flee, he can't even take steps to defend himself. This is hard to reconcile with being able to take purely mental actions, but that's another question entirely.

Not even friends can move his limbs.

He's not simply a limp noodle; he's rigidly affixed to a point in space. While this doesn't rule out the possibility that he can be picked up and carted off, or levitated away with a spell, it does demonstrate that in-game "Paralysis" works different from IRL "Paralysis" to the extend that our real-world prejudices might not be altogether useful in figuring out how to handle the condition.

Some monsters and spells have the supernatural or spell-like ability to paralyze their victims, immobilizing them through magical means. Paralysis from poison is discussed in the Afflictions section.

This is the first line from the description of paralysis. Based on the grammar of this sentence, it appears that "paralyze" seems to imply "immobilize". At least, that's the effect of the way the sentence is structured. In fact, one could argue that an equivalency is being created between "paralyze" and "immobilize" based on this construction. Of course, this does appear only to apply to paralysis delivered by monsters and/or special abilities... so paralysis by poison could work differently, except there's nothing saying how it works any differently.

But Immovable Rods are not incapable of being moved.

When the button is pushed (a move action), the rod does not move from where it is, even if staying in place defies gravity.

For whatever interpretation of "does not move from where it is" we can agree on, my point is that paralyzed should (usually, except for winged creatures in flight at the time of paralysis) mean the same thing.

If in your world, that means that paralyzed creatures and immovable rods fly off into the sky or splatter on the ground, that's a valid interpretation. If it means they remain fixed in space relative to some other frame of reference, so be it.

Besides, the entry for the status effect of "Paralyzed" (not the attack entry you referenced) does not contain the word "Immobile".

See above; it doesn't contain "immobile", but it does create strong comparison between "paralyze" and "immobilize".

Paralysis (Ex or Su) This special attack renders the victim immobile. Paralyzed creatures cannot move, speak, or take any physical actions. The creature is rooted to the spot, frozen and helpless. Paralysis works on the body, and a character can usually resist it with a Fortitude saving throw (DC 10 + 1/2 the paralyzing creature's racial HD + the paralyzing creature's Con modifier; the DC is given in the creature's description). Unlike hold person and similar effects, a paralysis effect does not allow a new save each round. A winged creature flying in the air at the time that it is paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A swimmer can't swim and may drown. The duration of the paralysis varies and is included in the creature's description.

Some monsters and spells have the supernatural or spell-like ability to paralyze their victims, immobilizing them through magical means.

From Merriam Webster online:

Immobile: incapable of being moved : fixed

Immovable: incapable of being moved; broadly : not moving or not intended to be moved

Synonyms: immobile, immotile, irremovable, nonmotile, nonmoving, unbudging, unmovable

My contention is that the RAW and RAI clearly state that paralysis turns you into a wizard-shaped immovable rod. Prove me wrong.

Note: all the silly arguments about Golarion's rotation and revolution around its sun make as much sense for the immovable rod as for a paralyzed creature. In other words, none, your argument is specious, go home. :)

Sounds like bad writing. In the face of apparently contradictory RAW, I suggest taking everything as literally as possible and ignoring apparent contradictions.

Lycanthropy is always referred to as a curse, even in the quoted text. It is a curse. Repeat after me: lycanthropy is a curse.

Lycanthropy can be removed within three days of contracting it by application of Remove Disease or Heal. Lycanthropy is a curse, a very special curse, which happens to also be healable by Remove Disease or Heal. It is still very much a curse.

Therefore, Lycanthropy is a curse and affects an antipaladin normally. Within three days of contracting the curse, the antipaladin can be cured by application of Remove Disease or Heal. After that, removing the curse requires application of Remove Curse.

The special choice of Remove Disease / Heal are only done for thematic reasons, and in no way have anything to do with Lycanthropy being in any way equivalent to a disease. It's a curse. It's a curse with a couple of special rules tacked on. Nowhere is it suggested that lycanthropy is a disease for the first three days; in fact, it explicitly calls it out as still being a curse then, just one that can be removed by other means.

It's a curse. Your antipaladin can be a werewolf all he wants, but doesn't get any special benefit from doing so, as antipaladins have no special rules for interacting with curses (unless there's another antipaladin ability which says otherwise).

Rolling 4d6 (drop the lowest) for each stat, in turn, is the one true way to generate character stats.

In other news, vanilla is hereby decreed to be better than chocolate. More at 11:00.

Paladin did not make sandwiches for the bandits, paladin falls.

Fyi this is not a cisgender flame thread im trying to come up with a cannon response.

BOOOM!

^ I suspect that the kind of person who enjoys playing fighters wouldn't be dissuaded from doing so by what's said about them in these forums. Frankly, I find a lot of the hyper-optimization bizarre but fascinating: the best part is when people deny that's what it is, and insist that it's simply getting players to "hold their own" or "get the most out of their characters." If that means your average adventurer resists demon/dragon magic with 95% effectiveness, count me out: I get that the game is based in fantasy, but there comes a point when it starts to detract from the game.

All that said, go ahead and have fun however you like. If caster/martial disparity is disrupting your game, the easiest solution may be to simply hit casters with the nerf bat. Same goes for any abused mechanic.

I already discussed with my players that this way the solution is almost never found, however they are too afraid that they might miss something if they don't investigate everything. Does anyone have a similar experience and know how to solve it?

Make a covenant with your players that if there is anything which might be gained by a perception check, you will clearly and truthfully answer this OOC and allow the players to roll their rolls until satisfied or frustrated. If there is nothing to be gained, it is assumed that the characters have all looked around and found nothing of use.

To remain consistent, you can't have puzzles that rely on hidden elements while asking players not to look for them; I hope that this is obvious.

Wave your cane at them and maybe they'll get off your lawn.

This is turning into an alignment thread? Good. Everything which has transpired has done so according to my design.

^ This is the Internet. Everybody's wrong.

In another thread, I hypothesize that it looks sort of like a drunk hobo trying to fight with his right hand a ham sandwich he's holding in his left. By default, there are verbal, somatic, and material components, but with enough training you can ignore each in much the same way the drunk hobo can.

Agree to disagree amicably?

On the Internet? Come on. The proper etiquette is to accuse each other of badwrongfun, nerdrage for a few pages, and then leave once the thread is so derailed that the original discussion is forgotten.

On a serious note, I'm inclined to agree with DrDeth.

@Belafon Ah, good point. I guess a good middle ground might be to rule that maintaining a grapple taken at the -20 penalty to avoid gaining the grappled condition can substitute for an attack with that natural weapon (e.g., tentacle). Thus, maintaining each such grapple would count as an attack during a full attack, and free appendages can attack and attempt to grab normally.

Of course, the only differences between that and the hit + grab + constrict + drop option, mechanically speaking, is the -20 penalty and reduced ongoing damage (only constrict on subsequent rounds). That might be enough of a penalty to put tentacle monsters closer to their intended CR... as it is, double slam damage with no penalties does not seem to be the intended mechanic.

Killing a devil is right because killing is wrong and devils are wrong - and as everyone knows, two wrongs make a right. That's called morality.

If at all possible, as a favor to me, can we keep this from devolving into another "casters rool martials drool lulxor!@#!@#!@" thread? Those get so tiring.

As much as I prefer playing martials to casters, it's probably a bit disingenuous to say that casters are more gear-dependent than martials. Both depend on gear, but martials' gear (weapon & armor) tends to be more expensive and more vulnerable.

Is it still an evil act, or does the forgiveness and subsequent allowance whitewash the, for lack of a better term, sin?

I think a reasonable stance here would be that the act remains evil, although obtaining forgiveness effectively cleans the slate. To break it down: let's say person A mind rapes person B.

Person A mind rapes Person B: +1 Evil to Person A.
Person A tells person B about the mind rape and submits to whatever retribution Person B demands: +1 Good to Person A.
Person B forgives person A. +1 Good to Person B.
(alternative endings: Person B murders person A. +1 Evil to Person B. Or Person B demands fair compensation: No alignment implications at all.)

How does this apply to the pastry case? Simple. Like I've been saying all along, the only way to make peace with this behavior - to see whether you were doing evil all along and, if so, to make it right - is to march into court, deliver a lengthy confession to all in attendance, and ask forgiveness from all your patrons (submitting to their reasonable punishments, where reasonable possibly means something like fitting the crime). This could mean losing a lot of money, a lot of influence, your freedom, and possibly your life. But that's how evil is; evil's hard, just in different ways than good is hard.

Good is everyone wanting your help when they're helpless.

Evil is everyone wanting to kill you when you're helpless.

I'll never understand the mentality of "casters get super cosmic power, don't you dare question it" and "how dare martial's get something that I can't find a reason to make sense. They should only get abilities that fit within real world parameters"

Seriously, a barbarian gets so angry he grows wings (that go away when he's done raging). If that isn't immersion shattering like rage cycling I don't know what is.

It might help to think of it like a sort of uncanny valley. Most people aren't too freaked out by unrealistic-looking dolls, because they look like toys. Similarly, most people's faces aren't too disturbing. However, there is a marked increase in feeling strangely about very realistic-looking dolls and mannequins; they're not quite real enough for you to believe they're people, but they're not quite cartoonish enough for your brain to dismiss them as toys. I think a similar effect may be at play here: outrageous things that wizards can do are like toys, and our brains reject them easily. Realistic things fighters do we recognize as plausible heroism. Even growing wings sounds like a magic toy. But there's an uncomfortable middle ground where the thing seems like it should be a real thing, but doesn't work right. I have no point of reference for knowing whether a Cone of Cold is realistic or not; but we've all become angry before.

Whoa, whoa, whoa - Paizo made the Goblin alchemist fire bomber underpowered? (Not to mention, IIRC, a couple of misplaced apostrophes, although I am unable to find them now.)

Well, then, this must mean the entire system is garbage. Inexcusable. Thank you for bringing this important information to my attention.

Maybe he has faint memories of giants wearing strange clothes, holding strange boulders with arcane runes, sitting around a table...

Kant (IIRC) developed a sort of "litmus test" for ethical issues which I find both easy to apply and pretty reliable, at least if you subscribe to deontological ethics. Basically, the test is this: would everybody doing it your way, and everybody knowing about it, negate the reason for doing it in the first place? Take, for instance, lying. If everybody lied all the time, speech would become much less useful than it is now, possibly to the point of practical uselessness. Moreover, you'd be thwarted in your own aim, i.e., to have people believe your lies. Therefore, lying is evil. Does spiking people's donuts for fun and profit negate the benefit? Well, suppose everybody who sold food used this little trick, and everybody knew about it. Would people with really juicy information go out and get a donut? Would you go buy an ale from the barkeep next door? If so, by all means, continue. Otherwise, why not? You wouldn't like it?

Aquinas, in his treatise on the nature of evil, describes evil as the absence, or lack, of the good. Good, he says, is what everyone wants. Does everybody want to eat spiked donuts? Probably not. In fact, I'd hazard that, given the choice, everybody would choose enchantment-free donuts instead, all things being equal. Does that make what you're doing evil? Well, in Aquinas' world view, the question doesn't really make sense. But it would certainly appear not to be good.

A side note: I realize we're talking about a fictional world here, and that not all the rules from our world apply to the game world. That said, the default assumption certainly seems to be that the usual physical laws and social customs apply unless otherwise noted. These places have guards, prisons, kings, and criminals. What would lead one to believe that they wouldn't punish fraud and conspiracy, were it discovered? The business being discussed is different in degree, not in kind, from a couple of two-bit rogues running a three-card Monty outfit. I don't know how this sort of thing has been viewed historically, but my gut says that it has probably always caused problems, and problems are typically addressed by the law.

I am trying to determine a fair price for an item (likely goggles or a headband or something) that grants its wearer the See in Darkness ability. The first obvious comparison is with Goggles of Night:

Goggles of Night

Aura faint transmutation; CL 3rd

Slot eyes; Price 12,000 gp; Weight —

Description

The lenses of this item are made of dark crystal. Even though the lenses are opaque, when placed over the eyes of the wearer, they enable him to see normally and also grant him 60-foot darkvision. Both lenses must be worn for the magic to be effective.

Construction

Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, darkvision; Cost 6,000 gp

The equipment I propose should be at least this expensive. A slightly less obvious comparison is with the Rod of Shadows:

Rod of Shadows

Aura moderate abjuration; CL 8th

Slot none; Price 64,305 gp; Weight 5 lbs.

Description

This ebon rod is so dark it seems to absorb the light around it. The rod functions as a +2 light mace, and allows its wielder to see in darkness as if it had the see in darkness ability. Three times per day, the wielder can use it to create a deeper darkness effect (caster level 8th). To use this ability, the rod's wielder must touch the object affected, which is a standard action that provokes attacks of opportunity.

Construction

Requirements Craft Rod, deeper darkness, true seeing; Cost 32,305 gp

Most likely, an item that only grants See in Darkness ought to be less expensive than this. I tried to reverse engineer the cost of the Rod of Shadows to determine how much See in Darkness is contributing to the cost:

Deeper Darkness ability cost = spell level X caster level X 2,000gp X 1.5 (use-activated) / (5/3) = 3 x 8 x 2,000 x 1.5 x 0.6 = 43,200gp

+2 Enhancement cost = enhancement^2 x 2,000gp = 4 x 2,000 = 8,000gp

See in Darkness cost ~ total cost - Deeper Darkness cost - Enhancement cost = 13,105gp

This is technically more than the Goggles of Night, but not by a lot. Is ~13,000gp too cheap for this?

Bonus question: is there any precedent for adding drawbacks to weapons to decrease their price, like there is for adding CP to animated objects? I'm thinking something like Light Blindness would be a good way to moderate the power of this item, in which case it looks a lot like an item that grants its wearer the Dark Sight / Gloom Sight / Improved Dark Sight trio of Fetchling racial feats.

A couple of questions to ask:

1. Do the PCs focus fire?
2. Do the PCs take appropriate in-game actions to coordinate their attacks?

My rule of thumb is that if the PCs do it, you can do it - and vice versa. I'd be surprised if the PCs don't focus fire; if they legitimately don't, then I'd be cautious about doing it yourself, unless you make a big show of coordinating it (like the officer isn't attacking, just pointing and barking orders).

Fun for martials aside, casters need to be knocked out of the nerf tree with the nerf bat, and to hit every nerf branch on the way down. I can think of some ugly but effective ways to do this. I can see why PF may not want to do this across the board, but it should be straightforward in casual (non-PFS) games. I think it would make it more fun for casters to inject some more challenge... and feeling more useful, relatively speaking, would probably increase martials' enjoyment as well. Why the bad feelings about just nuking casters? There's a lot they could lose and still be as viable as a fighter.

I see the next AP already: one morning, to settle a bet, Abraxas used the final incantation to unmake magic. The goal: figure out how to provide for the basic necessities of life. Step 1: burn scrolls, spellbooks and bat guano for warmth. Stoke with wands, rods & staves, as necessary. Step 2: sell all owned shares in paperweight stocks.

Clearly, the problem with Crane Wing is that it is an automatic win against a single melee martial character with only one attack per round.

I mean, it's not like casters have an auto-win button like fly, teleport, or even create pit in a hallway - wait, just a second - I'm being told casters have all those things. Well, no problem, martials can just grow wings and learn to fly.

Before: a feat that made melee characters somewhat less irrelevant.
After: a feat the nerfing of which becomes the scapegoat for systemic problems that arise when you try to beat with a sword someone who can justify their roleplay with "because magic".

Seriously, though, it's one feat, a good feat, that got made less good. See also discussion around "Antagonize", a feat which allowed mortal men to have the godlike power of making other mortals lose their cool and behave irrationally.

If someone tells you that it’s an illusion, that gives you a reason to study it carefully. But if the caster tells you it’s an illusion, you automatically disbelieve.

I'd rather say that this still requires a will save to disbelieve, just with a modifier. Assuming the caster is a trusted ally, you should get a fairly large bonus. Of course, a very weak-willed character might not believe the word of a new wizard who conjures something very realistic.

Anyone disagree with it taking a Standard action?

Sounds about right, assuming this is keyed off some skill check or save. Personally, it would make sense that you'd need to do something like perception or spellcraft first, to notice something amiss, and then - if you succeed - you make the save immediately as a free action. It should be possible to carefully study an illusion and fail to notice anything's wrong.

What's your opinion on whether careful study should provoke an AoO?

I'd say it definitely provokes an AoO. Casting a SLA provokes and it's a similar action: careful focus and attention cause you to lower your guard.

so neither can the NPC’s

Or rather, doing so would impose exactly the same sorts of penalties on them as it would on anybody else, making them basically useless except as illusion spotters. Realistically, nobody would do this.

what if a spellcaster sees you casting the illusion, and makes a successful Spellcraft check?

Sounds legit; a successful spellcraft check and familiarity with what the spell does should be enough to know it's fake (unless there are ways in the game to fake a spell, confounding spellcraft; in that case, I would let the player believe whatever they want, unless they take that information and decide it's worth examining the supposed illusion). It should be possible for a failed or fooled spellcraft check to result in the caster falsely believing that the thing is an illusion, with hilarious consequences.

I would actually disagree with Skip on one point, and posit the following: careful study is totally distinct from interaction, and these constitute separate ways of disbelieving illusions. Take Shadow Conjuration, for instance. While the text for illusion spells states that careful study or interaction are usually required, Shadow Conjuration only ever mentions interaction. I would say that interaction means the following in this context: you do anything to the illusion, and the illusion does something to you. Simply perceiving a shadow can never reveal its true nature, not even if you use a standard action to study it. What does constitute interaction, then, in my mind?

1. Attacking or being attacked (also: touching or being touched)
2. Targeting with a spell (not including in the AoE) or being targeted by (or included in the AoE of) a spell.
3. Targeting with an opposed skill check. Note: intimidation used against a single target would constitute interaction, but not Dazzling Display including a shadow in its AoE.
4. Engaging in conversation (more than what a free action would constitute).

I feel like this is likely the RAI for interaction. I can go to a museum and carefully study a painting all day, but I haven't interacted with it in any meaningful way.

I like the idea of making martials more dangerous against magic users. Mechanically, maybe it could work something like this:

+2 SR at levels 1, 3, 5, ..., 19.
+1 SR at levels 2, 4, 6, ..., 20.
+1 save vs. magic at levels 1, 3, 5, ..., 19.

A level 20 fighter would have...

Spell resistance: 30
Fort save vs. magic: 22 + CON
Reflex save vs. magic: 16 + DEX
Will save vs. magic: 16 + WIS

A level 20 wizard without spell focus, spell penetration and with an 18 casting stat would have the following chance to hit against a fighter with 14 CON / 12 DEX / 10 WIS:

(assuming no SR allowed)
Allows no save: 100%
Allows fort save: 0%
Allows ref save: 25%
Allows will save: 30%

For spells that allow SR, multiply the above by 55%; so 55%, 0%, ~13%, ~17%.

A level 20 wizard with spell focus & greater spell focus, spell penetration and greater spell penetration with a 22 casting stat would have the following chance to hit against the same fighter:

Allows no save: 100%
Allows fort save: 10%
Allows ref save: 45%
Allows will save: 50%

For spells that allow SR, multiply the above by 65%; so 65%, ~7%, ~29%, ~33%.

This doesn't seem particularly overpowered to me, nor does it strike me as being particular unrealistic for the genre. Simply put, characters that specialize and focus on non-magical abilities are less affected by them. Call it disbelief, or maybe acquired immunity, or whatever. EDIT: yeah, it seems like even some animals have spell resistance (Eagle, Wolf, etc.) Why not heroes?

Of course, there are other suggestions that have been floated from time to time:
- make power attack and combat expertise built-in options rather than feats
- combine feats for individual combat maneuvers into one line of feats applying to all combat maneuvers