darkerthought7's page

In other news, I may just say "screw it" and enchant wizard and familiar with permanent Tongues effects. At least then, the rules are quite clear.

Class Skill Bonuses to the Linguistics Skill do not provide additional languages and so are not relevant to this discussion.

Daw, I think you missed the point of the post. It's not a question of whether the class skill BONUS provides languages. That's not in question, as the text links ranks to languages known. Instead, the use of language in how the class skills BONUS is applied (insofar as the bonus "activates" when you "put a rank" into the skill) mirrors that of the language in the opening lines of the Linguistics skill. This implies (though it is hazy) that the presence of ranks is what is important, not how they were obtained or how they were applied. That's the argument. And I don't feel that you've addressed that. This matter is still not clear, Fuzzy. I can see both sides of the debate, and both of them from a RAW perspective.

It's equivocal, but the soulless RAW of it says no, There are thematic and exemplary arguments either way, but parsing the wording: (bolding is mine)

PRD Linguistics skill wrote:

Learn a Language: Whenever you put a rank into this skill, you learn to speak and read a new language. Common languages (and their typical speakers) include the following......

So, since the familiar never actually puts a rank of its own into linguistics, and the wording doesn't come from HAVING the skill rank, it gains no languages. Note that the existance of the "Speak with Master" ability does tend to suggest that there was no intent to give an animal based familiar languages this way. Since "improved" an most "archetypal" familiars of any kind do not get Speak With Master, it has been argued that this makes them qualitatively different than standard familiars in this regard. (Iffy, but interesting.

Note that since unchained (retraining) came out, familiar's did get an official out, the above quote opens linguistics to some abuse to the clever character (PC or NPC) who can actually put ranks into linguistics, and even to those that can't but can retrain at all.

Retraining wrote:

New Language

You can spend time to learn an additional language. It takes 20 days of training to gain a bonus language, and these days need not be consecutive. Each language requires a trainer who shares a language with you and knows the language you want to learn, or a book written in a language you know that explains the basics of the language you want to learn.

The new language does not count toward your maximum number of languages (racial languages + bonus languages from Intelligence + Linguistics ranks). You can train this way only a number of times equal to 1 + your Intelligence bonus.

Note that this, especially the bolded bit, is the only place I have seen Paizo list an actual maximum number number of languages a character can know, and it is, unfortunately, in an optional ruleset (retraining)....

I like the in-depth analysis here, but what say you to the link in the post above (referenced by Fuzzy-Wuzzy)? The wording and function of the spell "Borrow Skill" seems to indicate that "ranks are ranks," no matter how you are obtaining them. I do understand your logic, but I also see the contradictory point that sidewaysmonkey made in his/her original post. Nothing else in the game really cares about "putting in the rank," but instead notices whether or not you simply have ranks. Ranks in a skill indicate training, and your familiar shares your training. One would think, even thematically, that your familiar would also gain the knowledge of languages as much as they gain the knowledge of esoteric magic, extraplanar entities, and architectural history.

Simple question: Do familiars (who can speak, such as mephits) gain bonus languages when the master gains ranks in Linguistics?

Not sure why the need to nerf the worst Summoner archetype, but that's another gripe. Moving on, ideas for boons:
1) Additional evolution points (quick and dirty, but not very flavorful)
2) SLAs outside of the norm, such as Heroism
3) Ability to touch an ally and grant them abilities from a limited pool of evolutions (and you lose those evolutions while they are granted to an ally; can be combined with #1)
3a) Alternatively, this option could instead be like a squicky Bardic Performance, granting a scaling amount of evolutions. The restrictions to raging song could also apply, only allowing you to grant the same evolutions to all party members whenever you "perform."
4) Ability to just "give" an ally your eidolon temporarily (if going this route, make sure you can then use your SM SLA (aka the Summoner's best ability) so you aren't completely hosed)
5) Ability for the eidolon to gain sentience, functioning similarly to the Magus's Black Blade (can be combined with the idea for the Magus in the party, allowing the eidolon to take control in exchange for combat bonuses)

I have 10pts I have only 8pts of non-lethal damage I am healed for 8pts what is my status?

A little vague, so I'll break down some scenarios. Hopefully you meant one of the following:

It would certainly not be unreasonable to house-rule a form of Boon Companion to allow for scaling by eating feats, but that would be a house-rule. As-is, the previous posters are right. If you look at the top of the table that gives +1 arcane/divine class, it says "Spells per Day." Only your casting is augmented by PrC, making multi classing with a summoner a poor choice, generally.

Merfolk technically do have a "feet" magic item slot, even though they have a tail instead of a foot. The caveat is that the item filling that slot must fit a tail fin, rather than feet. If the merfolk does obtain feet that can wear boots, it can then wear boots to fill the magic items slot.

It's the same family of logic that says you have two ring slots, regardless of how many fingers (or toes) you have. In this case it would be like a piercing ring (on an ear, nose, or less child-friendly location) occupying a ring slot.

Agreed. The discovery is not altering the magic item slots you have access to. It's just giving you different limbs. Unless it specifies that you are gaining additional magic item slots, you are still limited by the cap given in the CRG.

Incorrect.

Activating the Scroll wrote:

If the user meets all the requirements noted above, and her caster level is at least equal to the spell's caster level, she can automatically activate the spell without a check.

The 2nd Level scroll is CL3. A 4th Level Paladin with Magical Knack has a caster level of 3 and need not roll.

The Paladin cannot prepare 2nd Level spells until 7th, but can cast them before that.

This is only true if the spell appears on the Paladin's spell list, though. And the paladin must possess the required CHA to cast, as well. So, a cleric-made Bull's Strength would be fine under Magical Knack at 4th level, provided the Paladin also possesses at least CHA 12. Without MK, she would have to wait until at least 6th level.

This one should get an FAQ simply because the book it appears in is hardcover. For now, you'll have to use interpretation. My reading is: since the prerequisite of the feat specifies "arcane spells," it would key off the highest arcane caster level you possess. So, a Bard3/Wizard5/Cleric3 would use CL5, as that is the highest arcane caster level that character has.

Unfortunately, you won't find anything "explicit." Cantrips/Orisons are spells by definition. They are 0-level spells. They didn't see the need to call them out specifically for any reason because they are spells, no matter how you slice the cake. Your GM just doesn't want to be wrong, even though that's part of the game. Even my GM I have to call out on rules problems (long story short: we're both the most experienced members of the group. He's good at feats, I'm good at magic when it comes to rules questions). Don't let the GM's power trip go to your head. You are right. The "proof" he wants will not materialize, because he wants something that is unnecessary to print. What he wants is a waste of ink. It's an obvious concept. 0-level spell is 0-level spell. If first level spells were also called smeerps, would we have a whole other debate about those, too?

These were my thoughts as well, but I didn't know if there existed rules for this outside of "loose core." Just trying to see if the immortal wizard can find a suitably immortal companion. She'll get lonely...

Chess Pwn wrote:

here

is a PFS FAQ saying that the creator of the scroll determines the relevant stat. Because the question comes up if a rogue were to use that scroll which stat would he need? wisdom, charisma, or his pick?

Bear in mind that the Question in that FAQ deals with

Quote:

Casting a spell from a scroll using the Use Magic Device skill requires "a minimum score (10 +spell level) in the appropriate ability...

Blahpers quoted the rules on activating scrolls normally (not Using Magic Device). When using a scroll that way (the spell is on your class spell list) the "appropriate ability" is your class spellcasting stat.

When activating a scroll Using Magic Device (because the spell is not on your class spell list) the "appropriate ability" is the primary stat of the creator of the scroll.

Yup. The "appropriate ability score" ruling only applies to UMD. The rules for ordinary use of scrolls only say that the appropriate score be high enough, so the assumption is that the relevant ability score must be high enough for the caster to cast the spell, regardless of who wrote the scroll.

Question. Upon reaching certain levels spontaneous caster classes can swap a spell known for a new one (losing the old one of course) can you do this with cantrips? My GM says I can't but he can't give me a straight answer of why, meanwhile nomatter where I look everything points to cantrips being spells for all intents and purposes.

Thanks in advance.

Yes. You can replace any spell you know with any other spell of equal or lower level, provided you are achieving a level that allows this. Cantrips/Orisons can be replaced only by other cantrips/orisons, but otherwise there is no restriction on this.

I cannot seem to find any rules for whether or not outsiders or constructs can "die" due to old age. As the answer to this question leads back to what caused the question: do elementals, mephits, imps, quasits, or homunculi (improved familiars) have the capacity to die of old age, or are they effectively immortal (barring premature death through violence, etc.)?

Ok, so the debate on how good the MT is has beaten the horse to a bloody pulp. Not getting into that. My question is: are the bloodline/mystery spells considered to be class features and cease to progress with levels in MT or are they a part of "spells." My thinking is that they will not advance with the PrC, but I would like input to be sure.

I just read through the book, after having the same hangups. My biggest hangup was thinking that all of the new classes were as mindlessly complicated as the Kineticist. It's presented at the front of the book, so it sets a bad tone. So, I set it aside. I'm glad that the "Fashion-mancer" (Silksworn) bridged the gap that brought me into the Occult fold.

My 2cp:
- Kineticist is simply unnecessarily complicated for what it does. If I have a player who wants to play one, I will point to the Warlock archetype and say "Play that; I don't want to have to audit your sheet every 20 minutes."
- Occultist is also very complex, and I would allow it if an experienced player was willing to try it. I would steer new players away until they grasped basic concepts first.

I'm the kind of DM that would rather ban races than ban classes. It's easier to fit a weird class into a world than magical robot people or flying owl people. Moreover, I found more issues power-wise in the disparity between ARG races and CRB races than I do the classes presented in either OA or even ACG compared to prior books.

I stayed away because of the new-ness. I'm glad, though, that I finally read through OA. It's not a bad read (aside from the slog that is the Kineticist). I like the new take on magic. It's basically the same, but with some special rules that take up all of 1/2 a page to feel fresh. Now I have to convince another buddy of mine to adopt it. He still thinks Psychics work like 3.5 Psions lol.

The above posters are correct. A monk can use virtually any body part for their unarmed strikes.

Sounds like you have more than enough melee. TBH, Trapfinding's main draw is finding magical traps, which is easily accomplished by a cantrip. I would just try to nab buffs to DD and Perception, and do a ranged character. Gunslinger would be fine, the gun paladin archetype, or just a bow fighter. Use traits and feats to beef up DD and Perception (and make them class skills), and you'll be fine. Even buffed up, traps shouldn't be much of a problem. Just in case, keep a 10-foot pole on you.

darkerthought7 wrote:

Just to backtrack for a minute on this thread: how does giving monsters (or players, for that matter) bonus HP fix the issue of "rocket tag?" By the time that concept comes into play, HP is next to AC in terms of uselessness. When enemy casters are slinging spells that will incapacitate you instantly on a failed save, HP won't help one lick.

Anyway, blasting is simply not a good damage option. Sorry to say. Honestly, if you want to do something relevant with blasting, I'd recommend just switching over to the Words of Power system. It's utterly horrific UNLESS you are trying to make a blaster, necromancer, or non-Summoner summoner.

all words of power seems to do is make the game more complicated with no actual benefits i wouldn't touch that thing with a 10 foot poll

Not really, for a Spontaneous caster. The limit is low enough to not be too complicated for blasting. Plus, it lets you change blast shapes for using not-well-supported elements (such as lightning [or acid... grumble]) at earlier levels.

Just to backtrack for a minute on this thread: how does giving monsters (or players, for that matter) bonus HP fix the issue of "rocket tag?" By the time that concept comes into play, HP is next to AC in terms of uselessness. When enemy casters are slinging spells that will incapacitate you instantly on a failed save, HP won't help one lick.

Anyway, blasting is simply not a good damage option. Sorry to say. Honestly, if you want to do something relevant with blasting, I'd recommend just switching over to the Words of Power system. It's utterly horrific UNLESS you are trying to make a blaster, necromancer, or non-Summoner summoner.

I have a Half Elf Oracle Arcane Lore Keeper that is taking Eldritch Heritage (arcane). Would I be able to take the extra spell known as a Favored Class Option (as a Human sorcerer) from either the oracle or the sorcerer/wizard spell list? Would it be one level lower than what I could cast from the arcane spell list?

Unless a class feature (specifically a class feature) is adding a spell to your Spells Known or something else specifically adds a spell to your class spell list (Samsaran Mystic Past Life), you cannot cast any spells not already on your class spell list. Eldritch Heritage does not make you a sorcerer. And to nip another probable problem in the bud: New Arcana taken through the Eldritch Heritage line will NOT give you access to Sor/Wiz spells. Unless something specifically adds a spell to your class spell list, or your class is adding spells to your class spell list (like Oracle mystery spells), you don't get to cast it.

New Spells Known: If I gain the ability to add a spell that is not on my spell list to my list of spells known, without adding it to my spell list, can I cast it?

No. Adding a spell to your list of spells known does not add it to the spell list of that class unless they are added by a class feature of that same class. For example, sorcerers add their bloodline spells to their sorcerer spell list and oracles add their mystery spells to their oracle spell list. The spell slots of a class can only be used to cast spells that appear on the spell list of that class.

As far as I've seen, you can only take a feat if you have the ability to qualify for more than 24 hours. You can't be under the effects of Bull's Strength when the "XP bar" fills up and qualify for Power Attack, but you can use a Belt of Giant's Strength to qualify (losing the benefits of the feat should the item ever be removed). I would think the same logic applies here. You could only take Dimensional Agility if you had the ability to use the DDoor SLA for at least 24 hours straight, and you would lose the benefits of the feat whenever you lack a DDoor SLA. Thus, gaining temporary access to a feat that gives you an SLA would not give you the prerequisites to take Dimensional Agility unless that temporary access extended over 24 hours.

Unless otherwise noted, I tend to follow the "duck rule." And this screams of the same FAQ that allowed people to qualify for feats using magical items, but not duration-based buffs (although, I'm not sure that FAQ fully resolved what happens if someone extends a buff beyond 24 hours, but that's not relevant at the moment).

Quite right Chess Pwn, but the rule for determining familiar hit points doesn't necessarily preclude Toughness as you and others assert. It's just as valid, currently, to say Toughness applies on top of the familiar's base hit points as not.

I retract my earlier statement that you and others were wrong. That was wrong of me, just as much as it is for you and others to be stating your views as absolute fact. It's impossible to know, as written, what the intent of this rules interaction should be. Probably make for a decent FAQ candidate.

Agreed that it makes for a good FAQ candidate, but I'll have to be on the other bench for this one. The entry in "Familiars" states that the HP are wholly replaced by one half of the master's HP. There's no exception made in the initial entry for feat bonuses, Con bonuses, etc. It's just a find-and-replace. So, if the familiar has Toughness or benefits from Bear's Endurance, it's hit points are still equal to half of the master's HP. Unlike HD or skills, it does not have another line of text that allows for difference ("whichever is better"). Toughness would apply to the base calculation of HP (as would HD, Con, etc.), then becoming a familiar would override this value.

I've asked a question that hit on this point before: as a part of the class, the Patron feature is more akin to a Wizard's choice in school than it is a Cleric's choice in deity. So, while you could worship a deity and have a Patron that fits that deity's portfolio, none of your class features have anything to do with said deity. You don't receive spells from said deity (in fact, you don't "receive" spells at all as an arcane caster), so anything with that specific requirement can't be taken. However, anything that simply requires you to worship that deity is legal, as it would be for any other character that worshipped that deity.

However, it's not unreasonable to have that be a part of a home-brew world. It's just not really "legal" in a RAW sense.

You can always just give monsters class levels. If you need examples of how to do this, open almost any Paizo module and look for the unique enemy characters. Maybe give him a level or two in Ranger or Druid? Oracle?

Not sure I see much point in suggesting spontaneous archetypes for the Magus, who gets Spell Recall. You can prepare your "spells known" list daily, or just use the same one over and over. Either way, you have more than enough "spontaneity" for the normal adventuring day without gutting your ability to cast things not on your list of go-to spells. In fact, most levels you end up with the same amount of spells either way, so why say that the list of spells you're picking is the ONLY list of spells you will ever cast. Once you get access to Knowledge Pool at 7th, the regular Magus can have ALL Magus spells jotted down in their book and still only be casting from the standbys list until you need to think outside-the-box. Could have sworn that was the basic Magus strategy to begin with, though...

Always remember that "aggro" doesn't exist in the game. Reach weapons, as suggested above, help make that concept more viable. It helps to grab the feat (whose name I can't currently recall) that stops movement on OAs. The only way to "aggro" is to be a threat yourself, making it painful to let you move unchecked.

I've DMed a game where one player did monoMonk and got crazy high AC and saves. But did no damage. His back line did not appreciate his inability to die when he couldn't prevent THEM from dying.

I prefer We Be Goblins. It's fun and the imagery can be made to be fantastic, if you're into a bit of squick.

If you want to get really silly, you can always do the Archaeologist + Fate's Favored build, too. It just doesn't play as well with others.

darkerthought7 wrote:

How do you "bard"? Elementary! You're still a 3/4 class, so your feats will largely be the same as those you are familiar with. However, now you have access to bardsong and limited spellcasting. Your spell selections should help you get into favorable positions, since after round one you probably won't want to cast. Bardsong will fill the gap between 3/4 and full BAB, with the added benefit of giving the same bonus to your allies. Be sure to invest in Perform skills, since they pull double duty for bards. Versatile Performance will make you the star player in skill challenges. So, pick a combat style (I prefer archery) and tailor your feats to that style, grabbing Lingering Performance if you can find the room.

I agree with this, but I think that picking up lingering performance is very important and should be done at 5th level at the latest. There's nothing worse than running out of performance rounds, because then you're just a rogue without sneak attack. Oratory is a fantastic secondary performance skill to pick up, as it requires no hands. The only reason it's secondary is that you can buy masterwork instruments to give you a bonus that also applies to versatile performance.

You can play any core race (or any race without a -4 penalty to charisma) well as a bard. I actually am running a dwarven bard right now, and even with a 14 cha, you can still pull off some cool spells and have a high perform skill.

I actually prefer to do Oratory first, since getting a massive boost to Diplomacy and Sense Motive starting at level 2 is a really nice bonus. You can get a masterwork tool for literally anything, so it's available for Oratory, too.

How do you "bard"? Elementary! You're still a 3/4 class, so your feats will largely be the same as those you are familiar with. However, now you have access to bardsong and limited spellcasting. Your spell selections should help you get into favorable positions, since after round one you probably won't want to cast. Bardsong will fill the gap between 3/4 and full BAB, with the added benefit of giving the same bonus to your allies. Be sure to invest in Perform skills, since they pull double duty for bards. Versatile Performance will make you the star player in skill challenges. So, pick a combat style (I prefer archery) and tailor your feats to that style, grabbing Lingering Performance if you can find the room.

What about the moon-demigod that floats above the Boneyard, if following Golarion lore?

Orfamay Quest wrote:

taks wrote:

He's correct, too. A dedicated healer is a waste.

Only if you (incorrectly) interpret "healing" as excluding condition removal.

It's probably better to have at least 2 party members who can do the condition removal thing (including stuff like spreading potions around).

The Cleric can't cast remove fear if he rolls a nat 1 on that will save vs. the dragon, and so on.

This comment only furthers my argument: though potions are inefficient monetarily, they provide a wonderful emergency button for any party member to administer magical aid to themselves or others.

#brewpotionsaveslives

taks wrote:

He's correct, too. A dedicated healer is a waste.

Only if you (incorrectly) interpret "healing" as excluding condition removal.

Not really. Condition removal doesn't take someone dedicated to the role. It just requires it to be available when necessary. I agree that condition removal > hp recovery as levels increase, but the notion that it falls on a single party member to provide it IS a wasteful view.

I feel I'm in the minority when I say that a distinct role of "healer" is unnecessary. It should be a job for the party as a whole to lick their wounds, not force a single character to invest their resources to fixing boo-boos. If your party has a cleric, their spell slots tend to be better used smashing faces than they are fixing the fighter. That's what scrolls are for. They have a numerical value, and everyone can contribute to the cause. Sure, you need people able to activate those items, so a low level party is better off with someone who can do that. Hit mid-level, and anyone with a UMD score should be able to pitch in, too.

Honestly, the easiest method is to do as was suggested above: use "loadouts" and keep open slots. If the DM is yelling MOVEMOVEMOVE, spontaneous would have been a better option in the first place. It also has to do with attitude. Prepared casting is not for everyone. It takes time and work to make the spell list for the day. It's the price you pay for essentially being able to make a new CHARACTER every day. If you aren't willing to put in the work to think about it, then "ultimate cosmic power" just isn't for you. Not trying to be discouraging, but from what you're saying: you'd probably be more comfortable playing classes that focus on features not spells.

Side note: if 6 pages of spell notes is too much for you, a) you'd be terrified of my wizards, and b) maybe spellcasting on the whole isn't for you. 6 pages is rather light (for a midlevel caster), unless you're compressing them in a word document.

avr wrote:

His intelligence is reduced to 1 by the baleful polymorph, but I don't believe that affects the item, which continues to function even while melded into the goldfish form because it does not require activation. I think his intelligence is now 7. He still doesn't have the ability to use spells, SLAs, supernatural or extraordinary abilities, and since his alignment is now true neutral he may be a little more disengaged from whatever he believed in before.

Thank you for your reply. Now add this to the equation... I'm under the impression that since the headband has been worn for over 24 hours the +6 bonus has become a "permanent" bonus, thus making his Int score a 26. Not a 20 +6. Here is what Pathfinder defines for a Temporary Bonus & a Permanent Bonus when it comes to Int.

Temporary Bonuses: Temporary increases to your Intelligence score give you a bonus on Intelligence-based skill checks. This bonus also applies to any spell DCs based on Intelligence.

Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours. Modify all skills and statistics as appropriate. This might cause you to gain skill points, hit points, and other bonuses. These bonuses should be noted separately in case they are removed.

I'm not debating that the function of the headband has stopped, I agree that it has enhanced the characters Int by +6 even when Baleful Polymorphed but because it is now permanent his Int is 26 and so would be a 1 when turned into a fish.

I also have a theory that if he had just found and put on the headband 5 hours before being turned into a fish, THEN, his +6 Int bonus is currently a Temporary Bonus, and then I agree that his Int would be read as such, 20 + 6. Then I could understand that he would have a 1 + 6 Int for a 7 as a fish.

What are your thoughts?

The problem with this logic, then, is: if (somehow) the item got removed, would the character (fish) immediately fall unconscious forever? I'm not so sure about that. I think the intention of the "permanent bonuses" rule is to simplify play for ordinary circumstances. It helps to reduce paperwork and missed numbers, etc. This doesn't really qualify as an "ordinary circumstance," though, so I'd start parsing numbers.

The ability for the exploiter wizard still follows language for other archetypes that hack abilities out of other classes. It says you get the ability, and the ability says it refreshes every day. My guess is that they wanted to save a line or two spelling out EVERY SINGLE TIME your wizard level overrides you arcanist level in regard to the ability. Follow the "duck rule" unless told otherwise. If the archetype gives you the ability, assume it works the same unless noted otherwise. In this case, it's replacing "arcanist level" with "wizard level." I guess it could have been worded better *shrug*, but the intention and reading are rather clear, IMO.

Follow the "Forge of Combat" model. You have a Cleric (arm/hammer) and a Monk (hammer). Your best bet would be to fill the "anvil" role as a full arcane caster. Witch almost seems unnecessary, since you don't need the wizard/druid fusion list the Witch inherits. Rather, you need a bit more arcane "oomph." Play something with access to the Wizard/Sorcerer list. Necromancer's not a bad idea to shore up your ranks a bit (action economy, and all). You could also style yourself as a Diabolist, specializing in Conjuration and summoning fiends. It just depends on if you prefer your minions to give you a little lip ;D

You'll need to provide the ideal circumstances for your party to succeed. The monk wants to full attack, so you need to arrange the field so that they are next to the enemy at the start of their turn. A horde of zombies is great for this, by preventing enemies from sharing their squares ("wall [hall] of horse" logic). You can create walls, disable some foes to take on the hordes piecemeal, make holes or difficult terrain, etc. Here's where a witch would end up with problems. The witch spell list is better at doing utility magic and ending the encounter against mostly single-targets with minds (lipstich, hold person, insanity, Slumber, etc.) The wizard list is better for battlefield control, since they have more spells designed for multiple targets and more spells that offer no saves.

A Knowledge (history or local) check could be called for to know the history of the area and drop some plot hooks. Daw had some good ideas for party information sources.

As for destroying the haunt: Who is the dominant personality in the haunt? Haunts tend to have a dominant force. So unless each individual scarecrow has to be dispelled, you need to figure out what is tying them together. If they are persisting as a kind of punishment, do they dissolve when the peacemaker's wishes are fulfilled?

From the story you gave, this sounds less like a haunt and more like an eternal Sisyphean punishment that has no "out." Not sure that haunt rules would really apply in this story, since it's not vengeful spirits of the dead. It's a fey curse. I'd almost use some fusion of the haunt and curse rules, and just make there be no escape. The fey are known to be merciless and cruel to those who cross them.

I have to wonder the ages of the people involved in this interaction. It might simply be an issue of maturity that will dissolve in a few years. However, if these are all adults, I would avoid like the plague! Hang out, if everyone is friends outside of the game. But, the game's never going to be fun if one person screams and rages whenever they're told "no." Go to the local game store, or check out PBP here or elsewhere. Or, try getting takers for a roll20 or Tabletop Simulator game.

"No gaming is better than bad gaming." Additionally, "You can't fix stupid."

It can't go below 1HD. So, just drop the size and apply all relevant modifiers from the new size.

I was always under the impression that, since outsiders are body-and-soul made of the planes they come from, you can't raise them like you do mortal creatures. Outsiders are described as being nondualistic, meaning they don't have a distinct "soul" or "body." That's why you can't raise them normally, outside of very high level magic: the existence of their bodies IS their entire existence. There's no "self" outside of the body for an outsider. So, what would be used as an animating force for the undead?

The undead magical mechanics aren't very clear and are occasionally contradictory. Example: Why can't someone be raised using a resurrection spell if their body is being used as a mindless undead? If their soul had nothing to do with the undead, it should be free to return to another body. However, even the best resurrection magic available (True Resurrection) cannot return life to anything that has been made into undead (at least, not until it's been destroyed). There's an implication that even mindless undead have some kind of soul animating them. But, Magic Jar dictates that only intelligent undead "have or are souls." So many things do not make sense, here.

Now, on the specifics of what you ask: juju zombies still count as zombies. They're mindless undead that lack any abilities that they had previously. Spellcasting, as it is a mental activity, is right out the window. Spell-Like Abilities are also activated mentally, so mindless things can't use them, either.

EDIT: Correction. Further review shows that Juju zombies do not inherit the "mindless" quality. Other points still stand. Carry on.

Darker, The character is a 10 year old kid (Oracle, Child cursed, we just decided to say screw it and go whole hog with it, he's ACTUALLY a kid, just coming into his power). Lead armor, or even the previous idea of lead-plating sandwiched between steel plating, would be too heavy for him. (Str 10, small-sized - again, we took liberties with the curse's wording - so 75% carry). Anything ELSE, as far as lead would go, would be non-portable. I GUESS I could buy a wagon and have it lead lined... but that kind of custom job would be suspicious. It would ALSO be suspicious for the 10 year old to just up and vanish for a couple weeks. :P

I mean, if we want to play by the rules: technically characters that are not fully adults cannot take regular class levels. I see that you've house ruled it, but just sayin'. Anyway, at level 5 you're pretty screwed. Scrolls and magical items (which I assume is what you're looking for) are simply WAAAY out of your price range for WBL. On the other note, technically is says a "thin layer of lead." You only need enough to cover. You don't need an inch around you. Lead's heavy. It's not THAT heavy. You'll only need a couple of lbs. to line a child-sized suit of armor. So, I guess hit the gym or have some potions of Bull's Strength on tap if you can't afford, say, 30 lbs of weight to account for the base weight of low-tier armor (using chain shirt as base) plus the couple of lbs of lead to line it.

Do I NEED to know the spell to CRAFT this wondoroues item, or I may just to take +5 to DC of spellcraft check?

Or this thing works like a scroll or wand?

Only "bottled spell" effects require the spell to be cast during creation (though it does not need to be the crafter that provides the spell). Scrolls, Potions, and Wands (as well as any other Spell-Completion or Spell-Trigger items) are called out for this requirement. Pages of Spell Knowledge are slotless Wondrous Items, thus they don't require the spells to be cast during creation. Instead, you apply a +5 to the Craft DC, since the spell on the Page is the requirement you don't meet.

To make this clear: you do not need to provide any requirements for crafting an item other than the crafting feat, as long as the item is not considered spell-completion, spell-trigger, or a potion. For each requirement you do not meet, you add +5 to the DC of the Craft check. Most casters, if fully invested in Spellcraft, can succeed on most crafting checks by simply taking 10. If you're very concerned, use the Sage wildblooded archetype to have an excuse to boost your Intelligence and get a bonus to the Spellcraft check.

On a Meta level, it would be extremely odd to create a Page of Spell Knowledge for a spell you've never known existed. RAW, you can make it. Doesn't matter how or why, you just can. RAI/Rules-As-I-Judge-Them, you'd either need to see the spell and identify it with a Spellcraft check, or have seen the spell written somewhere (in a spellbook, on a scroll, etc.). You could also have someone tell you about the spell, or you could maybe make a Knowledge (arcana) check to know what kinds of magic exist.

Is there a list somewhere that my Google-fu can't find that lists which undead are considered to have souls? The best I can find in the rules is a mention in Magic Jar that states that "intelligent undead have or are souls." Does this mean any undead that has an Int score also has a soul?

Been there. Done that. Totally legal.

I even asked this very question for this very reason back in the day.

Sadly, no one answered it, Ravingdork. Good to know we're on the same wavelength on this, though.

1. Nothing in the spell description prevents you from casting spells. However you are held within a gem so verbal and somatic component might be an issue. If you are doing shenanigans buy some meta magic rods.

Yes with the same issues about not being able to move or talk.

If it meets the GP value why not?

Is it worth 100 gp or more? Then yes.

Binding is best to use on martial characters with garbage will saves.

The intention for the Binding is to effectively cease aging and create ludicrously expensive items one could normally not craft due to time constraints while sticking to Core-Only. Any familiar that is incapable of dying (Homunculous) can move you to a populated area for you to "borrow" bodies while you "keep your Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, level, class, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, alignment, and mental abilities." Crafting feats, the Spellcraft skill, and your own spells seem to fit within the confines of what you keep.

Additionally, Minimus Containment simply says that you are shrunk down and trapped in your container. It even recommends a jar, so I don't know that you are considered unable to move or speak, as you are under Metamorphosis.

I'm pretty firmly in the "no to all" category. The purpose and function of Binding is to imprison the subject as a plot device for outsiders to rescue.

Besides the obvious shenanigans I am no doubt pulling, there is a reason I call out Minimus Containment. Another section of the same spell, Metamorphosis, describes an extremely similar form of imprisonment, but goes so far as to disallow "[use] of it's powers or abilities." Minimus Containment lacks this language, and thus my curiosity.