glass's page

It somewhat strongly implies that once they arrive summoned creatures have to obey, but stops just short of saying it outright. Which leaves the RAW ambiguous on that score. In general, I go with their obeying any commands that would not be suicidal (bearing in mind that "ordinary death" does not kill summoned creatures).

Regarding the Soul Gem itself, it is not a spell or SLA with a duration so it does not end when the summoning spell does by RAW. I would be inclined to institute a rule that wealth creation abilities do not work for summoned creatures (just like summoned creature cannot themselves summon by RAW). But that would be a house rule.

B|_|_|

_|X|_|
_|_|_|
_|_|A|

_|B|_|
_|X|_|
_|_|_|
_|_|A|

AFAICT, neither of those are flanking positions, but that does not mean flaking is impossible. A just needs to move 5 ft left for the first case or right for the second and heh presto; flanking. And you specify no walls, so there is nothing preventing their doing that.

Clearly I am missing something, but what?

I might object if you wanted it to be a very plain ribbon, but as long as the ribbon is as fancy as the headband I definitely have no objections.

Your ability to wrestle with the words to a complete misunderstanding is astounding.

If misplaced insults are the best you can come up with, I think we are done here.

For anyone else following along at home, my argument that a dead creature is not a creature because it lacks any of the essential characteristics of creatures, and breaks a bunch of things if it is EDIT: And that you cannot appeal to the plain-English meaning of a word which the game redefines. Their argument is that it must be a creature because it includes the word "creature". Choose for yourselves which you find more persuasive.

EDIT: One last thought on the subject. If a dead creature has to be a creature because it includes the word creature, does that mean an ex wife has to still be a wife?

But even on the artistic side of things, words still have meaning. The dieties of pathfinder are all artistic choices, but using the word deity still conveys the plain English meaning that is packed with that word.

As I said in my previous post "term of art" does not have anything to do with being "artistic". If you do not want to take my word for it, you might want to look it up in your search engine of choice before you talk about it any further.

given the setting has a definite afterlife in which souls still think and function...

You get that this supports my argument, not yours, right? Given that the functioning soul in the afterlife is a creature but not a dead creature, and is a separate entity from the corpse that is the dead creature. So thanks!

Archetype - an archetype is something that is typical. A fighter with no archetypes has a specific set of skills/abilities. Pick an archetype and you get a different set of skills and abilities.

So a PF1 archetype is literally the opposite of the plain-English definition. I had not thought of it like that, so thanks again!

But let me ask one simple question: Where in the rules does it state that a dead creature is an object?

We literally had a conversation, further up this same page, about how there is no such rule (nor is there any explicit rule that dead creatures are still creatures).

And we've come full circle. I prefer my fantasy imagery more in the mould of LoTR, Wheel of Time or even Hawk the Slayer (with the machine gun elven archer) not a Bollywood musical or Bjorn's link to the Pirates of the Penzance.

Is that the same Wheel of Time whose recent television adaptation devoted screen time to a song about Old Mantheren? Or the same Lord of the Rings that is positively lousy with people singing?

If you do not like the fantasy that the bard represents, that's fine, but just say that. Do not try to dress that preference up as some kind of objective quality.

Yeah I never understood why some people are dead set on "the only way to play is to play a 9th level caster".

Are there people who are dead-set on that? A meaningful number, I mean (I am sure there are a tiny handful, as you could find a tiny handful of almost anything...).

Under what context are you suggesting creature is a term of art here?

The context of the PF1 rules, where that is exactly what it is.

In the rules it is used as a general term to indicate a character that has self-autonomy. That's not really an artistic choice.

Something does not have to be "artistic" to be a term of art; it just has to have a meaning in a particular context distinct from or more specific than its general meaning. In this particular case, "indicating self-autonomy" is exactly the point - corpses do not tend to have a lot of that!

Given that the rules are written in plain English, I don't think you have any ground to stand on here. Sometimes the rules use specific definitions of words when those words might have multiple meanings, but they still use an existing definition, not make up entirely new defintions.

Since this is trivially falsifiable, just by (for example) pointing out that sorcerers, bards, etc have "spell slots", despite nothing ever being slotted into them, I would say that it is you who lacks ground on which to stand. Or if you do not like that example, how about that "hit dice" have nothing directly to do with hitting and only occasionally have anything to do with dice. Or that no dictionary I am aware of defines "archetype" as "package of modifications, additions, and/or subtractions to another game construct".

Pathfinder is packed with terminology that is at best much more specific than its plain-English usage, and at worst bears no more than a passing resemblance to it. We have just had a decade or three to get used to it so it no longer registers as such.

Given the most straight forward reading of plain English is that a dead creature is a "creature" that is dead, its a massive stretch to consider it would have any meaning that does not include the plain defintions of "dead" and "creature".

We are not debating whether a "dead creature" meets the plain-English definition of "creature" (it certainly would do, assuming it did before it was dead). We are debating whether it is a "creature" as per the Pathfinder term of art.

If we have a sword, and the sword becomes broken, it does not cease to be a sword. (It might cease to be functional or useful, but it is still a sword).

And there we have it. "Sword" is not a term of art - the definition of "sword" in pathfinder is the plain English definition of the word (weird edge cases like two-blade swords notwithstanding). As noted above, the same cannot be said of "creature".

Stone to Flesh can provide food as long as there is stone around, which is likely to be most of the time. OTOH, it is a sixth-level spell so the OP's wizard is gonna have to wait five four levels, and it does not help with the water.

I didn't invent any abilities, they are all in the RAW.

I just explained how they are in fact were not.

However, you seem to have taken a nerf bat to the ability and said that only certain perform skills can be used and only if they're not situationally silly.

Once again:

"Certain uses of [Inspire Competence] are infeasible, such as Stealth, and may be disallowed at the GM's discretion."

No need for me to nerf anything, because the RAW comes pre-nerfed.

(I cannot cite an explicit rule that you cannot use hand that are currently holding a weapon and shield to play a guitar with, but I am confident that that is the default and you would have to cite a rule that said you could.)

Talking of situational silliness, you quote singing as a type of Bardic Performance that can be used during combat. Can you really imagine Pavarotti holding a perfect note whilst being pummeled by Mike Tyson or even Evander Holyfield holding a reasonable note whilst having his ear bitten off.

Neither Pavarotti or Holyfield are bards, nor even adventurers.

Also, nothing in Bardic Performance says that the bard has to hold a perfect note, or even a particularly good one - just a magically-inspiring one (all the Bardic Performance sub-abilities are Su or Sp). And if you have an issue with explicit magic being usable in combat, wait until what a wizard or druid can do!

Yes, singing while fighting for your life is not particularly realistic. But in the context of a fantasy game, there is a world of difference between "not particularly realistic" and "verisimilitude shattering".

The suggestion that people who are not writing rules text frequently provide inaccurate names for things and this should be factored in when evaluating the discussed rules text has to be the most asinine argument I have read in a long time.

I am not sure that that would be asinine even if that were my argument. Of course it wasn't - dead creatures' not being creatures does not make it the term "inaccurate"; it is just how the English language works.

Pathfinders often don't look for or discover

OED wrote:

a way or track that is built or is made by the action of people walking

This whole game vanishes in a puff of logic.

So, my (mischaracterised) argument was "asinine" because the writers would never use an "inaccurate" term, and for evidence you offer the fact that the very name of the game is (in your terms) "inaccurate"? That's...a novel approach.

Of the official PF1 AP's, I have run Rise of the Runelords and am currently playing Shattered Star and Curse of the Crimson Throne. RotRL is excellent, and CotCT is pretty great so far (although we are only in chapter 2).

Shattered Star is OK, but not up to the standards of the other two IMNSHO. Do not play it or run it if you do not like dungeons, because it has a lot of them and not much else (so far, at least).

I briefly tried to play in a Kingmaker game, but I bounced of the format (I apparently do not get on with PbP) so I cannot comment on the quality of the AP itself.

I am also playing in Savage Tide and running the untitled first AP from the 3.0 era, neither of which are technically PF1 but that is what we are using, and the conversions are trivial enough to do on the fly.

Of the ones I have not done yet, the ones I would most like to play and/or run are obviously Return of the Runelords, and also War for the Crown, Iron Gods and possibly Ruins of Azlant.

glass wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Did you mean to miss the point of his post?

Maybe he could make his point without inventing abilities that Bards do not actually posses (growing extra arms, and "bluff bluff bluff the stupid ogre")?

It was sarcasm, he wasn't inventing new abilities.

Since they immediately doubled down, it looks like it was you that misinterpreted their post. Speaking of which:

Exactly what abilities are you accusing me of inventing?

The ones you mention in your next couple of sentences....

Maintaining a Bardic Performance with the Perform (in this case Guitar) skill is according to the RAW a free action. So the Bard can perform with the guitar and use a sword and shield by RAW.

Does not follow. It is true that maintaining a bardic performance is a free action, but if you are doing it with a guitar then it requires both your hands because playing the guitar requires two hands. The only way you are playing the guitar and simultaneously wielding a weapon and shield is if you have four arms - I recommend singing for Bardic Performance.

Also, Inspire Competence is one of the uses of bardic performance and can be used to boost stealth, or as you suggest bluff or any other skill.

As has already been pointed out to you, Stealth is explicitly barred from benefiting from Inspire Competence:

"Certain uses of this ability are infeasible, such as Stealth, and may be disallowed at the GM's discretion."

Any GM (or player for that matter) who cared about verisimilitude would certainly consider Bluff to fall under the "certain uses" that are "infeasible" and therefore "disallowed". Admittedly Bluff (but not Stealth) is subject to GM discretion, but if they use their discretion to allow it that is on them.

My complaint is that those skills shatter verisimilitude in the game, and you apparently agree by claiming the need for extra arms and referencing the GiantITP comic - neither of which I did.

If your complaints were close to accurate, I would be agreeing with you that they were not great for verisimilitude. Fortunately, they are not.

I'm not following what you are saying here. BoL can target a creature (alive or dead). The target line of the spell is never overwritten.

You quoted my quoting the line that I consider to overwrite the target line. It is not as explicit as it could be, and therefore you can reasonably disagree.

No. Creature has a specific rules mechanic meaning in pathfinder.

Indeed. But "'creature' has a specific meaning" is only relevant if dead creatures are in fact still creatures, which is the point that is under debate.

As an aside, a green house is still a house in the sense that it provides a comfortable environment for plants. eg, it is a house for plants (but not a house for people).

OK, you don't like that particular example? Let's try Bombay duck, which definitely is not a duck (not even if you stretch).

EDIT: I missed the implication the first time around, but you referred to "dead creatures are objects" as a rule, albeit one with another half. I was not actually aware of an explicit rule on the matter, and my belief that dead creatures are objects is based on the fact that corpses lack the qualities that creatures typically share (and the belief that it breaks fewer things than the alternative). If you can actually cite a specific rule, that would certainly be helpful.

Sorry, figured it out lol

So what was the answer? Is there a way that the d10 is correct, or is it just an error in HeroLab?

Did you mean to miss the point of his post?

Maybe he could make his point without inventing abilities that Bards do not actually posses (growing extra arms, and "bluff bluff bluff the stupid ogre")?

Breath of Life wrote:

Target creature touched

Yes, breath of life would not work at all, unless you consider "Unlike other spells that heal damage, breath of life can bring recently slain creatures back to life. If cast upon a creature that has died within 1 round, apply the healing from this spell to the creature" to override the target line. Which RAW you probably shouldn't, but almost everyone would.

And raise dead has a wierd target line

Quote:

Target dead creature touched

Something can be a "dead creature" without necessarily being a creature, just like something can be a "green house" without necessarily being a house.

And blindess/deafness which reads:

Quote:

Target one living creature

Why do they need to specify living if dead [creatures] are no longer creatures and just objects.

Because undead and constructs are not living, but are definitely still creatures.

glass wrote:

The "better classes" are not the result of power creep. Several of them are in the CRB.

You, of course, mean the bard with their versimiltude shattering ability to play a two handed musical instrument perfectly whilst also wielding a weapon or their ability to sing loudly to improve the party's stealth.

While the bard is better than the core rogue (it is hard not to be), I was "of course" mostly talking about the wizard, cleric, and druid.

Also, singing loudly does not improve the party's stealth, it ruins it, obviously. (Although it was probably already ruined by ACPs - I have never seen a full size party that did not have someone whose stealth was tanked by armour). And bards have no exceptions to the normal handedness rules - if you are playing a two-handed musical instrument you are not wielding a weapon at all! EDIT: Unless it is a tale blade or something.

You sre absolutely right, there are better classes. But I would argue therr shouldn't be! Paizo messed up the rogue, tried to fix it with Unchained and ended up trampling all over it's space with new and superior classes as part of the inevitable power creep that comes with later published material.

The "better classes" are not the result of power creep. Several of them are in the CRB.

Saw a discussion about possibly seeing a 12 part AP - I'm not sure about that but thought a good topic could be discussed around it.

Would the 12 part AP be half-speed advancement, or go to level 40? Or somewhere in between? EDIT: I realised the OP was not actually advocating 12-part APs, but presumably someone was at some point and I was curious about what was actually meant.

Both could be interesting, but I am not sure how much of a market their is for either.

Statues have Dex 0, not Dex - (a dex nonability would actually give them a higher AC than they should have). They do have Str - though, which accounts for their being able to hold themselves up.

_
glass.

I doubt the OP cares about the answer now, but AFAICT the answer is definitely not B. I am not sure whether it is A or C, because I am not sure how they differ - can someone explain it to me?

_
glass.

Re 5c: A zombie has no Int score, and fast zombie does nothing to modify that. Therefore, it cannot meaningfully benefit from a Headband of Vast Intelligence: It does not have an Int of 0, it has an Int of -, and - plus any number is still -.

That said, as written the ability to gain skill ranks does not seem to be contingent on actually benefiting from the Int bonus. I think it is supposed to be, and would not allow it to work, but that might technically be a houserule.

Re 6b: When considering the action economy of retrieving your mount, do not forget to factor in wrapping the portable hole up and stowing it again. Portable holes are expensive, so you are not going to leave it lying on the ground....

_
glass.

Regarding redeeming liches: Are we assuming the (implied) unspeakable evil inherent in becoming a lich is a one-time deal? Because I always got the impression that such acts had to be repeated; the lich's form needs maintenance.

_
glass.

Honestly, you should stop bringing your houserules as if they were anywhere close to the rules.

I am not sure yet whether you or breithauptclan are right (or neither), but (apart from being extremely rude) persistantly characterising their position as a houserule makes your argument seem weak.

_
glass.

Firstly, SR applies to spells and spell-like abilities that say they are subject to it, and "SR Cold" is not a thing. I assume you meant Energy Resistance?

Secondly, and more fundamentally, DR applies to attacks. Falling damage is not from an attack (the ground is not actively attacking you, it is just sitting there minding its own business when you crash into it), so RAW DR does not apply to falling damage. Arguably, for consistency it should apply to falling (and other physical damage that is not an attack), but as written it does not.

_
glass.

Planar binding can call any "outsider or elemental", and the character is an elemental. So they can be called, if the timing can be made to work. That part would be tricky, because you would have to start casting it knowing somehow that the oracle would be using Energy Body in ten minutes' time - IOW, the low duration of Energy Body does not make it impossible, but does make it fairly unlikely in practice.

One interesting question is, if you do get the timing right, is the creature still bound to the trap once it stops being an elemental. And I am honestly not sure on that one.

In practice, the only way is it going to work is with the cooperation of the binder and the oracle. Maybe as a way to get the oracle home after a hostile plane shift (assuming they have some way to communicate across planar boundaries)? That would at least make the circle question moot.

_
glass.

Was anyone else disappointed when this turned out not to be with dragons *as PCs*?

Just realised, I did not answer the original question.

I am currently playing a Warblade//Psion in a two-player campaign, and that seems to be working pretty well so far - fun and effective. He is a replacement character for a Paladin//Wizard who did not survive past 2nd level - he had nice flavour, but was too MAD to be really effective at that level (even with 35 point point buy).

The above-mentioned 4-class character was a Magus//Wizard//Cleric//Dragonrider. He was a lot of fun, but keeping all his abilities in mind was tricky, and he literally took a week to build. I probably did not help that he was created at 14th-level. He was instrumental in our changing our solo-play rules from four classes to three (while giving other bennies to compensate).

A couple of weeks ago, I played a Devoted//Hunter - Devoted is a homebrew "wide" class that takes up both sides of a gestalt progression, so this class would been three classes if not for that. I cannot really give a good report on that one, since I only played him for one fairly short session, but he seemed OK.

And that is about it for combinations I have personally played; I have been the GM in gestalt games more often than a player. Some combos that looked fun from across the screen included Druid//Barbarian (with a couple of levels of Swordsage), Cleric//uMonk, and Ninja//Sorcerer.

Combos that I have never played or seen, but like the idea of include Paladin//Summoner and Paladin//Bard (although the latter would work better in a largish group and gestalt is more commonly used in smaller groups). EDIT: I am actually playing a Paladin/Bard as a conventional multiclass at the moment.

_
glass.

My group rules that you can multiclass but you have to keep each class to a single side of the gestalt. For example, I can go Wizard/Fighter for level one, then Wizard/Brawler at level 2. But I would not be allowed to then go Fighter/Brawler at level 3.

To re-iterate my earlier question to VoodistMonk - is there a particular story behind this? Some problem that cropped up requiring its formulation?

No real story behind it... just rules I made for my first time running a gestalt campaign to kind of encourage well-rounded characters instead of murderhobos. Lol.

Fair enough. Although I would argue that you can murder-hobo (or not) with any combination of class features.

That is probably going to be an issue here as well, especially since these are going to be solo campaigns. To alleviate this a bit, and to make it a bit less of a pure spectator sport for the other players, all players will be able to chip in with advice, knowledge, suggestions, reminders of abilities, etc.

Is there a "not" missing somewhere? Surely if it is solo play, there are no other players?

_
glass.

[repeats do not equal free ranks]

Is there any reason to think that they would?

I do not allow a hybrid class to be combined with either of its parent classes. I do encourage combining hybrid classes that share a parent class, though.

Are there particular reasons for this restriction and the spell-casting one? Any story behind them?

No multiclassing as such, this will be a 1-12 (possibly higher) game with each level advancing each class.

I think the reason VoodistMonk thought you were talking about multi-classing was because you listed four classes and gestalt is normally two (gestalt with three classes is normally referred to as "tristalt", and four classes is too uncommon to need a specific name).

That said, I did once briefly play a 4-class character (for solo play). But it was really hard on the poor old-brain.

Although, we do allow normal multiclassing (and VMC) with gestalt.

_
glass.

I agree with Belafon (option 2).

I am also curious about the stuff they were curious about (with the possible exception of "why not keep flying" - fighting in combat can require some skill checks that can be fairly difficult if you maneuverability is not great).

_
glass.

For example what happen to a half-gnome half-elf heritage. What happen to Ability boosts and flaws? And hit points?

Same as any other gnome. Just like the "default" half-elves and half-orcs are just like any other human.

And to the OP, yes if you use that variant, a halfling with the half-elf Heritage has access to halfling feats (just like any halfling) and elf and half-elf feats (just like any half-elf).

_
glass.

Urban skald gives a +2 moral bonus to one DEX (or whatever), which increases your DEX-bonus to attack rolls.

Good Hope or Heroism give a Morale bonus directly to attack rolls.

You can stack them.

Or more precisely, since they apply to different things you can benefit from both without needing to stack them.

_
glass.

Not sure what you mean - Reign of winter is original to pathfinder.

LTTP, but I assume they meant planets original to Pathfinder

Was there ever a PFS rule that you cannot select Human as a category for Bane weapons or Favored Enemy? I vaguely remember seeing something somewhere that you had to specify an ethnicity as a further subtype because so many enemies in PFS are human.

What a horrifying thought! Favoured Enemy is already a bit too close to "racism as a power source", but to make make that literal would be beyond the pale.

Also, this should be in the PFS forum. Flagged for a move.

_
glass.

I think expectation that Greater Invisibility will help you hit things reliably isn’t accurate; enemy flat footed AC is often as high as regular AC. Giants, Dragons, Undead, Oozes, Aberrations, Constructs, Outsiders etc.

Being an invisible attacker is worth +2 to attack rolls, in addition to any difference in AC. So it is not worthless even if FFAC is identical to normal AC. If the OP is looking to be a pure caster, they will mostly be targetting touch AC, and very few creatures have a strong flat-footed touch!

For a Skald I would stick with a vanilla skald. The things that will be most useful in this class are inspired rage, bardic knowledge, rage powers, so any archetypes that trade those away should be avoided.

Raging Song is nice with a party that wants to rage, and looking at the OP's part mentioned above I am not sure they fit the bill (there are no obvious "definitely nots" but several "maybes"). Pretty much all of them would appreciate extra plusses on their weapons from a Spell Warrior Skald though.

Idk what rules you all are reading but Mystic Theurge is not illegal. The rule says,

d20SRD wrote:

Prestige classes that are essentially class combinations-such as the arcane trickster, mystic theurge, and eldritch knight-should be prohibited if you’re using gestalt classes, because they unduly complicate the game balance of what’s already a high-powered variant.

I suspect they are reading exactly the text you quoted, which specifically calls out Mystic Theurge (amongst others). Admittedly it says "should be prohibited" rather than "are prohibited", but that's good enough for me.

The easier way to handle it is that any ability based on class level cannot be higher than your character level. That also deals with the whole lv 40 animal companion thing.

Something along those line is of course essential (although it does not really help with the same issues as the MT prohibition), but the OP's group seem to have plenty of experience with gestalt so I am sure they have something in place.

_
glass.

Regarding the Isle of Dread, in addition to Oerth and Mystara, I believe it has "canonically" (for whatever that's worth) showed up in the Feywild and the Elemental Plane of Water. Personally I am found of the idea that it is a "shiftrealm" that moves amongst them.

_
glass.

glass wrote:

It says they "count as alchemical silver" and doesn't give an exception for the -1 damage, so it applies as written IMNSHO. Although give how costly it is, it probably shouldn't.

I've always read it as 'count as alchemical silver weapons (for DR purposes)..." and that the -1 damage penalty doesn't apply

That italicised bit is not actually there though. Compare with mithral, where which does actually have that text (and therefore no damage penalty).

as it's a pretty pointless material otherwise (Rust just doesn't come into play that often).

Well yeah, I alreay said it shouldn't have the -1 penalty at its price, and I have agreed with the other GMs in my local group that we will houserule it to that effect - but we only have to do that because it did not inlude that text in the first place.

_
glass.

Anyways, whats the problem? Do you not want the player to have this item? It does sound rare, so that would be understandable.

The problem initially was that I was not able to the details anywhere other than PFSRD (which is often suspect). Having resolved that one, the residual problem is that Silversheen is already a thing in the core rules, so their overloading the term is both odd and unnecesarily confusing.

SheepishEidolon wrote:

It seems like the usual -1 damage from alchemical silver would apply.

The text doesn't mention the -1 damage, so I don't think it applies.

It says they "count as alchemical silver" and doesn't give an exception for the -1 damage, so it applies as written IMNSHO. Although give how costly it is, it probably shouldn't.

FWIW, after a chat with my group's other GMs, we decided that it will ignore the damage penalty in our games. And we renamed it "brightsilver".

_
glass.

Hi guys,

One of my players at the weekend told me his character had bought a "silversheen weapon". I of course pointed out that silversheen was one-shot and called it up on AoN to prove the point. He OTOH called it up on PFSRD and sure enough, there was something that they called "silversheen" that was a slightly upgraded version of alchemical silver.

I assume this is something that originally had a name that PFSRD could not use; anyone know what that name actually was?

(The source was apparently PC:QGttE which after a bit of digging I assume to mean Qadira Gateway to the East, but I do not have that one.)

EDIT: Never mind, apparently it is Silverhseen on AoN too. Weird.

_
glass.

Thanks everyone. It was more or less as I thought, but I wanted make sure. The Kobold Press feat is new to me, though. I will try to check it out. EDIT: Didn't see VoodooistMonks post before I posted - I will try to track that one down too.

_
glass.

Basically what the subject line says. I am aware of Dual Wand Wielder from Complete Arcane and Cannith Wand Adept from Sharn City of Towers (both 3.5), but is there a PF1 native method?

_
glass.

Currently running the original 3.0 AP which does not really have a name (the one that starts with The Sunless Citadel) and playing in Savage Tide, Shattered Star, and Curse of the Crimson Throne. The first two are not written for PF1, but the that is what we are using an the adaptation is pretty trivial.

_
glass.

I believe he means his house rule is for vital strike to also double sneak attack damage.

Ah, makes sense, you're probably right.

_
glass.

This is one of my house rules as well, Vital Strike is multiplied on crits and works with Sneak Attack.

What do you mean by "Vital Strike [...] works with Sneak Attack"? Is there some reason I have missed to think it wouldn't?

_
glass.

LLTP, but it occurs to me that all spellcasting classes could gain one spell level every two class levels. They will stay as far behind as they were at 20th level, but won't get any further behind (and you won't have to come up with a formula).

_
glass.

Technically wereravens from Ravenloft are were-dinosaurs. Although that may not be what the OP meant, and in any case is TSR/WotC not Paizo.

_
glass.

Is Savage Worlds a different setting, different rules, or both? Same or different classes as Pathfinder?

Savage Worlds is a generic system with many settings. Pathfinder Savage Worlds uses Golarion.

Savage Words does not usually have classes at all, although again IIRC the Pathfinder version is has something that aproximately the usual Pathfinder core classes. Not sure excatly how it works.

_
glass.