mjmeans's page

Looking at the PFS Chronicle Fate of Many Things. I see one of the possible cards listed is Books (Idiot). However, the instructions say to record the drawn card, but it also says to put any evil cards back in the desk and draw again until you get a non-evil card. It's poorly written but the implication seems to be that you should record the first card you draw, but keep drawing until you get a non-evil card, which doesn't make much sense, even though that is how it's written.

Anyway, there is also a second issue and that is if you are supposed to record the first non-evil card, then there is a boon for Books (Idiot) that is impossible to get because that card is an evil card! Should the boon have been something else?

Analysis of the cards that have boons:
Alignment: 2x LG, 4x NG, 1x CG, 2x LN, 1x TN, 1x CN, 1x NE
Suit: two of each.

If the NE card was actually a typo, then logically shouldn't it be The Foreign Trader (TN, books) to match the overall pattern of distribution that is apparent with all the other cards except The Idiot?

Hi All,

The question hinges on exactly what part of the Vanishing Trick is protected by the fact that it is (Su). The trick states "This ability functions as invisibility". Which is correct?

1. (Su) refers to the trick itself and the protected (Su) effect (cannot be dispelled, not subject to SR, does not provoke AoO, etc.) is only the activation of the trick. Beyond that it "functions as" the spell invisibility. And as that spell is subject to being dispelled. So the (Su) doesn't extend down the chain of effects to the spell effect of invisibility. i.e. the wording "functions as <spell>" negates the "(Su)" protection for that part of the entire effect. Spell effect would be protected only if it had instead said "This ability provides the effect of <spell>" since (Su) says the effects of the ability cannot be dispelled, etc.

2. (Su) applies to the entire ability and all chained or referenced abilities, effects, functions, or whatever language is used; such that the invisibility spell function in this example is also protected by virtue of being initiated by the (Su) ability Vanishing Trick and therefore can't be dispelled, etc.

There are likely other (Su) abilities that state "functions as <spell or other ability>.", so the answer to this question would therefore apply to all such (Su) abilities unless the ability specifically states otherwise.

Mark

Referring to http://legacy.aonprd.com/coreRulebook/spells/mindBlank.html

I was researching Mind Blank and it's interaction Invisibility and with True Seeing. Clearly Mind Blank perfects the Invisibility and renders True Seeing to having no effect. But I think Mind Blank may be otherwise OP. Lets discuss through example!

Lets say a character, named MB, is currently protected by Mind Blank.

Let’s say that you want to use divination magic to find out what MB had for dinner last night. Sorry it fails, because divination magic is blocked from revealing any information about MB. What if you scry the restaurant where you know MB had diner last night to watch while the restauranteur is going over the weekly receipts? Sorry that would reveal information about MB so it fails too (or at least all the records referring to MB are visibly blank to your scrying). What if you want to use a discern lies spell to ask one of the other people who was there having dinner with MB? Sorry that fails too, because it reveals information about MB.

What if you use a wish spell to teleport MB’s table receipt to you? It is totally unprotected and you know exactly where it is because you can see it through a window. Sorry that fails too, because it reveals information about the MB.

What if MB is a bard and has published his memoirs which are available is hundreds of libraries worldwide, and you want to use a wish to teleport a copy to you or create a duplicate copy for you? Sorry that fails too.

What if a copy of those memoirs is right in front of you and you don't want to touch it because it might be cursed, so you use a wish to create the effect of an unseen servant and you direct the servant to turn the pages for you. Sorry, the unseen servant is created but it can't turn the page for you because it would reveal information about MB.

What if you want to know whether some other person is the MB’s parent, child, or no relation at all? Sorry that fails too. Whether and how person X is MB's relative is also information about MB and that is protected.

What if you want to know whether MB has ever been in some specific city and you try to find that out by using divination magic to remote view the city records? Sorry that fails too.

What if you are a extraplanar being and you want to use divination magic to judge if MB is worthy of your help when MB just cast contact other plane to ask you a question? Sorry that fails too.

In fact the entire present, past and future of MB and every encounter MB has or is having or will have or interact with is protected from divination magic while the Mind Blank is in effect. Even the fact that Mind Blank is in effect is unknowable through divination spells.

What *should* a more realistic set of limitations be for mind blank?

Hi all,

I usually only play. I have ever only purchased one scenario (Silent Tide) several years ago and used a friend's bestiary for reference. Back then there were not so many different books. Since I'm mostly a player, I mostly only buy the books I need to use for playing my own PFS. I don't own any of the recent Bestiary books, any unchained book (I don't need them) or many others. I actually only own about three dozen PFS books, mostly PDFs.

Beyond that I have run a home group through most of the Curse of the Crimson Throne hardcover edition. And since it's a home game, the AP doesn't have to be followed 100%, so I make some minor adjustments when it refers to an ability that is from a books I don't own.

I am a stickler for the rules and that's the root of my problem. My local group has asked me to run a season 9 or 10 high level PFS scenario. I would have to purchase the scenario, of course. Not a problem there. But what happens if the scenario happens to refer to some ability or item that doesn't exist in any of the books I own? I don't want to have to buy any other PFS books in order to be legal to run the game. I don't see a list of which books are required for each season 9 and 10 scenario so that I can choose a scenario that only uses the books I already own. And I don't see any official rule that would allow me to run a PFS sanctioned scenario with any modifications (rebuild NPC's) to account for abilities or items that aren't in any of the pathfinder books I already own. And, obviously, I can't return a PDF purchased scenario if it turns out that I would have to buy additional things I'm not will to buy.

Particularly of concern to me is that there are many recent PF RPG books I don't own, including all the unchained ones, occult and mythic. And my assumption that many of the season 9 and 10 scenarios will require these books.

To summarize, I want to run a scenario and be 100% legal. I don't want to buy any additional book that I don't need for playing PFS and will never need again. I don't want to rely on what any of the players may or may not own (and therefore can't expect to use to prepare for the session). Is there an official solution to this dilemma?

Mark

From RGG "A character’s Fame score determines the maximum gp value of any items she can purchase from the Pathfinder Society or her faction, as detailed in the table on page 20. The character must still actually spend the gold to receive the desired item."

I don't see any rule that says a character can ONLY purchase items from the society or a faction.

So item availability during a scenario would follow the regular settlement size and item availability rules since all of CR is legal. Also purchasing items specifically available during play of a scenario or module would also be available. But in either of these cases would not be limited by the fame max item cost, since NPCs in settlements in a scenario or module typically have no knowledge of the PC's fame score. At least that's how it reads.

I just played a scenario that had an auction in it and some items could be won in the auction for far less than the book value. It seems that if the PC bids on the items with their own money, and wins the auction, then they have actually bought it at a reduced price in the scenario because it was not purchased "from the Pathfinder Society or her faction". If that's not the intent, then someone should fix that.

So reading the rule forward says -1 to hit and +2 to damage. This damage is halved for off-hand. At BAB 4 intervals -1 additional to hit and +2 additional damage.

Interpretation 1: Literally interpreting this like a math word problem. Only the initial +2 damage bonus is halved because "this bonus" is specifically referring to the previous statements defining a bonus and it is this specific part is halved. So for off-hand damage at BAB 1 it is +1 (from "this bonus" of +2 being halved). For BAB 4 it is +3 (+1 (from "this bonus" of +2 being halved) plus +2 (for BAB 4 increase)).

I countered with interpretation 2: In the 2nd paragraph the words "the bonus" being "increased" means the single bonus from this feat is increased, and modified the first sentence. The total with any BAB increases are what is "this bonus" that needs to be halved for off-hand. So for off-hand damage at BAB 1 it is the same as interpretation 1. But for BAB 4 it is +2 (+2 initially, +2 more at BAB 4 = +4 which is "the bonus" that is the same as "this bonus" that has to be halved).

They countered with: The first interpretation is correct, because if the editors had intended the total off-hand bonus (after factoring in BAB increases) to be halved the sentence for halving the damage for off-hand weapons would have been placed after the sentence about the BAB increases. Changing the order of the sentences would have removed all doubt as to the intent.

My counter is: No it wouldn't because then someone might read it to mean that only the BAB increases get halved.

Comments?

Hi,

So I have a disagreement with another GM about skill rank bonuses that is exemplified by the following example. The character starts with INT 10, Ranger 1. So he has 7 skill ranks to allocate. He chooses Druid as his favored class so he gets no favored class bonus. Upon reaching second level he chooses Druid and gains 5 more skill ranks to allocate and chooses to allocate them so that 5 skills are not rank 2 and two other skills remain at rank 1. This is a total of 12 skill ranks.

We all know that at no time can a character have more ranks in any skill than their number of Hit Dice. That's a standard rule.

However, we have disagreement on where an additional skill rank can be applied due to using a favored class bonus.

One view is that the additional skill rank must be applied to a different skill than the original 7 chosen skills since all skills are now already at their maximum possible score due to levelling up. And the level advancement rules and the mechanics of the order in which level advancement happens has implications on where this additional rank can be applied. So the end result in this case is that it is only *possible" to have 5 skills at rank 2, and 3 skills at rank 1.

The other view is that the additional rank can be applied to any skill so long as it is not already at the maximum number of ranks by Hit Dice. So the end result is that the character can have 6 skills at rank 2, and 1 skill at rank 1.

The PCGen program uses the former interpretation. I don't know which interpretation Hero Lab uses. Nor could I find any FAQ about this.

I have been playing PFS since about season 2. Recently I played a PFS scenario that I had already played. I didn't realize it at the time we were playing. I had completely forgot the 4th season scenario. It was only at the end, when the chronicle sheet was revealed, that I recognized it because of the very special boon on it (no spoilers). I mentioned to the GM that I can't get credit for this because my very first PFS character had already played the scenario. He told me that since I was running Curse of the Crimson Throne home game that I can register those and get GM replay credit so that I can apply it. I told him that the home game is using regular Pathfinder rules, not PFS rules. He said that didn't matter as long as the other players have PFS numbers. Only one does. He said get PFS numbers for the other players to register them to be able to register the home game.

So here's some much needed context:

I have never GMed a PFS session. Last year, about 18 months ago, I started a home game running the Curse of the Crimson Throne AP. One player had played PFS many times and has a few PFS characters, but this home game would not be using the PFS character, it would be using a brand new non -PFS character. The 4 players were completely new to Pathfinder, having only had played AD&D 2nd Edition or some other older RPG. And 1 player was completely new to RPG's!

So since most of them were new to Pathfinder, I limited most of them to the Core Rules, APG, Ultimate Equipment, ISWG, Animal Archive (for those who had familiars/companions). As time progressed I allowed a few other books as the need arose. I am using ONLY Pathfinder rules, no 3pp rules. I wanted to keep the rules set small enough so the new players would not be overwhelmed. Since 5 of the 6 players were completely new to Pathfinder, I also decided to use Hero Points so they could mulligan a bad situation and so we don't have needless death. We are also using the full crafting rules.

The first chapter was the old conversion AP of CotCT. In the middle of the second chapter I switched to the expanded and revised hardcover edition (as soon as I noticed it was available). I highly recommend the hardcover version (in PDF form) if you use a virtual game map using a -projector (like I do).

So, I went to the Organized Play event registration page and it specifically says "Organized Play" events, and it seems to me that because the game is not being run with PFS rules that it isn't Organized Play. I read somewhere else (I can't remember where) that playing a home game AP without PFS characters is like players playing pregens; as long as the players experience the entire AP, it can still apply. The implication is that players can't use THOSE characters in actual PFS games because they are not PFS characters; but the players and the GM can get credits that can be aplied to actual PFS characters. But I think this post was not on a Paizo forum and thus couldn't be official.

I couldn't find anything "official" on this topic and I want to make sure this is right. So I need some official clarification since the web site registration page seems to be very specific and is in contradiction to what I have been told/read elsewhere.

I want to make sure I'm doing this right. In this situation, is it legal to register the home game Adventure path using non-PFS characters to gain GM replay credit and to also grant chronicles to the players should they ever decide to start playing PFS? If so, where is the OFFICIAL rule that says it's legal? I'm not willing to simply take someone's word for it (unless that person is Michael Brock or someone actually in a position of authority).

I don't know if this has been suggested before as this forum is TLDR. But my to help PFS 1e players that can't "convert" their PFS 1e characters to PFS 2e is:

You can "retire early" a PFS 1e character to create a new PFS 2e character that will start at the same level. The retired PFS 1e character must be at least 2nd level. You must already have a PFS 2e character of at least the level of the PFS 1e character being retired. This ensures that you have played up to at least this level in PFS 2e and are familiar with game play at this level and aren't just jumping in with both feet. The new PFS 2e character isn't required to be the same race, class, etc. The retired PFS 1e character is marked as retired on Paizo.com and is no longer valid for play in PFS 1e.

This is roughly equivalent to being "reincarnated" into a new world! Things change!

GOLD: The new PFS 2e character will start with gold according to some table similar to the "character wealth by level" table for Pathfinder 1 gamemastering section, but tweaked for PFS 2e play.

BOONS: The new PFS 2e character will start with a number of boons from chronicles of any other PFS 2e characters the player possesses. The number of boons that can be chosen is 1 per XP for the new PFS 2e character. You can choose from any boon on any PFS 2e chronicle sheet you have earned as long it was appropriate for the tier or subtier, even if the original PFS 2e character didn't qualify for it (i.e. didn't satisfy the game play conditions to grant the boon). Any given boon can only be chosen once and can only be applied to one new PFS 2e character, so if you have some particularly awesome boon, you only get to apply it to a single new PFS 2e character created from the PFS 1e retirement process.

Additionally you could allow some amount of the XP that would otherwise be spent on a choice of boons to instead be spent to gain a single "prize table boon" according to the blog post (I don't remember the link).

ANALYSIS:
- This will incentivize PFS 1e players to the transition to PFS 2e after a few games, and incentivize them to ultimately retire all remaining PFS 1e characters. But doing so in a way that doesn't make you feel like all that time spent on the PFS 1e character is completely wasted. And it does so in a way that I believe isn't unbalancing to new PFS 2e players.
- The new PFS 2e characters created through this process will have fewer boons than a typical PFS 2e character, but it will have cherry picked them.
- This will also help players be able to fill a table slot when they appear without a character of a specific level. Early on, there will be many players that only have a few characters and perhaps doesn't have a character in a specific suptier. Using this method, if a session will be running at subtier 3-4 and the player doesn't have a character of that level, they can choose to retire one of their PFS 1e characters in the 3-7 range to create a new PFS 2e character.
- It is an outside concern, but I do see players that would rather not play pre-gens as they have no emotional resonance to them. And they would also rather not play down to a lower subtier. I have seen a few times, a player leave a game session because they didn't have a characer of the appriopriate subtier and didn't want to play a pregen. This option could mitigate, to sone extent, those outside concerns.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderSociety/rpg/additional doesn't list any pages in the hard cover book that are legal. Is this an oversight? Or is it officially not-legal? If it is an oversight, how do I know what equipment and feats are legal and whether the new versions are any different than the old versions? Am I expected to buy copies of the obsolete 35e version?

I was having a philosophical conversation with a Venture Captain about the uses of the teleport spell. By RAW it says that any additional creature, medium or smaller creature or its equivalent, counts against your limit of creatures teleported. Fleas and lice are creatures and there is the wording "or smaller" to consider.

1) If the caster cannot choose leave the fleas behind then each flea, louse, skin mite, or any other external parasite counts as a "medium or smaller" creature that is touching the caster. The consequence would be that infesting a spellcaster would guarantee that he can never use teleport as they would not have enough "creatures" capacity.

2) However, if the caster can choose to not take the fleas, etc. with him, it makes the teleport spell a 100% successful dis-infesting spell, and since nearly every adventurer has at least one form of beneficial parasite (skin mites) it means that teleporting would leave a faint outline of all the infesting creatures. I suppose that what the spellcaft check is for, noticing that faint outline if vermin would mean it was a teleport spell, not and invisibility spell. :)

Now the term "or equivalent" may also apply. The standard rule of 2:1 being 1 large creature counts as 2 medium, if applied to diminutive and fine creature sizes would mean that each group of up to 16 fleas or lice, would count as 1 medium creature in the teleport limit.

This was actually a devolvement of a discussion about teleporting with a tiny familiar. While neither of us could find the rule, we both though that a tiny familiar carried by a wizard would not count against the teleport limits. But that couldn't be resolved with the wordging in the teleport spell.

There is some disagreement on this in my local group.... Is there anything wrong with the below interpretation?

From the CR and PRD under the heading "Heat Dangers" and subheading "Catching on Fire":

Catching on Fire
Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and non-instantaneous magic fires might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire. Spells with an instantaneous duration don't normally set a character on fire, since the heat and flame from these come and go in a flash.
Characters at risk of catching fire are allowed a DC 15 Reflex save to avoid this fate. If a character's clothes or hair catch fire, he takes 1d6 points of damage immediately. In each subsequent round, the burning character must make another Reflex saving throw. Failure means he takes another 1d6 points of damage that round. Success means that the fire has gone out — that is, once he succeeds on his saving throw, he's no longer on fire.
A character on fire may automatically extinguish the flames by jumping into enough water to douse himself. If no body of water is at hand, rolling on the ground or smothering the fire with cloaks or the like permits the character another save with a +4 bonus.
Those whose clothes or equipment catch fire must make DC 15 Reflex saves for each item. Flammable items that fail take the same amount of damage as the character.

And from the general rules of lamp oil:

Oil: A pint of oil burns for 6 hours in a lantern or lamp. You can also use a flask of oil as a splash weapon. Use the rules for alchemist’s fire (see Special Substances and Items on Table 6–9), except that it takes a full-round action to prepare a flask with a fuse. Once it is thrown, there is a 50% chance of the flask igniting successfully. You can pour a pint of oil on the ground to cover an area 5 feet square, provided that the surface is smooth. If lit, the oil burns for 2 rounds and deals 1d3 points of fire damage to each creature in the area.

A strict reading of the rules says that the flask of oil needs a fuse. Period. It doesn't matter if the oil is being thrown at something which is already on fire. There is no rule that "enables" the flask to catch fire in any other ways than by a "fuse" or when it is being burned in an actual lamp. You could pour it into a volcano and it wouldn't burn. That's just ridiculous and doesn't pass the sniff test.

So assuming that the oil is similar to kerosene, the oil should light if it is exposed to a flame when it is placed on any wicking material, such as hair or clothing, or if it is "splashed" across a surface. That seems to be totally consistent to the rule above.

Now here's the problem. GM's disagree on whether this is actually how these two rules interact:

Round 1 - PC: Alchemists fire thrown on round 1 hits a creature. The target will take 1d6 for two rounds because it is on fire, though nothing on it will catch fire, because alchemist's fire can't do that.

Round 1 - NPC: Nothing special here for the NPC. The alchemist's fire is still burning, but the damage is applied on the PC's turn. The NPC might have some option to quench the alchemist's fire, but chooses not to do that.

Round 2 - PC: The Alchemist's fire is still burning. A flask of oil is thrown and hits the same target. There is already a fire source so the oil will catch fire if the flask actually breaks, no fuse is necessary since the alchemist's fire is the "fuse" or source of flame to light it. So if it hits AND BREAKS (roll save for the flask breaking since it was not prepared with a fuse and an oil flask is not designed to break), then the NPC takes damage on round 2 from the alchemist's fire (1d6) plus the burning oil (1d6). The rule for oil damage of 1d3 for splash only applies if used to cover the ground, so that doesn't apply.

Round 2 - NPC: The NPC has been exposed to burning oil, the rule for "catching on fire" applies and the NPC must roll a DC 15 Reflex save if they have exposed hair or clothing (or other flammable equipment) to avoid themselves catching fire and taking an additional 1d6 from them self "being on fire". And if they fail that save, they will also have to roll DC 15 saves for that equipment, or the equipment also take damage. If he makes this saving through, it means that "he is not on fire", but it doesn't mean that the burning oil on him has gone out. That will still happen on round 3 unless the NPC takes some action to put out the oil, like jumping into a pool of water, etc. The NPC chooses to do something else and ignores the fact that there is burning oil on him.

Round 3 - PC: The alchemists fire no longer applies. The oil however is still burning (its second round) just like Alchemist's fire burned for its two rounds. So the NPC takes 1d6 damage from burning oil. This is the final round of burning oil.

Round 3 - NPC: The NPC has had another round of being exposed to burning oil, so if they still have exposed hair, clothing
or flammable equipment, another DC 15 save to avoid themselves catching on fire and its consequences (additional 1d6 damage and saves to avoid damage to equipment) just like round 2. If the PC failed the save he can also try to take some action to put himself out to avoid potential damage on following rounds.

One thing that could save the NPC from "being on fire" damage on this round is if their hair and clothing or other exposed flammable equipment failed on round 2 and has already burned off (destroyed by the fire). In that case, even though they were exposed to burning oil, they will no longer be capable of being on fire and no longer need to roll saves.

Round 4 and later - NPC: As long as the NPC is still on fire and still has exposed hair, clothing or flammable equipment, they will continue to make saves each round to avoid additional fire damage and if failed saves for their equipment as well.

And of course, if the PC never had any exposed hair or clothing or flammable equipment, they will never catch on fire. So good news for a fighter wearing full plate mail, a full face helmet (or is bald), and not wearing any cloth sashes, cloaks, or other flammable equipment. They could never "catch on fire".

So I'm looking at the feats on this character and I can't understand how it can have 7 feats : Combat Casting, Dodge, Great Fortitude, Greater Spell Focus (evocation), Spell Focus (evocation), Spell Penetration, Toughness.

PFS gets Spell Focus feat instead of Scribe Scroll at 1st level Wizard. 7th PC gets 4 more feats. So that's 6 feats. Wizard gets bonus feat at level 5, but this cannot be spent on normal feats. and none of the listed feats could be taken as the wizard bonus feat.

So how can this be resolved?

I think there is an error in the Warpriest Level 4 Pregen's skills.

Perception should be +4,not +3, same as the LVL 1 pregen due to Bestial (APG), with no ranks in Perception.

The 4th level Oloch has 8 total skill ranks but lists ranks in 9 skills other than Perception: Climb, Heal, Intimidate, Knowledge (religion), Perform (precussion), Sense Motive, Spellcraft, Swim. So there are not enough skill ranks to make those 9 skills.

Am I wrong? If so, please explain.

First question:

So, " with light or one-handed piercing melee weapons ". Without the oxford comma, this sentence fragment is unclear. Light and one-handed are exclusive groups, but piercing and melee are not. Does the benefit apply to:

1) all "light weapons" AND all "one-handed piecing melee weapons" i.e. "light weapons or one-handed piercing melee weapons"

2) all "light piercing melee weapons" AND all "one-handed piercing melee weapons" i.e. "piercing melee weapons, that are either light or one-handed"

3) all "light melee weapons" AND all "one-handed piercing melee weapons" i.e. "melee weapons, that are either light or one-handed piercing"

The strict English reading, because there are no commas in this sentence fragment, is number 1 above.

Second question:

No option above includes all weapons that Weapon Finesse normally applies, so weapons like natural weapons, whip and elven curved blade gain no benefit from Swashbuckler Finesse. Right?

Third question:

This ability says it qualifies as a prerequisite for other feats and abilities that require Weapon Finesse. With either understanding of the weapons that benefit from this ability above, this ability will not apply to some weapon types that Weapon Finesse normally applies to. When another ability requires Weapon Finesse as a prerequisite AND the other ability refers to the weapons that benefit from Weapon Finesse AND the PC does not actually take the Weapon Finesses feat, Swashbuckler Finesse still becomes a valid prerequisite HOWEVER is this other ability supposed to apply only to those weapons that Swashbuckler Finesses applies to, or is it supposed to apply to only those weapons that Weapon Finesse applies to, or both?

Consider Swashbuckler Finesse and Serpent Lash. Serpent Lash gives a benefit to whips and has a Weapon Finesse prerequisite. With Swashbuckler Finesse applying as the prerequisite that means that a PC with both has no special skill with a whip due to Weapon Finesse, yet somehow gains additional skill with Serpent Lash. Right?

Mark

Advanced Race Guide: Sorcerer Bloodline: Imperious: grants "Prediction of Failure" as a known spell at level 8. This spell is in Ultimate Magic but is not legal for PFS because target may gain a spellblight and spell which grant a spellblight are not legal.

So this bloodline grants an illegal spell?

Okay, The guide to organized play says for a Cavalier "Instead of the Expert Trainer class feature, Pathfinder Society cavaliers receive Skill Focus (Handle Animal) as a bonus feat."

So the class feature is GONE.

Therefore none of the archetypes that need to replace that class feature (Beastrider, hunter, strategist) are possible, whether or not they are otherwise legal.

AND the additional resources guide for UC says that "cavalier of 4th level or higher may take the Horse Master trait, ignoring the expert trainer class feature. A cavalier who trades this class feature for another as part of an archetype can not take the Horse Master feat."

However, that class feature was already automatically replaced by the guide to organized play, so it's not available to be replaced even if the cavalier takes no archetype at all.

Am I missing something?

From PRD:

Type: Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal: B for bludgeoning, P for piercing, or S for slashing. Some monsters may be resistant or immune to attacks from certain types of weapons.

Some weapons deal damage of multiple types. If a weapon causes two types of damage, the type it deals is not half one type and half another; all damage caused is of both types. Therefore, a creature would have to be immune to both types of damage to ignore any of the damage caused by such a weapon.

In other cases, a weapon can deal either of two types of damage. In a situation where the damage type is significant, the wielder can choose which type of damage to deal with such a weapon.

Bleed: A creature that is taking bleed damage takes the listed amount of damage at the beginning of its turn. Bleeding can be stopped by a DC 15 Heal check or through the application of any spell that cures hit point damage (even if the bleed is ability damage). Some bleed effects cause ability damage or even ability drain. Bleed effects do not stack with each other unless they deal different kinds of damage. When two or more bleed effects deal the same kind of damage, take the worse effect. In this case, ability drain is worse than ability damage.

Just to be clear. There is no definition I can find for kind of damage which can be referenced as the basis for when bleed effects stack. In context it seems pretty clear that a different type of damage would become a different kind of damage. Since kind and type are not direct synonyms of each other, it's not clear whether different bleed effects coming from different abilities also constitutes a different kind.

It's clear in the rogue talent bleeding attack description that it doesn't stack with itself even if the weapon is capable of doing two types of damage. The specific mention of the non-stacking of this ability with itself removed what would otherwise be possible given the weapon damage type and bleed rules, a P/S weapon being used on two consecutive attacked to get double bleed effect.

This does beg the question, is the source of the bleed effect also considered to be a different kind if it comes from a different ability?

Consider a 3rd level rogue with fragile axes on a successful sneak: talent bleeding attack for 2 bleed, the weapon special quality fragile and the feat splintering weapon for 1d4 bleed. If different abilities are considered different kinds of damage, then you get a 3rd level rogue build who can do 1d4+2 bleed for the first attack. Subsequent attacks would add 1d4 but take the highest of the d4's. That's if bleeding attack ability is considered to be a different kind from splintering weapon/fragile.

Since adding charges to the item cause CON damage which is healed normally, is it assumed that the item was charged at some point between scenarios and begins each scenario/session fully charged?

The question is whether the combat training of the Cavalier's mount is actually tricks known by the mount and takes up trick slots.

After reading the rule over and over, this is what I think RAW. It may be overpowered, but I think this is exactly what it says.

So a cavalier gets his mount and doesn't teach it anything using Handle Animal. The Mount (Ex) says it’s always considered to be combat trained (the 6 tricks attack, come, defend, down, guard, and heel). It’s the cavalier’s ability not the mounts ability. The mount has actually learned nothing. So it’s only "considered to be" combat trained but also only by the cavalier and only when using the Mount (Ex) ability, which admittedly is automatic and continuous. But the mount doesn’t actually know those tricks. So If there were some spell or supernatural effect that blocks a cavalier’s Mount (Ex) ability, then the mount would not have those tricks either unless they were specifically taught to it using Handle Animal. Likewise if anyone other than the cavalier tries to ride it, it will only actually know it what was specifically taught to it using Handle Animal. The mount has actually never learned any tricks. Therefore the combat training tricks that it is always considered to know with respect to the Mount (Ex) ability doesn’t actually take up any animal trick slots. They are essentially free. QED

Is there any official errata about this? If RAW is correct, that means that a 1st level Cavalier (with enough time and money and Handle Animal checks) could potentially have the ability to use his mount with all the 6 basic combat tricks, plus 1 bonus tricks, plus 6 trained tricks.

Okay, I know the silliness of shurikens has been discussed before. But here is one more...

So my character buys 500 shurikens. Hangs on the outside of a barn 10 feet away. The barn wall is made of a nice soft pine wood. And the ground is grassy dirt. Then the character proceeds to throw all shurikens at the target shuriken on the wall.

Those shurikens (ammunition) that hit the target shuriken are all automatically destroyed. Not damaged; no possibility of repair. Yet no matter how many shurikens hit the target shuriken on the wall, the target shuriken is never even the slightest bit scratched because 1) the shuriken that hit it can only do 2 points of damage (plus any strength bonus), thus will never exceed the 10 hardness of the target shuriken; and 2) shurikens are piercing weapons and cannot even sunder in the first place no matter how much strength or other bonus damage is applied.

In addition, all shuriken that miss the target shuriken on the wall has a 50% chance of being destroyed even though the soft wall and grassy ground prevent them from getting lost.

I understand why the enchantment costs of shuriken needs to be treated as ammunition, but the mechanical resemblance of non-magical shuriken in Pathfinder to actual shuriken is as poor as saying a marshmallow behaves like a concrete block when thrown. Of course it depends on how old the marshmallow is. :)

So the Pathfinder's Kit weight for small creature's doesn't add up. It says the kit weights 7.5 lb, but the weights of the items are:

backpack (small) 0.5 lb,
a bedroll (small) 1.25 lb,
a belt pouch (small) 0.125 lb,
a clay mug 1.0 lb,
a dagger (small) 0.5 lb,
two fishhooks 0.0 lb,
a flint and steel 0.0 lb,
a sewing needle 0.0 lb,
a signal whistle 0.0 lb,
50 feet of string 0.5 lb,
50 feet of thread 0.0 lb,
a waterskin 0.0 lb,
a week’s worth of trail rations 0.25 lb x 7 = 1.75 lb
and a whetstone 1.0 lb

totals 7.125 lb not 7.5 lb.

Where's the problem? Is the extra 3/8th lb from the box and wrapping paper it comes in (that can then be thrown away)?

Advanced Race Guide section on Race Builder - Racial Qualities - Type Quality - paragraph 4 says that the subtype applies to racial traits, explicitly stating the example that "you must have the ratfolk subtype to take the rodent empathy racial trait". Under the ratfolk section in the same book, the rodent empathy trait is indeed a racial trait, not a race trait. Race traits actually being a character trait from the race trait sub-list.

Couple that example with the fact that the half-elf race is defined as race: half-elf, subtype: human. So it seems the half-elf race should be able to pick racial traits (racial abilities) from both the half-elf and human racial traits lists.

If my logic is correct that would mean that a half-elf can choose to not take Multitalented and instead take Bonus Feat.

Is this in fact RAW?

So I'm reading the rules for mount and says the mount has to be one of suitable size and goes on to list camel or horse for medium sized characters. But for a dwarf who has lived primarily inside a mountain mining community, mining for mithral, gold, gems and other goodies, it doesn't make sense to use a surface animal such as a horse. Is there any enabling rule that would allow a dwarf to choose more suitable animal types that live underground or in caves (lizard, badger, snake, etc.) and/or to be able to apply the cave creature template and/or a cave creature variants of stronger medium sized creatures (velociraptor)?

Also, since mining dwarves live mostly underground shouldn't their mounts also be some animal type that has darkvision?