tanonev's page

@tanonev: Remember that nothing in the rules (current or proposed) causes anyone to forget that the invisible person is around. Consider this:

I see a rogue duck behind a corner/behind a bush/in the shadows/whatever. I know they're there, but I can't see them. I approach cautiously, but because I can't see them (despite knowing they're there), I can't prepare to properly defend myself - I'm flat-footed against them. Not because they were 100% imperceptible, but because I couldn't see/perceive them clearly enough to keep an eye on their movements and defend myself as properly as I could if we were dueling on equal ground. Naturally, knowing that the rogue is (probably) waiting for me behind the foliage, I could prepare myself (ready an action to go into total defense, etc).

That's why we don't need rules for "marking" or "tracking" a stealth'd character - you already can. The stealth-granted invisibility (or whatever the final effect is) doesn't represent totally forgetting where he is, it represents not being able to track his movements closely or precisely enough to engage him "properly".

The logic that I can't prepare to properly defend myself against something that I can't see applies to line of sight, not Stealth. Consider the flip side of how the rules currently (and will continue to) work: If I'm a guard, and I beat the Stealth check of a low-level rogue on the opposite side of a 20-foot-square wall (e.g., he accidentally drops a potion that shatters), then while I clearly can't actually SEE the rogue, I can still "defend properly" (keep my dexterity bonus) against whatever the rogue does when he pops out from behind the wall (including, apparently, using a brilliant energy weapon and x-ray goggles to attack me THROUGH the wall). And if beating the rogue's Stealth so that I know that the rogue is there behind the wall is sufficient to allow me to keep me dexterity bonus against being stabbed through the wall, then me knowing that the rogue is in a particular shadow should be sufficient to allow me to keep my dexterity bonus against being stabbed from the shadow.

Actually, it would be nice to clarify: What exactly does it mean to beat someone's Stealth check, especially if you don't have line of sight? Similarly, what does it mean to fail to beat someone's Stealth check? A lot of the language suggests that a lack of line of sight = automatic Stealth (see, as a random example, what happens if you have faerie fire on you and you head well out of sight--unless faerie fire was also modified to make you sound like a firecracker).

Incidentally, depending on which Stealth implementation you choose, readying an action to go into total defense doesn't do anything, since total defense provides a dodge bonus to AC, which is negated whenever you are denied dexterity. And since a readied action completes before the trigger action completes, if Stealth doesn't break until after the first attack, the dodge bonus will be wasted on the most important attack. In fact, if Stealth doesn't break until after the first attack, it doesn't matter what you ready, since you can't meet the trigger condition for a readied action until after that attack, because a trigger has to be observable (while the rules don't explicitly state that, allowing characters to ready actions on unobservable triggers is pretty clearly abusable and unintended).

(1) It has always bugged me that Stealth was advertised as a combination of Hide and Move Silently, but Move Silently has been more or less removed from consideration. Why does the DC to guess that someone's around the corner of a hallway because you hear footsteps (even stealthy ones) go up by 20 because those are "invisible" footsteps?

(2) Stealth, in both this implementation and the last, is essentially memoryless. This is very much a problem, and manifests itself in different ways depending on which implementation we choose, so long as we fail to address it. Regardless of how the Stealth rules end up, I'd like to propose the following changes (all numbers tentative) to PERCEPTION:
You may, as an immediate action to succeeding on a Perception roll against a Stealth roll, "mark" the creature you perceived. You gain your Perception modifier again (or +10, whichever is higher) as a circumstance bonus to Perception checks made against that creature's Stealth for one round.
You may as a swift action "mark" a number of creatures you have perceived in the previous round. You may mark as many creatures as you have ranks in Perception (min 1). You may then split your Perception modifier (or +10, whichever is higher) as you choose among those creatures as a circumstance bonus to Perception checks made against those creatures' Stealth for one round.
As part of the move action to intentionally search for stimuli, you may "mark" creatures as in the swift action described above, except you may split twice your Perception modifier (or +20, whichever is higher) as you choose.
Any action taken to mark creatures clears previous marks, of course.
If you fail a Perception check against a marked creature, the mark ends. If you fail by 5 or more, you incorrectly assume that you still have a mark on the creature, and can "renew" the mark (though with no actual benefit) the next time you take one of the above actions.

This implementation is probably buggy, but I hope the intent comes across: There needs to be some way to denote that you are "tracking" someone whom you noticed in the past, which should prevent silliness like the lone pillar in an empty area problem. It should cost an action of some sort to denote that such tracking is distracting in the heat of combat, so that an ally can help someone to hide by providing enough threat that the tracker is forced to give up his mark.

3) Taking a page out of software development, I think we need to establish a set of "unit tests," or simple scenarios that must ALL be handled appropriately by a proposed Stealth system before we accept it. The "one rogue, one guard, one pillar" scenario is a good one to have. Another is the "one rogue, one guard, one T-intersection in a hallway" scenario (the guard is in the base of the T, and the rogue wants to cross from one arm to the other). Another is the "one rogue, one dwarf, empty field at night" scenario. It would be nice if someone could compile a list of these scenarios so that we can run down the list and make sure they all work out.

tanonev wrote:

Link Prisms

Spoiler:

*...Hmmm...firing rays (at a -5 penalty) from over 700 feet away? :-/

*...Seems over the top to me. Granted, it's only once a day. The -5 penalty to hit might offset the advantages of most ranged touch attacks, but it still feels somewhat overpowered. I can appreciate the concept of refracting rays of light (or, in this case, magical energy) through prisms like a tetrahedron. The idea is innovative. The execution is iffy.

*...In addition, the viewing mechanism for up to 7 minutes per day is fairly limited to just 700 feet, else the devices shut down. And, whoever carries the other one within range of some opponent is likely to lose it unless that single ray attack brings them down. Still, if you're ready to go rushing in as soon as you launch enervation or even ray of exhaustion, it could be pretty devastating.

*...And, what really turns me off is the idea of stringing more than two of these things together. That just bends credibility a little too far for me. I want to like the mojo behind it, but I'm having a hard time justifying Keep. Thus, I'd vote weak Reject at the moment unless one of you feel strongly otherwise.

*...It's a webcam. Reject.

*...Rejected.

Thanks for the feedback :) I think the first thing I need to do is play a lot more to get a better feel for what is or isn't broken. Hooray for more reasons to play :D

I hope I'm not too late to get some feedback :) (This isn't the submission version, but the last version I have stored, so there may be typos/discrepancies.)

Link Prisms
Aura moderate conjuration; CL 7th
Slot --; Price 14,000 gp; Weight --
Description
These 2-inch clear crystal tetrahedra are always created in pairs, for they share a ninth face in extradimensional space. As long as the prisms are within 700 feet of each other, on command both prisms will flicker for a moment before exchanging the images contained therein. Anyone viewing one of the prisms sees the surroundings of the other in its facets, though the effects of refraction impose a -5 penalty on all Perception checks made through the prisms. Another command deactivates both prisms, as does separating the prisms beyond 700 feet, moving one onto another plane, or placing one in a dimensional locked area. A pair of link prisms can function for up to 7 minutes a day, though this time does not need to be continuous.
Furthermore, while the prisms are active, anyone with line of effect to one prism may fire a ray effect at a target with line of effect to the other prism, so long as the combined distance from the user to one prism and from the other prism to the target does not exceed the effect's range. Such a usage of the prisms overloads them, however, immediately deactivating them for the remainder of the day. The user suffers a -5 penalty to her ranged touch attack when using the prisms in this manner; if she misses by 5 or less, she hits (and therefore overloads) the prisms but still misses the target.
A user may use multiple sets of link prisms in a chain, but each additional set of link prisms imposes an additional -5 penalty.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, clairaudience/clairvoyance, dimension door; Cost 7,000 gp

tanonev wrote:

A bunch of 3.x SRD stuff

What's with all the SRD stuff? This is the Pathfinder forum, where we discuss the Pathfinder rules.

You do know, don't you, that the SRD references a different set of rules, right?

I quoted the rules from this game, Pathfinder, the one we're playing, and the one we're here to discuss on this forum. I would ask that you do the same, since it really is hard to discuss rules of two different game systems.

If I were teaching you chess, and you insisted on collecting $200.00 every time you passed Go, well, we wouldn't get very far in our chess game, would we?

It's fine if you want to use houserules to reintroduce 3.x stuff into your game, but stipulating that we should all do so, or that we should use those rules to resolve Pathfinder rules questions, is definitly not constructive to this forum or to the original poster.

Clearly my argument was too convoluted. Let me re-present the argument more simply:

A similar logical error that resulted in the beating of a dead horse may be found here.
(Here, the error is that "seeing the spell" is not equivalent to "seeing the spellcaster.")

Why did I cite the SRD? Simply put, a logically valid argument will remain valid even if you switch around the subjects involved. If switching around the subjects involved can result in an incorrect conclusion, then even if you arrived at a correct conclusion with the original subjects, the line of reasoning you used to arrive there is necessarily flawed.

Even ignoring that, I can simply say this: The PRD is clearly a descendant of the SRD. The PRD made its changes, and those changes are certainly to be observed in the rules. Whatever they did NOT change, however, remains the same. Now, where did the PRD redefine the word "observe" to mean something different from what it meant in the SRD?

Pathfinder Core Rulebook, Stealth wrote:

It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.

You'll notice it says "impossible". It does not say "possible" or "allowed" or "makes you a super-deadly invisible ninja".

It might be interesting to refer back to where the line originally came from:

It’s practically impossible (-20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging.

I know that the SRD and the PRD are not the same, but that's not the point; the point is to note that your interpretation applied to the SRD results in a very odd claim, so it's suspect. Later on in Hide:

If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide.

Right now, you're claiming that you automatically observe anything that you have line of sight to. This conflicts with the definition of "observe":

To be or become aware of, especially through careful and directed attention

I challenge you to simultaneously observe everything you have line of sight to (or even to observe everything you have line of sight to over the course of the next 6 seconds). But leaving this misdefinition of the word aside, let's just accept it for the moment and see if we arrive at a contradiction.

Note that in the SRD, it's "practically impossible" but still allowed to hide while charging. But in order to charge, you have to be capable of straight-line movement to the target with nothing in between. That means if we interpret "observing" to mean "having line of sight," then Hiding while charging is actually disallowed (unless the target is blind or you're invisible, but those are edge cases not even mentioned in that context). That means the -20 penalty for charging is essentially vacuous if we use that interpretation. But an interpretation that causes a rule to become vacuous is immediately suspect. So "observing" does NOT mean "having line of sight." You can observe without having line of sight, and you can have line of sight without observing.

Especially so, since there's an easy alternative interpretation to "observing": You always start out "not observing" someone, assuming they start from "very far away." You continue to "not observe" that person until he fails a Stealth check against your Perception (or until he takes an action that disallows Stealth, such as attacking, running, or charging), at which point you "observe" the person. From then on, that person is not allowed to use Stealth against you until you stop "observing" him, at which point the process starts over. This means if he blows his Stealth out in the open, he can't use Stealth again until you fail the DC 0 check to notice someone who is plainly visible. This also means that if he blows his Stealth around the corner (you hear his footsteps), he can't use Stealth again until you fail the DC 10 check to notice his footsteps (assuming he doesn't realize he's already blown his cover).

All this, just for making our definition for "observe" line up with the standard dictionary definition. This is a redefinition of a single WORD, not a RAI vs. RAW problem. This also passes the common sense test: It allows a pair of rogues ducking around opposite ends of an I-shaped hallway to ranged sneak attack someone in the middle just as the same pair of rogues could do the same with melee weapons if they were each 5 feet away from him (at least, until each one of them has attempted a shot). As for balance, we've already established that for reasonable builds, level-appropriate encounters will not elevate rogues to super-deadly ninja assassins just because we rule Stealth this way.

Wait, does that mean that the following is correct?

Wizards Alice and Bob are enemies, and adjacent. Alice has a quarterstaff, and Bob is unarmed.

Bob readies an action to counterspell Alice.
Alice starts casting a spell.
Bob's readied action triggers, and he starts casting a counterspell, provoking an AoO.
Alice takes the AoO with her quarterstaff, disrupting Bob's counterspell.
Alice finishes her spell.

Or the following?

Alice is holding a charge of Shocking Grasp, and no quarterstaff. Eve is on Bob's side, and adjacent to both of them.
Bob readies an action to cast Magic Missile on Alice if Alice tries to touch Eve.
Alice tries to make a melee touch attack on Eve with Shocking Grasp.
Bob's readied action triggers, and he starts casting Magic Missile, provoking an AoO.
Alice takes the AoO with Shocking Grasp, disrupting Bob's spell.
Alice's original touch attack resolves on Eve, except the touch attack results in no damage to Eve.

Or the following?

Jack and Jill are enemy fighters 10 feet apart, both using reach weapons. They both have Combat Reflexes and Dex 16.
Jack begins a full attack.
Jack attempts to sunder Jill's armor, provoking an AoO.
Jill takes the AoO as a sunder attack, provoking an AoO.
Jack takes the AoO as a sunder attack against Jill's armor, provoking an AoO.
Jill takes the AoO as a sunder attack, provoking an AoO.
Jack takes the AoO as a sunder attack against Jill's armor, provoking an AoO.
Jill takes the AoO as a sunder attack, provoking an AoO.
Jack takes the AoO as a sunder attack against Jill's glaive, provoking an AoO.
Jill is out of AoOs.
Jack's sunder attack resolves, breaking Jill's glaive.
Jill's sunder attack is no longer legal, so it resolves with no effect.
Jack's sunder attack resolves, dealing damage to Jill's armor.
Jill's sunder attack is no longer legal, so it resolves with no effect.
Jack's sunder attack resolves, dealing damage to Jill's armor.
Jill's sunder attack is no longer legal, so it resolves with no effect.
Jack's sunder attack resolves, breaking Jill's armor.
Jack continues with his full attack.

So in general, when a Pathfinder Adventure Path uses a combination that isn't "legal" (say, #29's Tactics block on page 52 where Whirlwind Attack + Vital Strike are combined to the point where Vital Strike is already figured into the damage listed in the Offense block, or the combination from #30 cited from the given link), should the AP be used as precedent or as a special exception?

If the fighter was down a significant amount of HP, he certainly shouldn't have been keeping watch alone. If he wasn't down a significant amount of HP, then there should be no problem in the situation, as long as the rogue isn't several levels higher than the fighter. In order for X HP damage to be deadly, the rogue has to be able to deal X HP damage consistently in 1 hit; otherwise, "sound of battle" is enough to wake the rest of the party. (A simple enough ruling to deal with even that is to rule that the fighter in full plate going "thud" counts as "sound of battle." A rogue won't necessarily have the strength to silence the "thud" even at melee range, and he definitely wouldn't have any control if he's sniping with a bow. If nothing else, have the rest of the party sleep in a ring or star formation around the fighter. I would imagine that having a fighter in full plate drop on top of you would wake you up no matter how bad your Perception was.) (Dice conspiracies against a particular player are outside of our control; if really bad/good die rolls couldn't swing a fight in an unexpected direction, there would be no point to running the fight in the first place.) Fighters start with 10 + Con hit points and get +d10 + Con hit points per level. Rogues start with roughly 1d6 + 1d6 + Str damage per hit and get +1d6 sneak attack damage per 2 levels. Even ignoring AC and Perception, there's no crossover point where the rogue can deal enough damage to be deadly in one hit.

As for Fast Stealth, double move, etc., what are the prevailing opinions on how to handle multiple states of initiative? For simplicity, my games have always ruled that the "universe" as seen by the PCs is either "in initiative" or "out of initiative", which means if the rogue is using the "in-initiative" benefit of two move actions per round (60-foot stealth move), then the fighter would also have the "in-initiative" benefit of two move actions per round (two perception checks). While this doesn't necessarily have accurate flavor, adjudicating fights where there are a mix of people in and out of initiative seems like it would be far more complicated than the flavor is worth.

OK, let me create a parallel example with Wondrous Items. First, on prerequisites: it's strongly implied that "prerequisite" and "requirement" are used interchangeably, as we can see here:

Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory.

Looking at a sample Wondrous Item, we see the following:

Elixir of Hiding

Aura faint illusion; CL 5th

Slot —; Price 250 gp; Weight —

Description

A character drinking this liquid gains an intuitive ability to sneak and hide (+10 competence bonus on Stealth checks for 1 hour).

Construction

Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, invisibility; Cost 125 gp

Craft Wondrous Item is listed as a "requirement," and is almost certainly also the "mandatory prerequisite" referred to in the first block. If we accept this, then we have the following:

Prerequisites:
Craft Wondrous Item
Invisibility

Suppose I have the Craft Wondrous Item feat and Invisibility as (my own) SLA (but not as a prepared or known spell). Now, mirroring what you said about going into the specific rules, let's look at making wondrous items.

If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the item, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard)

This is exactly the same justification you gave for SLA Darkness not working for the Scroll, so then SLA Invisibility should not work for the Elixir of Hiding, either.

I can see a RAI argument for barring SLAs altogether from item creation, but that clearly can't be RAW due to the existence of that line specifically allowing SLAs. (Then again, given that the PRD says that SLAs both can and can't be counterspelled, I wouldn't be surprised if this were something meant to be removed from the rules but accidentally left in.)

EDIT: While we're here, if a Wizard 5 with 2 negative levels scribes a Scroll of Fireball before removing the negative levels, what CL does it end up at?

DM: OK, your party sets up camp, on the flat barren ground. You can see for miles. It's late, so everyone goes to sleep except Fred who stays on first watch, right?

Fred: Yep, I'm on watch. Remember, I have darkvision so I can see anyone coming.

Let's attach some numbers so we can see what's really happening behind the scenes.

An NPC rogue 7 has a DEX of at most 18 (15 base + 2 race + 1 ability boost). He has a wealth of 6000, which means he can afford a +1 weapon at best. Let's assume he didn't have a potion of Cat's Grace (because otherwise he could have equivalently had a potion of Invisibility which would have made the Perception argument moot). At a BAB of +5, he can't have more than +12 to his attack roll (5 BAB + 4 Dex + 1 enhancement + 1 Point Blank + 1 Weapon Focus), and his damage per arrow is 5d6 + 2 (1d6 base + 1 enhancement + 1 Point Blank + 4d6 sneak attack) = 20 on average, rounding up. His Stealth is at most +17 (7 ranks + 3 class + 4 dex + 3 skill focus).

A PC fighter 10 has a CON of at least 14 (since NPC fighters have at least that much), for an average of 79 HP (assuming he used his favored class bonuses for skills). He has a wealth of 62000, which means he can easily afford +2 full plate, a +2 heavy shield, and a ring of protection +2, for a flat-footed AC of 26 (10 + 10 armor + 4 shield + 2 deflection). That means the rogue has a roughly 1 in 3 chance of hitting the fighter.

Now, let's run through the scenario.

Rogue hits edge of darkvision (60 ft.) Fighter gets a reactive Perception check vs. Stealth (+2 vs. +17).
Round -2: Rogue moves at half speed to 45 ft. away. Fighter gets an active Perception check (move action) vs. Stealth (+4 vs. +17).
Round -1: Rogue moves at half speed to 30 ft. away. Fighter gets an active Perception check (move action) vs. Stealth (+5 vs. +17). Let's assume that ALL 3 Perception checks fail.
Round 0 (surprise round): Rogue fires one arrow as a standard action against the flat-footed fighter. Because there's no cover, the rogue has lost Stealth. Fighter says "ow," which counts as "sound of battle." Everyone else gets a Perception check at -10 vs. DC -10 to notice that a fight has started. (Just about everyone should wake up at this point; a Perception of -2 + a natural 1 deserves to get screwed.) Average damage the fighter takes: 10 (the rogue gets +2 for being "invisible", but he loses that right after the first arrow).
Round 1: Assume the rogue gets a higher initiative roll than the fighter. If the rogue has rapid shot, he can fire two arrows at the fighter, each with a 1 in 4 chance of hitting. Average damage the fighter takes: 11. Even in the case where all 3 arrows hit (a 2% chance), the fighter takes a total of 60 damage on average, which means he's still standing. In either case, on the fighter's turn, the fighter can charge the rogue, and the fight will end shortly, and very badly for the rogue at that.

Note that this is all just assuming a single reactive Perception check at the beginning, and no free checks during combat. The active Perception checks make a big difference. If you want, you can rule that using an active Perception check in combat entitles you to oppose any uses of Stealth that happen for one round, meaning the cleric in the original scenario could spend a move action to "keep an eye out" for a potential newcomer to the fight, or he could run to the other side of the room and heal the party member who just collapsed, which occupies enough of his attention that he can't notice hidden threats.

Now, if you want the rogue to be able to drop the fighter (for plot or punishment reasons), ignore the visibility range altogether: Have the rogue snipe at the fighter with Sleep Arrows from outside darkvision range.

So, yup, spell like abilities can fulfill prerequisites. But I think here's where the discrepancy comes in. They can fulfill prerequisites, which are listed immediately following the caster level of an item. This allows you to craft the item with different modifiers on your crafting check. But fulfilling the prerequisite for the check still requires you to be able to cast the spell.

Umm, what? "You don't get a +5 penalty, but you still can't make the check in the first place"? The fact that spell-like abilities are mentioned at all in the block in Magic Item Descriptions imply that there must be at least some situation in which having a spell-like ability affects your ability to craft an item with that prerequisite. With your interpretation, though, there doesn't exist a single core item where that's true.

Thanks for the reply. While I agree with most of those answers, I don't follow the reasoning for this one:

The reason that spell-like abilities don't qualify is that they function differently from actual spells. They ignore material components. They has no verbal or somatic components. They can't be counter-spelled. And finally, they're just not spells, and scribe scrolls requires spells.

If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the armor, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material components or focuses the spells require. The act of working on the armor triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the armor's creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)

If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the weapon, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) but need not provide any material components or focuses the spells require. The act of working on the weapon triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the weapon's creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)

Material components are consumed when he begins working, but a focus is not. (A focus used in brewing a potion can be reused.) The act of brewing triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting until the character has rested and regained spells. (That is, that spell slot is expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.)

Rings that duplicate spells with costly material components add in the value of 50 × the spell's component cost. Having a spell with a costly component as a prerequisite does not automatically incur this cost. The act of working on the ring triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the ring's creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)

If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the rod, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) but need not provide any material components or focuses the spells require. The act of working on the rod triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the rod's creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)

The creator must have prepared the spell to be scribed (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material component or focus the spell requires. A material component is consumed when she begins writing, but a focus is not. (A focus used in scribing a scroll can be reused.) The act of writing triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting until the character has rested and regained spells. (That is, that spell slot is expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.)

The creator must have prepared the spells to be stored (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any focus the spells require as well as material component costs sufficient to activate the spell 50 times (divide this amount by the number of charges one use of the spell expends). Material components are consumed when he begins working, but focuses are not. (A focus used in creating a staff can be reused.) The act of working on the staff triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the staff 's creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)

The creator must have prepared the spell to be stored (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any focuses the spell requires. Fifty of each needed material component are required (one for each charge). Material components are consumed when work begins, but focuses are not. A focus used in creating a wand can be reused. The act of working on the wand triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting during each day devoted to the wand's creation. (That is, that spell slot is expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.)

If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the item, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) but need not provide any material components or focuses the spells require. The act of working on the item triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the item's creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)

Now, if your reasoning for disallowing SLAs for scrolls is because they "aren't spells", then you have to disallow the use of SLAs for all other magic items, since they use the same language about expending slots. But if that's the case, then the following rule is vacuous:

A spell prerequisite may be provided by a character who has prepared the spell (or who knows the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard), or through the use of a spell completion or spell trigger magic item or a spell-like ability that produces the desired spell effect. For each day that passes in the creation process, the creator must expend one spell completion item or one charge from a spell trigger item if either of those objects is used to supply a prerequisite.

I can see a RAW argument for disallowing SLAs for substituting in spells for item creation where material and focus components would be required, but that wouldn't hold if the spell in question didn't have material and focus components to begin with (Darkness has a cheap material component, but there are other SLAs that don't that could be used in the example).

Relevant PRD sections:

For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell but not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself. In this case, the creator's caster level must be as high as the item's caster level (and prerequisites may effectively put a higher minimum on the creator's level).

...
A spell prerequisite may be provided by a character who has prepared the spell (or who knows the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard), or through the use of a spell completion or spell trigger magic item or a spell-like ability that produces the desired spell effect. For each day that passes in the creation process, the creator must expend one spell completion item or one charge from a spell trigger item if either of those objects is used to supply a prerequisite.
...
If two or more characters cooperate to create an item, they must agree among themselves who will be considered the creator for the purpose of determinations where the creator's level must be known.
...
In addition, you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.

For the following situations (assume the Wizard supplies Scribe Scroll, and nothing else), which of the following are legal?

1) Wizard 3 + Cleric 3 = Divine Scroll of Darkness CL3
2) Wizard 1 + Cleric 3 = Divine Scroll of Darkness CL3
3) Wizard 3 + Tiefling Rogue 3 (SLA Darkness CL3) = Arcane Scroll of Darkness CL3
4) Wizard 1 + Tiefling Rogue 3 (SLA Darkness CL3) = Arcane Scroll of Darkness CL3
5) Wizard 3 + Tiefling Rogue 1 (SLA Darkness CL1) = Arcane Scroll of Darkness CL3
6) Wizard 3 + Tiefling Rogue 1 (SLA Darkness CL1) = Arcane Scroll of Darkness CL1
7) Wizard 1 + Tiefling Rogue 1 (SLA Darkness CL1) = Arcane Scroll of Darkness CL1

8) Wizard 1 + Ranger 4 = Divine Scroll of Resist Energy CL1
9) Wizard 1 + Ranger 4 = Arcane Scroll of Resist Energy CL3
10) Wizard 1 + Ranger 4 = Arcane Scroll of Resist Energy CL1
11) Wizard 3 + Ranger 4 = Arcane Scroll of Resist Energy CL3
12) Wizard 3 + Ranger 4 = Divine Scroll of Resist Energy CL3

I'd say that's overstepping the bounds of Suggestion, but the inclusion of a loophole for humor purposes makes it somewhat more acceptable :P

Interestingly enough, that particular comic has showcased both ends of the spectrum of Suggestion, with the opposite end being here:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0393.html
That, in my opinion, was what Suggestion was meant to be (though the save DC should perhaps be even higher than the +2 for "very reasonable" suggestions if you can weave it in that well).

Thanks for the response. One comment:

Rules for multiple commands active at the same time would be in the section in Magic Items regarding activation methods (which doesn't say you can only have one command active at a time, or on a single item at a time).

While it's pretty clear that multiple commands can be active at once, I don't see how it follows that multiple commands can be activated at once. Otherwise, you could use a helm of brilliance, a wind fan, and boots of teleportation all bound to the same command word to cast Fireball, Gust of Wind, and Teleport simultaneously. While that particular combination might not be excessively broken, there are probably worse ones.

First, apologies if starting a new thread is inappropriate for this topic; I found an old thread with a related discussion, but it was in the archives, so...

The consensus here seems to be that a weapon can have Flaming, Frost, and Shock active all at once. However, while it's clear that you can enchant a +1 weapon to have all three of those powers, the rules state at the end of each of those entries:

The effect remains until another command is given.

I read this to imply that if you have a distinct command word ("Burn", "Chill", "Spark"?) for each of the three effects, there's no way to have all three effects active simultaneously, since as soon as you give the second command, the first effect deactivates. Does that mean that it's legal to bind a single command word ("Trinity"?) to all three effects? In that case, are the three effects a package deal, meaning you have to activate and deactivate them as a group?

Or am I simply misreading "another" as "any other" instead of "one specific other"?

More generally, what are your opinions on stacking command words (both RAW and practical interpretations welcome)?
1) Can one item have multiple effects bound to the same word, which then always activate in tandem?
2) Can multiple items on one person each have an effect bound to the same word, which then always activate in tandem?
3) Can command words you say activate items not "owned" and "slotted" by you?
3a) If so and if the answer to (2) is yes, can multiple items on multiple people each have an effect bound to the same word, which then activate in tandem if they're all within earshot of the speaker?
3b) If not and if the answer to (2) is yes, can you control which of your items you activate by "unslotting" them as needed?
4) (Slightly unrelated) Is "the" a legal/practical command word? I'm tempted to rule that exceedingly common words may be used as command words, and if so, activating them is a free action, but it happens EVERY time the player says the word (and on/off command words have to match).