I think its unfair to have to spend to resource without the sure knowledge that the affliction will go away.
I don't know anything about PFS, but the statement above is, unfortunately, not the case. If a Cleric casts Remove Disease, the spell slot is spent even if he fails the roll- the money spent hiring him should be too. In a less direct example, an Acid Flask costs the same whether you hit with it or not. You may not like it, but that's the way it is in-game.
The first question should really be in the PFS part of the forum.
Ok, so here's the first question. In PFS, if someone gets saddled with an affliction and wants to deal with it between mods with pp or gold by purchasing spellcasting services do caster level check rolls still need to be made? If so, who should roll them and how is the caster level for the spell in question determined? This came up in a recent mod where someone got mummy rot and wanted to get it removed with pp after the game. Since mummy rot needs remove curse and then remove disease he had two spend 2pp and then we had to deal with the caster level check question. My position is that if you are dealing with an affliction away from the table, between mods, there is no need to make the check. The conceit of spending pp or gold to purchasing spellcasting covers things like making sure you get the best caster for the job and that he/she does some prep-work to make sure they can get past whatever check is needed. I think its unfair to have to spend to resource without the sure knowledge that the affliction will go away especially in the 'between adventure' time which is always more of an abstraction than the 'at the table' time. However, our coordinator pointed out that there was no such rule in any official document so we went with a caster level of 12 cause we were in Absalom and the guy with mummy rot got some lucky rolls. Any thoughts here? Do I have a leg to stand on?
It's up to the GM, and largely situational. For one thing, you may not have time to shop around for the absolute best caster around. Even if you did, they might still fail.
As for who should roll them: If it's an NPC, then the GM is the obvious candidate. If I were in that situation as a GM, I'd probably make the roll publicly (though not reveal the caster's exact stats), but it's certainly not a requirement. However, by RAW, somebody's gotta make those checks.
If you want something better, hire a caster to cast a higher-level spell with more of a guarantee, or (better yet) find a place that promises to keep trying until successful. Most benevolent healers, like most doctors, wouldn't give up just because the initial treatment failed, especially if the spells had no expensive material cost. Still, that's up to the GM too.
Second question, and I know this has appeared on the boards before but it bugs me every time it comes up in game, is about tumbling to avoid aoo's. As I understand it, if I start my turn with three guys adjacent to me and I'd like to move without provoking I need to make three acrobatics rolls. One against guy A vs CMD, one against guy B vs CMD +2, and one against guy C vs CMD +4. If, later on in my movement, I go past guy D I need to make another roll vs CMD +6. To me, this is silly. Why am I making three rolls for guys A, B, and C when tumbling away from them is one discrete act? Why not make one roll and apply it in the same way as before...
Because it's a lot harder to dodge three competent attackers than it is to dodge one. More to the point:
For example, a rogue is flanked by a meek goblin and a terrifying antipaladin. The rogue move away from both of them, provoking an attack of opportunity from both, but uses Acrobatics to attempt to negate them. She must move at half speed while threatened by these foes and can choose which to check against first. If she fails a check, she provokes an attack of opportunity from that foe. If she makes it, she does not provoke from moving through that foe's threatened space this turn.
On the bright side, if you move through multiple squares threatened by the same foe, you only have to make one check for that foe.
It sounds like you and your GM have some things to work out beyond mere rules questions.
Correcting myself: I didn't see the PFS qualifier for the first question. As I don't play in PFS, I can't speak as to their rules, only what seems reasonable by RAW and by how I'd run my own game. Mummy rot is nasty business for such a low CR, but then without the rot, mummies wouldn't be mummies. : D Good luck.
Why not make one roll and apply it in the same way as before (guy A vs CMD, guy B vs CMD+2, etc...) and then only make another roll once I go past guy D vs CMD? Or why not make one roll against the highest CMD of guy A B and C at +4? Why do I have to make 4 rolls instead of 2? What is the point?
1) Dodging through 1 bad guys space is easier than 2, 4, or 6. Also after you've done one somersault and backflip the 2nd third and forth flips get progressively harder AND the bad guys see it coming.
2) Dodging through the tarasques space is easier than the goblins.
3) Dodging through the goblins space doesn't become impossible just because he's standing next to the tarasque. You can fake out the goblin without faking out the Tarasque.
Question 1: In PFS, do spellcasting services paid for between scenarios with gold or prestige points still use a caster level check?
Yes. If you purchase a remove disease, restoration, etc out of scenario with either gold or PP caster level checks are still performed. The spell caster is at the minimum level required to cast the spell and you will have to pay for each spell casted. So if it takes 3 try's before that baleful polymorph is removed you pay 6 prestige points (2 PP per casting).
Question 2: Why do I have to roll dice for each acrobatics check?
You need to make an acrobatics check for each creature that can take an AoO against your move. These acrobatics checks get progressively more difficult (+2 for second, +4 for third, etc). As far as why you need to roll it for each opponent - because your rolling dice and even with a good acrobatics modifier you can still roll badly and fail on the more difficult check while passing the easier one.
Darn it, I cam in here hoping for a question about a mount that had taken ranks in acrobatics so it could make tumble checks for it's rider. Ah well.
Me too.