No. Even when a player picks their alignment based on what they think their character concept is, many people (players and people like you) still think all of their actions should fit into that alignment. It makes for bad gaming.
Do you ever wonder why real people and even fictional characters (Batman, Dexter) can’t have alignments assigned to them? It’s because every action we take doesn’t always fit an alignment. I don’t want an alignment debate (that's not what the thread is about) so I’ll leave it at that.
I died but was brought back to life to get revenge for my murder in exchange for my soul and marrying one of Asmodeus' daughter (who is my cohort).
Doesn't sound like much of a punishment.
Previously I convinced the party to make getting rid of the Queen our goal and allow me to rule Korvosa in her place.
And they never thought of casting detect evil on you?
How much different am I from the Queen?
Very. Ileosa is just using Korvosa and is willing to sacrifice every living being in it to meet her goals.
Asmodeus wants stability, see Cheliax. Asmodeus and Zon Kuthon are the same alignment but are very different.
Will my association with Asmodeus disrupt our goals or make them more in line with the Queen's?
I think you're still following the same goals, although the reason for it is nefarious. Perhaps some encounters around devils will be resolved with diplomacy instead of combat, but that's up to your GM.
Considering what my character is what should my goals be?
Only you can answer that question. It sounds like you know what you want, get rid of the queen, possibly take her power, gain as many devil allies as possible.
The only problem is, I believe the throne is a monarchy, so it's unlikely Korvosa would support an usurper on the throne. Also, your secret (of being evil and a thrall of Asmodeus) wouldn't last long, other people would notice and tell the party. And assuming there are at least some good members of your party, I can see them supporting getting rid of you or rejecting your bid to take the throne when the campaign concludes.
This is all stuff for your GM to determine though and everyone has their own opinion.
If EoA were standalone I would agree it is backward, but as it is Lamm is just an excuse to bring the players together not the main story. So getting him out of the way quickly seems the right way to go.
It's the reason for getting together, however there's no real reason for staying together. To collect the reward from the Queen? Maybe. Because you have nothing better to do (and want to suddenly become lackeys to the guard captain)? Maybe. Because you have no friends or contacts other than this group that was gathered by a ghost? Maybe.
Most players find this aspect of the book contrived, believe me. Especially if they have character backgrounds and contacts in the city.
Also, I knew going in that my players would HATE Kroft's go-there-and-fetch missions, so I changed that too. Same NPCs and locations, different motivations and story. But that takes lots of work.
Currently I am thinking about how I can stop my players from immediately concluding that Vencarlo is Blackjack.
I thought it was silly that he was introduced during the Kroft interview. I'll have him appear much later. By then the PCs will accuse everyone of being Blackjack: Kroft, Trinia, maybe even Grau. By the time they meet him they'll forget about it.
I made each PC:
That's the glue that binds the campaign together.
I didn't like that Lamm was so weak and dies almost immediately, so I changed the story. I think it's bad that Lamm dies so early in the AP, especially since it's the reason the party gets (and maybe stays)together. If you don't know each other, there isn't enough trust built up to stay together after killing him imo. Basically we do the job and go back to your regular lives. There's really no reason for staying together. Because of riots? I don't think so, if anything it would make you want to go back to your family, property, home, friends, work, to protect them.
Anyway, have fun, this has been a great campaign so far.
I do away with XP altogether when playing APs. I level (all) PCs up at certain logical points in the books. When a player doesn't attend, the PC gets "XP" but they don't get gold or items.
For a long time I tracked XP (even to the point of minor things) using the Rolemaster system. XP was given for doing hit points of damage, criticals, taking damage, taking criticals, casting spells, and delivering killing blows. And I tracked it all. You know what? It was a massive waste of time.
^^^ That is just administration, which isn't fun for anyone and it's a waste of time. I suppose it was good in the sense that it illustrated that I never wanted to track XP ever again.
Shatner's Comma wrote:
Thanks! Those are both useful tips. I'll likely be running "In Service to Lore" first, and maybe "Silent Tide" after that.
Sounds like a good start and I think you'll be fine. In a way your situation is ideal since you'll all be learning together (and you have the most experience).
All GMs make mistakes, even experienced GMs. As long as you're open to learning and correcting your mistakes, it's all good.
You might want to check out Painlord's threads on how to be a better GM, how to be a better player, etc, I think they're helpful.
That's when I initiated the 6-Second Rule. A single round in D20 combat represents 6 seconds in the game world. So, in order to make sure my players are paying attention, and in order to make sure that combat is fast paced, chaotic, and visceral, if things start to drag I announce that all players only have 6 seconds to respond when I call out their turn in the initiative, or else they end up losing their turn... essentially the player's indecision results in a Dazed effect for the PC.
I like it when players at least declare their actions in 6 seconds. This isn’t always going to be the case, but it should be the case 90% of the time if you were paying attention.
Imo most martial players should be ready to drop their dice immediately when it’s their turn. Do you have any idea how fast combat can get when you have a bunch of martial PCs and each turn takes only 10 seconds each?
Having said that, there are always exceptions but yes, I understand exactly what you mean. Players should know their order and should know who is ahead of them so they’re ready on their turn.
The worst case scenario is when it’s someone’s turn and they start calculating their “to hit” and damage bonuses on the fly… and they don’t even have any buffs/debuffs! That actually happened this weekend. And you know what? I’m going to start penalizing that s&!# because it’s ridiculous.
No one can think that fast if they're not hopped up on stress and adrenaline (as, one would presume, a typical player is not) so limiting their decision to 6 seconds is far flung and ridiculous; even 1 full minute may be drastically rounding down.
You're wrong, I play like this all the time when I have a martial PC. Each turn takes 10 seconds total after my name is called (which isn't even necessary since I know who goes before me).
My entire table at Bonekeep played like this, it was the only way to finish the scenario in time. And believe me, the game is a lot more fun for it. It's not about being stressed, it's just about being aware and prepared and actually paying attention to the game (and ready to drop the dice immediately and not shake them for 10+ seconds while everyone stares blankly).
If this ability has no save, it’s badly broken. It doesn’t take much imagination to find ways to make each and every encounter auto-win.
I think what a lot of people are missing is that it means almost complete battlefield control. Let me give you some examples.
The idea that only targeting one enemy is as good as hitting everyone in a 15ft radius seems like a flimsy myth to me.
If there are multiple enemies, they’re no threat to us anyway since they’ll have trouble hitting us and doing damage in general. Plus there are tonnes of tactics to use on them. Besides, AE damage is what alchemists do best.
If you hit the boss and he has lots of minions, then it gives you time to kill the minions while the boss has a 25% chance to act. Also the boss will probably end up killing a lot of minions (attacking the closest creature).
If there are 2-3 bosses of equal strength, you can hit one of them with the bomb while killing the other. Again, if you position yourself right they could end up attacking their allies.
If it’s a solo boss, it can:
I’d say that’s potent. Maybe you can’t abuse that, but I’m pretty sure that could be ridiculous with a strategic group.
The idea that this becomes overpowered once the alchemist also has Fast Bombs (10th level) seems like a flimsy myth to me.
You’re right, it doesn’t make a huge difference, but probably not for the reasons you think. As you’ve seen in the example above, it would only really help if there were 3-4 equally powerful bosses, but then again if you can take 1 boss out of the combat each round while focusing on another, the combat is still quite simple at even 1 bomb per round.
If you cast True Strike (ignores concealment), close your eyes (ignores mirror image), and throw your bomb none of your defenses matter.
Also, you’re assuming the enemy is a high level spellcaster now, but in my experience those encounters are rare compared to everything else.
In summary, I’m pretty sure this ability has a good chance of taking out even a Runelord like Krune, making him an easy target. :)
I think you're right I've heard a lot of chatter between GM's about bragging about TPK's in Bonekeep, it seems there is a loss of clarity that a good judge is in charge of leading a enjoyable experience and is there to insure eveyone is playing by the rules including himself to the best of his ability.
Yes, instead of the session being about a fair and fun experience (that was also extremely challenging), I felt like some GMs actually felt like they were doing something wrong if they didn't have 1-2 kills during the scenario, and then went outside the rules and scenario stats to accomplish it.
Yes, that's adversarial. Any GM with that mindset isn't going to provide a fun experience, they just changed the game from PC vs environment to PC vs GM.
I pretty much encountered the same thing as you nosig and much much more. I didn't complain at the time because I wasn't sure if there were specific things about Bonekeep I didn't know about. Plus you can't argue too much, there just isn't time (if you want to finish). Then, I spoke to several other groups about it and they didn't experience the same thing... at all. 100% different experience. Anyway, it's already handled so I won't say anything more except that it's a horrible experience (and rattles my trust in PFS GMs) and I sympathize with both of you.
Is it illegal for a GM to change die roll results, add spells, and create special abilities that a creature does not have? It seems to me the GM has made the decision he was going to kill the party and was going to bend whatever rule he wanted to get this result, is this legal?
There's a lot of that going around. A very similar thing happened to me at Gencon this year. Bonekeep and Waking Rune has twisted some GMs and brought out the worst in them.
My PC backflipped to Torch (using Total Defense), defended him, and said "Run Torch run!". I was the only one who beat him in init, so he just teleported away...
My PC also made a copy of "The Ten" before handing it over... heh.
If anyone asks (no one did), I would have just said that: "Torch was too tricky and sly not to get away (if he was even here), I did that as part of a ruse to perhaps one day contact him again and gain his trust".
Which is of course a lie. Death to the Decemvirate! lol.
I think the blogger is confusing 'well-made' or perhaps 'communicates effectively' with "clever".
I think he was trying to say it's not clever, but it's not dumb. Not all "clever" movies are good anyway. If someone is going to this movie expecting Shakespeare, they are equally dense (in a different way).
Someone else complained that there wasn't enough time with different characters. Someone else complained there weren't enough Jaegger/Kaiju fights fights. The movie was already 2 hours long, you can't have everything and apparently you can't please everyone.
The important question is... But how do we fix this?
Here’s one thing you need to learn about relationships. You don’t fix people. You can try, but it won’t work.
While more action orientated players bother you, sloth orientated players might bother other people. Both are equally wrong.
The guy probably finds that it expedites things if he just does everything himself and other people can chime in if they want to join him. He probably also just assumes everything is OK with someone else, unless they speak up.
For example, player A asks Player B to cast Detect Magic (for traps or so that we don’t miss any magic items in a room). Pretty basic right? Sometimes the player can’t whether they want to do it or not. Or they fumble around. Or they don’t ask the GM themselves, so the GM never answers. So you sit there, doing nothing, until some other player does something stupid out of boredom. So the natural progression is to say “X detects magic, do they detect anything” instead of sitting there staring at each other. Or missing obvious traps or loot.
So although I don’t agree with it and it sounds terrible on the forums, I can completely understand why someone would do it. It’s extremely frustrating sitting there waiting for one of your teammates to perform their role while everyone glazes over and wastes time. Has anyone seen this before? I have.
We're way off topic, maybe a new thread should be created. This thread was supposed to be about success/non-success play up stories.
I saw this movie in IMAX Saturday night and it was really good. The action and fight scenes were amazing and despite it being a two hour movie, it felt short. The Jagrs looked plain awesome, the monsters looked extremely Cthulu like. This movie was everything that the Transformers SHOULD have been.
Also the story and acting were alright too (nothing made me laugh at the screen, which is a good sign). I liked the majority of characters in the movie (the pilots anyway).
Highly recommend this movie, was awesome! I'm going to see it again in IMAX.
I was wondering if anyone had any ideas about making martial characters that can work as well as full casters. I know the devs said that there is no difference and anyone who disagrees with that is someone with an agenda. My agenda has nothing to do with that, I just want a balanced game. (There are whole other posts about how much fighters suck more than casters and martials, so can we keep those posts to this post please).
I'm not sure where this attitude comes from. I've played PFS up to level 12 and no martial PC has ever "sucked", as a matter of fact they carried every table. And I've had several tables of martials have success and tables of spellcasters fail. Has nothing to do with the class, it has a lot to do with the player.
Sure, I'd like to see some spells nerfed so they play better in combat, but that's easily fixed with some house rules.
Martials are fine. Fighters could maybe use a little utility help, monks need to be completely redesigned, rogues need their talents to not suck, but besides that everything is fine. Having said that, they're still very playable.
Andrew Hoskins wrote:
This ruling is about preserving fun for future tables, not trying to force players to sell equipment to keep playing. How frustrated would you be if you had to deal with the stat-drained character or the level drained character?
I'd be OK with it. It doesn't really matter if it's 1 point of permanent stat drain or 10, it takes a single Restoration spell to fix. I'm sure 1 spell slot (maybe after the game!) isn't going to matter to the cleric.
Even two permanent negative levels isn't impossible to overcome, even if he has to live with it during the game and pay for it after the game. -2 modifier... is nothing compared to how you play your PC.
If someone was so desperate that they needed to do this, to preserve their PC (or PC wealth), I'd be OK with it.
The situation (people being cheap and waiting for a cleric to cure them the next session) is how we play now, and in 50+ sessions I haven't seen it once.
Alignment is fine, I just don't think some players or GMs know how to use it.
It's just a shorthand for the general attitude of the PC/NPC, like a Myer's Briggs Test or some other personality test. But obviously this "test" is geared for the game.
It's not meant to define a PC or NPCs every action, so that every member of an alignment are clones of one another.
Chris Mortika wrote:
Well that sucks, but thanks for letting me know. I guess I'll have to read the thread to know why, but right now it seems like a terrible decision based upon some fringe case.
When we first started, it took 16 PP for Raise Dead (and the Restorations weren't needed). Now it takes 24 PP to come back without being permanently dead. You can't even pay off your "death debt" slowly now.
Sometimes it seems like we're fixing problems that occur in 1 out of 1000 games but the "fix" we apply makes the majority of game a worse experience. My thinking is that having people play and continue to play is a good thing, being lenient is a lot better than being harsh.
This thread was actually good before it was derailed. This thread is about PREFERENCES, which has absolutely nothing to do with mechanics.
If people want to argue about stupid s%+! that been a million times before, they should create another thread to do that (and write a link where the argument started). It's just better for everyone.
Matthew Pittard wrote:
It's embarrassing when players game the system like this. This is exactly why Paizo can't do anything nice for us, it's because cheaters ruin it for everyone else.
I hope Paizo puts a clause into these boons. For example,
Hope Paizo responds and I hope local GMs discourage this.
Everyone already had great input, but let me say this.
Whatever you do, don't be "sneaky" about booting her, for example not inviting her to the next session. It just leads to more misunderstandings, more resentment. Be upfront about it. If you're sneaky about it, eventually she will try to contact you guys again and ask if there's a session, and since you guys were too weak to tell her in the first place she couldn't use her labtop, you'll let her play with you again. And the cycle starts again. It's time to tell her the truth and stop letting her ruin your game.
Personally, I would just drop her and tell her why the group is dropping her (assuming the group agrees). She's been asked numerous times to not use her labtop and play games during sessions and ignored them or raged at everyone, so f@@! her. This crap should have ended a LONG time ago, and no one put their foot down. I can't believe people allow other players to ruin their sessions and do nothing about it. So she doesn't deserve a second chance imo. Time is precious, life is short.
This season has been really good and my faith in Supernatural is renewed! The season finale was great also, very surprising too. I thought the entire series was going to end to be honest.
But now I think next season should be very interesting. More angels and demons... bring it on.
I have had an offline conversation with the player and we resolved any personal conflict.
Is there a question in there or is this just venting?
As a player, it's not your call to say whether the Paladin is playing correctly or not. That's the GMs job. And as GM, the GM should warn the Paladin before performing the action and if he continues, he suffers the results of that action.
Think about it for a second. PF isn't wishy washy about alignment. Evil is EVIL in PF. If I found a mass murderer in a prison cell, if I let him go he will probably go on to kill more people. That blood is on my hands. And some of you think I should offer redemption to this evil guy and let him go? I don't think so.
A smart(er) Paladin would probably keep them around to see if they have any redeeming value, but that can also backfire. Letting them go in the underdark could be fatal (and stupid), especially if they get their friends and hunt you down. It is their domain after all.
If I was GMing, I would not have a problem with that paladins actions, as long as he is consistent. Killing them is probably the best idea given the circumstances. Leaving them there until they return is perhaps more merciful.
In my mind he is no better than me.
If he's being as "bad" as you, why do you care?
As teammates, your job is persuade him in cases like this, in character. That makes for good roleplaying, as opposed to bad out-of-game complaining. If he doesn't listen to anyone and it builds up, kick him from the party. Hopefully you guys have enough backstory that he'll listen to someone.
I'm reading some replies and they're pretty funny. What people are overlooking is:
1) Dex to damage is already in the game, the Agile weapon enchant and Dervish Dance feat both allow it. And those exist in the game with hardly any penalties.
2) Dex to damage benefits the weakest classes in the game, rogues, TWF fighters, and monks. Dex builds are currently non-viable. I want them to be viable.
3) Games like D&D 4E have managed to have Dex to damage without any feat tax.
4) Empirical evidence but my campaign has featured it with no problems so far (level 6).
Not allowing power attack to be used with it reduces DPR substantially, so it's a tradeoff. And you can't add x1.5 damage, so it's not very beneficial with 2H weapons. You're losing a lot of damage.
Also, if you are a fighter using it, wow does it ever hurt if you're caught flatfooted, something that's overlooked because of the rogues Uncanny Dodge ability. And with low perception, they are caught quite a bit.
Your feat could be more balanced with the following changes:1) Cannot be used in conjunction with Power Attack.
2) The damage is considered precision damage, which means anything that makes the target immune to critical hits is also exempt from this damage.
3) Allow only a x1.0 modifier to damage (like agile weapon).
With those weaknesses, I actually didn't need to impose any further penalties and went a step farther:
- Weapon Finesse applies to all weapons if you wish. It's not a feat.
- Your feat is now called Weapon Finesse and applies to all weapons you're proficient with.
- It has no further prerequisites. I don't think it's a good idea to only permit it for 19 dex PCs, I found this feat made a lot of rogues with 14 Dex or lower a lot more viable at low levels.
james maissen wrote:
1) I don't see this as a major problem although Paizo does. You say "Does it really hurt if players play easy mode?". You can ask the same question with regards to wealth: "In rare cases where someone has more wealth, does it really hurt?"
If the concern is that more wealth makes the game too easy (and that's a goal we want to avoid), then we'd want to avoid that in general.
At least when playing up you've somewhat earned your "easy mode" (although more gear doesn't exactly makes things "easy" necessarily. Easier, not easy).
2) There isn't a high variance. I think you actually have to play the campaign before making comments like this. Within season 4, the variance isn't that high. That's why the thread is about season 4 being too hard, not about scenario XYZ being too hard.
3) You never addressed my concerns about extreme easy mode would have on players and GMs.
Players: If a level 10 walks into a subtier 1-2 scenario to help his buddy, I'm glad they're having fun (you wanted to be inclusionary right?), but if I was a player, I'd definitely not be having fun. I would walk from the table.
GM: As a GM I'd also feel it would be a waste of my time.
Sometimes, you just can't please everyone. And personally, I don't want to even try to please the players that want extreme easy mode. I don't want play with them and I don't think the community wants that either.
Summary: Letting people play easy mode is not something that is desirable from either a player or GM perspective. There has to be some middle ground, however elusive that might be.
In Canada, Netflix blows (compared to the US). Old and s+!%ty content. Basically nothing I want to watch.
I'd love to have a cheaper alternative (been thinking about a digital antenna), but I love my Walking Dead, and hockey games too much. Plus my daughter is addicted to Dora. So yeah, not going to happen unless things get bad.
From what I understand, Netflix cannot continue to provide content at this pricepoint in the near future. I watch stocks, that's how I know. Now whether they will have a basic and a premium price, who knows?
What I don’t like about the OOC talk is that it takes up a lot of time, time that could be better used roleplaying, doing more interesting things, or even finishing earlier.
Some OOC chatting before (or even during) battle is OK, because we presume off screen that the PCs have spoken about tactics, and it’s stuff that that we really don’t want to have “on screen” unless it’s needed. So I’m OK with that. Basically what Jiggy said.
However, ideally I’d rather have 6 seconds of in-character talking during each PCs turn, and this is the baseline “norm” to me.
When there’s so much metagaming (and calculating bonuses you should have pre-calculated before it was your turn) that each player’s combat turn takes 2 minutes, it’s a problem.
Between metagaming and slow combat turns, games that should take only 2-3 hours now take 4-5 hours, and 4-5 hour games now take 6+ hours. My home group has this problem. We have limited time and we don’t like to go OT. I've been urging them to be faster, but I probably need to sit down and be a better teacher.
Also, if there’s an extreme amount of metagaming, it can get to the point where it’s very unenjoyable for me. It’s not JUST about the players having fun; it’s also about me having fun as well. I’m not an automated machine, and if it's not fun for me, I don't have to GM. fyi, my tolerance for metagaming is very high, so it's very very bad if it bothers me.
There’s a fine line between rules lawyering and GMs just not following the rules.
For example, if a GM doesn’t know the rules and allows a monster to charge and take his full attacks (and doesn’t have Pounce), this is a problem. If the players ask the GM about this, GMs should be mature enough to realize that they might not know all of the rules, and should almost try their BEST to play within the rules wherever possible.
Sometimes a GM will have a rule identified to him and ignore it (uses his own house rule instead). In PFS, this is cheating, especially when the broken rule is very clear and non-ambiguous.
GMs have final say with ambiguous rules, but reach is not one of them.
Did I do bad?
No you didn’t do bad, I’d report both the store owner and GM to your VC/VL or even Mike Brock as cheating. I never want to play with people like that EVER. They can do whatever they want in their AP games, but they MUST not cheat and must follow basic game rules with PFS.
I'm a huge Star Wars fan, and looking back The Phantom Menace, it's a very horrid movie. Watching it for the second time, not even Darth Maul can redeem it. There's just so much wrong with it, I just want to punch Lucas in the face. :)
#3 Revenge of the Sith was good however (except for the "Nooooooooooooo!!!!" at the end, lol). As long as they have that same quality, I'll be loving every second of it.
Mark Moreland wrote:
What is the primary reason most that low-subtier players generally want to play up?
Different questions so I thought I would separate them.
Lower subtier PCs generally do not want to play up, but sometimes it's needed at conventions or even home play if there is a level gap.
For example I'll have a level 1 and 2 PC playing at my subtier 4-5 table this weekend because the majority of PCs are level 5. They either play up or not at all.
Another example. At Gencon in the past, my (overcrowded) lower subtier tables have had to fill out an upper tier table. No volunteers so I volunteered. If your PC is good, you play cautiously, and you have rez funds, you can handle it. After awhile, you get to like the challenge.
Mark Moreland wrote:
What is the primary reason most that those between subtiers generally want to play up?
Depends. Sometimes you don't play up when your group is between subtiers. Playing up 100% of the time (regardless of circumstance) is dumb. You have to be sure your party can handle it. Are you optimized? Are you prepared? How is the group composition? Are the players experienced? Can the high level PCs carry the table?
You play up when you know you can. If you're APL 3 and you can do it, why is that seen as a bad thing? It's a challenge, there is risk, you get more gold, making it generally more fun.
Mark Moreland wrote:
What is the primary reason high-subtier players generally don't want to play down?
Imagine for a moment a level 5 martial PC playing in subtier 1-2. (This is typically where I would pull out another PC btw).
Why not play down?
"Thanks ... for killing everything." (said sarcastically) << That was an actual comment I got from a player when I played my 3rd level PC down to subtier 1-2 (which is very reasonable right?). Why would I want to play down and get snide comments like that?
2) Lower amounts of gold that gimp you later. Yes, every 1000 gold adds up. It's ok to do it rarely, but if you do it often you'll be weaker than your level indicates.
Scott Young wrote:
The idea of allowing 3 high subtier players force 2 lower subtier players to play up based on "majority rules" is ridiculous.
I thought this idea should be moved to its own thread. It was moved from this thread.
What some GMs are proposing is that it's OK for the GM to bully the table to play down, even if the majority of players want to play up.
My opinion is that persuasion is OK, forcing is not.
The main problem with forcing your players is that without the majority of players, you possibly don't have a table to run. Also, bullying in any format is s#*#ty, even though not everyone has the spine to reject it (and walk from the table in this case).
If you're the minority, whether your table is playing up or down, you always have the choice to walk. No one made the lower subtier players stay there, they chose to stay there (and possible gain greater rewards). And when someone has a high level PC in a lower subtier scenario, nothing is stopping them from walking either, based on the majority decision. I think that's fair.
On playing up:
Not to derail my own thread, but there are a lot of factors that should go into a group's decision to play up or down.
I've played up in a few season 4 scenarios now and we've destroyed the scenario where others have failed. I've also played down. It just depends and shouldn't be left to the GM to decide. The players know what their PCs can do (and if they don't they should play down).
If your proposal were a standardized rule, all it means is that "walking" would be much more common (since most GMs currently let the players resolve it). When the majority of the table walks and ceases to exist, it will then reform with the subtier that the majority desires. Or not. Either way, not good for PFS imo.
I'm thankful that I haven't had to put up with these shenanigans myself. (Although it helps to have PCs in most subtiers).
For following is a summary of both threads so far.
I'm stealing the Rolth idea from you Lord Snow! Mmmmm... tasty.
The main problem with all of the PF updates to this AP is that the levels are wrong. For example, CR 1 should have a level 2 fighter, not a level 1 fighter. This is especially relevant since PF PCs tend to be overpowered these days and a lot of us are running 6-7 player tables...
(With a 6 person table I'm already forced to make further adjustments, even with the correct level/CR being applied).
When I run this, Ileosa isn't going to be a bard, she's going to be a Sorcerer / Dragon Disciple 10. This made a lot more sense to me. Sure, she'll have lots of lightning spells, but she'll have a variety of weapons and defenses to deal with the PCs. She can still focus on being an enchantress in her early career (perhaps the infernal bloodline). I'm not sure of the exact details, but she won't be a bard.
Bards are support characters and aren't in their element when they don't have lots of minions to buff. I thought Stilts Pilsner (#3) was a great bard villain because he had the minions and space to operate.
Since this is an AP, I've also nerfed some spells which would make the encounter a lot better, spells such as Prot Evil (has no effect on charms/compulsions), Prot from Charm (doesn't exist), Haste (affects only 1 PC, mass haste is a level 6 spell), and Blessing of Fervor (you can only have 1 round with an extra attack). I feel some spells ruin the game and I'm right so far in my playtesting, I'm seeing better variety out of my spellcasters. Some magic items are also not available as well.
This probably doesn't help you since you seem like you're going to make her a bard anyway, but I thought I'd give you a different perspective.
thus even an archer could use the crane feats to deflect an incoming melee attack with these feats.
I would not allow it if I was GMing. It's neither within the spirit or mechanics of the rule. And you could not use it in PFS because PFS runs RAW only.
If I was your GM, I would be irked that you're trying to be cheesy, taking one of the most powerful aspects of the game (archery) and combining it with one of the best feats of the game (which was meant for unarmed monks).
I would only allow it if:
Sorry, if you're full attacking, both hands are busy.
Remember, you're still firing continuously even though it's not your turn. It's not like when your turn ends, you stop firing and you're just waiting to deflect an incoming attack. The game works like this so that it's easy to play, and we don't have to work out what each combatant does in each second of the round.