Brilde Phelon's page

Brilde Phelon wrote:

The Chain Mail still incurs a -5 speed regardless of your Strength. The 16 Strength just allows him to wear it. But the Fleet feat correction should take his speed back to a 25.

This is not correct.

Speed Penalty wrote:

While wearing a suit of armor, you take the penalty listed in this entry to your Speed, as well as to any other movement types you have, such as a climb Speed or swim Speed, to a minimum Speed of 5 feet. If you meet the armor’s Strength threshold (see below), you reduce the penalty by 5 feet.

Source

I stand corrected. His speed should be 30.

Luis Loza wrote:

Ade wrote:

Is it just me, but does the pregen Ufi lack a class feat from Natural Ambition? They gain the Deadly Simplicity from the Warpriest doctrine, but Natural Ambition gives nothing.

Oops, that's my mistake. I didn't update his ancestry feat when switching him from a cloistered cleric to a warpriest during development. I would swap out Natural Ambition with General Training to give him Fleet.

Ufi has a couple of other issues. He's missing the skill granted by his deity (Craft). Also, It seems his Speed is wrong since he has the strength to not take the penalty.

Otherwise, the adventure is great and I need to eventually write a review.

The Chain Mail still incurs a -5 speed regardless of your Strength. The 16 Strength just allows him to wear it. But the Fleet feat correction should take his speed back to a 25.

You can always add moar zombies!

Have done, and it works like a charm!

There is a ritual in this first AP book called Arcane Weaving (page 79), and it's a pretty nice option for those with the Ritualist Dedication. However, it does not list a duration for the spell swap. Is the spell swap then permanent? Is there a default duration for those rituals that seem similar? Swapping spells permanently seems pretty ridiculous. Specifically asking for Pathfinder Society play. Thanks in advance for the guidance!

This. Need the interactive maps, please. Thanks!

Hello,

To answer TRDG, I did not receive a Interactive Map PDF like I did for the Book one Planetfall. The map PDF is a fantastic tool especially with the ability to remove labels and grid so a GM can produce refence maps for themselves, VTT and Poster printed maps for live play.

I hope we will see a interactive map pdf for Book 2 and all the following books.

Also I have to say from my preliminary read and mapping out my story lines Paizo has done a great job with this AP. Love the charter development, the open exploration, story exploration and the social challenges of developing a charter.

The crew I am GMing for is so paranoid about the Charter bad events, they are expanding very slowly so and ensuring they have a balance of attributes to preventing bad events from occurring.

Great work, looking forward to more.

Just a head's up: The AP's here say part x of 3, but the Interactive Maps for this AP say Part x of 6. That needs to be corrected.

Is there ever going to be a pdf version of the Compleat Encounters available?

Update: This product has been pushed back to a September release due to some shipping delays.

Ouch!

Hey, any word on Pathfinder novels? Havent seen any word since they halted the line a few years back

Waiting for the PDF's................................................

Also continuing to have issues with this file.

As of PaizoCon, it was submitted to the team to be uploaded and published. No idea how long that will take.

Was supposed to be the end of May. Another month walks by, and no sign of a sanction.

Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:

Any idea when this will be sanctioned?

Another month goes by.....(tumbleweeds)

And another month AND a half goes by.......(crickets)

Now available! :D

Will this be made available to VL's? I noticed that it is not in my digital content yet...

Any idea when this will be sanctioned?

Another month goes by.....(tumbleweeds)

Anyone else notice the issue with the Frog Swarms in high tier being small? Is this a typo? Cause the frog swarms in low tier are large...

Any clue about chronicle sheets for at the very least, the first few volumes of this AP? I mean.....it's been since August...

Any clue when we are getting Chronicle sheets for these?

I may have missed this in the many posts: What is the deal with the low-res art for Ghlaunder on page 59? That looks ridiculously low res compared to all the other art. This is in my pdf. Will this be in the printed book as well?

Any thoughts?

I may have missed this. Any word on the Additional Resources as it relates to these Lost Omens books, both the World Guide and Character Guide?

Are we adding the Sword Cane stats to the playtest? That seems to be a glaring omission...

I agree with every bit of this post. Most of this seems to originate from a lack of content and reducing the credit for a long module seems really disingenuous. Not looking forward to more modules played in PFS "campaign" mode if this this the new norm.

Most/all of my Pathfinder players locally are PFS players, and I assure you that none of them will like this change.

Setting the hyperbole and book burning aside, it does seem there's an overall level of discontent with how PFS is handling this.

Problem 1: I'd say the Keepsake system is all around rubbish. Scenario chronicles seemed to have scaled back on the items, which is probably for the best so I can see the logic of not having a chronicle loaded with options. That said, everything about the execution is some combination of unintuitive and unrewarding.

You have a level 1 common item, subtiers for a thing with no subtiers, and a system called "keepsake" in which you buy something. It doesn't feel like a keepsake. It's confusing and really lends itself to the argument that this was rushed.

Solution Suggestions: Get rid of the subtiers unless you're gonna use them and explain how they're supposed to work. Make a Keepsake an actual keepsake. Yes, that'll put a PFS character ahead on the wealth curve. Pick careful as to what those things are and set its resale value to 0 GP. The players and GM are putting in more work for less PFS credit, throw them a bone.

Problem 2: Sanctioned Mode. There seems to be a lot of people upset over the lack of a sanctioned mode and the "we'll put something in the guide later" is a refrain I think a lot of people are sick of hearing.

Solution Suggestion: Let GMs make it up. That's effectively what "campaign mode is" anyways. The lack of content and personnel seem to a ongoing problem that isn't changing anytime soon. It gives organizers the flexibility to put it on so that there's stuff for players to do in a way that suits their environment. It's all giving 1 level's worth of stuff anyways.

If that's too loose, say "Part 1 is Sanctioned" and be done with it. People who are only interested in playing it for PFS credit get their credit. That frees you up to add chronicles for parts 2 & 3 later if there's the right mix of time and demand or to say "play Part 1 at lvl range A-B, get 1 lvl's worth of XP/Fame/GP. play Part 2 at lvl range B-C, get another, and so on through...

Wow, a full TWO MONTHS after it's release. How about the Adventure path, can we expect those within the year?

Marc Waschle wrote:

Any news on sanctioning and/or chronicle sheets?

Sanctioning for Plaguestone will be out by the end of October.

Want this sanctioned. We started playing assuming it would be, then found out sadly that it is not. Sort of disappointed that it is a Day 1 adventure with no chronicle sheet. We should be getting these, and the ap's with chronicle sheets already ready to go.

Would love to get the pdf for this version, lost it in a HDD crash. Is there anyway to get this again? I like having the clear back side for more options.

Thanks!

gbonehead wrote:

Uninvited Ghost wrote:

Vic Wertz wrote:

We believe that if we offered our Map Packs or Flip-Mats in PDF form, a significant number of gamers would choose the PDF edition exclusively over the print edition, which would mean smaller print runs for the print edition, which—since print costs are based largely on volume—would in turn mean higher costs for the print edition, which would lead to even smaller sales for it, which would mean we wouldn't have a profitable line anymore.

What if the PDF was only available bundled with a physical mat?

That's pretty close to a "only subscribers get a PDF" suggestion that I've seen a few times; I've never actually seen a response to that one.

It certainly wouldn't make retailers want to keep carrying the line...

Is this quest still legal for PFS play? Would it give any xp or prestige these days? It looks like a fun little quest that I missed with the initial publication...Looking for something quick to run at a mini-con.

kevin_video wrote:

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

The statblock for Sajan in this one shows his hit dice as d8s, and the total HP don't seem right for a d10. By my calculations he should have 54 HP not 46 (10+2 for 1st level, 6+2 for each after that for 32, then 5 more from toughness and 5 more for taking HP from the FCB).

I noticed the d8/d10 discrepancy as well. The original isn't right either. He should have had 48, not 46.

I would make that correction to his hit points. Likely I built the basic stats for this version of Sajan in another program that didn't yet have Pathfinder Unchained rules and missed updating his hit points. Nudging it upward in the player's favor will hopefully make for a more enjoyable experience overall.

Season 9-22 Grotto of the Deluged God is not showing up on list of sessions that you can report as of 7-5-18.

Would love to be able to report the session today. Thanks!

JK

Announced for April! Image and description are provisional and subject to change prior to release.

Seeing as how #4 STILL doesn't have a Chronicle sheet, are we going to be waiting as long for Chronicle sheets for 5 & 6?

Still no chronicle sheets for #4, which has been sanctioned and out for...almost two months now.

Brilde Phelon wrote:

Again, I humbly submit: Why are the chronicle sheets not released at the same time as the AP's? Very frustrating. I've got a game that is following these as they come out, and we are constantly having to wait to know what the Chronicle sheets are for SFS. Since this AP was immediately sanctioned for SFS play, then the sheet should be figured out and released at the same time as the AP.

Due to internal timing on when I got these files vs. what other tasks were on the go, the sanctioning on this document has to wait a bit longer. As always, our priority is making sure that our monthly Society Scenarios get out the door on time. Since we've just made the change to two scenarios per month, some items had to slide as we re-adjusted schedules and arranged to bring on new help; sadly, sanctioning for this adventure was one of those items.

I'm working on it, however!

Brilde Phelon wrote:

Again, I humbly submit: Why are the chronicle sheets not released at the same time as the AP's? Very frustrating. I've got a game that is following these as they come out, and we are constantly having to wait to know what the Chronicle sheets are for SFS. Since this AP was immediately sanctioned for SFS play, then the sheet should be figured out and released at the same time as the AP.

Due to internal timing on when I got these files vs. what other tasks were on the go, the sanctioning on this document has to wait a bit longer. As always, our priority is making sure that our monthly Society Scenarios get out the door on time. Since we've just made the change to two scenarios per month, some items had to slide as we re-adjusted schedules and arranged to bring on new help; sadly, sanctioning for this adventure was one of those items.

I'm working on it, however!

I appreciate the response. Are you going to go ahead and produce the Chronicle sheets for the other two at the same time similar to #3, or will it be on a one-by-one basis?

Again, I humbly submit: Why are the chronicle sheets not released at the same time as the AP's? Very frustrating. I've got a game that is following these as they come out, and we are constantly having to wait to know what the Chronicle sheets are for SFS. Since this AP was immediately sanctioned for SFS play, then the sheet should be figured out and released at the same time as the AP.

Why does this not already have the Chronicle sheets available?

Look forward to playing this one!

Will there be a boon sheet for the latest 4 in this series?

PZO8533 - PZO8536?

Thanks!

Are we going to see the Chronicle sheets for this anytime soon? Thanks!

Brilde

So hopefully I'll see it at the larger con this fall. Thanks for the info!

Brilde

Aside from waiting until Aug 2nd of 2018, how would someone get this one to run? Cons only? 5-star GM's? VA's? VC's? A few larger cons coming up, just curious the probability of this one becoming available to play before next year.

If i use a full-round action to cast a normal summoning spell, does it show up at the end of my turn?

Also +1 for this to be sanctioned soon.

Any hope for a Chronicle sheet for this one?

Thanks!

Brilde

In reference to the question asked before (but not addressed), will this module get a PFS chronicle sheet?

Just curious.

Thanks!

Brilde

An original, non-unchained summoner. That is all.

Azata getting weapon prof, arms, legs, and resistance electricity. That's 9 evolution points at creation. Demons, for instance, arms, legs, claws, resist fire, resist electricity, and +4 poison resistance (which has no point value). That's 7 plus whatever the poison resistance would be. Considering the extra cost of having to have weapons for your summon, I don't think that's a huge plus in it's favor.

Perhaps later they gain some good benefits, but that still seems to force the player into picking the serpentine version and using primarily tail slap? My point there would be if you play one of the three good aligned summons, you are extremely limited on what you can create.

Or you're forced into the four-legged variety with natural weapons. I am disappointed in this reading as well. Otherwise, why bother with the Azata? You're good for maybe 2 levels, then bleaugh. Clearly they are not a fan of Summoners. First Unchained, then this. C'mon PFS, give us CG-aligned Summoners a break! There are many MANY examples of PC's being WAY OP in Pfs vs this nerf. I've seen some really ridiculous examples. And yet, no love for the Summoner. Twice.

Also bummed about reach evolution being sketchy with manufactured weapons. No clarification about that either. Personally? I think it's lazy not to clarify. It would take all of 2 minutes to decide one way or the other.

j b 200 wrote:

This is the kind of thing they will not FAQ, because the rule is not ambiguous. Of the 8 or so people who commented, you are the only person who thinks it should go the other way. That's not ambiguity, that is wishful thinking. The Devs have full time jobs writing new books, so they use their time wisely on even wading in on FAQ issues, let alone actually issuing one. This is not one of those times.

I've been reading this and other related threads for some time, and I can assure you, plenty of other people are interested in this specific ambiguity, and wish it to be Faq'd. Me included. The assumptions you make to say it wouldn't work are the same assumptions I would use to say that it would, only in the opposite direction.

Saying an example excludes all other interpretations is fallicitous arguing. The dev's write the rules, and GM's and players interpret them to the best of their abilities, and when ambiguities occur or rules cross lines or something unforeseen shows up, they usually review it after some thought, and either adjust it or make a faq response. Case in point: The whole reason Unchained was released was to address some issues for certain classes, Summoner being among those classes. Yet they decided not to clarify one evolution with one small adjustment, simply stating that Reach does not apply to weapon attacks.

I agree with Carefire that a simple clarification would suffice. Yet here we are almost a year later, and I'm having to slog through hundreds of posts trying to find clarification for what would seemingly be a simple issue, and only getting arguments on both sides. Just because you believe your argument to be right does not preclude others from making arguments to the opposite that are just as valid.

Even when the dev pointed to a faq, the only thing I found was an example about bite. But perhaps I don't want bite. I mean, otherwise, why bother with a bipedal Azata who gets a martial weapon proficiency for free if I'm going to muck...

Also, simply stating that the "Intent" is such and such doesn't validate the argument. The intent of PFS is for players to have a good time and enjoy themselves. I have been at many tables where this is not the case. Intent: : the thing that you plan to do or achieve : an aim or purpose. Doesn't always happen, unfortunately.

Answered in FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fn#v5748eaic9qjz

This does nothing to address the question about whether Reach can apply to non-natural Eidolon attacks, it just gives an example. How about a simple clarification?

This is the kind of thing they will not FAQ, because the rule is not ambiguous. Of the 8 or so people who commented, you are the only person who thinks it should go the other way. That's not ambiguity, that is wishful thinking. The Devs have full time jobs writing new books, so they use their time wisely on even wading in on FAQ issues, let alone actually issuing one. This is not one of those times.

I've been reading this and other related threads for some time, and I can assure you, plenty of other people are interested in this specific ambiguity, and wish it to be Faq'd. Me included. The assumptions you make to say it wouldn't work are the same assumptions I would use to say that it would, only in the opposite direction.

Saying an example excludes all other interpretations is fallicitous arguing. The dev's write the rules, and GM's and players interpret them to the best of their abilities, and when ambiguities occur or rules cross lines or something unforeseen shows up, they usually review it after some thought, and either adjust it or make a faq response. Case in point: The whole reason Unchained was released was to address some issues for certain classes, Summoner being among those classes. Yet they decided not to clarify one evolution with one small adjustment, simply stating that Reach does not apply to weapon attacks.

I agree with Carefire that a simple clarification would suffice. Yet here we are almost a year later, and I'm having to slog through hundreds of posts trying to find clarification for what would seemingly be a simple issue, and only getting arguments on both sides. Just because you believe your argument to be right does not preclude others from making arguments to the opposite that are just as valid.

Even when the dev pointed to a faq, the only thing I found was an example about bite. But perhaps I don't want bite. I mean, otherwise, why bother with a bipedal Azata who gets a martial weapon proficiency for free if I'm going to muck their attacks up with natural attacks? Why give the bipedal azata the proficiency? Are they not encouraging summoners to have eidolons with manufactured weapons?

All of this (in my opinion) leads back to having devs or playtesters who hunt for oddball interactions such as this one. I just started playing the summoner in pfs, and it came up the first day. Surely someone else has seen this as being potentially ambiguous and thought, "perhaps we should clarify." Note I am not saying that the rule should be "changed", merely clarified. One parenthetical, in fact. ...(applies to natural attacks only). Or better yet, add the word "natural" in front of the attack word in the description.

Still not convinced that Reach as written cannot apply to non-natural attacks.

Just a clarification for a trait: Exalted of the Society. For PFS play, is this trait legal for Oracles to choose? I know it says Clerics, but the ACP and this book both came out in 2010. Just confirming the intention of this trait is specific to Clerics, or if it can include Oracles.

Thanks!

JLK

Brilde Phelon wrote:

draxar wrote:

If anyone's got any feedback on this it'd be very much appreciated — anything I've missed, any mistakes, and any suggestions for improving it. I've a few thoughts on that myself, which I've stuck at the end of the document, but I'd also appreciate other people's input.

Love the document. Just recently acquired the ability to create the Monstrous Physique extract as an investigator, so being able to read your document that had already broken down relevant options and how they applied was a bonus. I'm curious...

How would Monstrous Physique combine with Enlarge Person in your opinion? Example: Gargoyle becomes large with all the listed changes that Enlarge Person would entail in addition to the Gargoyle changes? Just curious. Would love to see an Enlarged Large form or Enlarged Huge form. Or even better, an Enlarged, Hasted, Displaced Gargoyle. Shenanigans.

Thanks!

Sadly, it doesn't work at all.

Core Rulebook, Polymorph subschool description wrote:

In addition, other spells that change your size have no effect on you while you are under the effects of a polymorph spell.

Ah, you are correct. Sad face.

... okay, looks like neither D20pfsrd nor Pathfinder Community have a spreadsheet with the stuff from Beastiary 5 in it, which is the way I've always gone through stuff before to easily go "Show me all the Medium and Large Animals", and then for updates "Show me all the Tiny Undead from Beastiary 4. What's that, there still aren't any? Guess that makes that line of that spell a bit pointless then!"

Anyone know if there's any sites doing such a spreadsheet? Assuming it's still open content/okay for them to do so.

I can provide documentation of the Monstrous Physique relevant entries from Bestiary 5 if you're interested.

email me at jameslkight(at)gmail.com and I'll zip it to you.

JK

If anyone's got any feedback on this it'd be very much appreciated — anything I've missed, any mistakes, and any suggestions for improving it. I've a few thoughts on that myself, which I've stuck at the end of the document, but I'd also appreciate other people's input.

Love the document. Just recently acquired the ability to create the Monstrous Physique extract as an investigator, so being able to read your document that had already broken down relevant options and how they applied was a bonus. I'm curious...

How would Monstrous Physique combine with Enlarge Person in your opinion? Example: Gargoyle becomes large with all the listed changes that Enlarge Person would entail in addition to the Gargoyle changes? Just curious. Would love to see an Enlarged Large form or Enlarged Huge form. Or even better, an Enlarged, Hasted, Displaced Gargoyle. Shenanigans.

Thanks!