DamianTheAlien's page

I would say that this is a typo and should be d10 + mod and not d8 + mod.

Of more interest is that according to the rules these are improvised weapons and improvised weapons impart a -4 penalty to your attack rolls unless you are trained with improvised weapons.

It is not a good spell to take IMHO.

The adventure text says that the ghost mages (Event 5) cast resist energy twice before emerging. They do not know this spell.

Would the resistances even stack with the resistance against everything they already have?

The listing in the bestiary is correct: they do not have those spells listed. Also true is that this is pointless as they already have resistance to everything at that level. However, the module clearly states that they "have cast" and therefore have cast. Maybe they had a scroll.

Different is the description for Lich tactics where it says that,

"The lich casts cloudkill, cone of cold, and fireball whenever it can catch more than one character in the effect."

Except that in the bestiary description a Lich does not have Fireball as a spell.

Therefore the Lich cannot throw fireballs (but it would if it could), and instead may only use cloudkill and cone of cold.

You could as DM change the spells of the Lich but that would be a house ruling and go against what is written in the play-test.

One of my players has asked if his +3 weapon can be cold iron. Since this would make a big difference on the one chapter where it matters most, and the special materials rules aren't terribly clear, I figured I'd better ask for advice.

The fact that a +1 cold iron dagger is in the item pool makes me think the answer should be no. And since +3 weapons are master quality and cost 400+ gp for cold iron, I don't think they can afford to buy that upgrade themselves since they only have 100 gp.

By the rules, players may sell items for 50% of their price and buy (common) items for 100% of their price. Since the rules also says to allow downtime where possible, players could conceivably sell their allocation of magic items and buy a cold iron or silver weapon of master quality and have a rune transferred to that weapon (for 10% of the rune cost).

The weapon is not increased in level by having extra abilities like cold iron or wounding according to the rules.

***

As the module describes the characters as Crusaders (capital "C") one assumes they were veterans of the 5th Crusade and have the background and inclination to have anti-demon weapons. I therefore would not consider the desire for cold iron weapons to be in any way meta-gaming.

Can the PCs choose starting gear that includes custom cold iron weapons? Or can they only choose from the listed cold iron weapons? Thank you!

According to the rules players must be given downtime where possible and may also sell items at 50% of price and may buy all common items for 100% price.

For the module, players are not told they may pool their gold but could conceivably coincidentally acquire items that the other characters could use (GM discretion).

This all together complicates matters more than if the players met, divvied up the magic items and then went on the adventure; but it is all rules as written.

The wording in the Pathfinder play-test rule book is indeed atrocious. Again the examples do not add clarity at all (i.e. don't use Seoni as a counter example (p313): use Ezren as he uses both spell and crossbow). So many key terms like “threaten” are simply not defined sufficiently. A simple statement like, "only melee attacks threaten" would do wonders to resolve these issues.

Contrast this with the detailed care and attention of areas like Spiritual Guardian on p259,

The guardian takes up space and grants flanking (even with a ranged weapon)

Now the guardian can only make melee attacks, and this is referring to the guardian "weapon's appearance,” but this is at pains to point out that it can still flank "even with a ranged weapon". This again suggests the obvious intention of the rules that has to be tortuously extracted from the text.

Because the wording within flanking has ambiguity, I decided to indulge my group and allow flanking at range for Module 2. I can say that it does change the balance of the combat considerably and, in my opinion, should not be done.

I therefore submit new wording to Piazo and the community to consider. I have sought to use and highlight the common forms of tense of a word where it is newly defined in the current play test CRB. Unlike my initial wording for the Fascinated Condition, this is a mechanic I have insight into how I think it is intended.

***SUGGESTED WORDING***

FLANKING

For Flanking, an ally is a creature who is threatening the enemy and not also threatening the creature that would grant flanking.

Thank you for your feedback so far.

Would like to offer an improvement to my suggested wording.

"You are compelled to focus your attention on something which distracts you from other things going on around you and prevents you from undertaking hostile actions. You take a –2 conditional penalty to Perception and skill checks. You may not close distance to the subject of your fascination more than 5 foot each action. Unless the intended consequences are related to the subject of your fascination (as determined by the GM), you can’t use actions, activities, or free actions, nor use a reaction with the "concentrate" trait (e.g. Verbal Casting). This condition ends if creatures act in a hostile fashion toward you or your allies."

This wording assumes that the intention of Piazo is that only reactions with the concentrate trait are affected (the original wording being ambiguous) but other actions with the concentrate trait are not so restricted.

The main motivation for this was that in play test the use of FASCINATING PERFORMANCE by a BARD to try to prevent enemies from acting in a hostile manner was ineffective even after ruling that the creatures would not attack the caster. The conclusion we came to is that the FASCINATED CONDITION is not much of an impost to the subject 'rules as written' (RAW) and not a good choice of ability for a BARD.

FASCINATED CONDITION as written allows targets to move towards and attack the subject of the fascination. Typically this will be the caster of the fascination effect. As stated page 321 of the rules,

You take a –2 conditional penalty to Perception and skill checks, and you can’t use actions, activities, free actions, or reactions with the concentrate trait unless they or their intended consequences are related to the subject of your fascination (as determined by the GM).

In an otherwise disconnected statement, an example of activities is,

For instance, you might be able to Seek and Recall Knowledge about the subject, but not cast magic missile. This condition ends if creatures act in a hostile fashion toward you or your allies.

Assuming the example is correct, there is an entire supposition that is unstated. While there seems to be a suggestion that the subjects are in a passive state, there are no guidelines concerning how the GM should rule this. The implications for the signature Bard's one round(!) "FASCINATING PERFORMANCE" is generally suicide (and should instead be labeled "COME AND GET IT").

To be in keeping with the previous PF1CRB idea behind FASCINATED CONDITION, and assuming that only reactions with the concentrate trait are being specified, I suggest to following wording and punctuation changes:

"You are compelled to focus your attention on something which distracts you from other things going on around you and prevents you from undertaking hostile actions. You take a –2 conditional penalty to Perception and skill checks. You may not close distance to the subject of your fascination more than 5 foot each action. You can’t use actions, activities, or free actions, nor use a reaction with the "concentrate" trait, unless they or their intended consequences are related to the subject of your fascination (as determined by the GM). This condition ends if creatures act in a hostile fashion toward you or your allies."

It should also be considered by Piazo whether the Bard's "FASCINATING PERFORMANCE" should be rewritten to account for any new wording changes.