Dustin Campbell's page

I received my shipping email, but why is the PDF not available yet? The PDFs are available for all of the other products in my order, but this one says April 25th?

We could use a good Wind faq to illustrate how these spells interact.

Agreed 100%! :-)

One area of your argument seems to be spell level. However, that is not necessarily a good focus point.

Fair enough, though I'm not sure my most recent post could be criticized for focusing on that point. It just happens to be the very last aside in a whole series of points. :-)

Also the difference is, one set of spells are wind, and the other set of spells are fire. The text about only the area of the spell specifically calls out fire spells. So we have always played wind spells remove the entire cloud, and fire spells remove only the area.

Taenia points out why this wind affect has precedent in the "real world".

And in the game world, fire spells don't come with a shockwave, it's just heat, that magically dissipates right away as well.

Making a real world argument for a magic effect is good evidence, but they always nag at me a bit. :-)

A couple of points to consider:

First, obscuring mist and fog cloud are different effects. Nothing in either spell references the other; it's just that the text of the spells is similar. For example, heat from fire doesn't burn away fog cloud as it does obscuring mist, which seems very much at odds with how the real world works. I have no problem considering mists and fogs together as similar effects (and I tend to think that's the intent), but the clause about burning away with fire spells is not universal among them.

Second, obscuring mist has some real problems with its text in regard to gust of wind. It states that "a moderate wind (12+ mph), such as from a gust of wind spell, disperses the fog in 4 rounds. A strong wind (21+ mph) disperses the fog in 1 round." However, the gust of wind spell says that it "creates a severe blast of air (approximately 50 mph)" and then goes on to list several effects that it has which are consistent with a sever wind.

That's a pretty large discrepancy between the RAW of these two spells! If a GM took the text of obscuring mist at face value and didn't bother looking up gust of wind, they should rule that it takes four rounds for the blast of air from gust of wind to disperse obscuring mist. After all, that's how obscuring mist says it works. To me, that seems completely in line with how the real world works. Gust of wind creates a blast of air in a 60-ft. line that lasts 1 round (6 seconds). This gets the air moving which causes the mist covering a 20-ft. radius area to disperse in 4 rounds (24 rounds).

Now, now there's the problem that the text of fog cloud says nothing about being connected to obscuring mist in any way. So, does that mean that gust of wind gets to disperse a 20-ft. radius patch of fog cloud in just 6 seconds? Using real world arguments, I have a hard time feeling good about that reading of the RAW text, so I'm inclined to see obscuring mist as a lesser version of fog cloud even though the connective text isn't there.

If I accept that the "fog" spells build upon obscuring mist, I think I need to start ruling solid fog and acid fog differently. Solid fog states that "unlike normal fog, only a severe wind (32+ mph) disperses these vapors, and it does so in 1 round". Given that, I would be comfortable with gust of wind not affecting solid fog or higher level "fog" spells at all -- which seems perfectly reasonable since gust of wind is 2nd level and solid fog is 4th level.

Here you go:

Wardens of Sulfur Gulch, pg. 10 wrote:

As a standard action, a PC adjacent to either a camera or a monitor can sabotage the device with a successful DC 25 Disable Device or Knowledge (engineering) check. A PC with the Technologist feat gains a +5 bonus on this check, and once per day that PC can attempt to disable two adjacent devices as part of the same action.

Any other questions? ^_^

Nope! Got it! I knew I must have been missing something because of the same issue in the C5 haunt.

edit: I feel a bit sheepish for missing such a critical section. :-)

I'm very much enjoying prepping this scenario. It looks to be very fun! However, I'm struggling to understand the haunt in C2. I'm especially confused about the Cameras and Monitors bit. Clearly, destroying or disabling the cameras and/or monitor can change how the haunt works, but it seems like there's critical information missing.

The hardness and hp for the cameras and monitor are given at the start of the room description a couple of pages earlier (insert minor grumbling about the distance between relevant information). So, destroying them isn't a problem, but no Disable Device DC is given. It's clear that there's intended to be a Disable Device DC because the haunt in the high subtier says that the monitor's DC increases to 30, but I've scoured the text and can't find the normal Disable Device DCs for the cameras and monitor. Am I missing something?

Also, I suppose there'd be a difference in the Disable Device DC depending on whether the PC has the Technologist feat or not? Of course, the cameras and monitor would almost certainly be considered a complex device, and taking the required 2d4 rounds might not be all that practical. So, maybe smashing is best. :-)

One point I'd like a bit of clarification on is the Dark Agate Extract that's used in the Trial by Combat. This is a poison with no frequency listed but it does have a secondary effect. In the scenario, the poison is written like so:

Dusk Agate Extract
75 gp
Save: Fortitude DC 13
Type: poison (contact)
Effect: unconsciousness for 1 minute
Secondary Effect: 1 Wisdom damage
Cure: 1 save

I'm assuming that the intent is that a PC who is hit by one of recruits and fails a DC 13 Fortitude save drops unconscious. Then, on their turn, the unconscious PC makes another DC 13 Fortitude save or take 1 Wisdom damage. After that, no more saves need to be attempted and the PC wakes up after 1 minute. It just looks a bit weird with a secondary effect but no frequency listed.

To be fair, the Captain is trying to keep the PCs from succeeding. So, her harsh treatment of them here is just another reason for them to suspect her and search her office.

I'm not thrilled with the Trial of Knowledge. If no PCs have Knowledge (planes) or Profession (soldier), they're doomed to only be able to attempt the DC 10 Knowledge (planes) check untrained. I guess the only thing that saves the PCs in this encounter is the fact that there's no demerit earned for failure.

I think you missed the most obvious reason in your bullet points: Gust of Wind's area of effect is only a 60 foot line.

Sure. That was implied by the paragraph ahead of the bullets. :-)

The real confusion comes from the somewhat vague language in the Fog Cloud that I quoted. It's even more confusing if you consider the text in Obscuring Mist, which specifically calls out that "gust of wind" "disperses the fog". And then, it talks about how other spells affect just an area of the fog.

A moderate wind (11+ mph), such as from a gust of wind spell, disperses the fog in 4 rounds. A strong wind (21+ mph) disperses the fog in 1 round. A fireball, flame strike, or similar spell burns away the fog in the explosive or fiery spell's area. A wall of fire burns away the fog in the area into which it deals damage.

It's well-understood from the text that winds of certain strengths can disperse the various mist/fog spells. For example, fog cloud states the following:

A moderate wind (11+ mph) disperses the fog in 4 rounds; a strong wind (21+ mph) disperses the fog in 1 round.

My question is, does "the fog" refer to the "fog within the area of the wind" or "the entire fog produced by the fog cloud spell"?

This came up recently in a game where a single gust of wind was being used to disperse two adjacent acid fogs. Now, gust of wind says that affects a 60-ft. line, but acid fog has a 20-ft. radius. As the GM, I ruled that the gust of wind only affected a 60-ft. line within the acid fog based on the following reasoning:

1. Acid fog is a 6th-level spell. It seems wildly imbalanced (to me at least) for a 2nd-level spell to completely thwart it.
2. There are other wind-producing spells that affect a much larger area and would cover the whole fog (e.g. Control Winds).
3. An eversmoking bottle can produce up to a 100-ft. radius of smoke, yet has essentially the same text as fog cloud for how it interacts with winds. If gust of wind affects the entire fog produced by fog could, does that mean it would also affect the enter 200-ft. diameter smoke cloud produced by an eversmoking bottle? What if gust of wind only affected a single 5-ft. square of the smoke?
4. Obscuring Mist contains language which describe how the areas of effect overlap between it and fiery spells, such as fireball, flame strike, and wall of fire. I'm inclined to believe that wind spells are expected to overlap similarly, but it uses language closer to that of fog cloud quoted above.

I searched around but did not find any definitive answers. How are others ruling this?

Aid Another, unless you have the Harrying Partners feat, only applies to the NEXT attack roll made. If you readied an action to aid, though, you could aid the trip attempt, as trips use attack rolls.

That's correct!

Aid Another modifies attack rolls or AC, not combat maneuvers such as trip.

That's quite right according to the RAW.

Aid Another

In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent. If you’re in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action. You make an attack roll against AC 10. If you succeed, your friend gains either a +2 bonus on his next attack roll against that opponent or a +2 bonus to AC against that opponent’s next attack (your choice), as long as that attack comes before the beginning of your next turn. Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.
You can also use this standard action to help a friend in other ways, such as when he is affected by a spell, or to assist another character’s skill check.

First, the description of Aid Another clearly states that it can be used to assist with a skill check.

Second, it states that you can grant your friend a +2 bonus on his next attack roll. Consider the rules for performing a combat maneuver just two pages later.

When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus.

So, Aid Another can grant its bonus to the attack roll made as part of performing a combat maneuver. However, the reason it doesn't work for situation in the original post is because Aid Another grants its bonus to the next attack roll made. Since the wolf makes an attack to get a free trip attempt, the Aid Another bonus is granted on the attack but not on the trip.

BBT -- thanks for posting your question here to clarify the rules. I had the distinct pleasure of being your GM last night. I had fun and hope you did too!

I just wanted to let you know that, yes, it's perfectly fine to play a pregen week-to-week rather than creating a character. There are a couple of caveats though:

I sincerely hope your friend feels better. It seemed like he was having a pretty rough time dealing with the lack of sleep, and I think it may have made it harder for him to have as much fun as he deserved. Let me know if I can do anything to help.

Congrats and welcome!

What are thoughts on animal companions and mounts during act 2? Basically I let players decide if they brought it up into the tower and just went with it. But it seems questionable to bring them into the mindscape. I'm thinking an int3 minimum maybe? But at the same time, removing class abilities based on plot is iffy.

I ran this last Monday and one of my players brought this issue up because his animal companion has an Int 2. Since it was just this player's animal companion and he seemed inclined to leave him behind, I decided to go with it and leave the animal companion outside the mindscape. Of course, this gave the PCs another difference in the room to notice that their surroundings had changed ("hey! where's my cat, Mr. Fluffkins?!").

Generally, I would allow the animal companion to enter the mindscape with the PC. I'd treat this situation similarly to how I run entering the Hao Jin Tapestry: Even though the animal companion can't speak the command word, their connection to the PC draws them through. In the mindscape, because the manifestation of the PC is a mental image, it makes sense that they would have such a close connection with their animal companion that the animal would be there with them. Otherwise, PCs who base their tactics on their animal companions would be at a distinct disadvantage for half the adventure.

Hmmm... the rules for enhanced alchemical goods state that they increase the saving throw DCs to resist by 2 and the damage dealt by 50%. However, the Supply Sack lists enhanced antitoxin in the treasure which don't have a saving throw DC nor do they do damage. What exactly is enhanced by these? It seems reasonable that their alchemical bonus would be increased by 50% (from +5 to +7), but it's not clear that is intended. How are others treating the enhanced antitoxin?

I can't tell if it means non-monks get Lvl/4 uses and Monk get Lvl uses OR if it's saying Mo4W gets Lvl uses all others get Lvl/4

Reading feats can sometimes be a little confusing because they're not really proper paragraphs with topic sentences and such. I like to think of them as bulleted lists of rules:

Elemental Fist (Combat)

You empower your strike with elemental energy

Prerequisites

Con 13, Wis 13, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +8.

Benefit

When you use Elemental Strike pick one of the following energy types: acid, cold, electricity, or fire. On a successful hit, the attack deals damage normally plus 1d6 points of damage of the chosen type.

You must declare that you are using this feat before you make your attack roll (thus a failed attack roll ruins the attempt).

You may attempt an elemental fist attack once per day for every four levels you have attained (see Special), and no more than once per round.

Special

A monk of the four winds receives Elemental Fist as a bonus feat at 1st level, even if he does not meet the prerequisites. (supersedes the prerequisites)

A monk may attempt an Elemental Fist attack a number of times per day equal to his monk level, plus one more time per day for every four levels he has in classes other than monk. (supersedes first clause of the third bullet above)

With the rules broken down, it's easier to see how they work together and which rules the Special clause supersedes. Essentially, it looks like this:

Class other than monk: You can perform an elemental fist once per day for every four levels you have attained. So, an 8th level barbarian can use it twice per day.

Monk (any): You're special so you get to attempt Elemental Fist a number of times equal to your monk level. You're a monk 10? Well, you can attempt it 10 times per day.

Multi-classed monk (any): You just had to multi-class didn't you? Well, you still get a number of attempts equal to your monk level. However, for your other class you only get one per four levels. So, a monk 10/barbarian 4 gets 11 attempts per day.

Monk of the four winds: You're extra special and get the feat at first level without even trying. Of course, you're still a monk. So, like any other monk with this feat you can attempt Elemental Fist a number of times per day equal to your monk level. A MO4W still gets 10 attempts at 10th level.

Hope that helps!

Dustin, could you explain how a grapple is not a melee attack?

It is an attack, yes?
It is done in melee, as it is not a ranged attack (except in rare cases), yes?
So, attack, done in melee, how not?

Now, unless you have certain feats or abilities, it cannot be used to replace a regular weapon attack, but it is still an attack made in melee, just as a Standard Action, not (usually) available to be used as part of a Full Attack Action....

Sure thing! It's just a matter of looking at what the rules say on the subject.

First of all, not all attack actions made within a melee are "melee attacks". Yes, it's a bit more complicated than it probably should be. :)

A melee attack is a specific type of attack action that is defined like so:

Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).

(link to PRD)

Essentially, melee attacks are all about striking an opponent with a weapon. You mentioned "regular weapon attacks" in your reply and that's exactly what the rules clearly state that "melee attacks" are. Note that the rules go on to describe other specific types of attacks like Unarmed Attacks, Ranged Attacks, Natural Attacks, etc.

Next, Grapple is described within the Special Attacks section under Combat Maneuvers. The rules to perform a Combat Maneuver make it very clear that not every maneuver can be used as part of attack action:

Performing a Combat Maneuver:When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action.

(link to PRD)

The important distinction is that while Combat Maneuvers are special attacks, they are not necessarily performed as part of an attack action.

Each set of Combat Maneuver rules specifically states what action is needed to perform the maneuver and whether it can be used in place of a melee attack. This is in the very first sentence of each Combat Maneuver's description.

Below are the maneuvers that can be performed as part of a melee attack:

Bull Rush

You can make a bull rush as a standard action or as part of a charge, in place of the melee attack.

Disarm

You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack.

Sunder

You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack.

Trip

You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack.

The other maneuvers in the CRB lack the text that allows them to be performed as part of a melee attack. Note my added emphasis to the Grapple text below.

Grapple

As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe, hindering his combat options.

Nowhere in the description of Grapple does it say that it can be used in place of a melee attack.

For completeness, here is the last Combat Maneuver defined by the CRB:

Overrun

As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge, you can attempt to overrun your target, moving through its square.

So, given the descriptions in the rules, I would say that Grapple is certainly an attack. After all, it's in a section called Special Attacks and requires an attack roll. Heck, it necessitates putting your hands on an opponent in an aggressive manner.

That said, as I read the rules, they do not support Grapple being a melee attack. So, I would rule that "Dodging Panache" and "Opportune Riposte and Parry" do not work against a Grapple as those class features are written because they specifically reference "melee attacks"... even though I love playing my Swashbuckler! :-)

In Harm's Way states that you can "intercept a successful attack", but Dodging Panache and Opportune Parry and Riposte reference the more specific "melee attack" action. I think that's the key difference here.

While a Grapple may not be a "melee attack" per the RAW, I think it's certainly reasonable to say that a Grapple is an "attack" and allows In Harm's Way to apply, at least for the initial grapple attempt. Having it apply when maintaining the grapple seems a little fishy to me. However, since succeeding on the check to maintain the grapple allows you to do damage I can see that interpretation.

Regardless, Grapple is certainly not a "melee attack". The rules are quite clear on that. So I can't see Dodging Panache or Opportune Parry and Riposte applying on a grapple attempt, initial or otherwise.

The question is over a swashbuckler and if it can use Dodging Panache and/or Opportune Parry and Riposte vs a combat maneuver (example: Player A tries to Grapple player B and Player B tries to uses Dodging Panache to get out of reach). If you believe he can us it these abilities vs combat maneuvers, how would grapple and dodging panache work if the grappler won the attempt?

One person believes that the combat maneuver is treated as an attack and believes the player should be able to dodge the grappler and be 5 ft away.

Another player believe that Dodging Panache and Opportune Parry can only be used against a melee attack. That players says the rules state that combat maneuvers can substitute for a melee attack, if its substituting for it, that it can't still be a melee attack.

I just wanted to point out that not all combat maneuvers can be used in place of a melee attack, just certain maneuvers: bull rush (when charging), disarm, sunder, and trip. In particular, grapple is a standard action per the Core Rulebook, and can't replace a melee attack. Because of that, neither Dodging Panache or Opportune and Riposte can apply in the case as presented.

A couple of notes on maps:

1. The Gold Street map (area A2) seems pretty unnecessary. No locations are highlighted and the enter section is really just role play.
2. The Abandoned Tower (area C2) is not the Waterfront map pack as specified. It's Evil Ruins.
3. Interrogation (area C4) suggests pretending that the whale map in area D is actually a ship if the PCs decide to leave on a whaling ship. Rather than saying the blowhole is a porthole and all that, it's probably just better to grab something from the Ships or Boarding Action maps, or just draw a boat. :-)

I don't think it's far-fetched, but I wouldn't expect it to be a common situation. (After all, turning in Olandil is directly against their mission.) My point is that there's an oddly large amount of information provided to give the PCs an interesting adventure while they lose their primary success condition. :-)

Ah! I just spotted the text in the Treasure section which makes it clear that the Incutilis does in fact have a zombie at the start (since a bit of treasure is hidden in the zombie's pockets).

FWIW, as others have pointed out, this scenario does feel a bit heavy for a 1-5. It's longer than most scenarios (conclusion on page 30!), and most of that length is pure text. Also, it feels a bit strange that such a large amount of the text is given over to a contingency that is extremely unlikely if the PCs are at all trying to accomplish their mission. After all, the VC briefing tells them to get Olandil out. However, there's even an entire section (C4) about interrogating him if the PCs turn him over to the Loyalists rather than doing their mission. Seems a bit over the top to spend so much text on a situation that is clearly off the rails. The end result is muddling of a lot of the text. I do like the scenario but wanted to add my 2 cents.

I'm prepping this right now and had a question about the Incutilis. Does it enter combat already riding a zombie puppet? The text in the Creatures section seems to indicate that it's on it's own, but it's Morale condition implies that it might already have one (e.g. it wants to gather more bodies to turn into zombie puppets). Also, the map shows it starting on a corpse.

I'm planning on starting the combat with a zombie in play, but is that correct?

It looks like there are a couple of other miscalculations at the low subtier for Ironwhip:

• His flat-footed AC is one less then it should be. Since his Dex modifier is +0 and he doesn't have a dodge bonus to AC, so his flat-footed should be the same as his normal AC.
  
• His initiative is +5, but it should be +4 since he's got a Dex modifier at +0 and Improved Initiative.

While prepping, I noticed that Ironwhip's CMD seems a bit low in both subtier. It seems like he's not getting his deflection bonus to AC added to his CMD as well

And of course, 6-97 and 6-98 are critical parts of the metaplot.

If the PC attempting the Disable Device doesn't have the Technologist feat, she take a -5 penalty to their attempt. By the rules, a check that requires the Technologist feat cannot be attempted by someone without it. This encounter is an exception because it would be rather harsh otherwise.

FWIW, this rule was changed with the errata to the Technology Guide. The Technologist feat is not required for Disable Device, so it's not really an exception at all. :-)

From the PRD:

The Technologist feat is not required to disable a high-tech trap or object, but such traps and objects often have significantly higher DCs to disable than low-tech versions of a similar device would have.

On a completely separate note, I noticed that the turrets have a different "trigger" and "reset" between the subtiers. In the high tier, the turrets read, "Trigger touch; Reset none". Based on the scenario text (and your replies to this thread), I'm guessing that both subtiers should read, "Trigger camera (Perception +15); Reset automatic". Is that correct?

This year was my third Paizocon and I thought it was the absolute best. Below is a mix of praise and constructive feedback in no particular order.

• Venue: The Doubletree is a big leap forward for Paizocon. It's more spacious (with plenty extra space to grow into!), has super-friendly staff, and seems much better equipped to host events like these.
  
• New Schedule Format: As a GM, I was very thankful for the time in the afternoon to do things that I had trouble finding time for at previous Paizocons, such as prepping scenarios, attending other events, eating, etc. I think the new format is a keeper. Also, spreading the event over four days was a big improvement.
  
• Tickets, Badges & Registrations: This always seems more complicated than it needs to be. Each year, my registration pack has had bits missing (this year it was a kids badge). The registration staff is always super-helpful and makes everything right, but it seems like the system itself needs revisiting. On the plus side, the swag bags were pretty decked out!
  
• PFS Location: The PFS room was way better than previous years. There was plenty of space between tables, enough that I could actually hear pretty well. And of course, having a bar where players can buy me drinks is a welcome addition. :-)
  
• PFS Schedule: The PFS schedule could probably have benefited a little extra attention to ensure folks could play out some continuity. I heard from one player that they were unhappy that they play couldn't the season trilogy in a single day as they had in previous years. Having odd-numbered scenarios and even-numbered scenarios the next limited this player's ability to play scenarios in a particular order.
  
• PFS Pick-up Games: I heard from several players that they couldn't find games in the afternoons and I suspect that a bit more organization could alleviate that. Having a minimal system that allows GMs to reserve tables and players to sign up would go a long way.
  
• PFS HQ: All of the unsung heroes at HQ did a fantastic job. Thanks for your hard work!
  
• Friday PFS Special: The Friday special was great and a lot of fun to run from the GM seat. It would be helpful to get the materials sooner, though I realize it's a lot of work. I talked with a couple of other GMs before and during the special who hadn't seen the updated materials and didn't have the last map. In the future, I'd suggest just keeping in touch with the GMs over email to let us know when materials are ready or have updates.
  
• Sunday PFS Special: This was awesome. The players at my table had a great time playing Aspis agents. It was some of the best roleplay I saw all weekend.
  
• Paizo Store: I bought way too many mini booster packs. Chris Self is an evil, yet wonderful man. :-)
  
• Kids Events: My daughter had a blast playing as Reta in the We Be Goblins! Kids Track that Linda Zayas-Palmer ran. Hopefully there will be more of this at future Paizocons.
  
• The Banquet: This is always a highlight for me and my wife, and we were not disappointed this year. Cool stuff announced and excellent food! A favorite moment was seeing Eric Mona rendered speechless by Erik Keith's Valeros costume.
  
• Lottery Events: I only got into one lottery event this year, but it was a doozy! Crystal Frasier running Goblins and Dinosaurs (with lasers) was truly memorable.
  

It was a great Paizocon. Looking forward to next year!

There are definitely a few wonky things in this stat block.

Feel free to use the stat block as-is. If you want to use a corrected version in your game, you are welcome to do so. Here are the corrections:
Their melee attack should indeed be mwk longspear +9 (1d8+7/x3), and their CMB should be +7. Their BAB should say +2, and their Dex should say 14.

I'm prepping this for next week and noticed that, even with the updated stats above (thanks for those!), the border guards are still a little bit wonky. Their Will save is listed at +2 when raging and +0 when not raging, but it should be +3 and +1 since they have a 12 Wis.

These are excellent! Thanks!

I'm late to the thread, but wanted to leave some positive feedback about the banquet food. I usually spend a chunk of my summer at various technology conferences where the venue's catering has to produce bulk meals for thousands of attendees, with varying results. Often it's dry, bland, and generally unappetizing. Given my experience, I was *very* impressed by the quality of food at the banquet. Granted it was only for a few hundred people, but I thought it was wonderful and ended up going back for another plate!

Thanks!