JimmySC's page

With 6 players, the most frequent changes are just advancing everything and rebalancing encounters (almost every encounter with only one big thing to fight I generally change to have some friends, to balance out action economy). I'll also sub in hybrid classes for any multi-classed characters that it makes sense for (fighter/rogues or ranger/rogues generally become slayers, magi replace fighter/wizards, battle-oriented clerics become warpriests, etc)

Book 1:
In the first book I added a fifth member for the Scorched Hand; Khim-ali Seht, listed as one of the brothers that ran Threshed Souls Fragrance and heavily involved in the mumia trade. I retooled him as a front-line fighter (two-handed weapon) and had him charmed by Velriana into joining the group; backstory-wise he was a dockworker who had a strained relationship with his brother who ran the fragrance shop (and mumia trade) and had almost come to blows with Velriana in a bar before she cast charm person on him to stop the fight (he's not a fan of these damned foreigners coming into Osirion and stealing their heritage). He and Idorii ended up surviving the fight and were brought back to the Grand Mausoleum for judgment; Khim-ali was bailed out by his brother and is now fiercely loyal to him. That particular plot thread has been dormant since though...

Book 2:
I felt like Meret-Hetef came out of the blue here; I left that as her real name and identity, but she had also come into town about six months prior and set up a new auction house in anticipation of the Necropolis' opening by the Pharaoh, posing as Minnothet and opening the Canny Jackal. This would have allowed the Cult to examine goods on both the legal and illegal trade routes (with the smuggler's gang providing the in into the black markets) and helped locate the Mask sooner. This provided a bit of a twist at the end of the book when the party was ambushed leaving the Sepulcher with the mask by the Cult, with a masked Meret-Hetef at their lead. I also gave her the Troth of the Forgotten Pharaoh feat that pops up later in the series; they initially captured Meret-Hetef and turned her over to the Voices of the Spire. As she was being interrogated and the party was outside discussing matters with Nakht Shepses, there was an explosion of flame from the interrogation room... adding some more mystery to the whole cult thing. It also prevented the party from learning too much about the Forgotten Pharaoh at this point.

Book 3/4:
The party was fairly good about cleaning up loose ends in Wati and kept the mask hidden; as a result cult interference was at a minimum for quite some time into this book. Even after meeting the disguised Khabekh-Shu on the Mumminofrah's barge, and a reference to the party saving Wati, it took several weeks (until about the third library) before they realized this was the same party that Meret-Hetef had reported in her last missive. They chose to ambush the party as they returned from a bulette and hippo hunt, seeking information about the Mask (not realizing it was in their possession).

For the end of the book, after the party had spent three months in the desert searching for the tomb and the appeal of hexploration had waned, I had writings in Jamirah's possession, along with the insight of the sphinx Tetisurah, give them a rough map of the area north of the tomb and allow them to relatively bee-line their way north to the Sphinx (which still took an in-game month, albeit with about a week or two of downtime).

There've been some other added sidequests and arcs as well (the party of dwarven thugs from Shifting Sands were turned into vampires and attacked the party, setting up an interesting connection with the vampire lord that accidentally turned them, and I also added in a fairly major story arc involving a NPC from one of the character's backstories who is now a major player in the Cult of the Forgotten Pharaoh), but those aren't really related to the overall story arc of the campaign.

I'll second what Archmagi said - that's how I played it. The background I fleshed out there was that the Pharaoh had made their way to Eto after being awakened in Sothis and from there hired the girtablilu mercenaries and departed into the desert. While they were able to find the Sphinx itself easily enough (owing to Serethet's memories) the Pharaoh could not remember how to bring down the flying pyramid that held his body - knowing that the architect could tell him though he had his cultists begin scouring the desert for his tomb. Technically, the Pharaoh might never have known precisely where the architect's tomb was - Chissisek was killed after the Pharaoh's death and it may have only been known to the Akhumen where the exact location was.

As to why it took so long for the Pharaoh to find the body - presumably the cultists were delayed after running into fierce opposition within the Sphinx and then had to spend several months combing the desert searching for the pyramid (with less clues than the players). Keep in mind they aren't just 'a few miles away' - each hex is 12 miles across, the Sightless Sphinx is 100 miles or so north of the architect's tomb. My players have just now reached the Sphinx after four months in the desert (and a month of that was after discovering the tomb moving north towards the Sphinx), and that's with me cutting out the maftet/Sekhmet temple subplot by having Jamirah's notes include rough directions to their HQ (due to the players already being a level higher than they should be).

That should help with the behind the scenes answer. As for the 'WTF, why are they here?" moment from the players - well, why are the players after the body of Chissisek? That should provide some answer. Otherwise you can play it close to your chest

Regarding the assassin hit squad - has anyone had any luck in finding a rules-legal way for them to function, either by allowing ranged death attacks or by rewriting the encounter to not required the ranged death attacks to occur? I'm thinking of drafting up a more melee-centric encounter (such as a distraction allowing some to study then close for a melee strike), but that would require re-working the NPCs as well, and I figured I'd see if someone already did the heavy lifting there :)

I noticed a peculiar thing about the Raging Song ability for the Skald class; namely, that when it affects allies, it only affects them during their turns, per the following rules text:

If a raging song affects allies, when the skald begins a raging song and at the start of each ally's turn in which they can hear the raging song, the skald's allies must decide whether to accept or refuse its effects. This is not an action. Unconscious allies automatically accept the song. If accepted, the raging song's effects last for that ally's turn or until the song ends, whichever comes first.

The text is actually pretty clear in meaning for once... but I'm curious as to whether folks are actually running it this way? Inspired Rage, you get extra HP and an AC penalty that go away at the end of your turn anyways? It feels quite peculiar to me, but maybe that's just me.

Thanks for the help everyone. The increasing number of rules like this that I keep finding are making me regret ever switching my players over to the Pathfinder system... I didn't realize I'd have to make so many 'house rules' for simple clarity (I just figured they did a poor editing job during the transition from 3.5). I guess that's a discussion for another forum though.

Wait. I think I understand this now.

What everyone is saying is that without a sentence stating "this weapon now wielded in one hand is treated as a one-handed weapon", then it's still considered a two-handed weapon for everything except for the number of hands?

That's not what the FAQ states though. The first one states "using a two-handed weapon with one hand (such as a lance while mounted)"; it's not exclusive to the lance, it's just giving an example of a two-handed weapon used with one hand (presumably, another example is that of an Earth Breaker w/ the Thunder and Fang feat chain). And according to that answer, you get the extra damage; except the second FAQ then contradicts that outright.

That is, if the first FAQ stated that "While using a lance, do I still get the +50% damage for using a two-handed weapon?", I'd concur with you; instead it just gives the lance as an example of a two-handed weapon used in one hand.

I noticed today that there are two seemingly contradictory answers given in the Paizo FAQ for the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, regarding how Power Attack interacts with weapons that are normally two-handed but wielded in one hand through a special ability or weapon property. Is it possible to get some clarification on this?

The two FAQs are as follows:

First FAQ from May 2013

The FAQ from June 2013 directly contradicts this answer however:

This answer instead states that you treat the weapon as one-handed if you're wielding it in one hand for the purposes of the Power Attack damage bonus.

So, given, those two contradictory answers, which is the correct one and which is in error? It seems impossible at the moment, but is there a way to read both rulings without invalidating one of them?

Thanks for the info! I don't see it being too big of an issue, but as one of the players had looked at a net build before I suspect they might notice. Given it's a pretty small deal, I don't think anyone will call shenanigans though.

I ran into something odd with the stat blocks for the trappers in the ambush en route to the third chapter; they're 15' up on the ceiling of ruined buildings surrounding the party but their stat blocks have them using their nets against the party first. Nets have a max range of 10' though (per the description under Net, it's not just their range increment), so they wouldn't be able to use them until they reach the ground level and can close within 10'. Is there something I'm missing that would allow for this, or was this overlooked?

I don't think that one would apply in this situation though. There isn't a prerequisite or requirement per se; those generally apply to enabling or disabling features or abilities (although they aren't explicitly defined as such anywhere to my knowledge). That FAQ doesn't state that spell-like abilities are considered spells or that spell-like ability effects are considered spell effects; just that a spell-like ability allows the caster to meet any prerequisites or requirements that would require the spell the spell-like ability emulates.

I could see that FAQ (combined with the previously referenced FAQ that allows you to determine the spell level of a SLA that doesn't emulate a specific spell) allowing you to use the Touch of Rage SLA to qualify for anything that requires the ability to cast 1st level arcane spells; but it seems unlikely that it would let you apply abilities that modify spells to spell-like abilities.

Quicken SLA should not be a problem, that's covered under a CRB FAQ:
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9o6x

Cleric domains, sorcerer bloodlines, wizard schools, and certain other class features give spell-like abilities that aren't based on spells. What's the effective spell level for these abilities?

The effective spell level for these spell-like abilities is equal to the highest-level spell that a character of that class could normally cast at the level the ability is gained.

For example, a 1st-level elemental bloodline sorcerer has elemental ray as a spell-like ability. Because a sorcerer 1's highest-level spell available is 1st, that spell-like ability counts as a 1st-level spell. A 9th-level elemental bloodline sorcerer has elemental blast as a spell-like ability. Because a sorcerer 9's highest-level spell available is 4th, that spell-like ability counts as a 4th-level spell.

In the example given, a 1st level bloodline power has a spell level of 1. This lets you determine how Quicken SLA would work with it (ie, 10th level or higher CL to take and apply Quicken SLA to Touch of Rage), which was the only reason you wouldn't be able to take Quicken SLA with that particular ability.

However, regarding the earlier item mentioned, the "Ring of Lingering Blood Magic" - What FAQ would allow that to work with a spell-like ability? As far as I can tell, there is a FAQ that in fact explicitly disallows it, as follows:
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9ofm

Spell-Like Abilities as Spells: Does a creature with a spell-like ability count as having that spell on its spell list for the purpose of activating spell completion or spell trigger items?

No. A spell-like ability is not a spell, having a spell-like ability is not part of a class's spell list, and therefore doesn't give the creature the ability to activate spell completion or spell trigger items.

I bolded the important part - that a spell-like ability is not a spell. Due to that, I don't see how an item that extends the effects of beneficial spells would have any effect on beneficial spell-like abilities. I (and my bloodrager!) would be quite happy to be proven wrong on that count if possible though :D

It's important to note that Barbarian Rage actually gives you +4 to both Strength and Constitution. The +2 HP per Hit Die comes from the +4 Constitution bonus.

Hit Die is very different from 5E. Every level you gain an additional hit die, so at level 1 you have 1 Hit Die, which happens to be a d12. You add your Constitution modifier to your HP gained at every level. So at level 1, your HP is 12 (max number of the hit die) + your Con modifier. Since Rage increases your Con Modifier by 2 (by increasing the stat by 4), you gain 2 additional HP. At level 2, you'll gain 4 additional HP (because the Con Modifier applies to each Hit Die you have).

Note that that HP goes away when you drop out of rage. It's very dangerous to be knocked unconscious as a barbarian... at least at later levels.

It simply means your cavalier would have to ride a pony or dog until level 4. There is a similar boon for an animal companion that's a reward for a Season 3 scenario for an animal that starts out Medium and grows Large at 4th level; I could not use that animal companion until level 4 as a Medium sized Cavalier.

It perhaps should go without saying given the board, but this will contain some minor spoilers for mechanics of the adventure path.

Not to mention, he's very much a supporter of Social Roles. That Men should be Men and Women should be Women and hrumph!

He's pretty much the grumpy old man god of rural living.

Since that original article printed Paizo has stated that view is in error. There might be some misguided worshipers who believe that, but Erastil believes that everyone should work together and work the land; he doesn't specify who needs to do which work.

The Boon Companion feat is quite clear in that it only provides a bonus if your effective druid level is less than your character level. If you are receiving a boost to your effective druid level from another source (ie, Aasimar or Elf FCB for Oracles applied to the Animal Companion granting Revelation), then Boon Companion will give you no benefit as long as your effective druid level is higher than your character level.

This does mean Boon Companion would be ineffective in the long-term, although in the short-term it can help make your animal companion more effective. There's always retraining if you feel the animal companion would be too weak in the short term.

First things first! If any of my players are reading this please go no further! Thanks :)

** spoiler omitted **

Many thanks for any thoughts in advance!

Should be fun :D

archmagi1 wrote:

Yes, though you'd really need to be level 12 before you could ignore both hot and cold entirely.

CRB:Environment wrote:

Extreme cold (below –20° F) deals 1d6 points of lethal damage per minute (no save). In addition, a character must make a Fortitude save (DC 15, +1 per previous check) or take 1d4 points of nonlethal damage.

and

CRB:Environment wrote:

Extreme heat (air temperature over 140° F, fire, boiling water, lava) deals lethal damage. Breathing air in these temperatures deals 1d6 points of fire damage per minute (no save). In addition, a character must make a Fortitude save every 5 minutes (DC 15, +1 per previous check) or take 1d4 points of nonlethal damage. Those wearing heavy clothing or any sort of armor take a –4 penalty on their saves.

and

ACG:Humans wrote:

Paladin: Add +1 to the paladin's energy resistance to one kind of energy (maximum +10).

That's 1d6 damage per minute. Energy Resistance applies per circumstance, per round. So, 1 pt of Fire res = minimum of 10 Res/Minute.

1 pt of Fire and Cold each does the job completely for all mundane temperature conditions.

==Aelryinth

There will definitely be some table variation there, as that's not in the core rules anywhere. Nothing in the Heat Dangers section indicates that Energy Resistance behaves in that way. In extreme heat, once a minute a character takes 1d6 fire damage; if they have 3 resist fire and they take 6 fire damage from extreme heat, they will still suffer 3 fire damage.

Also as mentioned above, the nonlethal damage is still present; nonlethal damage is not typed by energy as it is its own type. Curiously enough, you can be immune to fire, and still suffer from the ill effects of a hot environment - unless you have DR/nonlethal or immunity to nonlethal damage, the Fort save or take nonlethal damage will still eventually kill you.

This is a really interesting archetype and an excellent guide, thank you for writing it! I am highly intrigued by the idea of a Halfling quasi-monk who's ridiculously defensive and decent offensively as well thanks to a few of the tricks there.

I did have one thing to question about - you state in the guide that the Confident Defense bonus is added to CMD as well as AC. I don't actually see any language anywhere to indicate that's the case however; the definition of CMD doesn't state that you add your Dex Bonus to AC to your CMD, it just states that your CMD is equal to 10+Str Mod+Dex Mod+Size Mod, and that Circumstance, Deflection, Dodge, Insight, Luck, Morale, Profane, and Sacred bonuses to AC apply to CMD. Since Confident Defense adds your Charisma on to your Dexterity explicitly for Armor Class and isn't considered one of those bonuses... am I missing something that would allow it to translate over?

There's not going to be a clear cut place you can point to in the rules and say "Sorry GM, you're wrong" - hopefully you've been diplomatic so far and can persuade him to reconsider. I would point out that the way base attack bonuses and multi-classing works is by allowing the base attack bonuses from multiple classes to stack, and there's no reason to indicate that this changes due to this one ability. When an ability allows you to replace your BAB from a class with your level in that class, it still stacks with the BAB gained from other sources.

I would also point out that FAQs are NOT errata - they are instead clarifications of already existing rules language. Sometimes a FAQ leads to an errata but they always state when that is the case (for example, the errata to the Mythic Adventures spellcasting path abilities states that new language will be added in the errata). So there is a FAQ explaining that the way you should parse the language of this particular ability is a certain way; another ability that uses the same language should also be parsed in the same way.

CRB wrote:

After moving, you may make a single melee attack...

CRB wrote:

When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage...

The charge action for an attack, as above, says you make a single melee attack. Vital strike only says when you use the attack action, not when you use a standard action to attack. And as far as I can tell, since it only asks for the attack action, isn't the single attack as part of a charge an attack action?

This may help, from the FAQ for the CRB:

Vital Strike: Can I use this with Spring Attack, or on a charge?

No. Vital Strike can only be used as part of an attack action, which is a specific kind of standard action. Spring Attack is a special kind of full-round action that includes the ability to make one melee attack, not one attack action. Charging uses similar language and can also not be used in combination with Vital Strike.

rather than sort through 18,034 matches (seriously) to the search "vital strike," i'd rather start another thread. :-)

which other feats is vital strike compatible with? power attack? combat expertise? improved feint? whirlwind attack?

is there a rule of thumb for making this clear?

Vital Strike requires that you take an Attack action, and basically modifies how Attack actions work. The Attack action is not the same thing as making a melee attack, although it can be a type of melee attack if you use it to attack with a melee weapon. So the rule of thumb is Vital Strike only functions when taking a specific type of action called the Attack action.

Power Attack & Combat Expertise modify all melee attacks that you make from the beginning of your round until the start of your next round, and require no action to activate, so you would still be able to take the Attack action and Vital Strike with them. Improved Feint requires a move action to use, but simply specifies your next attack, so an Attack Action and Vital Strike would be able to benefit from it. Whirlwind Attack modifies the Full-attack action; because Vital Strike only works with Attack actions and not Full-attack actions, it would not modify Whirlwind Attack.

Along similar lines, Cleave requires that you take a standard action to make a melee attack, which is a type of melee attack but is not the Attack action. For an example of something that does work with Vital Strike - the Overhand Chop ability of a two-handed fighter applies when the fighter makes a single attack (with either the attack action or a charge), so it would apply when using the Attack action and Vital Strike.

They wouldn't gain any direct bonus, but there might be an indirect boost due to the creature losing it's Dex bonus to CMD. Otherwise, what SlimGauge said.

Sorry, but the Bodyguard feat is pretty clear that the only thing it changes is the action type it requires. It even says it in the text; normally, Aid Another is a standard action. Bodyguard lets you use it as an attack of opportunity, which is triggered when an adjacent ally is attacked. It's pretty standard language used in most of their action types and examples - essentially, as you may or may not be aware, sentences can be used to convey multiple concepts and ideas. This is a concept called 'Conjunction', and you can find a wikipedia article discussing it here if you are unfamiliar with English grammar (highly confusing to non-native speakers, I think we are all aware!): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_%28grammar%29 . Essentially, the sentence that is being quoted conveys multiple concepts, and it may be helpful to address this by pulling out the multiple concepts therein - 'You must be in a position to make a melee attack on an opponent', 'That opponent must be engaging a friend in melee combat', and 'you can attempt to aid that friend as a standard action', from the most repeated example.

Now, the bodyguard feat clearly states that you may use an attack of opportunity, instead of a standard action, by stating the Benefit and then contrasting it with the 'Normal:' section. So replace the final statement with 'you can attempt to aid that friend as an attack of opportunity'. The Benefit: section also adds additional stipulations - that it must be an adjacent ally that is being attacked, and that you may use it to improve your ally's AC and may not use it to improve your ally's attack roll. Again, only one original Aid Another requirement is explicitly called out as changing - the type of action required.

Also, Remy, it may help to realize that the cognitive dissonance is in fact your own. You appear to be reading more into the ability based on the title than is in the text of the rules following the title. Nowhere in the Bodyguard feat does it state or otherwise imply that you are actively shielding your allies in some defensive and non-threatening manner. It says, explicitly, that you are using the Aid Another Action. To quote the very first sentence of the Aid Another Action: "In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent." If you are using the Aid Another Action, you are, as you put it, always 'stabbing at them and distracting them'. Or slashing at them, bashing at them, menacing them in some way and distracting or interfering.

If you wish to shield your allies from attacks, I would recommend using an actual shield, and looking into the 'Covering Shield' feat in the APG. That may be more in line with what you're looking for.

I'd have to toss a vote towards the "Evil, but not quite enough to cause an immediate alignment shift". Over time, and it sounds like it has gone on for some time, then in a Golarion-style world where Good and Evil are tangible things, and even adventurers are corruptible, then I would absolutely see that shifting to Evil. As for as the inter-party RL conflict, it's a pretty basic one - it sounds like each player has a very different idea of how this fantasy universe they're playing in should be. It sounds like the OP wants to be able to do highly unethical and nefarious actions that don't have consequences, because it creates an amusing and entertaining tale/story, and the Paladin's player expects their to be consequences (which to be fair, the entire theme of the Paladin class assumes that there are consequences).

I would also be in the camp that the GM has been incredibly lenient as well, and it really doesn't feel like the GM has actually thought out the consequences to the world at large. It's a novel concept for mostly law-abiding people, sure, but given how prevalent magic generally is in Pathfinder I doubt the OP's character is the first one to come up with this. Either this sort of thing is widespread, causing the adventurers to often run afoul of it (does their party often come away from town with mysterious losses in their funds, due to their character uncontrollably buying all the luxury items they're addicted to?), or it's something the city should be able to react to. If it has a stable city watch/guard then it's very reasonable they would quickly find out via their own divination and detection abilities as someone pointed out. If not, there are still people in power (unless the city is a ramshackle town of beggars, in which case the OP isn't making any money at all), and they will not react kindly to being swindled and manipulated in this fashion.

Regarding Bestiary Feats, the only RAW statement is in the beginning of the Monster Feats section:

"Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct)."

In PFS, Monster Feats are explicitly forbidden unless granted from another sourch (such as Ranger Natural Weapon Style). For non-PFS games, as always this is entirely up to your GM. Most GM's I've seen have no problem allowing Bestiary/Monster feats apply to the player when applicable.

You could argue that the Snap Shot FAQ sets the precedent that free actions may be performed outside of your turn so long as they are "part of" some other action, like a monster making an AoO with trip or grab.

Ah ha! I think that does indeed work. In fact, re-reading the Action types part of the Combat section again...

"You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally."

That line in the Free Action definition seems to indicate that you should be able to take free actions while taking an Immediate Action. There's nothing explicitly denying that type of interaction. And while there is the whole murky "What kind of an action is an Attack of Opportunity, exactly?" question, that Snap Shot FAQ does seem to indicate that Free Actions can be taken as part of an Attack of Opportunity Action (whatever action type that may be in the end).

It seems clear-cut that, at the very least, you can take free actions as part of an immediate action by RAW. From the FAQ, it seems plausible that you can take them as part of an AoO, although that is a bit less definitive (it could be argued that that FAQ applies only to reloading a ranged weapon as a free action). Thanks!

Why can you only perform free actions on your own turn? Can I not talk with others when it's not my turn?

Why would you be able to perform free actions outside your own turn? The only action type explicitly allowed to take place outside your turn is the immediate action. As Archaeik mentioned above, Speak is a special type of action explicitly allowed to occur even when it's not your turn, and somewhat reinforces the idea that normally free actions are restricted to your turn.

EDIT: Okay, I just wanted to confirm I wasn't crazy for reading it strictly RAW as creatures using the Bestiary UMR Trip are unable to use the ability when it's outside their turn. I GM for PFS fairly regularly, and try to stick as close to strict RAW as possible. That said, I'd love to hear some RAI arguments, as I could see this going either way, and I'm not sure how I'd rule it in home games. As you mentioned Nefreet, there are some instances where 'free action' seems to clearly indicated 'not an action' instead.

Also, if this has come up before, any chance you have links to the previous forum threads discussing this? Doing a search of paizo.com for Bestiary Trip AoO and similar phrases didn't come up with anything.

The Universal Monster Rule for Trip in the Bestiary states the following:

Since a creature can generally only perform free actions on their own turn, this means that if say a Wolf used its Bite on an AoO outside of its' own turn, it would not be able to Trip with the Bite. Is that correct?

As an ancillary question - is the Trip UMR ability restricted like a normal Trip Combat Maneuver, in that it only works on creatures no more than one size category larger than the creature initiating the trip? Or can monsters with Trip use this ability as a free action against creatures of all sizes?

One additional thing as well (I thought I read it in this thread, maybe it was another); even if the players convince the Aasimars to let them face Dakang, and use the holy spring, they might still be reluctant to try and face Dakang. He's apparently been lying to and manipulating them for decades now, and they may fear that their ability to resist his manipulations would be too weak (not entirely untrue, given how low their Wisdom is from the poisons). Also, keep in mind they have no idea that he's a demon, or if he's an evil cleric, or what - the players shouldn't either. The players are going in to confront Dakang about what's going on, and get some answers, they shouldn't be going in there to outright kill him, and shouldn't be aware that he's just going to demon out and try to kill them (although, they should be prepared for that, 'coz adventuring).

When I ran it, I had the Aasimars gather up the people and take them to the meditation room, in case things turned violent, while the PCs engaged Dakang; they can provide a backup force if the PCs look to be getting overwhelmed (one of the players ran to the room to get them mid-fight because of how bad it was looking - of course, I knew Dakang was almost out of spells, but they didn't have to know that ;) )

If those faction missions were still in effect, yes, they need to meditate within the chamber; however, none of the pre-Season 5 faction missions matter any more. In the Pathfinder Society Scenarios section on this website, there's a Secondary Success Conditions Document which you need to reference for any pre-Season 5 scenario. For #3-09, the secondary success condition is:

#3–09: Quest for Perfection, Part 1: The Edge of Heaven
Primary: The PCs recover the Braid of a Hundred Masters and return it to Amara Li at the Lantern Lodge in Goka.
Secondary: The PC must both slay Shang Xu, whose death improves the local perception of the Pathfinder Society, and learn from Jiang Dan how to restore power to the Braid of a Hundred Masters.

As long as the players killed Shang Xu, and spoke with Jiang Dan enough to discover how to activate the braid, all of them get the second prestige point. If they did not kill Shang Xu, or they did not confirm how to activate the braid, none of them get the second prestige point.

Also, to add two potentially stupid questions - given that throwing shield is an enhancement you can apply to an existing non-tower shield, is it intended that their heavy steel shields are the throwing shields, or do they have an additional shield as well that they're throwing? IE, does throwing their shield to potentially trip up the PCs strip them of their shield AC? Beyond that, is it a free action to remove the shield and an attack action to throw it, or is it in fact a free action to remove *and* throw? The latter seems really unlikely, but that's what the entry for Throwing Shield says, so... bit confused on that.

I have to say though, I'm loving the flavor of this scenario so far, from reading it. Looking forward to running it tomorrow!

EDIT: Followup stupid question - does Outflank stack with Pack Tactics to give her and her animal companion +6 to their attack rolls when flanking, or does Outflank only grant the "Crits allow AoO from others with the feat" part? Both abilities say they raise the flanking bonus to +4, they don't say they add another +2 to it, so I'm not sure if I should combine the two or not.

It's a minor quibble, but the values listed for (Subtier 6-7) Deremin's Trip CMB don't appear to include the +2 from his Gauntlets of the Skilled Maneuver (trip) - those combined with Improved Trip should give him +4 to his CMD and CMD (+12 / 22 total respectively) for Trip maneuvers, and it only lists +2 (presumably from Improved Trip). Granted, this assumes I'm not missing something else as to why he wouldn't be using the Gauntlets, which is entirely possible!

It might not be a terrible idea to mention that as the fight begins, because I would agree - simply attacking and killing these peaceful, helpful tribesfolk would be a pretty straightforward and chaotic evil act. I'd hope though that any PFS group would at least do some talking first.

I had a quick rules question myself regarding the Ride check DC given for the Kogendu Basin Ambush - the scenario gives DC 10, the DC for fighting with a war-trained mount, but I thought that only applied if you were trying to get the mount to attack a target as well; shouldn't it just be a DC 5 Ride check, to guide with their knees? Minor quibble really, but I may have been reading the Riding skill rules wrong before if the DC 10 check is correct.

Ah I see, that would make some sense. I've been looking primarily at Masters of the Fallen Fortress, which only lists Tier 1, and didn't realize the other modules do in fact list an actual level range on their Chronicle sheet. So then Masters of the Fallen Fortress would only be legal for level 1's to play through?

It's a little odd they changed it without mentioning it in the change log, but it does make sense.

I may in fact be blind, or simply overlooking it, and I'm going to feel like an idiot if so, but... was the level range information for Sanctioned Modules accidentally (or intentionally?) removed from version 5.0 of the Guide to PFS Organized Play? Looking through Chapter 6: Sanctioned Modules and Adventure Paths, I'm not able to find anything relevant to level range for Sanctioned Modules. There is a section "Legal Pathfinder Society Characters" in Chapter 6, but it only discusses using pre-gens for content below 9th-level, and running an entire AP - it doesn't even discuss what normally is considered a legal pathfinder society character for a module or AP. From searching the boards, I found this thread at that references a line in v4.2 of the Guide, that specifically states "all players must use an existing Pathfinder Society character (without modification) within 1 level of the module’s starting level.", but I can't find that line in the current version of the guide. Was that information moved outside of the Guide to another location?