Moriquende's page

I didn't quite know where to post this, but the Paizo community has always been pretty amazing, so I thought I'd stick this here. This is a crazy request, I know, but here goes...

I remember reading an article in a D&D magazine (I believe it was called Chainmail, but not sure) in mid-1980s about a proposed supplemental rule system for various quality armor and weapons. It was remarkably detailed and really interestingly. The way the system worked was something like this - if your non-magical long sword became worn through use (I believe there were saving throws or some way to keep track of that) you would eventually lose a to-hit point. However, depending on how worn the item was, you'd only lose it for certain ranges. For example, -1 to-hit if the d20 is from 13 to 16, otherwise no penalty. There were also complimentary +1 to-hit for waster work items using a similar system. A finely crafted long sword might get a +1 to-hit if the d20 is from 12 to 17. Perhaps there was also a +/-1 to damage, but I can't remember.

In any event, does anyone recall seeing this and might anyone have information on how I might resurrect this article? It was pretty cool and I'd love to see it again. Thanks!

I think technically the cover/concealment rules could be read that way. However, I interpret the word "through" to not mean "along". If you pick the top corner H that is closest to M and draw all four lines to M, two of those angle diagonally down the hall to the bottom two corners of M and they don't pass through or along any walls, and the other two lines go straight along the top wall to the top two corners of M - these two lines pass "along" the top wall but they do not pass "through" that wall. Since all 4 lines are drawn without going through a square or border that provides cover/concealment, then M has no cover or concealment.

As for your second question:

There is Cover (some of target has cover but not all of it) which grants +4 to AC, Total Cover (all of the target has cover; you have no line of effect) which means you cannot attack the target, and Partial Cover (like cover, but you can see more than half of the creature) which only grants +2 AC.

There is Concealment (some of target has concealment but not all of it) which grants a 20% miss chance and Total Concealment (all of the target has concealment; you have no line of sight) which grants a 50% miss chance.

So, you're correct. If you can see all four corners then there is no concealment, no corers is Total Concealment, if you can see 1, 2, or 3 corners, it's just Concealment.

Excellent reply. Thank you very much.

These are hard walls, so replace "concealment" with "cover" in the question above. Sorry about that. The rule for cover is the same, so I'm seeing the same problem.

PRPG CRB Page 196 has the definition of "Concealment" as being any time "any line from [a] corner of your square to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that provides concealment." So what if you have a situation like this, where you are H and the monster is M?:

..XXXX
H......M
..XXXX

That's a pretty terrible depiction, but the Xs are walls and the dots are empty squares. Anyway, pick any corner of the H square to any corner of the M square and you're going to have some lines going through the borders of the wall (the X squares). So, does this monster have concealment? (It seems to me like it shouldn't, but according to the rule it seems like it would.)

Also, for a ranged attack, if you can 'see' all four corners of the enemy square there's obviously no concealment. Conversely, if all four are 'blocked' then you can't see the object. If one is 'blocked' then there is concealment. But what happens if two or three are blocked? Can you range attack an object that only has a single corner visible?

@ Areks - Thanks!

There are some good points here. As Bluddwolf noticed, my post was NOT about PD. Rather, it was about the game devolving into a boring grind for power as the devs continue to give bigger and better goodies to the player without balancing the PvE content. I'm sure Gygax was not talking about PD (did that concept even exist in 1979?) but restraining the natural desire of players to demand out-of-balance power.

The fact that this is PvP and not PVE, as Tyncale points out, is interesting. If everyone's power is creeping together, and the power curve remains relatively flat as pointed about by Being, then perhaps balance is maintained. That being said, the demo I watched involved a party of adventurers attacking a goblin fortress of some kind, so that's obviously PvE.

@ Bluddwolf - You point out the obvious, that anyone can wipe a character in any MMO. My experience with PD in DDO, however, leads me to believe that "formalizing" the PD system would facilitate that type of play, and make it more attractive to a wider number of people. Can PD co-exist with non-PD in a PvP environment, however, is a good question.

I have to admit that I'm still fuzzy on the mechanics of PFO, but given the feedback I think I'll tamper my pessimism. It's just been tough watching the degradation of DDO and so I just hope it doesn't eventually happen here, too.

I'm a Crowdforger Pioneer for the MMO on Kickstarter and am a backer of the Kickstarter demo, too, and so I'm literally invested (like many of you) in seeing this succeed. I will also point out that I haven't thoroughly read this forum, so apologies if this topic has already been discussed. While the game has a long way to go before even seeing the light of day, I'm already concerned about the power creep that Gary Gygax warned about in 1979:

The danger of a mutable system is that you or your players will go too far in some undesirable direction and end up with a short-lived campaign. Participants will always be pushing for a game which allows them to become strong and powerful far too quickly. Each will attempt to take the game out of your hands and mold it to his or her own ends. To satisfy this natural desire is to issue a death warrant to a campaign, for it will either be a one-player affair or the players will desert en masse for something more challenging and equitable.

I've been playing DDO since the first year it launched and I've seen how the game has been ravaged by the uncontrollably desire for more powerful characters and equipment. It's natural, as Gary said, to desire to be become strong and powerful, but the game has devolved into a zergfest where players race from 1st to 25th level, again and again, soloing huge portions of the content with barely the slightest danger of failing a quest. The difference in power between those who grind 12 hours a day and those who are solid players but don't dedicate their lives to clicking has become huge, creating large imbalances which make PUGing an increasing rarity. Regardless, the quests, which were once challenging, have all become cake walks.

To combat the boredom and re-inject excitement into the game, I joined a permadeath guild. This worked for a year or two, and there was real excitement and challenge at all levels, but even here it has become difficult. As the developers crank up the power of new character classes and gear found adventuring, even the non-twink, PD characters who self-impose strict rules eliminating the use of practically all the easily acquired magic and buffs in the game end up zerging through virtually all of the low-level content. We're debating new rules to avoid the monotony, but it has becoming increasingly difficult to contort the game in order to avoid the grind.

While Pathfinder Online isn't even close to launching, I find myself sadly pessimistic that it will at some point suffer the same fate. I've read on this forum that many people don't want PD, and that's perfectly fine. (I'd be thrilled if it were an option, but that's another thread.) However, the natural desire Gygax warned about is very tough to resist, especially when there are short-term economic considerations. When participants cry for bigger and better goodies, faster leveling, easier quests and so forth, will the developers be able to resist their paying customers for the longer-term sake of the game?

My question to the good folks at Pathfinder Online is, have they considered this and, assuming they agree with the premise, what, if anything, are they planning on doing about it? If this has already been covered, please point me to where I can read about it.

Greetings! I, too, am interested in joining Keepers of the Circle. I plan on trying out a spell caster, so that would probably put me in the Crystal Ring. I'm a Crowdforger on Kickstarter (and grabbed $35 in add-ons, although I'm not yet sure which ones I'm going to take) and this guild came highly recommended from someone in the Bay Area Pathfinder Society. I'm not entirely sure what I'm supposed to do now (the torrent of information regarding this game, which isn't even going to be released for... years?... is truly amazing) but I'm really looking forward to this. I've been playing DDO since 2006 and I'm really hoping that Pathfinders resolves some of the inherent issues with that game. I'm now heading over to the forums...

Give Tifer a free pass there. The grease effect as meant to simulate the decaying and unstable floor, obscured by heaps of scrap and rubbish. Since Tifer knows which areas are prone to collapse, he nimbly dodges past them. Pursuers are prone to fall as debris shift underfoot or their leg punches through rotting floorboards.

Yes, I like this very much. Thanks!

By the way, I had questions about the pit trap in that room, but since I felt the questions were more general in nature, and not necessarily confined to this scenario, I posted here: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/pitTripDuringCombat. I thought you might be interested to see my thinking.

Thank you, ithuriel and Sir_Wulf, for your help! I'm very new to GMing so I really appreciate the help. I'm continuing to crank along (this is all very complex) and still have more questions. I hope people don't mind me posting them here.

In the Forges and Workrooms the wooden planks are considered under a grease spell. Can Tifer fall in his own workshop? I noticed that he doesn't have any Acrobatics, so if he moves he's in trouble. Having him fall would be somewhat anticlimactic.

I've thought of another devilish idea. What if the monsters, who are aware of the pit trap, place themselves at the edge and await the PCs to rush over? When the pit opens, should the PC make the Reflex save, he would normally be in the box occupied by the monster.

In order to take that square, the PC will have to bull rush, provoking an attack of opportunity. Success pushes the monster back and everything is fine. (That's CMB vs. CMD, right?) Failure, however, means that the PC is in the square occupied by the pit. In this case, perhaps he's hanging on the edge, kind of like Black suggested.

On the other hand, if I do like Roland suggested and let them choose the side of the trap they wish to be on, they could choose the near side and avoid the bull rush. I'm not yet sure if I want to allow this.

I would imagine that a hanging PC has no Dex bonus, like when climbing. Also, the next round, should the PC try to climb up and again take the square of the monster, I'm thinking there would have to be another bull rush, but with a significant penalty, such as -10. The other option, of course, would be to climb down and try to go up the other side.

I'd love to hear what people think about this. Thank you!

Thanks, Roland and Black. I suppose letting them chose the side of the pit would be nice. It just seemed to me like momentum would take them to the other side, although Black brings up a good point - what if the moment ends over the pit? Anyway, leaving them hanging on the edge of the pit sounds tough.

I like the one-square-at-a-time movement concept. I don't think that'll be something that my group would be interested in implementing as it's quite a departure from the way we normally do things, but it's a very interesting way to run. Thanks.

For that scenario, I would delay initiative rolls, explain the layout to the party and ask what they intend to do. You'll likely get "I'm charging them", "Me too", "I'm going to stay here and shoot" etc.

For the guys that charged, I'd make secret perception rolls to see if anyone spotted the trap (all sorts of modifiers for being distracted etc) then go straight for the Reflex saves. Describe what's happened after the dice are rolled.

It's maybe a ham-fisted way of dealing with it, and savvy players may thow a spanner in the works, but it gets the effect you're looking for while technically staying within the rules.

Thank you, Roland. That's a very interesting suggestion and sounds like it would be easy enough to do. It also sounds like it could tip off savvy players, like you suggested, but I guess that's OK. Perhaps I'll do it earlier in the mod, too, to throw people off. Anyway, for those who commit to charging across the pit, they'll have to stick with their decisions, but perhaps I could let other people change their minds during the normal taking of turns.

Last quick question - Should someone make their Reflex save, I'm assuming that they make it to the far side of the pit. Correct?

Thank you, Belafon and Andrew, for the feedback! This makes a lot of sense, although I don't know how much flexibility I have to modify the scenario given to me.

In terms of game mechanics, while of course everyone in combat acts more or less simultaneous, the moves are executed sequentially. If in the long corridor example above, assuming the pit has a weight sensitive trigger, two players had a very close initiatives and both charged across the pit to attack, only the first one to go would fall in. That seems a bit unrealistic to me, especially if the pit door is very long, but I guess that's how the game is designed.

I was wondering if someone could give me some help with this. Imagine a long corridor with a nice big pit trap in the middle. The party is on one side and the monsters, who are aware of the trap, are on the other. To provoke the party into running across/into the trap, they range.

The question is, is it at all possible that multiple party members could fall into the trap?

During game play what I would imagine is that the first player to run an engage the monsters in melee will spring the trap and then, naturally, none of the other players will fall in. If the pit were long enough, you might imagine, however, that if multiple players 'simultaneously' charged the monsters that they might all fall in.

The only mechanism I see for potentially making this happen would be to let the players run through a full round as if the pit were not there (letting them charge across and attack the monsters) and then afterward having anyone who charged across roll a reflex to see if they fell in. For those that did you'd have to undo any damage they might have done. This seems even more complicated if the monsters get their turn in there, since they could potentially be swinging at players who are at the bottom of the pit. Thus, this doesn't seem to work.

Any suggestions?

I've read the mod for the 3rd time and I'm grinding through the rules, including doing a lot of research on d20, but I've still got questions.

Derro darkness - When this ability is used, will the derro be in dim light (20% miss) or darkness (50% miss)? I suppose that depending on the initial lighting in the room, so based on descriptions I'd say darkness.

If it's the former I assume the players will be able to know the position of the derro on the board. If it's the latter, however, is this similar to the derro being invisible?

By the way, I'm assuming that "at will" means that the derro can drop darkness and then move and/or attack in the same round. Perhaps also use a little ghost sound to throw off the players. Let me know if I'm wrong here.

Also, why no use of the Akyls? Having one of the derro trip from range seems like a fun enhancement.

Thanks for the help!

Thank you, Doug. That's a very nifty tactic that I haven't seen before. I'm going to print that out and use it.

Moriquende wrote:

...How would one generally go about indicating (or not) to players that an enemy has DR? Is this something they have to actively try to perceive or use knowledge (skill checks?), or can they generally tell when a weapon doesn't do full damage.

In my experience, most GMs will say something like, "You notice that your sword didn't bite as deeply as you expected it to, as if the creature's flesh were strangely resistant to its touch," or "The beast barely seemed to notice your mace striking. Its gelatinous mass seemed to absorb much of the weapon's force".

Thank you. That makes a lot of sense. Given that Lady Morilaeth also has DR I suppose that it would make sense to do the same for her.

The mites have DR/cold iron. I'd have the conversation with the players well before the last encounter so they don't make the connection. Maybe casually ask them when they fight the mites what other special material weapons they carry. Most players are rather proud of their assorted equipment and their eagerness to boast could tip you off early if they are savvy enough to carry silver.

Interesting! I hadn't noticed that, but that seems like a great tactic. Thank you very much.

Somewhat off topic, but if you wouldn't mind, how would one generally go about indicating (or not) to players that an enemy has DR. Is this something they have to actively try to perceive or use knowledge (skill checks?), or can they generally tell when a weapon doesn't do full damage.

Something tells me that I can find this information elsewhere on the messageboard, so apologies if this is inappropriate.

Would cut through DR, but not the regen. Still need the silver or a good aligned weapon to cut it off and make her killable. Granted- I'm not very familiar with paladins, but I don't think smite makes their weapon count as good aligned.

What would be an inconspicuous way of finding out what types of weapons the players are using? Obviously asking if they're using silver or good would give it away, but asking the question generally would also tip off everyone that there's a DR or that they need to pick their weapons carefully. Any suggestions?

That's great info. Thank, ithuriel!

Thank you, Dragnmoon, ithuriel and Sir_Wulf, for the help! I think I'm almost there. In the mod there's a stat block for Tier 1-2 and Tier 6-7, but for Tier 3-4 (which is naturally the one I'm going to be running) all it says is...

The information on the SU is very helpful and I'll go back through this entire post. I didn't see any "immunity to illusions" in the mod, but I'll go back and look some more. Thanks again for the help!

Can anyone tell me where I can get the skinny on Lady Morilaeth?

I'm signed up the DM this mod next month, but I can't seem to find the Advanced Bestiary. (The mod says that there's a description of the female nightmare creature elf cleric of Lamashtu on p187.) I've gone to two games stores and can't find it and, strangely, I couldn't find it on this website either. I checked the Bestiary 2 but that doesn't seem to be it since it's not on p187.

Does this information exist online? Would it be possible for someone to send it to me? Thank you!

I FAQ'ed this.

Can you share the link?

The victim 'simply stands and offers no resistance to the harpy's attacks' once it's within 5'. I would say that allows for a coup de grace.

We've obviously already talked a lot about this, however, someone brought up an interesting point today. Players attacked by invisible creatures don't offer any resistance to the attack (by virtue of the fact they can't see the attacker) but aren't treated as "helpless." Therefore, it was suggested that "offering no resistance to attack" isn't the equivalent of being "helpless" and thus there's no coup de grâce opportunity.

Any thoughts on this?

Now, the harpy as presented isn't armed with a really nasty coup de grace weapon. It's still likely to kill a low or low-mid level PC; above that, and it's just a big chunk of dangerous damage.

Thank you, Porpentine, for the input, and the ideas on the extra nastiness. That being said, they already seem pretty nasty, especially if you include the coup de grace. A low level character will probably survive the damage from the blow (1d8+1 x 2 = 11 on average), but DC 21 (= 10 + 11 on average) fortitude save is going to be a doozy! For most characters that's going to be less than a 50/50 chance of survival, and if the Harpy gets in a good coup de grace blow (maximum damage is 18, which would be a DC 28!), things are going to get even dicier.

Multiple Harpies could easily spell party disaster. As an aside, I'd only allow a coup de grace attempt from a Harpy that currently has the character enchanted. It seems like characters can defend themselves from all other attackers, meaning just normal attacks. Still, that makes them very tough.

The Harpy description states

Captivated creatures can take no actions other than to defend themselves. A victim within 5 feet of the harpy simply stands and offers no resistance to the harpy's attacks.

I would agree that "defend themselves" equals full AC. However, what does "offers no resistance" mean? Is that the equivalent of "Helpless"? (Helpless: A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy) Paralyzed, held, bound, sleep and unconscious to me mean essentially that the creature cannot or will not "move" or "flinch". This enables a coup de grace.

If you rule that the creature "defends itself" from the Harpy, then there's no coup de grace. If you rule that the creature "defends itself" from everyone except the Harpy, then the Harpy has a coup de grace if you also rule that "Captivated" is the equivalent of Helpless. What are your thoughts on this?

Moriquende wrote:

The phrase "this effect continues for as long as the harpy sings and for 1 round thereafter" also doesn't make sense otherwise, because why would a Harpy ever stop singing if it wasn't a Standard Action?

To sneak up on someone?

To get a drink of water?

She feels like beat-boxing instead, for a change?

Hmmm... Well, it say that it's a Supernatural Ability and that requires a Standard Action, so I'm going with she has to stop singing to attack.

I see the harpies song like bardic song, standard to begin and free action to continue each round.

Once a harpy has you captivated there are only a few ways to get out: given another save due to hazards, unable to hear the harpy anymore (silence, deafness, etc.), bardic counter song, or someone else kills the harpy.

I think DM Blake made a pretty convincing argument that it is in fact not like a Bardic song. The Harpy description does say that it's a Supernatural Ability which, as pointed out by DM Blake, requires a Standard Action unless specified otherwise, which is not the case here.

The phrase "this effect continues for as long as the harpy sings and for 1 round thereafter" also doesn't make sense otherwise, because why would a Harpy ever stop singing if it wasn't a Standard Action? This is not inconsistent with the phrase "offers no resistance to the monster’s attacks" when you consider that the effect last an additional round after singing stops.

It seems like it's a question of how tough are these mobs. In the worst-case scenario (which I don't quite agree with) it seems like Will Save or die. If everyone in the party fails the Will Save, it's a wipe. The next worse case (which perhaps makes sense) is Will Save or survive a coup de grace. The best case (which depends on whether or not you consider the victim to be "Helpless") is Will Save or submit to one free round of attack.

I'd love to get more feedback on this. Thanks!

It's more than one free vanilla attack when the victim is in range...or rather, it *can* be more than that, if you want to play the harpy as she would operate herself. She has the time and the opportunity to coup-de-grace. Whether you want to do that to a player is another matter.

Coup de grace? Ouch! I'm not sure if I would consider a Captivated player to be "Helpless" (Helpless: A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy) for the simple reason that the character is not "completely" at the Harpy's mercy. Captivated creature can "defend" themselves.

On the other hand, these two sentences seem to conflict:

Captivated creatures can take no actions other than to defend themselves. A victim within 5 feet of the harpy simply stands and offers no resistance to the harpy's attacks.

Would you assume that this means that Captivated creatures defend themselves against everything but the Harpy? If that's the case, I'm guessing that you would assume that the Captivated creature is indeed Helpless.

What do you think?

Ignore the questions about initiative - I got it.

In summary, it would seem as though the Song enables the Harpy to bring her prey to her and get one free attack. After that she can sing again, get another free attack and repeat as long as the player continues to fail saves. Please let me know if I've got this wrong.

Regardless, if she wants to attack him while he is "captivated" and cannot fight back, she must do that instead of singing, since she cannot use her standard action to sing during the same round she makes any kind of attack. Next round he will wake up. She can, of course, start singing again to hopefully "captivate" her victim again (and therefore get a second round of attacks without her victim fighting back. She can do this until she kills him or until he makes a successful save, granting him immunity for 24 hours.

Thank you, DM Blake, for this explanation. Just to be crystal clear, however, if a player fails a will save and is brought to the Harpy, you would give the Harpy one free round of attack after which the player can attack back, no new save required. The Harpy can sign again but the player gets a new save.

Does it matter who has the initiative? If it's the Harpy would that mean she sings in round 1 (player fails), attacks in round 2 and then sings again in round 3 requiring another will save before the player can counter-attack? If the player has the initiative would that mean player attacks (or moves) in round 1 before she sings (player then fails), she attacks in round 2 and then the player gets to attack again in round 3 before she can try singing again? In the former it would seem that the Harpy can attack without counter-attack as long as the player continues to fail saves while in the latter it would seem that the player will get the counter-attacks even when failing saves.

I'd say it's pretty clear. Specific over rides general. In general Mitheral armor is 1/2 the weight for this specific armor it is 10lbs.

Continuing with this line of thought (which I agree with), how much would a +1 Mithral Shirt weigh? I would assume 10 lbs since you can just upgrade the 10 lb Mithral Shirt to +1. Right?

Back on the wolfair forum I got this:

The magic items in the specific weapons & armor sections are, in my opinion, specific items, constructed as-is, and not available for further modification through the bonuses/special abilities rules that are separate sections in the armor and weapon rules. Otherwise, the "of luck" ability would have been given an equivalent bonus and be in with the rest of the armor abilities, or Elven chain would be identical to a suit of chain mail with the mithral material applied.

Basically this means that +1 Mithral Chain Shirts weigh 12.5 lbs.

Does that make sense? Anyone have a thought about this? It's only 2.5 lbs difference, but it's interesting.

That all makes sense to me. Thank you for the input!

I posted a note at http://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=11680 and Mathias at Haro has an interesting point.

Page 466 of the Core Rulebook has a Mithral Shirt weighing 10 lbs. Page 155, however, says that Mithral items are 1/2 their normal weight and page 151 has a chain shirt weighing 25 lbs, which would imply that a Mithral Chain Shirt would be 12.5 lbs.

So how much does it weigh? Thanks!

For anyone who cares, Hero Labs recognized the problem and is going to make a fix: http://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?p=45593&posted=1.

The scroll was definitely not 150 gp on the chronicle sheet, so perhaps I overpaid. I don't have it with me so I'll check later.

For the potion, I've been looking at what's available using the Hero Lab software. It enables the addition of a True Strike potion, so am I perhaps to not assume that Hero Lab is accurate? A potion of Shield is also a possibility. I wonder what's going on there.

I found it:

The imbiber of the potion is both the caster and the target. Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions.

I'll contact Hero Labs to see if they're aware of this rule.

The scroll of cure moderate wounds was 200 gp, by the way. So it was a bit more expensive, but perhaps that's the price you have to pay if you want to get the item before you have enough TPA, which would only be 4 according to table 11-2 of the PFS.

Potions are 50*SL*CL. Scrolls are 25*SL*CL. SL=spell level. CL=caster level. Scrolls are half the cost of potions.

Scroll of cure moderate wounds should be 150gp for CL3.

Potions cannot be made of spells with range: personal. So, no potions of true strike nor shield, for example.

The scroll was definitely not 150 gp on the chronicle sheet, so perhaps I overpaid. I don't have it with me so I'll check later.

For the potion, I've been looking at what's available using the Hero Lab software. It enables the addition of a True Strike potion, so am I perhaps to not assume that Hero Lab is accurate? A potion of Shield is also a possibility. I wonder what's going on there.

Or buy some scrolls for you friendly neighborhood caster to use on you. Save some gold.

That's an interesting idea, but aren't scrolls also 50 gp?

After my 2nd adventure I had the opportunity to grab a scroll of cure moderate wounds for 350 gp, so I bought it. I might be mistaken on the numbers, but four potions of cure light wounds would have been less expensive, so I'm not super-happy with that purchase.

Right now I'm sitting on about 1750 gp but I'm saving to add a +1 to my Darkwood Composite Longbow (Str +2). I should have that after the next adventure. Beyond that I'm thinking of buying a bunch of different potions. There are some interesting ones out there, including True Strike. That could come in handy.

You generally have two PA available for each adventure. If you aren't getting both, you might check with DM to get some advice about where the failure is. I think my 4th level guy has missed only 1 or 2 points associated with faction jobs. One by choice, one by failure to succeed.

That's interesting. I can go back and look, and perhaps ask, but I'm pretty sure that we haven't missed any PA. For the first and third adventures there was only one thing that needed to be done, which we did, so I only got 1 PA for each of those. For the second adventure there were two things to accomplish and we got them both.

If we do end up getting 2 per adventure then perhaps I'll have the wand by the 3rd run at 2nd level, which I guess will be fine. In the meantime I'll be quaffing heal potions at 50 gp a pop.

The chart essentially adds to your list of always available items every time you reach a threshold TPA. So once you hit 9TPA you can buy as many wands as you'd like.

Ah ha! I got it now. That totally makes sense. I found this:

Table 11–2 presents the specific details for using TPA to purchase items above the basic price limits. “Current TPA” is the total needed to purchase items worth less than or equal to the “Maximum Item Cost” limit in the second column. For example, a character who has earned 27 TPA with the Cheliax faction can purchase any item worth less than or equal to 11,750 gp that is legal for play.

For what it's worth, I think the PFS could have been a little clearer. I might suggest saying "... using TPA to purchase any items beyond what is always available," but that's just me. In any event, it's all clear now.

That being said, it kind of stinks that I'll be 3rd level before being able to buy a wand of cure light wounds, unless the rate at which you get PA accelerates. I received 4 TPA in the first 3 quests, so I'm guessing I'll need another 3 or 4 before getting the next 5 TPA.

Yes, that's is correct about the always available items - there's all of the mundane and non-magical stuff as well as +1 weapons and armor, potions, oils and scrolls. There is no mention of wands.

So when I have 9 TPA can I buy the wand, even if it's not on the "Always Available" list? I suppose that since I'm going to need another 5 TPA that I'll bring it up with the DM next time I play. I'm guessing that I'll be 3rd level by the time I'm able to buy this wand.

Thanks again for all the help.

Thank you for the very fast reply. Unfortunately, I'm still a little confused.

I just turned 2nd level. My TPA is 4 and my CPA is 2 because I spent 2 PA to buy a bow. So according to Table 11-2 in the Guild to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, does this mean that I cannot buy any item worth more than 500 gp? In order to buy the wand, would that mean that I need to get to 9 TPA? By the way, does this Table also mean that you can't buy anything until you have at least 4 TPA?

I'm also still confused as to what's available or not. Are wands "always available" because they're not listed on pg 24 of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play. If items are not on that list, how can you know if you can buy them or not?

I'm new to Pathfinder and have a question about purchasing wands.

On pg. 24 of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play there is a list of "Always Available Items" that includes all mundane gear, +1 items and zero or 1st-level potions, oils and scrolls. There is, however, no mention of wands. Under "Other Items" it says that you can't buy partially charges wands, which would imply that you can buy fully charged wands, but I don't see any information regarding that.

So, can my 2nd-level Ranger buy a wand of cure light wounds? Can I buy other wands? If so, how much do they cost?

Thank you for the help!

Thank you both for the great advice. Earlier this week my DM suggested that it might be able to upgrade the STR rating on a Composite Longbow, but he wasn't quite sure.

So I'm going to go for the MW +2 STR Composite Longbow and save up to make it +1. I'm still level 1, so I'm thinking that'll be a pretty nice item for the time being.

I have no idea how much wealth one has at 10th, but it's good to know that it won't be too much of a problem. I'm looking forward to firing this thing!

I've gotten back into D&D after a multi-decade absence and am trying to catch up on all the new rules. For my first character I decided to go with a Ranger which perhaps I'll make into an Arcane Archer. Naturally, I want the best bow possible.

I'm starting out with a +2 STR bonus, so after running a couple quests I can now get a +2 STR Masterwork Darkwood Composite Longbow with my PA. As I advance I can then enhance the bow magically with +1, +2, etc.

However, what if I'm able to increase my STR bonus to +3? I could do this by increasing the ability score at 4th and 8th. (Looking at some higher-level characters it seems as though there are other ways to increase ability scores, too.) If I've got a +3 or +4 or more STR bonus at some point down the line, I would naturally want the Composite Longbow I'm using to be STR +3 or +4 or more.

I think I read elsewhere that you can't increase the STR rating of a composite longbow after it's crafted, although I'm not sure about that. If that's the case, then I could craft a +3 or +4 STR bow from the start, anticipating the need later, although I'll be running with -2 to hit until I increase the ability score. The only other solution I can think of would be to build a +2 STR bow and then scrap it later for a +3 or +4 STR once I increase the ability score.

I would imagine that I'm not the first person to consider this, so any ideas?