NovelEnigma's page

FlySkyHigh wrote:

God I really hope the Assassin archetype gets a fix in this book. It has several major flaws and could really use some love.

Especially the fact that, the way it's written, you essentially can't use it at early levels of Free Archetype Variant without locking yourself out of two FA feats.

Can you explain what you mean by that?

Yeah, I'm not sure what they mean? It has 3 common level 4 feats. Sure, Expert Backstabber isn't that good, but Poison Resistance is and Surprise Attack is ok; none of them are dead feats though. Level 6 you've got Poison Weapon and Sneak Attacker so even if you're a rogue, you can still grab Poison Weapon and then you're done with the archetype if you don't want any more feats from it. Go take some other dedication at 8, take one of its feats at 10 if you want, then come back at 12 if you really want Assassinate. Its perfectly fine with the number of feats it has at various levels.

If you want an example of an archetype that doesn't work that well at low levels due to feat slots, its Talisman Dabbler. It has the dedication at 2, 1 feat at 4, 1 feat at 8, and 1 feat at 14 so you definitely lose out at level 6 with literally no feat you can take.

About to play this AP with a witch/alchemist that runs a bakery called Cackling Cookies and I am so excited to play this one.

I also absolutely love the art featured in this post and set the town one as my PC's background.

PS: I wrote my bio before Dark Archive came out. Thaumaturge is my favorite class hands down now.

Thank you everyone!

You lose benefit based on the general implement rules:

Implement Empowerment wrote:

The power of your implement can also be turned to the more common task of combat, its power adding to and amplifying the effects of runes and other magical empowerments. When you Strike, you can trace mystic patterns with an implement you're holding to empower the Strike, causing it to deal 2 additional damage per weapon damage die. Channeling the power requires full use of your hands. You don't gain the benefit of implement's empowerment if you are holding anything in either hand other than a single one-handed weapon, other implements, or esoterica, and you must be holding at least one implement to gain the benefit.

If you are wielding your implement in two hands, it no longer meets the bolded requirements in there.

I'm curious what other benefit you think should be lost?

Like I've already said, you definitely lose Implement's Empowerment, no question about that, but that has nothing to do with Weapon Implement. The thing you should lose is anything requiring your weapon implement, in this case it would be Implements Interruption. The issue is that despite having to pick a one handed weapon to be your weapon implement, Implements Interruption doesn't reference handedness at all.

Why would you need to pick a one handed weapon for Weapon Implement if it literally doesn't matter?

NovelEnigma wrote:

Dennis Muldoon wrote:

I'm not understanding the problem you're seeing. You don't get some exploitative stacking benefit, since you wouldn't get any of the class feature benefits while using it two-handed.

My problem is that there isn't a single class feature or benefit you lose from using it two-handed other than Implement's Empowerment which is irrelevant to the discussion of the benefits of Weapon Implement. You're getting all the features and benefits of weapon implement when you wield your weapon two handed even though you couldn't select a two handed implement in the first place. However, none of the weapon implement features require or even mention a one handed weapon at all.

That's not how it works. Handedness in PF2 is determined by the number of hands being used to wield the weapon. So if you're using a jezail in two hands, it's a two-handed weapon and you can't use any options that require you to be using a firearm one-handed until you're back to wielding it in one hand. If you use a dagger in two hands, it's a two-handed weapon for the purposes of feats and abilities that require a two-handed weapon, as laid out on pages 279-280 of the CRB. When determining the handedness of a weapon, the two questions are just "What's the minimum number of hands required to wield this" and "How many hands am I currently using to wield it?"

As it is now a two-handed weapon, the implement powers will no longer work. Anyway, I made a post in rules discussion Thaumaterge questions.

"Your implement is a special object of symbolic importance: your badge as you treat with the supernatural and a powerful tool if things turn violent. Choose an implement from the options to which you have access. You begin play with a mundane item of that type"

That specific weapon is your implement regardless of you hold it in your hand, two hands, or with your feet. It never stops being your implement unless you choose a new one. Because none of the weapon implement class features actually require you to be wielding it one handed, you don't lose anything for wielding it two handed other than the generic class benefit of implement's empowerment as normal.

I'm not understanding the problem you're seeing. You don't get some exploitative stacking benefit, since you wouldn't get any of the class feature benefits while using it two-handed.

My problem is that there isn't a single class feature or benefit you lose from using it two-handed other than Implement's Empowerment which is irrelevant to the discussion of the benefits of Weapon Implement. You're getting all the features and benefits of weapon implement when you wield your weapon two handed even though you couldn't select a two handed implement in the first place. However, none of the weapon implement features require or even mention a one handed weapon at all.

There aren't any

It feels pretty exploitative to have a class feature require the selection of a one-handed weapon, only for you to use it as a two-handed weapon with no drawback.

So, Thaumaturge says I can only choose a one-handed weapon as an implement. If I chose Katana the 1-handed/2-handed weapon or anything similar, I can legally do it right? I just won't get the IMPLEMENT’S INTERRUPTION benefit if I wield it 2-handed.

"You don't gain the benefit of implement's empowerment if you are holding anything in either hand other than a single one-handed weapon, other implements, or esoterica, and you must be holding at least one implement to gain the benefit."

Since you're holding a single implement in both hands, your "other hand" won't have a single one-handed weapon nor will it have "other implements" since its the same implement.

As for Implement's Interruption, it sure seems like you'd get to use it while wielding it two-handed.

"Requirements You're holding your weapon implement and are benefiting from Exploit Vulnerability against a creature. The creature must be within your reach if you're wielding a melee weapon, or within 10 feet if you're wielding a ranged weapon."

"You can choose only a one-handed weapon as an implement".

You've chosen your katana as your weapon implement; it doesn't stop being your weapon implement if you hold it with two hands and you still meet all the requirements of Interruption.

In my opinion, I'd almost say that you can't pick a weapon with the "two-hand trait" to be your weapon implement because its not exclusively a one-handed weapon; its essentially both a one-handed and two-handed weapon equally.

This is awesome! I missed this this first pass but we are fortunate to have one of them in our region! WTG Dylan!

Thank you! There aren't a lot of ways I can support this game or community, but this is at least one of them!

I'm on the list! (Dylan Wokeck) I'm so excited to be recognized and supported by Paizo for this incredible hobby of writing new content.

I was initially resistant to the idea of Thaumaturge, the base concept of a class so heavily relying on gear that could be taken away being a major point of concern for me. However, I think Thaumaturge is my favorite class of all time. The flavor is just too good and its such an effective class. Great job on this design!

Now the question is "do melee spell attacks benefit from flanking?"

That has been made unclear. I imagine most of us will say yes, but there is an argument to be made for no.

NovelEnigma wrote:

Yes, and as you likely saw, I already stated that Produce Flame seems to benefit from flanking. It is the other spells, like Shocking Grasp, that I am concerned for. Is Produce Flame the norm for melee spell attack rolls or an exception? It seems inconsistent either way that it would say "melee attack" as opposed to "melee spell attack".

Don't need to worry about Shocking Grasp it has melee attack in it's description:

Core Rulebook pg. 369 2.0 wrote:

You shroud your hands in a crackling field of lightning. Make a melee spell attack roll. On a hit, the target takes 2d12 electricity damage. If the target is wearing metal armor or is made of metal, you gain a +1 circumstance bonus to your attack roll with shocking grasp, and the target also takes 1d4 persistent electricity damage on a hit. On a critical hit, double the initial damage, but not the persistent damage.

As you said there's no clear definition that melee spell attack rolls is same of melee attacks in new Flanking rule but the good sense make's me to say they are they are valid.

My point is that Shocking Grasp doesn't have melee attack in its description, it has "melee spell attack". Produce Flame does say "melee attack" however.

Ahh, you were equating "melee attack" with "melee attack roll". Those are closely related, but not the same. The "melee" in "melee attack" is a descriptor that can apply to spell attacks as well as it can to Strikes. That's just a consequence of overloading terms (Thanks, English).

I feel like this should be expressed in the rulebook because the terms "melee attack roll", "ranged attack roll", and "spell attack roll" exist but "melee attack" and "ranged attack" do not. This leads you to only have the "roll" information to use.

NovelEnigma wrote:

Why? Because a Melee Spell Attack is never defined as a melee attack. In fact, it is defined almost explicitly as not being a melee or ranged attack at all. Take the following text from the CRB

Core Rulebook pg. 446 2.0 wrote:

When you use a Strike action or make a spell attack, you attempt a check called an attack roll. Attack rolls take a variety of forms and are often highly variable based on the weapon you are using for the attack, but there are three main types: melee attack rolls, ranged attack rolls, and spell attack rolls. Spell attack rolls work a little bit differently, so they are explained separately on the next page.

.

Yep. A Melee Spell Attack Roll is not defined in the CRB. Spell Attack Rolls are a separate thing from Attack Rolls. Spell attacks are defined as Ranged not Melee.

So you are totally right. But as we actually want to play the game, we have to plug some gaps and move on. The language is open to there being other types of checks and attack rolls after all.

I think common sense approach can be made. There is an example.
Produce Flame has a Spell Attack Roll that is not always a Ranged Attack and tells us to treat it like a Melee Attack. Which we can do, not based on an explicit definition but based on analogy to Attack Roll.

On the rules you quoted it could benefit from flanking.

Yes, and as you likely saw, I already stated that Produce Flame seems to benefit from flanking. It is the other spells, like Shocking Grasp, that I am concerned for. Is Produce Flame the norm for melee spell attack rolls or an exception? It seems inconsistent either way that it would say "melee attack" as opposed to "melee spell attack".

NovelEnigma wrote:

So the recent Errata (3) to the CRB added the following

Paizo FAQ wrote:

Page 476: Flanking was ambiguous on what happened if you made a ranged attack while within reach of a foe you are flanking. To make it clear that only melee attacks benefit from flanking, change the second sentence to read "A creature is flat-footed (taking a –2 circumstance penalty to AC) to melee attacks from creatures that are flanking it."

First, I have to say I'm not a fan of this errata as getting shot from behind seems just as hard to deal with as being stabbed, but regardless, this isn't what the post is about.

The issue is "Melee Spell Attacks". More specifically, can you flank with such an attack? As it stands, I'd say this errata actually points to no.

Why? Because a Melee Spell Attack is never defined as a melee attack. In fact, it is defined almost explicitly as not being a melee or ranged attack at all. Take the following text from the CRB

Core Rulebook pg. 446 2.0 wrote:

When you use a Strike action or make a spell attack, you attempt a check called an attack roll. Attack rolls take a variety of forms and are often highly variable based on the weapon you are using for the attack, but there are three main types: melee attack rolls, ranged attack rolls, and spell attack rolls. Spell attack rolls work a little bit differently, so they are explained separately on the next page.

There is a whole lot of information on that page, but none of it once touches on "melee" or "ranged"; simply how to calculate a spell attack roll and that it targets AC.

The CRB seems to suggest that a spell attack roll is never a ranged nor a melee attack. This would mean that it wouldn't benefit from flanking, even if it was something like Shocking Grasp. The only spell that seems like it might work is Produce Flame since it says "melee attack" specifically. I feel like this means that either Produce Flame or the entry on spell attack rolls is inaccurate. Either we need

...

The issue with this extrapolation is that, as far as I can tell, this is the only time that melee, ranged, and spell attack rolls are defined at all.

While I agree that melee spell attack rolls are indeed melee attacks, I worry that not all will see it this way. It was much simpler when flanking simply applied to all attacks.

I don’t understand what is ambiguous. The only reason for Produce Flame to even have a melee option is to benefit from things like flanking.

The ambiguous part is "Is a melee spell attack roll a melee attack". Based on current wording of the CRB, it looks like it flat out says no. This means Shocking Grasp can't benefit from flanking, but Produce Flame can because it specifically calls out "melee attack".

A melee attack is a melee attack by definition. It's literally in the name. The answer is clearly yes, pending further errata.

I agree that melee spell attacks should benefit from flanking, but I think it's now been made overly ambiguous with the new change. Personally, I'm planning on ignoring every part of the errata at my tables but especially for melee spell attacks.

So the recent Errata (3) to the CRB added the following

Page 476: Flanking was ambiguous on what happened if you made a ranged attack while within reach of a foe you are flanking. To make it clear that only melee attacks benefit from flanking, change the second sentence to read "A creature is flat-footed (taking a –2 circumstance penalty to AC) to melee attacks from creatures that are flanking it."

First, I have to say I'm not a fan of this errata as getting shot from behind seems just as hard to deal with as being stabbed, but regardless, this isn't what the post is about.

The issue is "Melee Spell Attacks". More specifically, can you flank with such an attack? As it stands, I'd say this errata actually points to no.

Why? Because a Melee Spell Attack is never defined as a melee attack. In fact, it is defined almost explicitly as not being a melee or ranged attack at all. Take the following text from the CRB

When you use a Strike action or make a spell attack, you attempt a check called an attack roll. Attack rolls take a variety of forms and are often highly variable based on the weapon you are using for the attack, but there are three main types: melee attack rolls, ranged attack rolls, and spell attack rolls. Spell attack rolls work a little bit differently, so they are explained separately on the next page.

There is a whole lot of information on that page, but none of it once touches on "melee" or "ranged"; simply how to calculate a spell attack roll and that it targets AC.

The CRB seems to suggest that a spell attack roll is never a ranged nor a melee attack. This would mean that it wouldn't benefit from flanking, even if it was something like Shocking Grasp. The only spell that seems like it might work is Produce Flame since it says "melee attack" specifically. I feel like this means that either Produce Flame or the entry on spell attack rolls is inaccurate. Either we need an errata on Produce Flame to say "melee spell attack roll" and not benefit from flanking or we need the text for spell attack rolls to state that a melee spell attack is still a melee attack for purposes such as flanking.

Thank you again, Grandlounge! I'm finally a full librarian now, it's been great. In my free time, I've been writing PF2 content for Infinite and that has been doing surprisingly well.

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled game with your awesome GM, Grandlounge.

I'm glad to see this game is still running and it looks like it's all the same crew. Congratulations to all of you for getting this far!

If this is a purely roleplaying decision, I am uncomfortable with allowing a fallen champion because they would not then be subject to their god's anathema. If they want to play someone who was thrown out of a faith, in my opinion they should play a fighter with the acolyte background.

Hmm

They wouldn't be subject to their deity's anathema, but they lose two of their class features in exchange. Really, the only thing they keep at that point is their reaction.

All For Immortality is where my life oracle had to cast greater restoration in combat. Good times.

I wish I could say more about my experience, but it would probably give away too much that you could prepare for. I will say that if we had someone able to restore hit points, we would have eventually won the last fight, but we didn't, so we lost in a war of attrition basically.

In an earlier part, maybe 2, there was an enemy we had to get very creative to kill as it was resilient to most of our standard tactics. Great series in my opinion.

Here is the build link for Shinma Tsuyomi. My Arcane Witch. I dropped the concept of using the Halcyon archetype because there was too much from Witch I wanted.

In case I'm in a group that needs a Frontline, I also have Dasat Sarand. Dasat is a Redeemer Champion from Rahadoum that follows the laws of mortality. This means that I immediately lose my focus pool and divine ally class features and don't count as having such features for abilities. To make up for it, Dasat is a wrestler with a lot of medical skills. I also don't get a deity skill or any benefit from deific weapon, though I took monk dedication to improve my fists.

DM rainzax wrote:

AP Backgrounds: Suggested not required - again I will consider all submissions here.

I originally went with the standard Guard background, but have switched it to the AP Background Second Chance Champion without a problem; I prefer it that way anyway.

Unfortunately, Second Chance Champion isn't available in Pathbuilder, but the Deckhand background is an almost exact match (except for getting Sailing Lore instead of Gladiatorial Lore), so I used that instead and tweaked the resulting stat block.

Second Chance Champion is available in Pathbuilder under campaign backgrounds

All for Immortality (Season 7)

I did All for Immortality (hard mode) with the same group for all three parts. There were actually some really challenging sections and some really interesting ones as well. Full disclosure: Despite having a ridiculous party that could stomp most things, we actually wiped in the potentially last encounter of part 3. If we had a healer of any kind, we probably would have been fine, but man, what an encounter that was.

NovelEnigma wrote:

Is anyone interested in doing a themed team as mentioned in the player's guide? Something like the following:

1) All Kitsune
2) All spellcasters
3) All bards
4) All monks
5) All champions of the same type (paladin, redeemer, etc)
6) Only deal non-lethal damage

No. I already have my mind made up about the PC I want to play and I'd rather others be able to make that decision without any restrictions.

That's definitely fair. In a long game like this, you need to enjoy what you're playing and have some RP drive for your character as well. If you get forced to play something you're not "passionate" about, it may be a quick burnout of feeling forced to post rather than wanting to post.

Is anyone interested in doing a themed team as mentioned in the player's guide? Something like the following:

1) All Kitsune
2) All spellcasters
3) All bards
4) All monks
5) All champions of the same type (paladin, redeemer, etc)
6) Only deal non-lethal damage

Speaking of Ancestries, I think I'm looking at Kitsune to fit the Goka theme and because I want a plain old rock as a familiar.

If Professor Plum and I play together, I definitely won't step on toes by also playing a Bard or Occult caster, so Arcane or even Divine Witch sounds promising.

On a similar note to Mr. Tea, I have some character builds I'd like to use, but the details will really depend on the party.

Top choice for me will probably be an Arcane Witch. It's also tempting to take advantage of the high levels and be a Halcyon caster, opening up my choices of spells to basically all traditions.

I'd also be open to playing a Bard, but it's hard to say at this moment with no ideas about what other players may use.

Hmm, alright, might have to fix a few things but I think I know what to do. A shame that a dex build seems out of luck with this.

As far as I'm aware, there is no way to use Dexterity for Athletics actions such as Trip, Grapple, Shove, or Disarm. Acrobat lets you use dexterity to jump, but I think that is the limit.

I believe that Paizo is appropriately worried that allowing X to Ys introduces a lot of power creep into the game, and Dexterity has always been kind of a king stat. 2e does an excellent job of making Strength a viable and competitive stat.

Thanks! I'll post with my character by tomorrow morning, about 14 hours from now, as I'm working a closing shift tonight. I've been sitting on blob credit until now; otherwise, I'd be ready.

My character is a level 7 Laughing Shadow Magus with Monk dedication for reference. I joined the Roll20 campaign, but I'll admit I've never used Roll20 for PbP though I have used it for live campaigns. I'm sure I'll become accustomed to it quickly.

Tyranius recruited me to join your game. I have a level 7 PC that can be joining if you'd still like another player. Give me a bit to read through the gameplay posts and get my character updated and I'll be happy to help out!

I'm definitely interested! A suggestion for maps: Let's Roll!. Though I can't confirm, it might release by the end of September. Regardless, it will be a nice alternative to Roll20.

Examples of Characters:
Somewhat new character, but I'm really enjoying the personality.

My first ever PbP character. An insane lantern king cleric. I haven't touched him in a while, but he was pretty fun to RP in PbP.

Starfinder character, but still a personality I'm a fan of. You may want to look at his robot as well.

You're, of course, welcome to look at my GM posting style.

I feel like those are my best characters and that I've gotten better at it over time. My advice for a long game, such as this one, is to form a personality type for your character. Decide what your character cares about, what excites them, and what interests them outside of "I attack the monster and roll the skill check."

I don't think we've played together before. I have played through Age of Ashes and most of Agents of Edgewatch, so I also think I'm pretty experienced in 2e.

Characters I'm likely to play in somewhat order of desire:
Magus; Haven't had a chance to play the class yet, but I'm really excited about its existence in 2e.
Monk; My all-around favorite class in Pathfinder, 2e or otherwise.
Bard; My favorite spellcaster this edition. I usually play Enigma, but I'm also a fan of the Martial bard
Witch; Tough competitor with bard now that flexible preparation released. Inspire Courage is hard to beat, but Witch has some cool hexes and Lessons.
Wizard; Either as a Runelord of illusion or flexible prepared illusion. Both are builds I've really wanted to try since SoM was released.
Ranged Poison Alchemist; Least likely, but it's something I'm also a fan of. If poisons aren't likely to work on our enemies, then I'll easily scratch this character out

Now recruiting for:

B10 - Hillcross Roundup

A Pathfinder Society Bounty designed for level 1.

A kind traveler was escorting a clutch of wayward baby dinosaurs to safety when they broke free of their temporary enclosure. The PCs are tasked with rounding up the dinosaurs, but when they learn one is missing, their quest to rescue it takes them into the harsh wilderness of the Realm of the Mammoth Lords.

Signup Link

Written by: Nicole Heits

This is part of Gameday X. Scheduled start will be 5 October 2021.

Please add your Paizo Handle in the 'notes for GM' section.

For now, I cannot accept playtest characters.

I'm interested in playing with the same character I have in your current B09 - Fishing in Anthusis game (Tural Vigil). Are we planning on finishing that before you start this one?

Baba Yaga can choose inanimate object which does not need a movement speed. You could also choose touch telepathy is another idea.

Wow, I sure glossed over that one. I completely missed that Baba Yaga lets you pick an inanimate object already! I also forgot Touch Telepathy existed; that's even better! Thanks!

I have a Baba Yaga Witch at level 1 right now, and I want to flavor my familiar as a Grimoire that only I can read; anyone else sees blank pages.

I'm currently planning on giving it "Speech," where lines of text appear in the book that it speaks aloud simultaneously and Skilled for various Lore skills.

With Kitsune having the option to have a pet rock as a familiar, is there any reason I can't nerf my familiar by removing its ability to move on its own to make it a book? I'm considering making it a Poppet so that it has the Constructed and Flammable traits as that feels pretty appropriate.

Alright then, I have four people already checked in on my first thread so will the following people make the second table of four.

Nightdeath
Circe
GM Nowrus
Roll4initiative

Change of plans! We lost a player and need 1 more!

Hey everyone. I'm recruiting for the Beginner Box adventure: Menace Under Otari. Please check in here. Thanks!

I'm curious about the length of this adventure. Is it quest length? Full scenario? Adventure length like Fall of Plaguestone?

Yarr.

I'll be finalizing my decision on who to take by late (PDT) Sunday the 11th and getting started on the game a few days after that once we get our details sorted out.

Hi!

1) I'm very experienced with 2e and PbP, though most of my PbP experience comes from 1e. I've played Age of Ashes completely and most of Agents of Edgewatch in real time. I dropped from AoE at the end of book 4 because of time constraints for a Sunday game in real time. I was also disappointed on what the AP chose to focus on and didn't find it very fun to play.

2) I'm graduating with my masters in library science on May 8th! Don't ask me about my student debt because that's not so awesome.

3) I'm planning on doing a monk that hopefully can use Rain of Embers Stance (if you make it accessible). His background is Ruin Delver as he loves exploring abandoned or ruined locations and think about the "once was". He follows the laws of mortality and will be focusing on medicine and probably thievery. He will be taking the Bastion Archetype and will be a nice tanky character. If we used the free archetype rule (which I've never had the opportunity to try), I'd probably switch Laws of Mortality to worshipping Irori so I could take Champion Dedication on top of Bastion for Champion's Reaction.

NovelEnigma wrote:

I've been mulling this over for a while now, but can you give an example of where a LG and a LN follower of Irori differ?

Is a LG Iroran more interested in seeking perfection to help others while a LN follower is more interested in perfection for the sake of perfection?

A LG one would help others seek perfection before seeking perfection themselves, whereas a LN one would seek perfection for themsevles first before looking to help others.

Thanks!

I've been mulling this over for a while now, but can you give an example of where a LG and a LN follower of Irori differ?

Is a LG Iroran more interested in seeking perfection to help others while a LN follower is more interested in perfection for the sake of perfection?

FAQ on the topic should resolve any questions one might still have.

A Core all wizard group does sound intriguing. I do have a lvl 5 one available if a group forms in that range.

Yeah, I posted my original post there knowing it isn't something known by everyone that plays PFS. Hopefully, I saved some Wizards some gold because you don't need to buy scrolls the whole way up (which is way more expansive than necessary).

Still, I have occasionally seen a call for prepared spell swap scenarios to save that extra coinage.

I have a level 6 CORE wizard. Talking to a few other folks, it seems CORE wizards are having some trouble filling their spell books (other than just spending large sums buying the spells). So I was wondering about a CORE wizards only session.

We could fill the other rolls with someone going for Eldritch Knight, Theurge, and Arcane Trickster (or maybe just a familiar). That should give lots of spells for buffing and problem solving. Summoning creatures for more meat shields. Etc...

That would give all of us the opportunity to exchange a large number of spells with each other. Especially, if just before or after the mission, we each went to a market and purchased 1 or 2 spells not on anyone's list (coordinating for no overlap). Even more so if it is a scenario that has a few non-CORE scrolls or even a non-CORE spell book to be found.

What do you folks think? Any interest?

I haven't played 1e, PFS, or CORE in a while, but doesn't the PFS rule that allows you to use the Grand Lodge's library apply in CORE as well? It's only a 50% increase to scribing costs to use the PFS resources (instead of buying a scroll etc.)

I also received EbonFist's call to arms, but I haven't played PbP, or 1e Pathfinder, in almost a year. If you needed me to play, I'd hop right in to help out, but it looks like you got everything covered! Thank you for the invite EbonFist.

-New Alias of Baram Baldric/zer0darkfire

Isn't it weird that she does the same damage with her fist as her wind crashes?
I know NPCs cheat, but I think her Wind Crash static damage should be 1 point lower. Because it has propulsive, it should deal slightly less damage than her fist. The Wind Crash is also missing the magic trait from her handwraps (and the monk class feature if she were to copy it, which it looks like she is with the cold iron/silver ability).

I think the line "Chea’s fist Strikes are treated as cold iron and silver and don’t take penalties when making lethal attacks." could also be changed slightly to be split into two lines. While unlikely to matter, it sounds like she may only get cold iron and silver when making lethal attacks to some. Also, like the monk, you might want to spell out that the only penalty they don't take is from making a lethal attack with a normally non-lethal weapon. It could be interpreted now that she has an awesome ability to ignore all penalties to attack rolls while making lethal strikes with her fists.