Peter Kies's page

The (object) means it only gets a saving throw if it is magic or if they are attended. Since the spell does not work on magic items that means only the second part applies. In that case you use the creatures saving throw which they can choose to fail.

Then it is still pointless to have a saving throw listed, because it only affects the caster's weapon and they always want the spell to succeed.

I have seen other postings suggesting you cannot voluntarily fail the saving throw on behalf of the item (as the only possible reason why a save is listed). If it is true that you can only voluntarily fail your own saves (not those of your items) then you would have to drop the item to be sure of affecting it, and pick it back up again (requiring extra actions and possibly provoking additional attacks). This presumes it even remains your item after you drop it, as the spell only affects YOUR weapon.

The question is: why is there a saving throw listed at all for this spell? Under what conditions is it intended for the weapon to make the save and not be affected?

In the spell description for shillelagh, I see Will negates (object). Was this removed in errata? It makes no sense.

It has to be cast on your weapon, and if it is an attended weapon, that means it gets YOUR save bonus to resist YOUR spell. If it is unattended it gets no save, but can it really count as YOUR weapon if you have put it down so you can touch it with the spell?

You can automatically choose to fail your saving throw, but apparently you can't make that choice for an object. Can you choose at least to not grant it your save bonus?

I can't see any reason why there should be a saving throw listed for the object that is the target of this spell. Did the designers really not want the spell to work a large percentage of the time, when all it does is add +1 to hit and 1d6+1 to damage to a nonmagical item for 1 min/level?

Thanks for the thoughts on this. I think some good options have been captured for classes and archetypes and spells.

There probably won't be much for equipment initially, but I'm also starting to think about traits and feats.

The character in the book is presumably human, which means 2 feats and 2 traits at level 1. Magical Flair trait is sort of a cheap and immediate option versus Magical Lineage and Stylized Spell. Any other thoughts out there regarding traits and feats for this build?

Jitterbugs is another good thematic fit, and mesmerist or bard gets it at level 1. Bard also gets access to summoning spells, but not obscuring mist or color spray.

Sounds a lot like a mesmerist to me. And mesmerist has the spells I’d suggest. Silent image for level 1. At level 3 you can use the prestidigitation with magic trick for spells like obscuring mist in the form of a cloud of butterflies.

chatgpt is a bit off. I'm not to the end of the book yet, but The Butterfly King so far has been one of the sidekicks (good guys). He concentrates to try to summon butterflies, and I was thinking mesmerist might have some potential fit here due to the mental exertion. Divine vermin affinity or arcane conjuration/illusion magic could be paths to the build. I also noticed an ability of phantasm subschool specialist wizards to create a "nightmare" illusion a few times per day, which has a little more game effect than silent image alone. I think eventually the bugs should be able to cause distraction, blindness, confusion, etc., which could be different spells. Magic Trick looks like a quicker route than Stylized Spell (accessible at a lower level). I like the idea of obscuring mist effects from a cloud that looks more like butterflies than mist.

I'd probably go with a cleric and take the Vermin Domain, that would give you the Vermin Whisperer ability, allowing you to interact with vermin as if they were animals. As your 2nd domain, take Animal Subdomain so you can get speak with animals 3 + your cleric level rounds per day.

As far as being able to summon a swarm of butterflies, you'd probably have to talk to your GM about re-skinning Summon Swarm to summoning only butterflies, and can no longer be used to summon bats, rats, or spiders.

You could have all this online as early as level 3.

Yeah, the summon swarm spell restrictions make this tricky, even at level 3 (and GM leeway isn't an option if I'm aiming for a PFS-legal build). I am not sure there is a legal option at level 3, much less at level 1.

If I make them be illusory at level 1, I could get something else later - maybe even with multiclassing.

If I look at items, a rod of wonder summons butterflies, but a 1st level PC could neither afford nor control such an item.

Do the butterflies need to be real? Silent Image should be able to give the appearance of a butterfly swarm.

They probably don't need to be real at level 1, although it would be nice if believing in them had a potential real effect.

I also found Stylized Spell, but alas one must be level 5 to have the prerequisite skill ranks, and then at least one more feat or ability if you want to negate the spell level increase.

For some reason, all the fecund familiars and the summon swarm spells and items seem to focus on tiny creatures - I guess they wanted to have things that most monsters could damage with natural attacks. The rat swarm doesn't follow the general swarm creature rules (giant rats are tiny, and so are the rats in a rat swarm). If the swarm is a manifestation of an illusion spell, tiny/diminutive/fine creature size and base creature type shouldn't matter.

Help me make a PC based on The Butterfly King, from The Sidekicks Initiative by Barry J. Hutchison. Because weirdness, roleplaying and comic relief, and I need a new low level character. Ideally, I'd like him to be legal for PFS 1E play.

The character is almost totally inept, but what he lacks in ability he makes up for in overconfidence. His gimmick is being able to summon, command and talk to butterflies - which seems to take a long time if it works at all. He talks like Batman but fights like a wet paper bag. I'd like him to have a limited ability to summon butterflies at level 1.

School familiar (illusion) seems to be out, as he'd need to be level 10 before he could have the greater school familiar feat and the ability to summon swarms.

Blight druid or wizard only gets a familiar, although the druid's 5th level miasma ability is sort of like a swarm's distraction, only better.

Swarm monger looked promising, but for some reason the fecund familiar choices are limited to just a few tiny creatures. Diminutive (aka weaker, more limited) familiars (like a butterfly) are not allowed, and if you somehow make the familiar diminutive, its copies when it turns into a swarm will not be.

I like some of the effects of the pipes of the sewers, specifically how distance and availability impact the summoning time. Maybe a headband of some sort could be created to work similarly for butterflies.

As far as I can tell, the only game effect a butterfly swarm can generate is distraction, and that with a pitifully low save DC due to the creature's 4 CON. I suppose there could be also be color changes like the fireflies in a metalseeker swarm.

An effect similar to color spray might be a little more useful than the distraction ability. I was looking for a metamagic feat that changes how spells manifest (thematic spell casting), but it doesn't appear that something like this made it into the PFRPG ruleset.

Thanks! The RVC list and the map should do nicely for next steps.

Does a public list still exist? The (map and list) links above from years past don't lead to anything useful anymore.

If it does exist, it must be well hidden if the closest thing I've found in several minutes of searching is a 6 year old thread.

I'm seeing the same problem.

The OP seems to be confusing the grappled condition with pinned. Grappled does not cause you to lose the ability to attack with any appendage you may normally attack with, regardless of whether or not that appendage appears to have a hand-like thing on the end of it, was previously a hand that grew claws, or is an actual hand that is made into a fist, wears a spiked gauntlet, or holds a weapon.

The attack it prevents you from making is a 2-handed weapon attack, which has 1.5x STR mod bonus to damage. The rest of the effect is a penalty to DEX, a penalty on attack rolls that aren't grapple maneuvers, and the inability to move or make AoOs. Most grapple-based monsters will never take the -20 to avoid having the grappled condition when grappling, because these other penalties aren't that bad for them and they are generally focused on killing things rather than restraining them.

Another thing that leads to confusion has nothing to do with whether or not appendages are hands or hand-like - it is in the applicable definition of "action" for the actions to which the grapple restriction applies. The OP is interpreting a full-attack action as the action type / level to which this should be applied, and is trying to make a reasonable judgment on how to extend the rule there for combatants that don't have a single weapon or attack form.

If you follow that logic, no creature that has hands and uses them with other attack forms can make a full attack action when grappled, e.g. a creature with a claw/claw/bite sequence would get none of those attacks because the whole sequence is an action that requires both hands to execute. They could only make a standard action attack, 1 claw OR 1 bite but not both.

If you reduce it down to the individual attack action type / level, then neither claw attack is an action that requires 2 hands, and thus both are allowed.

The intent is to deny the use of a move action to move, and to penalize the use of standard actions or full attack actions if the grappled creature chooses not to grapple. There is no "almost full attack" action. You either take a full attack (with all penalties and every attack form desired) or you take a standard plus anything you might want to do with a move action that isn't moving. And attacks with 2-handed weapons are not allowed in either case.

The originally suggested ruling imposes an additional penalty on creatures that use multiple attack forms and desire to make a full attack, and that ruling is not consistent with RAW. Allowing full attack for a humanoid who wields a single weapon but not for a character or creature build that uses multiple attack forms is unfair to those other builds. You might just as easily say the former has his sword arm grappled and is denied his iterative attacks because switching his weapon to his other hand is an action that requires 2 hands to execute. Grapple affects the body, not specific limbs.

That's incorrect. 2 claw attacks is not one action that requires 2 hands to perform. RAW if it doesn't say the action requires 2 hands to perform, it doesn't. RAI the only type of attack this pertains to is 2-handed hand-held (manufactured) weapon attacks.

Natural attacks and two-weapon fighting are different as they are broken up into separate attack actions.

Tomorrow I'm running an encounter with a CR 18 monster that has 6 tentacle attacks, so believe me I have researched this thoroughly. The players and their companions will be grappled frequently, and I intend to be sure that they have every legal chance to avoid a TPK.

Claw, slam, tentacle, bite, gore, tail slap, two-weapon fighting - none of those represent one action that requires 2 hands to perform.

The player had it right. Natural attacks don't require hands, and no matter how much claws may look like hands, 2 claw attacks do not constitute a 2-handed attack. The key here is that they are two separate attack rolls, not one attack roll that requires the use of both appendages simultaneously to execute.

The full attack action includes multiple instances of the "attack action", which is different from a "single melee attack standard action". You reduce the action down the the lowest level actions that can be adjudicated with a die roll. If that action requires 2 hands, it is not allowed. If it doesn't, it can be attempted.

There is a penalty on each attack roll, but that is entire extent of the penalty to the eidolon's full attack sequence. Grapple condition affects a creature's entire body, and does not target or restrain any single appendage.

If it helps, you can think of this example (the above is RAW, below is just an explanation to illustrate how it might play out):

Peter Cottontail is caught stealing vegetables again from Farmer McGregor's garden. The farmer gets a loose grip on him with his work glove, not secure enough yet to pin him, but enough to get his hand and fingers around the bunny's torso and feel his little heart racing.

Peter does not like this at all, but was screwing around when he should have been improving his escape artist skill, and is far too small to have much chance of beating the farmer's CMD with an escape maneuver. He sees the farmer's hoe and thinks, "if I could just grab that stick with both paws, I could make it tip over and whack him in the nose". But alas, the meaty thumb across his chest is too big to get both paws around in the way that would be needed to get leverage on the hoe to tip it.

But the desperate rodent has one other course of action he can try. He has clawed legs he can jerk about and a pair of bunny teeth he can nip with. Due to the restraint, it is hard to bring any of them to bear on the farmer, but this could be a matter of life or death, so he has to try. First he claws with his right leg, but that does nothing but whiff at the air. He twists as he attacks, and it brings his left leg into a better position for its attack, but the double cowhide leather glove provides enough armor bonus that the attack has no effect.

The farmer's loose grip shifts just enough that the wriggling bunny spies a hole in the glove near the pinky finger, and he bites down on it with all his might. It breaks the skin, and farmer McGregor drops the little nipper on his turn, swears, grabs the hoe, and swings at him. But some vegetation deflects the blow and it misses its mark. Now it is time for Peter to do what he does best - hop away as fast as he can. He gets up from prone and makes his way lickety split out of the garden and deep into the briar patch. The farmer takes an AoO as he goes, but catches the tool on some chickenwire. Before he can swear again the little bunny is out of sight.

I should have looked that one up. Yes I'm old school and still think about infravision and ultravision - but it says clearly in the current rules "black and white".

Our party elf has darkvision, as do all of the other party members - but not so for other elf allies, who probably wouldn't remain still in an area that was totally dark (they prefer low-light and would find that unnatural, plus they don't sleep).

In an area covered in darkness,
using only darkvision and no other senses,
not knowing the individuals,
presuming similar gear with no identifying marks,
without the aid of magical enhancements to vision
(such as the ability to detect alignments, auras, etc.),
and with no further observation than an initial glance:

Would there be any discernable difference between drow and elves?

I think in conditions of light or low light coloration would be obvious, but if that is the only distinction then darkvision would not reveal the race. The creatures are the same type and subtype (humanoid, elf).

Of course, if you have only 60' darkvision and are pursuing drow who have 120' range, they may see you first and leave or take cover (unless you are very stealthy).

This may belong on the rules forum, but I'll start here.

Presuming identical gear and no extended observation, using darkvision in the dark, is it possible to distinguish drow from elves?

Or are their shapes and features substantially the same, other than color?

I ask because we are doing the siege and counterattacks in a campaign mode style of play, and we have over 600 elves in the surrounding woods, not including the drow that venture forth.

Granted we will normally have dim light outdoors when folks get into nighttime visual ranges, but without knowing exactly where everyone else would be, surprise attacks in darkness could be a bad choice for hasty attackers.

My PCs all have darkvision, and may be as likely to attack in the dark as the drow - although I will encourage defending parts of the elven encampment at night when the PC's allies don't have advantages to attack range and vision.

I'm organizing PFS and SFS sessions at a convention.

The session tracking sheets on the Paizo site only show PFS stuff - no SFS factions and such.

Is there a version hiding somewhere that has been modified for use with SFS?

Or is the best thing to print out a full tracking sheet from each scenario, quest or special?

The post may be old, but I'm just running Second Darkness AP now.

+1 on adding to Flip-Mat Classics.

Hard to draw and used in so many scenarios besides this AP.

Lots of black ink required, so printing PDF is not a good choice.

I was going to go with 1 per HD and double for 24 hours of just waiting quietly.

It seems it should have more to do with HD than class levels.

After getting beat up by a wight whose behavior was written as "not to pursue", the PCs retreated, left the dungeon and rested overnight - coming back healed up and refreshed.

There is no evil cleric in the dungeon to hit the wight with negative energy.

Does the creature also regain hit points overnight? Have you seen a rule on this anywhere? In the absence of anything to the contrary, I think it should regain hit points just like a living creature. It is not a construct, and I would think the force that brought it to unlife would slowly creep back in unless it is destroyed.

I'm thinking about putting them on a werewolf and it feels a bit cheesy to have them meld into wolf form and gain the benefits of quadruped movement speed and an enhancement from a single pair of boots.

For the character concept and the current campaign setting, these boots sound like s very good deal. If we stay outdoors on open plains with deep snow, it seems like I could move 200' in a round when most PCs and opponents might be limited to 15' with a double move.

What is intended by "normal speed" in the descrition for this item? Does it remove all speed penalties for moving over snow and ice, or does it just eliminate tracks and falling chance at the "normal" (reduced) speeds?

Also, if the terrain is otherwise open (except for ice or snow of any depth), does it mean you can use running movement rates? Do these boots remove only the movement penalties or do they actually make it so these surfaces are no longer difficult terrain for the wearer?

With wizards is it often useful to buy a scroll of a spell that is a level higher than they can't currently cast, and use it if needed, risking only a small spell failure chance.

But alchemists can't use spell completion items like scrolls, and I thought I read that wands for "spells" that only appear on alchemist's extract list don't exist because they can't craft them without a caster level and wizards don't have access to spells of the same name.

I'm not sure if brew potion has a similar limitation, or if potions and wands both exist via the assistance of master craftsman.

What I'm really looking to determine is if there is any way that a 5th level alchemist (who normally only gets extracts up to 2nd level) can obtain a 3rd level extract, and somehow use spell slots and the infusion discovery to make infusions for other party members.

Basically is there any way to supply such items to the rest of the party for an average cost that is less than buying potions.

The spell in question is on the wizard list, so wands and potions are possible, but I want a use-activated item for non-casters and I'd like to know if there is any more economical way than potions to accomplish multiple castings.

AFAIK there is no way to do this. Items that increase your caster level exist, but I don't recall any that increase your class level or open up higher level slots. Metamagic rods could get you a higher level spell but I don't think those work for alchemists and even if they did they don't give access to spells with higher base level (only modify level of spells you can already access).

Your math for a cylinder checks out. Figuring 15' reach plus a foot to wrap around an ankle for trip attacks, diameter comes out to 5/8" and thus about 3 hp.

A real whip is more like a section of a long cone - thicker near the handle and thinner at the supersonic tip. People are more likely to attempt to slash it near the tip, where the diameter would be thinner, and without trying to get too precise about the diameter at the tip or the position being attacked, it might be reasonable to presume that somewhere within a few feet of the business end the diameter is only 3/8" or 2 hp.

A metal whip will have greater hardness and hit points per inch, but would be also at least 8 times as dense and only 2.5 times the weight, so you could do the same work with a significantly thinner weapon - nearly a factor of 2 reduction in diameter.

With steel at 30 hp/inch and 5/16" or 3/16" diameter, you'd be talking about 10 hp or 6 hp for a 5 lb stinging whip. I would tend to use the lower number, but if you are that detailed keep in mind that breaking off the last 5' of a whip still leaves you with something that can reach 10'. It would be a houserule if you wanted to shorten the whip rather than make it completely useless.

Thanks for the lightning fast responses!

To John and the development team:

Do you expect each of these new scenarios can be completed in a regular convention slot of 5 hours maximum duration?

My experience so far with higher level adventures is that it takes more time for players and GMs to figure out what to do with the many options accumulated at those levels.

I am excited about this and thinking about offering the arc at a convention this fall - but I want to make sure we slot enough time to do it right.

Any guidance on that?

I'm thinking about creating a scenario where people play Scooby and the gang using PFRPG rules and pre-generated characters.

I want Scooby to be an awakened animal and a full-fledged PC, and the other characters to have abilities and flaws similar to the rest of the gang.

All the humans should have at least one level of investigator, with appropriate archetypes. PC level probably about 3rd so dips into other classes are possible and there are some interesting feats and class features.

Characters will have almost no magic or spells or weapons or armor, but typical wealth and mundane, alchemical, occult and tech items that fit the iconic characters. They should also have spent a good portion of wealth on items like books, trap making equipment, a vehicle and stashes of food.

I'm looking for suggestions for character builds, if any of you are inclined to share your ideas. My goal is to match iconic character abilities, skills, equipment and behavior as much as possible for roleplaying - with a group that relies mostly on their wits and luck to solve mysteries and doesn't have the typical capabilities of a party that regularly engages in combat.

Once I've settled on the character builds, I'll develop a familiar story with each act incorporating a classic opponent of appropriate CR.

RAW states that: "A wizard also selects a number of additional 1st-level spells equal to his Intelligence modifier to add to the spell book".

From this sentence alone, it seems clear that
- the INT based spells are 1st level only
- if INT changes, the number changes

But the sentence uses the words "also" and "additional" which refer you back to the previous sentence, which starts with "A wizard begins play with". This language is somewhat unique and in context it could be interpreted to mean "At first level a wizard gets a spell book with a number of 1st-level spells equal to 3 plus his INT modifier at the time he takes his first wizard level."

The question is whether the unique wording suggests something unique in the RAI or it is just leftover language that wasn't cleaned up. The 3.5 language isn't significantly different, and IMO the intent was to represent a pre-adventuring lifetime of study where a wizard with high INT could leverage it to get a slight advantage at first level.

I think the hang up with "all means all" here (I'm not the only one) is that spells in a spell book represent something physical and tangible that a character would otherwise have to pay and spend time to have (and might seem difficult to abstract away if the bonus goes away). But if you get free spells when levels increase then why not also when INT increases?

The "begins play" in the first sentence leads one to believe this is a something unique that you only get at 1st-level. If you interpret that the language simply didn't consider later INT increases, you could argue that "1st level spells" in the second sentence should be "spells of the highest level you can currently cast, or lower".

I guess for simplicity's sake I'll consider the list of spells in the book to be an abstraction which moves up or down with INT and/or level. And to match RAW the extra spells from INT will be 1st-level, even though they weren't much to gain at levels 8-10 when INT modifier increased. That will net the character 3 more spells or the equivalent of 45 gp in borrowed spell books and inks it would otherwise cost for those spells.

I am not adding the INT increase-derived free spells unless I receive confirmation that Hero Lab follows an official ruling in this case.

One thought against adding spells due to INT increase is that the increase already affects your chances to learn new spells. But at this point spellcraft modifier is such that checks to learn are already automatic.

For the purposes of PFS play and the like, a more official answer would really be desirable.

This is coming to light as Hero Lab (who manufactures a rather nifty PF character generator) has added a new feature to track spells known vs spells purchased in spellbooks. Since the logic for this functionality isn't clear... they have assumed one method as opposed to another. Right or wrong... it would be good to know which it is actually supposed to be. The FAQ would suggest that they are doing it right. The Rules as Written.. I don't really know what they suggest... I think maybe they suggest something else.. but.. that's not really important... assuming we can get an official ruling.

I was just using Hero Lab this evening and happened upon this new feature. My wizard started with 18 INT and now has 24 due to 2 points of increase from level advancement and 4 points from a headband. Hero Lab indicates a free spell total that corresponds to the higher INT number. It also does not seem to track whether your free spells of any given level exceed the maximum number of free spells you can have for that spell level.

I know I should ask LWD about this, but I'm wondering if they got some new official rule on this from Paizo. Furthermore there is a question of whether or not extra spell book spells from increased INT need to be 1st level spells or could be of any level the PC can use at that time. The 3 spells you "begin play" with when you have your first wizard level are clearly 1st level, but the part about more spells in books due to high INT is a completely different sentence. The cost of 3 first level spells is not a big deal, but if the PC can have 3 more spells of 4th or 5th level, the cost savings is no longer trivial. Generally INT is not going to increase until you are already capable of casting spells higher than 1st level.

Note that this is not just a temporary bonus question, as some of the INT increase is due to advancing in character levels - which is permanent unless you are unfortunate enough to get permanent negative levels. If you choose to get smarter, learning an additional free spell of a level you can cast would not be an unreasonable reward. It really isn't a huge deal for a PC that between free and purchased spells has well over 100 spells in her books. If you get any free spell at higher levels, it seems like it should be something of value to your character. The two free spells per level and the optional favored class bonus spells track with your current level (highest spell level and one level lower respective maximum levels). I think the same should follow if you are spending ability score increases or item purchases on INT. By the time you can afford that, you may have learned for free or purchased all the 1st level spells you care to have.

Thanks for setting this up.

Added Rockford / Loves Park and DeKalb IL

Thanks skizzerz!

I decided to redeem it myself as that gives me the option to hand out 4 different codes so multiple people can win something.

Now I just need to decide how many sets I want to have to distribute at the event...

One more clarification:

If you want to gift the items, do you need to click the gift link on the Humble site, or can you do that when you take the codes to the Paizo site?

My thinking is that I want to get the certificates into my Paizo account ASAP and assign them later from there. But I'm not sure if one option or the other makes it easier for me to present the gift. As I don't have a humble account I guess Paizo would help me keep track of where these get distributed.

There is a single code, and Vic has said they will be good for quite awhile. But if you want the physical Beginner's Box, that may not be in stock if you wait too long to redeem.

Source.

Thanks for the quick reply and the source, TOZ!

And thanks to Match_stick for the clarification.

Here comes Santa Claus...

I'm not sure if this would help traffic but I'm thinking about paying for bundles now and distributing codes later as convention prizes to be redeemed a few months from now.

Can that be done, or do the bundles need to be redeemed within the promo period?

Also, do you get a single code with each purchase, or is it broken up into different codes for the items included at each different award level?

Diego, nice catch on the confusion mechanic.

I thought it seemed wrong that they would be immediately confused and lose their actions, and you found the only place that clearly confirmed they would get to complete an action before the full effect of the confusion set in.

That makes it a little more survivable, and more or less matches how it played out. The PCs killed one in the first round while the other two kept making two party members try to kill each other, and the rest of the group had to split actions between protecting their friends from each other and actually going after the monsters.

Is there a rules source that explains this?

Seems to be game breaking if you have a circumstance where you have to succeed on multiple saves in the middle of your action (or lose it) due to an effect that doesn't require line of sight and could be concealed to prevent detection.

The chance of succeeding on multiple saves gets exponentially more difficult with more creatures, so the encounter CR should not go up simply in proportion to the number of creatures. Especially if the aura radius is beyond your range to perceive and identify the threat.

As an example I refer to 3 or more Seugathi all concealed in a fog filled room with auras that extend beyond the only entrance to the room. Unless the party is prepared with a way to clear the fog from a distance or blasts spells blindly into the room, this is a likely TPK unless the party numbers several greater than the monsters. The chance of succeeding at 3 DC 20 will saves at the same time is minuscule for most PCs, so while the monsters control 3 party members and remaining party members have only a 1/4 chance of acting normally, the party almost surely destroys itself or goes insane before it can take out the opponents. The only good chance for the party is if the GM decides the creatures start with aura down and must get to their initiative to use a free action to activate it. They need a chance to take out one of the creatures early because 3 aura saves stacked together is just too powerful if it catches them by surprise. Probably a dumb move to enter the room here, and PCs might not notice immediately if a fellow party member is confused. Of course the group was bold about the lack of good visibility as they did have a telepathic bond, which in hindsight might have had some weird effects or chance to identify the cause when others began to get confused.

As a follow up for that creature, text says it can suppress or activate aura as a free action.

That might suggest that it has to take a turn before it can have its aura active, but it could be just as likely that it normally has it active and needs its first turn before it can deactivate it.

Which brings me back to the original question - what happens if the aura is up when you charge into it?

Say a PC sees a bunch of baddies and decides to charge in and slash at one with his sword.

If during the move to close he encounters the perimeter of an aura, does he have to stop there and make a saving throw, potentially ending his move action and denying his attack action?

It seems to me the aura should only take affect once you start your turn within its boundaries. Most say save each round which suggests you need to be in there for the better part of a round before it can affect you.

If it can immediately interrupt turns I think closely spaced groups of creatures with auras could be easily overpowering; multiple chances to fail before you get a chance to do anything to reduce opponent numbers.

Yes colony of Seugathi I am looking at you - if I can even see you before I stumble into the range of your auras.

@ GM Lamplighter: Thanks for that reminder. I am giving this careful consideration as the space is limited.

We only have to contend with the noise from a small number of our own tables, but the space is only 700 sq ft. I think we can squeeze in 4 or 5 small round tables without noise being a big issue, but 6 would put too many too close to each other IMO.

Ideally I like to have all participants at a given table be closer to each other than they are to anyone at a neighboring table.

Thanks for all of the comments!

If others have experience running these, please continue to reply with run length info.

The only module on the list which I saw advertised as a 64 pager was Tears at Bitter Manor, which for PFS shows two separate chronicles so I was already figuring it could be 5 or 6 sessions to run the pair.

We are not completely restricted on time (private space and 24 hour rental rate) but we may be limited by player and GM endurance. I read a review that indicated folks started to tire of the Harrowing after a couple dozen cards and figured folks probably found a way to wrap before all 54 cards came into play.

Part of the draw for our events is that we do dare to try things not done at other conventions, which our players haven't yet had an opportunity to play. Many players seem to like scenario story arcs, modules and even AP sections. So I want to put a few offerings out there which can completely fill an entire day with exciting action. And we usually have super GMs who are willing to make that happen if we provide enough time for them to do it right.

I am also planning to put an open gaming slot at the end of the event in case someone really needs the overflow time, but a one-day marathon event is often easier for people to commit to than returning to finish on another day. If most people say the high level mods will take at least 4 slots, I may have to rethink those as possible choices, but they sound absolutely awesome if we can fit them in.

I am planning to offer some modules again at an upcoming convention.

We have no problem triple-slotting modules that need it, but would some of these typically finish in less time and be better suited for 2 slots in the schedule?

We will have 5 hour slots or 4.5 with breaks.

How many hours have you seen the following modules take to play?

1-2 The Godsmouth Heresy
3-5 The Midnight Mirror
5-7 Tears at Bitter Manor, part 1
6-8 Tears at Bitter Manor, part 2
8-10 The Harrowing
8-10 Doom Comes to Dustpawn

For climbing, "perfectly smooth" does not mean "smooth as mirrored glass". It does not require good dwarven stonework, magical construction, polish or sheetrock.

It simply means there is nothing to hold onto. A simple plaster and lathe ceiling, or stucco, or wood planks, gives nothing to hold onto and counts as "perfectly smooth" (unless there are big gaps between the planks). If you can't put your fingers and toes into cracks, crevices, crannies, holes, whatever, enough to get a grip, then it is "perfectly smooth".

Even a natural slab of rock could easily be "perfectly smooth" enough for this definition unless it has holes like swiss cheese or lots of cracks.

Most structures could conceivably hold his weight, but that doesn't necessarily mean there is something for him to cling to - he doesn't hang from the ceiling with suction cups or with magic; he needs to actually have something for each of his feet to grab onto.

Do you have a rules source that defines "perfectly smooth" this way? It is a big deal to increase the DC from 20-30 to infinite. Realistically, if the surface imperfections just need to be significant in size compared to the grabbing appendages. Real geckos can move on a typical "flat" ceiling. The bumps need to be larger for an 11' long version, but rafters or stone blocks would do. Also, the bigger the room, the less likely that the ceiling will be a single surface with no exposed beams.

Thanks. I missed the bold bit about it being the same opportunity, which makes sense. The straight line limtation, if imposed, limits the usefulness of the tactic significantly if you want to position for a party flank. I will look at the other maneuvers to see what they imply about unintentional movement. Footnote for feather fall suggests falling provokes if it moves you out of a threatened space.

Actually the two ki powers replace slow fall 30 and high jump, so would have to ditch one of those to take elemental fury, or give up another feat to get elemental fist (which isn't really worth it without the archetype).

Also I missed that you now need to obtain ki powers for sudden speed and furious defense before you can use ki points for movement or AC (unlike the standard monk). Sudden speed is +30 instead of +20 and lasts a minute instead of a round. The monk has to be 7th level before he can take furious defense, although formless mastery appears to be a better choice if the monk doesn't have a style feat (of course the current version does).

But he would also get to add a style strike.

We will have some things to talk about...

My son has a monk character and we are considering a rebuild. The original is a Monk of the 4 Winds archetype, which won't be allowed with the rebuild. He would still take elemental fist as a feat, but it looks like there is no way to get the damage progression (or extra uses) on the elemental fist attack once you lose the archetype?

Is there another way to boost that ability that is unchained legal?

(edit) I guess elemental fury ki power is the obvious replacement. Doesn't allow the damage to get an extra 1d6 per use at 5th level, but for a ki point could add (at 6th level) 1d6 to every attack for a 3 round period. That could be 9 attacks with flurry or 12 if he spent 3 more ki points (or more attacks adding AoO).

So instead of 2d6 six times per day with elemental fist feat he gets 1d6 for all attacks in 3 rounds whenever he spends 1 ki point, but he gets back stunning fist which he had given up for the archetype. Have to expend 2 ki to get similar elemental damage in a day.

And of course he gets better BAB, no flurry attack penalty, and a couple of ki powers instead of slow fall 30. Slow fall any distance is now available as a ki power choice, so he gets a bonus to falling distance as well as another power. The only other downside is reduced will saves.

You can also run a the Skulls and Shackles Adventure path in Campaign Mode. When running that, just inform when you reach the section for PFS credit. Just have their characters mirror the ones used for PFS

You can also run it in PFS mode, where PFS characters run the PFS specific portions of the Adventure Path.

The Plunder and Peril mega-module can also be an option. And if you are running both Plunder and Peril, as well as Skulls and Shackles, you can intertwine the two games.

But remember that this would be a heavy commitment in terms of playerbase, since this can take weeks to complete.

In terms of scenarios, I just recently played Slave Ships of Absalom, and though it had a nice finish of piracy-like themes. Part two of the Quest for Perfection chain is also nice.

Do you have an estimate, for PFS mode, of how long it would take to play the sanctioned content in Plunder & Peril? e.g. could each of the 3 parts be played 5 hours or 6 or 8 or 10? For a 3 day event, we probably have at most 35 hours of gaming (7 slots of 5 hours each).

If we wanted PCs to start at lower levels (playing some scenarios and then part 1 of the Skull & Shackles AP first), I'm sure we could NOT get though all of Plunder & Peril at the same event. Although maybe it would be better to just open it to PCs of the requisite level and run it campaign mode with one level per day. The other option would be to build PCs up from level 1 during this weekend, and try to have them ready to play Plunder & Peril at a future event.

No clerics of Besmara? Or inquisitors and warpriests, either? Many in a pirate crew might be rogues, as well. I usually think of a single swashbuckler as a pirate leader, with cutthroats and ne'er-do-wells working with him.

"It is, it is, a glorious thing, to be a Pirate King!"

It's more of a gimmick idea, to not have a "balanced" party, but instead to have too many pirate leaders, each trying to show up the rest with bravado and derring-do. What happens if everyone wants to be the pirate captain, and nobody wants to have a different role in the crew? Perhaps one stands out and becomes the pirate king, or maybe it just turns into general silliness and mayhem with a crew that knows swashbuckling and nothing else.

If I did this with a higher level game, I think I'd relax the restriction to allow some amount of multi-classing; it might too severely limit the chance of success in some scenarios if the party lacks diversity.

I'm considering having a pirate themed event, and possibly a session that is only open to swashbuckler PCs.

Any ideas on what might be some of the best choices for the latter?

I've seen quite a few PFS scenarios with pirates or ships, but I suspect there are several other good options out there which I've yet to consider.