ValarakarU's page

I am going to resurrect this forum to add: I have finally with the publishing of the remaster player cores given PF2 a chance recently. And I am thrilled to have left my AP subscription running in the mean time because it turns out I really like the PF2 rules! So now I will get to use as is all those PF2 APs on the shelf. And I happily retained my charter tag in the process.

Special thanks to the original author and those who've kept this alive and available. Great work!

Please consider FAQ clarification on the Bleeding Shot duration and effect.

Bleeding Shot

For your debilitating trick, you can afflict your target with an amount of bleed damage equal to your operative level.

Note this does not say it applies the Bleeding Condition or specify any sort of duration. While other things typically do (Bleed critical effect for example).

Bleeding Condition

You take the listed amount of damage at the beginning of your turn each round until this condition ends. Your bleeding can be stopped with a successful DC 15 Medicine check as a standard action, or through the application of any ability that restores Hit Points. If you take two or more bleed effects, you take only the damage from the worst effect.

So this can be interpreted in different ways. Clarification on whether the Bleeding Shot applies the bleeding condition or not would help clarify.

PF2 almost did me in too, but I can still mine the APs for story and plots and use them in PF1 and D&D5 games if need be so I remain.

Yep, I wondered if it would do that, but, luckily, that's one of the reasons there's a few days gap between order generation and fulfillment: so we can fix things like this! The subscription did get cancelled properly and I've removed AP #40 from your order and resent the confirmation email. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do for you!

Problem solved. Thank you.

Hello,
I did get the notice to cancel my starfinder subscription as expected, however my order Order 3653180 is showing that it includes Starfinder AP #40. I do not want to pay for this issue as I requested it the cancel for after #39 and before #40. I realize this was challenging due to the delays.

Hello,
Please cancel my Starfinder subscription after the completion of the current AP.
That is after issue: Starfinder Adventure Path #39: The Gilded Cage (Fly Free or Die 6 of 6).

Thanks

In our game the operative had never used the quick trick cover to cover. In fact need to use two moves on the trick hadn't come up at all yet. So it was a non-factor, even before we discovered the errata.

The soldier and solarian just acquired charge attack/solar rush. Ranged enemies have been so far very ineffective against their ability to close into melee even without x3 movement. I doubt now they will fare much better now.

I think there is some mistake that I am arguing against the errata of quick trick. I am actually saying Charge Attack should also be errata'd.

Quick trick was a 3 action ability that was never intended to work the way it did, and was errata's to fix a mistake.

Charge Attack is a 4 action move with restrictions that also should be fixed in the same way. It should be a standard action with a single movement movement instead of the x2. Thus allowing the soldier to use their normal movement action before or after the standard charge.

ValarakarU wrote:

* L3 Operative with quick movement and trick attack can move. 40' and shoot. They can start from cover and end in cover (but not full cover)

What is the rationale for not being able to end in full cover?

I meant "Total Cover" not "full cover" as a clarification. And my thought it that it you have total cover then there is no line of effect between you and the opponent in question meaning you cannot shoot them. Might not be RAW. I can't say in this case. Note: Quick trick does not have this problem as you can trick then move into total cover. However, at that point you may have lost line of sight as well as line of effect, so might have no idea what your enemy is doing in response. Cover is all a bit vague on its implications really. boils down to if a player is using total cover then they probably are using total cover and that's going to have costs (i.e. is it transparent?). Not that this is super critical to this discussion. Other than to highlight cover to cover is only as good as a GM lets it be.

Quote:

Also note that in order to be effective I must be in range when I shoot of my small arms.

Keep in mind that trick attack unlike sneak attack doesn't have a range limitation. You can shoot from 2 range increments away and functionally be attacking their normal AC.

Even If you're avoiding a penalty only needing to get within 30 feet of an opponent as opposed to adjacent to them gives you a lot more options.

I agree you can stay at higher range if you want. Range + lower BAB vs flat-footed AC vs Soldiers melee attack is lower hit chance. Safer? yes. perfect? no. nothing stops someone from shooting back at you.

Quote:

Additionally I can charge away from my foes at x3 movement and attack nothing....

"Opponent" is undefined in the rules as far as I know. as a result it can be an object or air.

Yeah..no. Remember when I said "Creative" solutions turn out to just plain not work? You're trying one of those here. Bending the rules to the point of breaking and then some is not a creative strategy. It's banal willful misinterpretation of the rules.

Not really going to spend much debating this one here because it is a terrible cheese hack on the rules and no GM would allow it. But most people agree any character can charge a door and attack it in order to knock it down (even though its not an armed enemy). if you can move x3 and attack a person, you can move x3 and attack a door. Now you can easily replace door with statue, or pillar with reflection. something that sounds silly and "creative" is perfectly within logic of the original ability.

Quote:

enemies reacting smartly, etc.

Again. Unbacked claims like this do not make your point. They only show that you don't have one.

I didn't think it was necessary to show strategic counters to this and failing to do so would suddenly negate everything I said before. Enemies can take cover from ranged fire too. Enemies can ready attacks for mobile cover darting enemies. Enemies can log grenades behind cover. Enemies can use ranged against ranged foes. I think its safe to say a basic simple tactic like kite and cover darting only works if the enemies stand there baffled by your actions. Not listing out counterstrategies for a few examples is more an exercise of not wasting time and less about not being able to come up with them.

Your problematic combat routines kiting are not problematic. You wind up with one whack to one whack. The trick attacking operative winds up with one full round whap to no whacks.

Blitz soldier gets a full rounds of attacks in a charge at level 11. and no whacks comparison is limited to someone simply trying to chase ( and never charging) with a melee weapon. And is true for both trick attack and quick trick attack.

ValarakarU wrote:

I just would have preferred they also changed the Charge attack to be include say standard attack as long as the move no more than a single move. Then its balanced again.

I don't understand what you are referring to here. You get an attack at the end of a charge. What change are you looking for?

Fair question. I guess I was trying to highlight a bit of half-baked ability comparisons. To highlight from a balance standpoint Charge Attack is higher action economy than something else after an errata. I'd love to see an errata on charge attack to be match where the baked in movement is single move instead of double to keep it in line with the normal action economy of Starfinder.

Quote:

Charging carries tight restrictions on how you can move. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares), and all movement must be directly toward the designated opponent, though diagonal movement is allowed. You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and you must move to the space closest to your starting square from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or blocked, you can’t charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement (such as difficult terrain), or contains a creature (even an ally), you can’t charge. You can still move through helpless creatures during a charge. If you don’t have line of sight (see page 271) to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can’t charge that opponent.

As for being able to move 120' and not attack, of course you can. You can Run.

Run applies flat footed but using it as a charge in some circumstances allows x3 with an extra action and no penalties.

Quote:

Charging carries tight restrictions on how you can move. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares), and all movement must be directly toward the designated opponent, though diagonal movement is allowed. You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and you must move to the space closest to your starting square from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or blocked, you can’t charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement (such as difficult terrain), or contains a creature (even an ally), you can’t charge. You can still move through helpless creatures during a charge. If you don’t have line of sight (see page 271) to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can’t charge that opponent.

"Opponent" is undefined in the rules as far as I know. as a result it can be an object or air.

So "Additionally I can charge away from my foes at x3 movement and attack nothing" isn't actually a thing.

Why not?

Is it Cheesy? Yes. Would any sane GM frown? Yes.

Also why would I be able to move 120' and attack something twice, but I can't move 120' without? no logic

Every time I see someone say they can be more "creative" with something without actually showing it it's either patently contrary to the rules or just does not work.

I already listed examples. But I can do so again in summary.

* L3 Operative with quick movement and trick attack can move. 40' and shoot. They can start from cover and end in cover (but not full cover). L9 that's move 50' and attack, L15 that's move 60 and attack. That does not include the highly valuable Improved Quick Movement which makes those numbers 50, 70, and 80' movement and attack. So with normal quick attack and a ranged weapon I can kite quite effectively and attack from cover (but not full cover). Also note that in order to be effective I must be in range when I shoot of my small arms.
- Total movement max 80+trick attack

* L3 Operative with quick trick can move twice 30' each and shoot. They can start from cover and end in cover (including cover). No increase in this for levels 9 and 15. So I can use the coveted cover to cover shooting when that is available. Unless someone changes their strategy to prevent this. I can also Kite 60', which may or may not be enough to avoid a charge. Also note that in order to be effective I must be in range when I shoot of my small arms.
- Total movement max 60+trick attack
- movement 30+trick+movement 30

* L5 blitz soldier can move 40 (or 30 or 35 depending on their armor), then charge another (80, 70, or 60). this allows me to move into position before my charge, or fly up then charge. I could also instead charge, then guarded step. or Charge then ready shield, or charge and then tumble a move away. or charge then tumble into a flank. Sure tumble allows AoO, its not hard to beat it. (and often in order to use trick to escape melee in the above examples tumble is needed too). In addition to all this my charge is at no attack and AC penalty like normal. Additionally I can charge away from my foes at x3 movement and attack nothing. This getting to escape at x3. This also changes to allow a full attack at level 11 instead of 1.
- Total movement up to 120 (realistically 90 or 105 due to armor) then attack (full?).
or movement 80(70/60) + attack (full?) + movement (40/35/30)

So I disagree that the abilities are not similar and scrutinized comparatively. If you remove the movement from quick trick, then remove some of the movement from charge attack IMO. With the movement removed from Quick trick its value over standard Trick attack becomes unclear.

Every time I see someone say they can be more "creative" with something without actually showing it it's either patently contrary to the rules or just does not work.

I've shown examples since the beginning. Nothing I have suggested is against the rules or won't work. In this case all the counter arguments have been as subjective as my assertion that the abilities are similar in function and use.

Basically the argument is you can cheese quick trick to kite or cover to cover. Reasonably true for that one build (other builds like melee operative, who cares since it is harder to cheese?). But then nothing stops you from cheese on charge attack or original trick. Except the situation, enemies reacting smartly, etc.

Every time I see someone claim that they're right because they're smarter than everyone else it's a case of tell don't show.

Been showing plenty of examples since the beginning.

Never claimed smarter, but I have seen you many times on these boards try to shut down a discussion by using this sort of comment.

I haven't seen a single comment on here yet that I hadn't considered before posting and has convinced me that there isn't a double standard being applied and the abilities shouldn't be more compared balance wise.

The reason I found it odd was that I gave up "quick movement" which would have let me move forty feet and trick attack, so now I can move sixty feet and attack.

Balance issues are difficult to parse but the intended meaning seemed clear to me.

I think this was always the intention. I suspect the author fell into the same trap players often do - namely thinking trick attack is "like sneak attack in pathfinder". They forget its a full round action and think of it as move + trick attack.

I agree that it was intended to always work like the errata, and it was missed in original. Proven by the fact they did make errata.

I just would have preferred they also changed the Charge attack to be include say standard attack as long as the move no more than a single move. Then its balanced again.

Alright then

as for kiting, you can charge 60 feet but that 60 feet has to be in a straight line. But the operative isn't limited to a straight line or from crossing difficult terrain or from moving through an ally (or other enemies...) all they have to do is go around the corner or behind their tank, and with 60-80 feet of movement there's likely something around, unless the DM has an all tatooine adventure..

Quick movement isn't the only way to get a little more movement than the other guy, bionic legs are cheap, fleet isn't a terrible feat.

Keep in mind the Charge attack is 60 feet of strait movement (more likely 70 or 80 due to blitz movement ability) and another 30-40 movement not in a strait line.

Alright then

as for kiting, you can charge 60 feet but that 60 feet has to be in a straight line. But the operative isn't limited to a straight line or from crossing difficult terrain or from moving through an ally (or other enemies...) all they have to do is go around the corner or behind their tank, and with 60-80 feet of movement there's likely something around, unless the DM has an all tatooine adventure..

Quick movement isn't the only way to get a little more movement than the other guy, bionic legs are cheap, fleet isn't a terrible feat.

All characters and NPCs have equal access to accelerated movement from other sources. People who invest in them will have advantages in movement. They apply equally to both Quick Trick, Trick attack, and Charge Attack.

I find it interesting that the main argument in favor of the errata is due to someone kiting (which can be done equally using other abilities), and someone going cover to cover ranged. Both of which provide situational advantages.

But I can be very creative with a Charge Attack soldier so get situation advantages in a similar way with more movement.

I guess because it requires less thought to get the situational advantage? Or because enemies don't react wisely to a character trying these strategies after 1 or 2 rounds?

Quick trick is a feat, not an alternative class feature.

Incorrect.

Quick Trick (Ex)3rd Level
Source Character Operations Manual pg. 82
Class Operative

You can make a trick attack as a standard action if you do not move as part of that ability. You cannot make any other attack during a round when you do this, and cannot take any action that affects or modifies your attack or the weapon you are attacking with.

This replaces quick movement.

ValarakarU wrote:

Operative with quick trick does not get additional movement, so the "high movement speed" is incorrect. Blitz Soldier does get enhanced speed though, and could use this to hit and run round after round.

Operatives have bonus speed baked into their class features, which is what I was referring to. Also, we're discussing the original printing of quick trick which incudes a bonus move action, which can be used to, you know, move a second time. A standard action charge character can technically do this too, but their speed and default distance from target (0ft vs 30+ft) is lower than the average operative and they still risk an AoO, unlike the operative.

Operatives with Quick Trick give up the class based baked in movement to get quick trick. This configuration allows combinations of 60' movement with an attack (before the errata). Since most characters can charge 60' not sure how Kite strong this is.

So an operative with Quick Trick getting two movements is compared to an operative with Trick Attack and Increased Movement. This combination allows UP to 80' movement with an attack after the movement. Seems pretty kite strong.

Meanwhile a Blitz soldier moves up to 120' and attacks or depending on armor 90' and attacks.

The key difference between the two is that trick attack can be a ranged attack. Standard action charge means you must move into melee.

Double move and trick attack means you can move in and out of total cover while still shooting. It means you can move out of hiding, trick attack and then attempt a stealth check to become hidden again.

One can do this with Charge Attack too. A little more awkwardly, and requires an acrobatics to avoid AoO.

It also means you can use your operative's high movement speed to easily kite monsters while still trick attacking.

Operative with quick trick does not get additional movement, so the "high movement speed" is incorrect. Blitz Soldier does get enhanced speed though, and could use this to hit and run round after round.

Also a trick attack (original not quick trick) with the operative fast movement still intact is just as easy to kite.

Also, standard action charge is difficult/dangerous to perform round after round against a single enemy, a ranged trick attack is not.

Alas for the melee focused operative.

The operative ability gave you more actions. Move Move Attack. It allows for a lot more unseen options. Such as move, do a trick attack, move and hide with the ghost exploit.

They give the same number of actions.

Charge Attack or Stellar Rush:
Can move into a better position then charge.
Guarded step then charge
Charge then guarded step
Charge then move
And many other combinations of Charge and Move action

I don't see much difference at all.

In the original printing of COM - Quick trick kept the baked in movement of Trick Attack. Allowing the Operative to move as part of the trick and attack as a standard while then being able to use their move action in the same round either before or after the quick trick.

The Blitz soldier gets Charge Attack and the solarian can take Stellar Rush. Each of these convert charge from a full attack to a standard allowing them to move double movement as part of a charge and attack without the normal charge penalty and still have a move action either before or after the charge for whatever.

In the errata, Quick Trick was changed to specifically exclude the built in movement of Trick attack. However, both Charge attack (blitz soldier) and Stellar Rush both still contain the built in movement.

I am confused why errata one of these abilities but not be consistent with the other two. They seem like comparable abilities. After the errata the charge abilities are quite a bit more powerful in my mind. I would understand if they also had changed Charge Attack and Stellar rush to be half speed charge.

Thoughts?

ValarakarU wrote:

Hello,

my order Order 36323171 - including PFAP # 163 and SFAP # 36 was damaged in shipping. The envelope was torn mostly open at the top exposing the books inside (someone put some tape on the top to hold it partially shut). The entire envelope was creased and had a puncture in the middle. Both books inside have creases from the fold, slight curling on the top edge where it was exposed and the PFAP#163 has a puncture about 10 pages deep.

I do have photos of the damage. Please advise if you can replace them?

Thanks!

Hi!

I am so sorry your items arrived damaged! I have created a replacement order to ship to you with your next subscription order, but if you need them sooner please let me know and I will gladly set that up :)

It is fine to include them in the next shipment. I do not need them any sooner.

Thank you so much!

Hello,
my order Order 36323171 - including PFAP # 163 and SFAP # 36 was damaged in shipping. The envelope was torn mostly open at the top exposing the books inside (someone put some tape on the top to hold it partially shut). The entire envelope was creased and had a puncture in the middle. Both books inside have creases from the fold, slight curling on the top edge where it was exposed and the PFAP#163 has a puncture about 10 pages deep.

I do have photos of the damage. Please advise if you can replace them?

Thanks!

So 6 years after the last post in this thread might be a bit of thread necromancy but here goes. As you can see by my very stylish charter tag I own every AP. I have personally used and run RotRl, CotCT, LoF, and CC. I loaned my RotRl, Second Darkness to a member of our group to GM. My gaming Group also used someone else’s copy of Serpents Skull. I have also leafed through every module when it arrives and then it goes in a cardboard magazine holder on a shelf to keep it nice and strait and in pristine order. We have had no issues whatsoever with any of those bindings and most of them look as nice as they did when they arrived despite using them to play. I have never creased the covers before hand.

All that changed a few months ago when my Council of Thieves chapter 1 came out of its place on my shelf. Within 5 minutes the 2nd page fell out and a few others are dangerously loose. I thought to myself, “wow, that’s unusual. Must have gotten a bad binding. “. While disappointed I figured, “well nothing can be done now”. And I have treated that volume like a fragile priceless thing lest more pages fell out. So I am not on volume 2 of Council of thieves. And since I had the issue on volume 1 I was being careful. And what happens? Yep, you guessed it. Page 2 slid right out of it after 10
Minutes of gentle use.

So yeah, pretty sure Council of Thieves in general has issues with its bindings.

I will try the prefold from now on since I had this issue but I do hate the creased look.

I am still here, for now. Not sure if I'll stay for PF2 though.

Hello,
I received my War For the Crown #5 and Dead Suns #6 today in the mail and the both had been creased. Dead Suns was on the open edge to it was slightly bent on the corner. War For the Crown #5 was creased on the upper spine and ripped. The shipping envelope had a bend in the corner. I have a photo but am not sure how to submit it.

Hello ValarakarU,

I have merged all 4 items into one order. You will be receiving an updated email confirmation reflecting this. The updated payment method authorized successfully and the order will be on its way soon.

Thank you.

Update: I was able to add another card finally, but still need help with the missing 4 orders.

My pathfinder adventure path card expired in april. I received the notice e-mail and set it to the new expiration thinking it was fixed. But hadn't realized it never committed the fixed date. So I have not gotten The last 3 Modules for Ironfang Invasion nor module 1 of the new path. I just tried to enter a while new card and it is not working either.

Any way someone can help me get this fixed to get the 4 I missed and the PDFs and get my card fixed?

I have not had time to read through my book yet. I am looking forward to it. Overall I really like the presentation and I am really looking forward to seeing how close the official PF conversion is to my own a while back.

The first thing I thought when I opened and started turning pages was,"Oh they changed the art!" I am still on the fence on that one. I do like the new art, but I also loved a lot of the old art and some of it is not superior. This does have a better unified look.

However, the big thing was my second nearly simultaneous thought, "Oh wow these pages feel really flimsy and cheap." They feel less sturdy than my original adventure path modules. I worry using this book for running an adventure would tear it up. They don't seem much lighter than the other hardcovers but maybe the less glossy affects them.

It definitely made me wish I had clicked submit 1 day earlier on that collector edition in my cart, thinking those pages are better.

For future hardcover APs, I recommend making the pages heavier weight and the higher gloss.

I have enjoyed this topic and found the Discussion most helpful. I want to thank Pendagast and other contributors for putting this up here. I found the content helpful for considering my own options when it comes to her fate.

Like most here I attached the group to the city through background. I also greatly expanded chapter 1 and 2 to help them really experience Korvosa. We are not in chapter 6 and the PCs are completely bound to Korvosa and its people.

I expanded the section In Chapter 1 with Cressida sending the group on a bunch of "guard missions". Each mission was attached to one of about several Guard Sergeants that was in charge and the group was helping them. They varied from:
1. Grau
2. Stalwart and honest
3. Angry show off, hates the adventurers were in his business
4. Aging veteran, super slow and forgetful
5. Tough as nails woman not willing to put up with any level of crap or cowardice (oh yeah you know where she ends up later)
6. Honest rookie who was bullied and ignored by his thugish men.
7. Fat lazy guy and corrupt commander

Then they were given the list of current issues and asked to lend a hand
1. People murdered in the alleys by some sort of ripper
2. Dangerous creature escaped into south shore
3. Posh and Turtle being harassed by Druids
4. Undead in the Grey
5. Dusters in Old Korvosa
6. Suspicious disappearances at Exemplary Execrables
7. Magistrate Perenne needs help with an issue of faulty scales
8. Ironsoots
9. Investigate Ambassadors from Maginimar
10. Fighting in the Pantheon of Many

PM for copies of this adventure line.

I also included a variant on the Dungeon Module "Thirds of Purloined Vellum" involving Cerulean Society vs Magnimar guild.

Also expanded Rolth's influence in C1 and 2. Going so far as to zombie a bullette to attack the PCs during a event roast at the place where they have rare meats (forget the name). And having a second lab up north where Osquips were attacking kids in an orphanage (Used Zenderholm as a link to this)

Hello fellow GMs,

I didn't really liked the "possessed mold that possesses people" aspect of the moldspeaker...

I also was not terribly fond of the moldspeaker and loved the oasis idea. I implemented it last week and think it went really well.

I will also be stealing some of the waterfall/rovagog temple.

Thanks for the terrific ideas!

ValarakarU wrote:

But it is a good idea. It would be a good house rule material or magic effect. As a GM I often do this with special custom magic weapons.

Personally I take issue with balance when it comes to medium PC's running around dual wielding large bastard swords, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Indeed. Doing this without regard to ones group and their capabilities, and allowing it on any number of items could cause balance issues. But like many things, moderation is the key. I have no issue planing a unique hornblade (like the weapon in the old days) for the small character to acquire in a game and use to help balance said character if it is needed against another PC that is more optimized. Issuing a similar weapon to help a dual wielder balance who was less optimal in a game would also be an option for me as a GM. Issuing two large bastard swords for dual wielding, seems more of an extreme case.

I think making exceptions for game story and balance is a useful tool. If one has players who would take advantage of said exceptions, then one needs to be more careful.

But it is a good idea. It would be a good house rule material or magic effect. As a GM I often do this with special custom magic weapons.

Spoilers? I was intentionally vague on the NPCs info and names. Might be wise to spoilers tag anything you detail like races/classes and names.

I tend to look at the motivation behind the NPCs on reactions. In the example of this thread the main NPC is a fanatical psychopath. In addition I see no reason why the NPCs on the lower levels would think the destruction of their goblin pawns would be a reason to flee. Especially if the people who killed them had to retreat before pressing deeper. Even if the group triggered a flight reaction from the other minions, I doubt the main NPC would allow a retreat. I see that NPC forcing a defend this base or die scenario on the minions. Which some of the smarter minions might start to chafe under, making them likely allies to the PCs.

As such if the group left I would simply close up the fort and station a couple more skilled NPCs on the upper level on watch. They could setup traps and be on alert for the return.

Alternatively, the NPCs might send out a scout (there are two good options for scouts depending on how things went in the previous section). Scout could return back and setup an attack on the group near the end of their watch. This is the method I used except the scouts found the group resting in the fort, making the attack much easier to stage for the NPCs.

I had a similar situation when I ran RotRL. In fact very similar. My group needed a break in the same spot. The group camped in the main entry hall with doors barricaded and watches set. Of course when It became clear to the inhabitants in the lower levels that something was wrong their leader sent some scouts up to survey what was going on. They managed to spot the group. I cannot recall if they got back without being seen or if the group wasted them, but either way the people below were alerted to a threat. IIRC there were several entrances from lower to upper level and the leader of the dungeon led the crew of main enemies up to the main floor in a two pronged attack on the groups camp.

In a massive battle that ended up being much harder than battling these minions separate, the group prevailed. It did require a serious string of luck, including a valiant effort to hold the line alone by the PC sorcerer against two well armored elite fighter enemies and a tough fought battle for the elf PC who was nearly killed in the initial assault by one elf hating minion (and man did that PC have to fight tooth and nail since that minion was dead set on doing whatever it took to finish the job).

In the end I felt like the attack while harder, made the thing seem more real. It also made the exploration of the initial lower level much easier with many of the minions cleared out.

p. 66 Harrow Deck and p. 77 - Fortune-Teller's Deck:

The Harrow Deck is 100gp and weighs "-", but the Masterwork Fortune-Teller's Deck costs 50 gp and weighs 1 lb (with even a cheap common one weighing 1/2 lb).

Furthermore, the Fortune-Teller's Deck provides a +2 bonus to Profession(fortune-teller), and similar skills, but the Harrow Deck makes no mention of this.

I think the best solution is to decide which is correct and simply remove the other item entirely.

I also have issues with this.

I would love playing the paladin in this game. Talk about a tragic hero. I cannot offer you much advice since I think you are doing really well. I like the idea of a final showdown with the son resulting in a his dying repentance and the fathers eternal grief to tie up that thread. Some players just want something simpler though. It is unfortunate for you since you are clearly trying to add depth and not torment the player. Just wanted you to know some people appreciate that kind of effort and story.

Seems to me everyone has focused on a invis rogue starting the combat. There is no reason an invisible undetected rogue cannot sneak into an established combat and get a full sneak attack on an opponent that was not aware of them. Sure the invis is gone after the first attack, but the fact the rogue was undetected until they started stabbing leaves that enemy essentially without dex against them until their next action.

Before Combat: Rogue is hiding or invis
Round 1 through X: Fighting between two groups begins with the rogue undetected.
Round X+1: Rogue sneaks into area right beside an enemy. Presuming the enemies does not detect the invis rogue standing there.
Round X+2: Rogue full attacks enemy and gets sneak on all attacks because the enemy is not aware of him and is thus denied dex vs him until enemy's next action.

Searching is a move action. There is no rule that I found that says you must be adjacent or in a square to search it for traps. Perception applies to anything you can perceive not a specific point of interest or 5' square. The DC for perception is +1/10 feet of distance. So a character standing 20' from the trap simply has a +2 DC to detect the trap when they roll perception. So that in mind a character with a 30 foot move can search every round and get a roll versus the DC of every trap within 30' with at most a +3 DC on the roll. When I do this I generally allow the character to roll in this manner and simply apply a +2 DC to all traps during this time to avoid the record keeping of where the characters is exactly when the perception is rolled since it is continuous. this avoids the problem of wanting to search but bogging down the game by tracking every round and every square and search roll.

There is some nice player made Calistria oracle work on the boards here. Check out this link although it is not in rules since it is homemade stuff.

Oracle of Passion

I have never been fond of the search every square approach because it bogs down the game for both GM And players. I use the following guidelines.

* (RAW) If players don't actively search for traps and no one has the Trap spotter or similar ability, they cannot detect traps automatically (reaction roll).
* (RAW) If a player wants to search a specific area they roll perception on the area as normal.
* (not explicitly written, but I think ends up being pretty much RAW by extrapolation) If a player wants to move along searching as they go they would roll perception each round. They move half speed since they must take a perception check each round as a move action. The DC of checks are modified by +1 per half their normal movement/10 (round up) for distance assuming the average distance for any given trap (so if they have move 30 and move 30 and check for traps every round, at any round the max distance to detect a tap is 15/10 or +2). That bonus could easily be set to full move / 10 or +3 by rule if you wanted to assume the worst possible scenario with distance. Then I might apply a +5 to the DC just because traps by their nature are difficult to find without pinpointing the search specifically and walking and looking for monsters and other stuff. So basically the net I let players move half speed and make reaction perceptions to spot traps or secrets as needed (just to avoid them rolling every round by RAW) with a +7 on the DC to avoid bogging down the game for cautious players. (Note: I could also see applying the +5 DC on other perception checks made while doing this).

This came up in our games because as a player I wanted to move along searching and not bog down the game with a character that had insane perception. The GM ruled that that I could not automatically spot traps by moving and searching and would need to roll each round. Feeling like there should be a way I later researched it and using the rules think the option above pretty much sums up the activity by rule. I use the above in all my GMed games and most of our group has explicitly adopted them. I feel like it is perfectly by the rules and keeps play speedy for trap paranoid groups.

All three effects can be used simultaneously.

I do not agree with this. Both Offensive Defense and Crippling Strike are both asterisk marked sneak attack effects.

Talents marked with an asterisk add effects to a rogue's sneak attack. Only one of these talents can be applied to an individual attack and the decision must be made before the attack roll is made.

So those two affects cannot be applied to the same attack as I read them. Of course they can be applied to two different attacks in the same round.

Had a great time with a Paladin 9/Ranger 10 of Ehlonna in SCAP converted to PFRPG. The classes complimented each other well. It took a while to catch up to the party, but by the end the wait was worth it.

What you need are custom magic items:

brooch of tiny size: While wearing this slotless magic item, any set of clothing or armor that you attempt to don resizes to tiny.

gloves of tiny size: While wearing the gloves, any weapon or other equipment that you touch resizes to tiny. As long as the item remains on your person, it stays tiny in size.

I don't think either of these should be very expensive.

Great ideas. Consider these stolen for more than just Tiny characters.

I believe that a tiny reach weapon (e.g. longspear, glaive) would give a reach of 5 feet.

Great idea. Ranged weapons also help compensate, but it is still a big consideration.