albadeon's page

"Crescent Cross Training" is a feat in the new Crossbow Infiltrator archetype that was just published in Battlecry. It gives you the two-action activity "Crescent Spray" that lets you fire all three loaded bolts in a crescent cross one after the other, making three strikes while not increasing MAP until after the last attack. So yes, you get three attacks at (potentially) no MAP.

Whether that's OP, or balanced by the need to spend three actions to reload afterwards is up for discussion.

I get that they're trying to reach a different audience with this, but for me, this one's a hard pass. I would have loved to see an actual adaptation of 2e rules into a turn based crpg, but ... :(.

Let's hope the 2nd upcoming game is closer to that, but I'm not holding my breath.

Rolling initiative doesn't automatically mean combat, merely "moving to encounter mode". As such, the encounter can proceed as before, just in the more structured encounter mode until someone makes an overtly hostile action (such as shooting at someone), at which point the enemies will likely attack back.

As long as the sniper is undetected, there is no good reason why anyone should act differently before the sniper takes the shot. However, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that everyone not actively involved in negotiations (i.e. guards, non-face-PCs, etc.) are constantly delaying their actions, or (in case of a body guard, e.g.) actually have actions readied to trigger in case of an attack. But nothing unusual should happen before the actual shot is fired. And those who are focused on whatever else is going on (negotiations, etc.) are busy with that and cannot also delay/ready an action.

Keep player/gm knowldege about what one player has announced his character is going to do strictly seperate from character knowledge, where most characters have no clue about what's going to happen.

Congratulations to Jim for the promotion!

On the other topic, if a company was sad to see someone leave after years in a leading position, they would get their own article with thanks for their service, not a mention as an aside in someone else's promotion notice. Health issues aside (and noone deserves those, so best wishes for a speedy recovery!), this is either a major communications mishap on the side of Paizo, or a very deliberate choice. Your guess is as good as mine...

Did the Customer Service Forum get removed?

The "how do I reach customer service?" section on the FAQ/Help page refers to it, but the link now just leads to the main forum page. Has that been moved and I'm just to blind to find it, or is the forum no longer an option to reach CS? (way back, it used to be the only somewhat reliable way...)

Also, if the intent was to provide these maps to make importing them into VTTs such as Roll20 easier, could you (Paizo) please include any added features, i.e. furniture, bone heaps, etc., like the pawns from the Traps & Treasures Collection directly in the map file, not as seperate icons (maybe excluding the rare case where these would be intended to be moved)?!

What we really need is essentially the map as displayed in the adventure, just without annotations, as a single picture file. Otherwise it's still a major cut, copy, paste nuisance.

Also, those damage numbers aren't even super impressive:

A regular PC 1st level giant aspect barbarian with 18 STR raging while wielding a (large) Greatpick with magic weapon cast on it (or even using a potency crystal) will deal 2d10+10 damage on a regular hit and a whopping 5d12+20 on a crit. That's a maximum of 80(!) damage, easily enough to kill every possible 1st level and even many 2nd level characters outright through massive damage. And even regular hits have the potential to outright destroy a number of low-hp builds at first level.

That constellation wouldn't even be a super unusual thing even for a party of purely 1st level characters, especially in the boss fight. Heck, even pregen Amiri with her greatsword instead of the fatal d12-pick would do a maximum of 68 damage on a crit and half that on a regular hit (again, assuming magic weapon). No 1st level elf wizard would survive a single max-damage regular hit!

And there's really no reason why enemy NPCs should not be able to do the same, raging barbarians and potency crystals/magic weapon spells are certainly nothing exotic.

In short, while I think that character death is a threat that should not be taken out of the game, it works much better as a threat, not an unavaoidable execution by massive damage where there's nothing the player could reasonably have done, other than not take the character out on the adventure. And that's not really an idea to instill in players...

Honestly, I think the massive damage rule should be restricted to actual "massive damage events", i.e. falling into a lava lake, falling from a very high cliff, having a mountain collapse on you, etc. NOT mere combat damage.

Thank you, Éa, I'm just adding in my class and reposting as my character

Drilwenwënas Druid 1 pair with Garad
Garad Sorcerer 2 pair with Drilwenwënas
Hazaug Sorcerer 2
Manney My-holey-knee Rogue 1
Manuk Gagak Rogue 1
Ylen Vartok Investigator 1
Éa Wizard 1
Ingmar Cloudseeker Barbarian 1
Ocularus Sorcerer 3

Copying myself over from the Cottonseed Lodge recuitment thread:

If you'll have me, I'd like to join up as well. However, be warned that this would be my first attempt at PbP, so bear with me, if I don't get everything right the first time :).

I'm going to whip up a brand-new level 1 character to play as all of my characters in level range have actually played 1-14 before.

If you'll have me, I'd like to join up as well. However, be warned that this would be my first attempt at PbP, so bear with me, if I don't get everything right the first time :).

I'm going to whip up a brand-new level 1 character to play as all of my characters in level range have actually played 1-14 before.

Great news! One additional thing that would be really useful for running PFS scenarios online would be for those scenarios that have maps that are put together from multiple map tiles to include one page where they are reprinted with no annotations. That way, it's easy to screen-grab the entire map instead of having to do the rather unenjoyable task of piecing it together from numerous tiles.

Maybe add a "copy-editing" task force?! Have them gather the most blatant typos/mistakes with any new scenarios and plan to published a revised version 14 days or a month after the initial release. Just, you know, text corrections, etc., not major content changes... Stuff that just makes quality control appear poor if it happens.

Sorry, I know this might seem silly or even sarcastic at first glance, but so many scenarios published have had their issues that were missed in-house and quite probably Paizo is not making enough money off of these to have them professionally copy-edited. Or maybe there is copy-editing, but whoever does it just cannot spend enough time on each module? Maybe the interested community can help provide that service, since we go through the scenarios with an eye for detail anyway?! Just have interested fans gather a list of typos and glaring errors and after some time have someone in house spend maybe an hour max to fix them in the pdf and re-release?

My PFS-scenarios for August just dropped and I've only had the time to look through some parts of Citadel of Corruption. But I've already stumbled across a chronicle that congratulates me on having finished a different scenario and an encounter that claims to award 10gp, but really awards 2 treasure bundles. Especially the chronicle part makes me cringe thinking I'm supposed to hand those out to players... It just doesn't look professional.

Ascendant's Tactics:

It says that he casts silence on a PC who uses magic, but insofar as I can tell you cannot cast 2nd level silence on an unwilling target. I understand the rule of thumb is "run as written" by this implementation of silence is difficult to adjudicate without making up rules for silence.

That is another of a number of instances where an author apparently was unaware that the spell had been significantly changed from 1st Edition and assumed it would still work offensively. If a suggested tactic doesn't work as written make up your own.

Also, for the NPC stat blocks. The dagger attacks don't have the agile, finesse, or versatile S traits. Hand crossbow doesn't have range increment or reload 1. Shortbow doesn't have range increment, reload 0, or deadly d8. Am I to run these stat blocks without these printed traits (again, abiding by "run as written") or assume this information was omitted by accident?

Since there is no indication that these NPCs use non-standard weapons, I'd assume these were just omitted by accident. In particular, a ranged weapon with no reload doesn't really make sense.

Lastly, for the Murderous Bathhouse, it doesn't have a listed Stealth skill, so it's unclear what to roll on initiative (Stealth DC - 10 as bonus?). Furthermore, the Disable action doesn't list how many actions are required to perform it. Should I assume 2?

As a complex hazard, it should have had its stealth modifier instead of its stealth DC listed and is using that for initiative. The math is easy enough, though.

Well, "he offers to give interested PCs a lesson in how to craft xxx", doesn't really say they have to have the lesson right then and there. It could just as well be interpreted as saying he's available to teach PCs the lesson if and when they're interested.

Just like the item he's selling doesn't have to be bought right there, but is available to be bought in the future (and is thus on the chronicle).

In addition, the formulas are listed on the chronicle with a price of 50gp each. Normally, items listed on the chronicle sheet are available to be purchased for the price listed (assuming you meet the level prerequisites). If a PC has to spend the 50gp just to have the item listed on the chronicle in the first place, they are now either expected to pay double, or the discounted price listed should be 0gp (since they already had to pay the 50gp to have it listed on there in the first place).

And how is this supposed to work with the bequeathal faction boon?! I have to purchase the item first to be able to bequeathe the right to purchase it to someone else?!

In my opinion, it all doesn't add up. I think whoever is interpreting the "he offers to give a lecture..." sentence as it has to be bought on the spot is reading too much into it. It should really just be another item on the chronicle that becomes accessible for purchase later.

It's probably an issue that could be cleared up fairly easily by an interpretation by Michael Sayre, Tony Woldridge or someone else official from Organized Play. Maybe someone could point them to this thread for a quick clarification? :)

Rebuilding Your Character

You may find that there are aspects of your character where you’re not entirely sure about your decisions, such as the ancestry or class feat you chose. Don’t worry! While your character is 1st level, you can rebuild as often as you need to, changing any of these choices. Until you play a game in which your character has 12 or more XP, you can freely rebuild your character completely except for Reputation earned and character number.

You can completely rebuilt a character at 12 xp, however he will still have earned his Rep up until that point with GA. You are free to switch to HH going forward, but not to reallocate the previously earned Rep to the new faction.

Edit: which makes sense, I guess, since that info has been entered by the GM on the reporting website and would need to be changed by them.

I went with cold iron for my weapon, as you have the option to bring a vial of silversheen which costs only 6gp (and is available as a 3rd level freebie from the swords school). A weapon coated in that will count as a silver weapon for an hour, instead of cold iron or whatever other material, so it's a convenient way to have material flexibility available should the need arise.

Starting with the upcoming second season, quests will be phased out and replaced by "bounties". Those will be similarly short adventures, but with less society tie-in (no VC briefing, no school items, etc.) They are all planned to be repeatable, however, at least for this season they'll all only be playable with level 1 characters (higher level bounties are apparently planned for future seasons)

The recent 1-23 "The Star-Crossed Court" has some combat

While I do think the rules here are written somewhat ambiguously, I'd tend to agree with Nefreet on this one. I don't see any good reason why there should be a difference between "Copying a formula into your book" and "Crafting a copy" (onto a scroll, I presume?!).

Most importantly, there is absolutely no good reason why the process should be so significantly different from the very similar process of adding a spell to a wizard's spell book. Both perform the same function from a games mechanics perspective, why have them be totally different?!

The "Learn a Spell" activity requires three "components": money, time and a skill check. The logically extremely similar process of adding a new formula to your book also mentions all three of these components, albeit in a much less concisely worded fashion. That more or less identical rules should apply seems only logical.

The sentence "I you have a formula, you can Craft a copy of it using the Crafting skill" can easily be read to mean "If you have obtained in-game access to a formula as mentioned in the previous sentence, you can then make a copy of it into your formula book using the Craft skill", which I think is the intended meaning.

albadeon wrote:

it doesn't work with Assurance, as that automatically foregos the roll that is required for Mortal Healing.

This is also an incorrect statement, but if you wish to argue for it, I will direct you to the recent thread discussing it over in the Rules Forum.

I've edited my previous post so as to avoid having the same argument in two different threads. The fact that you hold a different opinion does not however make it an incorrect statement per se...

Overall, I liked the scenario a lot and we had great fun interacting with the squad members.

However, like pretty much everyone here, I agree that locking treasure bundles behind critical successes is just not cool.

That is particularly true for high-subtier, since the DC here is 23, so many characters (including probably all martial characters out there) that are untrained in Society couldn't even get a crit success on a natural 20 unless they had an improbably high INT-modifier.

Another encounter area in the scenario had a provision of getting a treasure bundle either with a crit or with two regular successes. That seemed a lot more reasonable (also that area was using Perception with the same DC instead, which everyone is automatically at least trained in...).

I was playing my L1 champion of Sarenrae because it suited the scenario and there was one other L1 at the table, but the party as a whole was playing up. Both players decided to use their mentor boons on the other L1 character and left me with just the standard level bump. I told them, "Fine! The Dawnflower is with me, and that's the only mentor I need!"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but (assuming this is for 2E) I believe multiple PCs should be able to profit from the same mentor boon. Each PC can only profit from 2 different boons max, but one higher-level PC's mentor boon can "mentor" several PCs. Still, who needs worldly mentors when you have Sarenrae on your side?! :)

No, a "shield bash" is listed, which is an action, not an item. Check the subchapter "Shields" in the Equipment chapter (NB: this is a chapter separate from the Armor and Weapons chapters).

A shield is not a weapon, though it can be used to bash someone with it "like a weapon" in a pinch. It cannot have weapon runes etched into it. However, you can put a boss or spikes on it, and those are actual weapons that can hold weapon runes.

What I'm saying is that scenario A and B are really the same scenario, it's just that scenario A is what happens in the middle of combat and scenario B is what happens when you transition from Exploration Mode to Encounter Mode.

But scenario A isn't "real" because in this scenario combat has already started and the enemy isn't "surprised" by combat starting, because it's already been happening.

What I'm saying is it's incorrect to be in Encounter mode before hostilities actually begin.*

*There are sometimes when you need the time tracking of Encounter mode outside of combat, but those are rare and stumbling into an arena and talking to someone isn't yet Encounter mode. When one side starts hostilities that's when you switch from Exploration to Encounter.

I agree, the two are pretty much identical. As such, I'd argue that they should have similar consequences. The arena master is surprised by the dude suddenly appearing next to him just the same, whether he was previously in encounter mode /combat in the arena below, or in exploration mode, but doing the exact same thing (i.e. standing next to the cleric, being healed whle casting a spell).

However, merely due to the mechanical backbone of either already being in encounter mode or of switching into encounter mode at that very moment, the same story potentially plays out very differently. Which it shouldn't. In both scenarios A and B the story should ultimately unfold the same way and not be severly impacted by the artifical construct of the different game modes.

(Edit: moved some text to next post, as it's a somewhat different issue)

There needs to be an option for the enemy to spot the player and shoot him first.

In the example given, there actually was the possibility to notice the hidden player, but the enemy failed his perception check.

But still, it shouldn't make a difference to the order of events if we are in exploration mode or in encounter mode. Encounter mode is explicitly not just "combat mode" as the CRB notes.

It is totally unreasonable that a player doing something unexpected, such as deciding to attack a foe in a previously tense, hostile but non-combat situation, or using a breath weapon that noone even knew he had, or maybe even turn on the party and cast fireball on them instead of detect magic, or whatever other surprising decision you can come up with is penalized for that in exploration mode.

If this is done in encounter mode, i.e. in previously established initiative order (and that explictely doesn't need to be combat according to the CRB), he can do it when it's his turn and everyone who is acting before him doesn't know what is happening and thus has no reason to adapt their actions to him. They don't get a "tingling sensation that player X is going to do something out of the ordinary, so I should better prepare/kill him first". Or do you usually tell your players at the start of the round "Just so you know, the innocent looking civilian dude in the back looks like he's about to call down a meteor strike on you when it's his turn"?

However, if the same non-combat situation is run in exploration mode, everyone can be doing the exact same thing as before, but when the player does something unexpected, now everybody gets a chance to notice him "broadcasting his intention to do something surprising" and get a chance to be able react to that before he's even had a chance to do it.

This is a glaring discrepancy and yes, it does come close to granting everyone else "precognition" for that first round of encounter mode. In my opinion, this is not resolved well by the model preferred by most of you.

I feel like trying to trick the GM into letting you go first in combat by intentionally being vague is something that might be frowned upon, but if it works at your table that's fine I guess.

Because ultimately that's what this is about. The rules are pretty clear, but if the "I call dibs on going first" method of initiative is what works for your table, then just go for it.

This is not about trying to trick the GM or anyone else. But it seems really odd to me that the same situation turns out totally different depending on what Mode we're in. If the Bodyguards are moving protectively in front of the enemy, the Barbarian would do something different, and no combat might even be triggered. In Encounter Mode, he gets to wait until it's his turn to declare his intentions and no one, unless they have an action readied for that case (which a good bodyguard might, of course) or he's triggering reactions gets to intervene. However, for some odd reason, if the exact same events happen in Exploration Mode, he has to announce his intentions ahead of time and everyone else gets a chance to react.

Quote:

Pretending that the barbarian somehow broadcasts his intention to charge ahead of time might work for that particular example

You keep phrasing it as though "noticing the guy with the giant axe is lunging at you" is some completely contrived or arcane concept. Is it really that strange to you that someone might see someone else starting to do something and try to react to it?

The thing is that the barbarian hasn't done anything yet, and might not do it when it's his turn to decide on his actions. Maybe, when he's up, he decides to slowly back away, without ever touching his axe. The others are reacting to the drawing of a weapon that wasn't even drawn in the first place...

Edit: Or, to use one of my examples above, the fighter declares "Screw it, I'm opening that door". Then you roll initiative and the ranger, who won initiative now decides to shoot an arrow through that door. Even though the fighter hasn't acted yet. /edit

Maybe the better way to handle this as the barbarian player is not to say "Screw this, I charge!", but rather "Hey, GM, can we take this to Encounter Mode? Depending on what everyone else does, I might want to make a split-second decision to act; I don't know yet if it's going to be combat, but it's going to be one of those cases when every individual action counts (as described in the introduction to Encounter Mode on p.468 of the CRB)."

Thereby, you don't have to give away your plans ahead of time any more than anyone else in the encounter. And since the GM is not aware of the players plans from reading this thread, why would he say no? Upon rereading that page in the CRB, it quite clearly states that Encounter Mode is not limited to combat.

As to my original question, the example quoted by Captain Morgan has pretty much clarified the CRB's stance on that. While it's not my preferred solution, I can work with that for "official" games like PFS and may have to consider a home rule for inofficial games.

The greater issue apparently is the ambiguity of actions during an encounter round supposedly happening all at the same time yet still very often decidedly consecutively.

We don't have an issue with
- the fighter running to open a door with his last action through which the ranger then shoots an arrow on his first action.

- the wizard casting a touch range spell on the fighter's weapon who then charges across the room at the monsters with said now enchanted weapon.

- the rogue doing sneak attack damage on his first action against an opponent who was only just flanked by the fighter's move on their last action.

- the cleric running up and casting a heal spell on a friend who was just downed this turn

- heck, there's even a "delay action" to purposefully wait until any or all other actions have resolved and THEN go yourself (in the same 6 seconds that you just waited out, of course...).

In many cases it is logically or even physically impossible to have these and many other actions all happen simultaneously. They are quite obviously handled as sequential events.

Hence my expectation that the barbarian's actions to initiate combat would also happen in sequence with his charge being the logical precursor to combat much like the fighter opening the door is the precursor to an arrow flying through said doorway in my first example above.

Pretending that the barbarian somehow broadcasts his intention to charge ahead of time might work for that particular example, but does it also work for an invisible wizard or stealthed undetected rogue?

Oh well, I guess we just have to accept that as a design decision...

Also, page 498 is pretty explicit that you go straight to initiative. There's even an example involving a PC negotiating and deciding to launch a surprise attack.

Hmm, yes, that example seems to pretty much cover my question, though I find it odd to consider a negotiation as happening in exploration mode. But still, apparently that's how it's intended to be.

Thank you for pointing out the rule!

I am not sure why this is an issue? The barbarian starts obviously hostile movements. If the foes roll high they roll high enough to react/prepare in advance.

The logical issue I have with that order of events is that that would require the barbarian to announce his "triggering" action before it's even his turn and then stick to his decision regardless of the actions of everyone else. Because without the sudden charge, we would not have entered combat at all, so anything but having that action as the first action in combat doesn't really work. Instead of having an advantage by rushing the enemy by surprise, he quite possibly gets a major disadvantage that noone else in initiative order normally gets.

I generally find running encounters that are mostly roleplaying in initiave order quite cumbersome. It slows down the game too much for my taste. But obviously, for a transition to combat like this, we need to get into initiative order. Still, I think letting the opposition (potentially, depending on rolls) go first knowing combat is about to happen is wrong.

Rather, rolling intitiave to establish the order in which characters get to act when the player announces he's about to deviate from the current roleplay action and then starting combat on that player's turn feels much more appropriate to me. After all, it would've been the same if we had just run the entire negotiation in initiative order in the first place.

It's a quest, I don't think those are meant to have treasure bundles. At least the other ones don't use them either. If the PCs fulfill the primary success condition they get the money listed.

On a more general note, something is clearly going very wrong at an organizational level in society at the moment that they have been unable to update and fix the still very much beta-looking guide in more than six weeks, with the previous updates also being mostly cosmetic in nature.

Step 1: Obtain access to a spell. Usually, that will be by either purchasing a scroll, but it can also include scrolls received through the Society schools, scrolls or spell books looted during the scenario, and currently, there is nothing in the rules preventing you from even sharing your spellbook's contents with another friendly wizard in your party.

Step 2: Attempt to scribe the spell. This uses the "Learn a Spell" exploration activity as described on p.238 of the CRB. Technically, it could be argued that RAW you cannot actually do this in society play (and thus any wizard would be prevented from obtaining any additional spells outside of leveling up), since the DCs listed are guidelines and the actual DC is meant to be set by the GM. However, I've yet to meet a GM or player in PFS who expected any DCs but those listed to be used. Of course, this thread is likely to change that... :).

Step 3: Documentation. After you have rolled the check under the watchful eyes of your current GM, he records the results for each spell attempted on your chronicle, and deducts the appropriate amount of coins as well.

Step 4: Enjoy your new spell (or wait for the next level-up to try again).

Seems fairly straightforward.

I think you're supposed to roll once and use that result for all the faction leaders. That way, you'll never double up on one location.

My instinct is to use the same rules as for a Shifting weapon.

CRB, p 585 wrote:

The weapon’s runes and any precious material it’s made of apply to the weapon’s new shape. Any property runes that can’t apply to the new form are suppressed until the item takes a shape to which they can apply.

So melee-only runes wouldn't work when a weapon is thrown.

I'm not convinced that that is the case. The Shifting rune really only interacts with damage type dealt (at least with the currently published runes), so as to prevent a bludgeoning weapon causing persistent bleed or having it cut off a head, etc, since you can only shift a one-handed melee weapon into another one-handed melee weapon with it (or two-handed into another two-handed).

With thrown weapons, there's really no fundamental reason why it would be illogical for a thrown knife, e.g., to have the same effect as a melee knife when applying any of the currently available runes. The only reason I can think of is power balance, but that's a totally different issue from the shifting rune, so I don't buy the "it must work the same way" intuition just yet :).

As an aside, using the same logic, the shifting rune in general interacts weirdly with (not only) the thrown/ranged issue: Apply it to a bastard sword, turn it into a dagger, throw the dagger, it turns back into the bastard sword en route to the target (since it's no longer a melee weapon when thrown). If you're a rogue untrained in the bastard sword, what attack roll modifier do you use? How much damage is done on a hit? Does the bastard sword stop flying in mid-air?

You take this penalty on all attacks after the first on your turn.

Seems pretty clear, why should Cleave be an exception? It doesn't mention being an exception anywhere. It makes an additional strike attack on your turn => it adds to your MAP.

The addition in Twin Takedown and Flurry of Blows is likely in there to clarify that despite it being two attacks in a single action, you still need to increase the MAP after the first strike. Because it's a single-action "double-attack", people might otherwise mistakenly assume that the same MAP applied to both attacks.

With cleave, that wasn't neccessary to specifiy, because cleave is only one attack in the one (re-)action.

Page 280: Under the Ammunition heading, add the sentence “Using ammunition destroys it.”

First of all, thank you for the clarification!

However, I think it would be helpful to standardise the language used:
You have introduced a "consumable" trait for the purpose of marking items that are destroyed on use, so why not use that, i.e. "All Ammunition has the consumable trait"?

Instead, you say essentially the same thing using different terminology. Yes, we all still understand what it means (probably more clearly than with using traits), but if you're not using the trait system then why have it in the first place?

Yes, throwing weapons across the room makes them significantly less melee. While I understand that people are unhappy with this clarification in the errata, personally I think it makes sense to treat thrown weapons like ranged weapons here (and actually, my dex-based gnome rogue has always used his 8 str instead of his 18 dex to calculate damage whenever he was throwing one of his daggers around even before the errata document was published).

If you wanted to apply the bonus to thrown weapons, why not ranged weapons as well?

Based on how we both seem to be reading it, the gm has to combine the organized play scaling with the in scenario scaling.

Err, I think the scenario scaling is meant to replace the OP scaling. You don't apply both.

Page 550: Under Method of Exposure, in the Injury section, change the first sentence to read “An injury poison is activated by applying it to a weapon or ammunition, and it affects the target of the first Strike made using the poisoned item.” This allows you to poison ammunition as well as weapons.

Along with the "using ammunition destroys it" that is also in the errata this still makes using poison less effective when used on ammo (the applied poison is destroyed on the first strike whether that hits or not, while on a melee weapon it stays on until the first hit).

I think an additional balancing step should be considered in the future (maybe use one dose to effectively poison 2(?) arrows) to compensate for that, but for now I'm happy with the clarification.

So, e.g. let's take a +2 greater striking anarchic corrosive standard grade cold iron longsword:

* precious material cost: standard-grade cold iron weapon; Level 10; Price 880 gp + 88 gp per Bulk (CRB p.599)
* +2 greater striking weapon; Level 12; Price 2,000 gp (CRB p.600)
* anarchic rune; Level 11; Price 1400 gp (CRB p.583)
* corrosive rune; Level 8; Price 500 pg (CRB p.583)

So overall:

Level: 12 (CRB p.580:"The level of an item with runes etched onto it is equal to the highest level among the base item and all runes etched on it")
Price: 4868 gp (for 1 bulk)

Level: highest
Price: combined prices of weapon and all runes.

The question of whether or not you need to consider the cost of crafting is not clearly answered in the book, but for a wepaon to be found in game, I likely wouldn't.

The reporting sheet still has the PFS1 factions listed.

Otherwise, yay! :)

This has been discussed to death in another thread, let's not get it started again...

In short, there was no agreement.

Well, the level-2 rule is not my house rule, but an official rule for society play. Organized play needs to simplify and codify these aspects a lot more, to provide for a similar level of income across all different tables independently of individual GM-decisions. And of course, these higher level tasks are available only because there are higher-level people looking for them - who are in turn better qualified and would be hired preferentially for these tasks :).

The CRB has a soft limit for available tasks at the settlement level. Exceptions are possible, but not the norm, so players should not always easily be able to find higher-level earn income tasks. And level 10 is already the upper limit of settlement levels given for all but the largest cities in the world (level 8-10 is "metropolis or capital").

But like I said, if a GM decides to routinely offer better earn income possibilities than the available settlement levels, that's his decision. But by doing that, he's deliberately devaluing the crafting that would be able to compete well if he were to mostly stick to the given limits.

Personally, as a GM, I try not to punish my players for choosing some playstyle over another. If someone wants to invest into crafting feat-wise, I'm happy to give him a reasonable treatment. Other players may choose different feats instead and get their advantages in a different aspect of the game.

since she is only an npc who won’t be seen much of during the campaign.

If you're building an NPC, those don't have to follow the rules for leveling PCs. You can basically just create them with whatever feats and abilities you wish.

The delay action just moves your turn to a later point in the initiative order. Anything you do during the turn, even if the turn was delayed, will still be during your turn and thus subject to the MAP rules.

If you were thinking of a readied action instead, in that case the CRB specifically mentions that MAPs still apply here as an exception to the general rule.

The multiple attack penalty applies only during your turn, so you don’t have to keep track of it if you can perform an Attack of Opportunity or a similar reaction that lets you make a Strike on someone else’s turn.

Yes, and nothing bars a GM from banning certain common feats, spells, etc. as a house rule. But the system tries to establish a base line different from "everything is generally available everywhere for everyone". Which is a good idea, imho. And just because in the future a mistake might happen that might accidentaly break that system, doesn't make it in any way less of a good idea

I dont mind having spells rare like this I just wanted to know the method for the player to learn or acquire the spell.

Actually, if you as the GM want to allow the spell in your campaign there is no need to have any special way of obtaining access to it. You can just declare the your player's cleric can have access to it and that's that. Now, if you WANT to turn gaining access to it into a quest, no problem. But it wouldn't be neccessary. The official paizo material just assumes that players have access to all common things but not neccessarily to any or all uncommon things. But there is no set way of gaining access other than "GM decision".