raidou's page

That's awesome to hear - we're having a lot of fun with Age of Ashes.

When you said heightened spell effects were useful and game changers - can you clarify what you meant? Was this a spontaneous caster's signature spells?

Sure, for two specific examples:

- The party's bard used signature spell with Dispel Magic to evaluate a proper slot to burn for disabling some magical wards, and with Illusory Object to create effects with only those characteristics required to meet the situation.

- With a single spell in their spellbook, the party's wizard could prepare the effect that would be most beneficial, like fear, enlarge, or invisibility -- all used for a satisfying effect. Since there wasn't a whole lot of regular shopping in either game, that single spell went a long way.

I’ve just wrapped up running my second PF2 mini-campaign, and I wanted to offer some praise to the authors and developers of this game. My players have been having a blast with it, and I’ve greatly enjoyed running it. We play weekly on Roll20, and the group is distributed across a couple of time zones. If there’s any silver lining to gaming during this pandemic, it’s been getting to play with folks that I’d never have gamed with otherwise. Members of the group had not played PF2 prior to this, but the specific edition changes and new material proved consistently easy to learn.

Some specific notes:

- The three action round is a HUGE win. It’s elegant, it simplifies rulings, and it speeds up gameplay. Once we were up and running, this system got out of the way and allowed the narrative ebb and flow of combat to come to the fore. Really nicely done.

- Heightened spell effects feel regularly useful, and were often game-changers in clutch moments.

- The social/influence rules really helped me, as GM, operate a huge cast of characters and keep their attitudes toward party members consistent. Having this framework in place allowed me to more effectively manage how much on-screen time an NPC should have.

- Some stand-out modules: we ran the entire Souls for Smuggler’s Shiv (absolutely excellent springboard for all kinds of different games) as our first campaign, taking about 34 2.5-hour sessions to complete. There’s so much good material crammed into this adventure, I really can’t gush enough about it.

- Second adventure was more experimental, taking the opening chapter from Crownfall, launching the characters into The Harrowing, seeding Curse of the Crimson Throne Easter eggs throughout, all in my campaign world’s pastiche of Skyrim. High-risk-of-trainwreck, but high-reward. It worked splendidly and was some of the most fun I’ve had as a GM. This took about 31 2.5-hour sessions to complete. It became an example to me of just how easy it is to scale this edition’s math up or down, pull and convert content from earlier sources, and make use of this edition’s sub-systems (exploration, downtime, influence) to enhance the game.

So, on to mini-campaign #3. Thanks for making a well-crafted game system and for some fantastic adventures (both past and present).

I don't have any strong opinions on frequency of errata or clarifications, but I would like to request that this kind of documentation be as close to the PRD as possible. The PRD is the ideal place to add clarity, intent, links to examples of play, and similar in-the-moment help.

Looking back at how I use monsters from the Bestiary over the years, I wanted to share some thoughts on how I could get improved utility out of future bestiaries:

1.) Summoning rules for an outsider should be in its bestiary entry. A designer creating a new outsider should be expected to consider how it fits into the Summon Monster ecosystem, if at all, and it should be spelled out in the bestiary entry itself.

2.) Similarly, there should be some way for monster abilities to be tagged as “pc-appropriate” for consideration when making use of wild shape or polymorph effects. When new bestiaries or sourcebooks introduce new monster abilities, it would be really rewarding to be able to make use of some number of these to expand a shapeshifter’s repertoire. (in a controlled manner)

3.) Reconsider using a creature’s intelligence as a means to determine their skills / feats / proficiencies. As a GM, it’s unnecessarily difficult to advance certain creature types - such as vermin, oozes, constructs - to improve their challenge when a whole subset of design features is cut off from that creature.

4.) Some of the best monster customization tool-sets are the Simple Class Templates from the Monster Codex. These are supposed to be time-savers, but honestly I find they have the potential to create more satisfying representations of classed-monsters at mid to higher levels. The Class Grafts from PF Unchained fills a similar role, though I haven’t had enough experience using this to judge it. I really want to see a solid model for representing classed monsters that does a better job at higher-level play than adding low levels of the desired class atop the monster’s existing stats.

5.) Reconsider whether/how monster-specific feats are used as part of the bestiary. It’s always felt odd that this small selection of feats got reprinted across each bestiary released, with no new monster-specific feats added until Horror Adventures.

6.) I generally travel to run games, and I do like to have some amount of printed content available in case my internet connection is poor at my destination. From the bestiary PDF, I print out single pages of the monsters I need to use for that session and put them all in a binder. I would love to see a low-ink print option for the bestiary that removes things like page decoration, page number, logos, etc. and just leaves the monster image and stats.

7.) Avoid design symmetry for symmetry’s sake. While there might be Celestial, Fiendish, Axiomatic, and Chaotic stuff in the universe, they don’t all need to do roughly the same thing and have similar, diametrically opposed characteristics. Consider how these templates and types fit into the overall ecosystem, then design abilities that make them feel more legitimate.

8.) I’d love to see “Activity Cycle” added to the monster’s ecology. Understanding what time of day the creature is likely to be encountered helps me build encounters more thoughtfully. If we’re shooting for the moon, having information about a creature’s specific role within its ecosystem would also be awesome. Something like “apex predator,” or “scavenger” or “ambush predator” add a certain amount of understanding on how to set up an encounter with that creature.

9.) Any monster ability that has a DC should ensure that the DC is present wherever that ability is listed. For example, a swarm with the Distraction ability will have that universal monster ability listed under Special Attacks: Distraction. Make sure the DC is present here for fast reference.

10.) When compiling lists of creatures, please include any category/type information that can assist in locating the creature in the book. For example, in Bestiary 6, “Vermlek” is listed under CR3 creatures. But I may not know that “Vermlek” is a type of demon, and come up empty looking for what that thing is in the V section of the book. Present the information that helps me locate monsters as easily as possible.

As a most-of-the-time GM, I favor a super-strict reading of this spell. It is very easy to call this spell "overpowered" if you make lenient rulings with it. To RD's list of situations and mplindustries' insights, I'll offer my opinions to the mix. I also realize that this thread is a few years old, but FoM is always a bit of a puzzle.

stirge's attach: From PFSRD - an attached stirge is considered grappled. It never makes a combat maneuver check to enter this condition, so can not fail at a check it doesn't make. Its target is not considered grappled. FoM allows auto-escape from a grapple or pin but since the target has neither of those conditions, FoM does not help.

ooze's engulf: From PFSRD - this is another case where the monster can auto-succeed without a combat maneuver check. If it does not need to make a check, it can't fail at that check. Therefore the target gains the pinned condition that it can automatically escape from on its turn.

Since it was brought up above, I'll throw in a controversial one:

Gelatinous Cube's Paralysis: From PFSRD - Its paralysis is an EX ability. Freedom of movement specifically provides protection against magic that impedes movement, but does not explicitly extend to all effects that do so. This is a nonmagical effect. Since FoM specifically calls out magical effects, I would suggest that it does not protect you against paralysis brought on through nonmagical means. YMMV.

thrown net: From PFSRD - inflicts the entangled condition, which is not a condition FoM allows you to auto-escape from. Although a net can root its target to one spot and reduce movement, again it is not a magical source. I would suggest that FoM is of no help here.

Entangle Spell: From PFSRD - This spell has 2 movement-inhibiting effects. The Entangled condition halves movement, and difficult terrain treats each square as 2 for purposes of movement. FoM prevents BOTH of these movement impediments because their source is a magical effect. This does not prevent the entangled condition on a failed save, or its associated attack penalties.

Web Spell: From PFSRD - Web inflicts the grappled status on a failed save, requiring no combat maneuver check to do so. No roll, no auto-failure. However, FoM allows such a target to automatically escape the grappled condition on their turn. Web additionally counts as difficult terrain, which (as a magical effect) a FoM-warded person can ignore.

Hold Person: From PFSRD - inflicts magical paralysis which is specifically overcome by FoM. I think we're in clear rules-territory here.

Tied Up: From PFSRD - It's actually pretty hard to even get to this stage against a FoM target, because that target must already be pinned, restrained, or helpless. I'd argue that since this requires a grapple combat maneuver to succeed against the target, that maneuver roll always fails and thus a FoM target cannot be tied up. HOWEVER...

Being Manacled (or Fettered): From PFSRD - Manacles inflict no particular status on the wearer. Fetters inflict the entangled condition, but much like a net this is probably a nonmagical effect. There is no check required to attach these, so there's nothing to fail. And FoM makes no provision for escaping from anything other than a grapple or pin.

buried under an avalanche: Object-oriented game design for the win. How much book flipping is needed to run one of these? Anyway, from what I can tell, an avalanche victim is "buried" which appears to be its own thing and not related to either grappled or pinned as far as FoM is able to protect from. If this actually inflicts the pinned status on its target, then the victim would auto-escape the pin but otherwise not be able to move for the same reason you can't move in a 5ft room without doors. Such a victim could theoretically take actions to dig themselves out - but again this assumes that there's a "pinned" condition somewhere in here to escape from, which I haven't verified yet.

Squeezing: You're not grappled, pinned, or affected by a magical impediment to movement. You're not underwater. So FoM has no provision to help you here.

mud elemental's entrap: From PFSRD - This is an Ex ability, so non-magical. It inflicts the entangled and helpless conditions, neither of which FoM helps you with. There is no combat maneuver check for the creature to fail. It's possible that for this ability, "pinned" is a better thematic condition to inflict than "helpless," but as written you are out of luck if you want FoM to save your bacon.

Movement penalties for being blind: From PFSRD - This doesn't inflict a movement impediment. It inflicts a possible additional condition (prone) for full movement. You could certainly argue that falling prone is an "impediment" but I would rule that FoM has no effect on indirect effects such as these.

a giant spider's web ability From PFSRD - Works like a net, inflicting the entangled status. Is nonmagical. We're covered.

whirlwind or vortex From PFSRD - We're finally into Su territory. If we can agree that these abilities are "magic" (they are nullified by an anti-magic field, after all) then we should assume that FoM affects them. FoM allows a user to "Move Normally." despite impediments. Unless you have a readied action or an immediate action that allows movement, movement happens on your turn. So on the monster's turn, it scoops you up using Whirlwind/Vortex. On your turn, you can "move normally" -- whatever that means for you. If you can't fly, that probably means you auto-escape and drop like a rock.

If you have movement that can take place outside your turn, then you can probably trigger that movement immediately when drawn into the whirlwind, allowing you to get out of its path/reach.

Climbing/Difficult Terrain: Nonmagical impediment, does not impose a condition that FoM cares about. FoM does not help you here.

Swimming: FoM specifically calls out swimming as something it assists with. It allows you to move and attack normally underwater. If "normal movement" for you is flying, you fly at that speed. If "normal movement" is walking, then you walk along the sea/river/lake floor with no movement penalties. The spell does not grant a swim speed or a bonus to swim checks, buoyancy, or the ability to breathe water. If you happen to attack stuff along the way, FoM helps you out.

...and that's how I choose to rule FoM - with the spell doing exactly what it spells out, no more or less. I've found that extrapolation of this spell's effects does more harm than good.

The following is purely my thoughts after having observed some warpriest character creation. No playtest data here yet, just musings.

As a thought experiment, what if the warpriest didn't need to choose a deity at all? Strip away the deity and make the warpriest, like a druid, a follower of a philosophy. Grant it a suite of war-themed domains to pick from, similar to how a druid can choose from nature-based domains, or even grant access to inquisitions (which feel like a very strong thematic fit).

Removing the deity gets rid of the whole favored weapon debate. Grant proficiency in martial weapons, and one weapon group (or single weapon type) becomes "favored" for you. Your choice. Sacred Weapon gets to remain untouched and applies to whatever you've set as "favored."

Removing the deity removes the complexity of managing additional pseudo domains whose powers kind-of, sort-of look like their parent domain powers, but are a bit weaker.

Removing the deity opens up an interesting design space that is not really being delivered elsewhere: A purely philosophy-based divine caster that's not a druid. Place warpriests in the game world as the itinerant protectors of relics and holy sites, or as small fraternal brotherhoods that get hired to add divine muscle to a nation's conflicts. Divine Mercenaries that worship at the altar of war itself!

It feels to me that forcing the warpriest into all of the established domains, deities, favored weapons, etc. is a square peg / round hole problem, and creates something that is already well-represented by clerics, inquisitors, and oracles.

Now to actually build one and see how the revisions shake out.

Thanks for the playtest feedback!

• For the brawler, do you think it would help if the player were more familiar with the available feats, or created a list of common go-to feats to use for various circumstances? Rob McCreary had a similar list for his summoner, in that he noted special senses (like blindsense) or other abilities in creatures he could summon with his summon monster spell-like abilities, so he could think, "we're fighting an invisible creature, what abilities can I draw on, aha blindsense, dire bat, I summon a dire bat!"

Sean, thanks for checking in. I think that as a post-mortem to this encounter, the Brawler player is doing exactly this. Coming in, I think he looked at some assorted style and maneuver-based feats that worked to build on his foundation feats (Improved Bull Rush, Combat Reflexes, Stunning Fist, Combat Expertise) with the intent of mixing up the Ki Throw chain, Dragon Style chain, and Tiger Style chain but that might have been as far ahead as the pre-planning went. Next time we get together I have no doubt he'll know exactly where to find that flanking feat.

You can cast spells outside of a Bloodrage.

Spells are normally cast outside of rages, the Bloodrage Casting feature just lets you cast within it.

Good feedback though!

Thanks, then some additional feedback would be that this aspect was unclear.

Lesson Learned: Don't playtest against a Roper.

Test Summary: the original intent of the test was to run a party of six 9th level PCs through a few tough encounters (Roper, pair of Bebiliths, pair of Aranea Slayer 5's, and a Drow contingent of 1 Warpriest, 2 Swashbucklers, and 1 Arcanist) - encounters drawn from the 3.0 module City of the Spider Queen. Had hoped to get a sense of class performance and mechanical ingenuity when things got tough. We ended up with a team of 4, and ran the same mock battle against a Roper three times, because that thing wrecked the group two out of three times, and the PCs wanted revenge.

The PCs:
Brawler: actually a Brawler 8 / Rogue 1 for the trapfinding, sneak attack, and class skill suite. Concept was to use Bullrush-based feats to knock foes into the Arcanist's Web or Wall of Fire, and flank with the bloodrager. In the three simulated combats, we had some of the following observations:

• Used as a scout, we found that Uncanny Dodge was sorely missed. This character got jumped by the Roper on the second and third playthrough which wrecked his strength - delegating him to a mostly ineffective ranged combatant role.
  
• In the first combat, he flanked-flurried for some solid damage (helped by the warpriest's destruction blessing). The way he played with the Martial Maneuvers ability was pretty interesting. The Player wanted to achieve a goal, and knew there were feats available to accomplish that goal, but ended up being thwarted by thinking about it in that order. Examples: "That thing has a ton of attacks, but aren't there feats where if I move there's a miss chance with each attack?" Knowing that there were, we looked up Wind Stance and Lightning Stance. Unfortunately, Dex was too low, so that plan was thwarted. Later: "Hey, isn't there a feat where I can get +4 to hit when I'm flanking instead of +2?" Um, sure, that sounds like a feat we've all seen somewhere before. But in the moment, none of us could remember its name nor its location in the books. So, no extra flanking either. We ended up discussing whether something like the Inquisitor's Judgment ability would have a better "flow" for the way the player thought about running this character. One round, for example, he might grab a bonus to AC... the next, as a swift action he might switch to an attack bonus, or save bonus, or damage bonus... and so on. It was an interesting thought experiment. Despite having a limitless wealth of feats, he was thwarted by not finding the one that would help him in the moment.
  
• Wearing a chain shirt allowed for the Brawling armor property, something that has otherwise been off-limits for monk characters due to the armor restrictions. This helped out quite a bit... does this become a must-have armor property for this character class?
  
• The player definitely had fun with this character when able to be effective - which is not an indictment of the character class so much as it is the Roper. That thing is deadly.

Arcanist: Elf Arcanist (Elemental Air) 9. Important feats included Intensify Spell, Reach Spell, and Toppling Spell. Prepared Toppling Magic Missile, Reach Vampiric Touch, Reach Intensified Shocking Grasp among others. Basically useless against the Roper, except to Haste the party. The Roper's unusually high (27) SR proved unbeatable even with a +15 for Greater Spell Penetration and being an elf. Just bad rolls, and a tough opponent. Player still wanted to try the character out on other non-Roper enemies.

Bloodrager: Elf Bloodrager (Celestial) 9. Concepted as a Champion of Gwynharwyf - a Two Weapon Fighting whirling berserker that could fly and deal extra holy damage. Observations include:

• Player found the ability to cast spells only during bloodrage overly limiting. There was no pre-combat prep. Those rounds of rage are precious, and spending one to do things other than deal damage felt wasteful. However, that said this character chose well with her Blur spell, which negated many more of the roper's strand attacks than 20% due to good rolling.
  
• Overall, the player felt that she achieved the character concept quite well with this class, bloodline, and feat choices. Happy to play it further.
  
• A suggestion for consideration: allow the class to cast a number of spells as free actions as the character enters the rage, with the duration of those spells set by the length of time spent in the rage. Helps the action economy for this class and limits the duration of the spells to just the immediate fight - making them easier to track.

Warpriest: Dwarf Warpriest (War, Destruction) 9. We were going to have a Shaman, but then didn't. So this warpriest character struggled to find his role. A Greatsword-wielding, Vital Striking, Channel-Smiting heavy armor dude, you'd think he would hit for big damage. The problem was people had some notions about what his role was supposed to be - he needed to buff to start, get a couple hits in but be available for assistance during and after the fight. None of this worked as intended.

• His pre-combat buff: one PC (monk or barbarian) got +4 damage. Then Prayer on the party (not affecting the roper due to SR) - Clarification needed: If he had touched the arcanist with this Destruction blessing, would the Arcanist get this damage bonus on spell damage?
  
• His available healing was of no use against the strength-damaging strands, so PCs were getting damaged beyond what any buff spell would overcome, and his 3d6 bursts were not getting the job done.
  
• By the time he was able to wade into combat, the STR damage had already neutralized most of the combat threat from the other party members. Got in one or two hits before getting STR-damaged himself.
  
• After the one Roper fight the party survived, he didn't even have the available 4th level spell for Restoration - and therefore the party spent days recovering from this encounter, slowly using Lesser Restoration to cure.
  
• The Player wished he could have "rider" effects with Channel Energy... much like how Lay on Hands is also a vehicle for Mercies, could Channel Energy be a vehicle for the warpriest's prepared touch spells? What if you could cast Bull's Strength and expend a channel to affect all allies within 30 feet for a shortened amount of time? Or, for that matter, a Lesser Restoration or Remove Blindness?

Will start up this playtest again soon, hopefully with a Shaman and a Skald, and will move on to some other encounters.

Some feedback on the creation of a PC warpriest (9th level). The player's expectations coming in were as follows: Has seen clerics played before that did the self-buffing, best-fighter-in-the-party routine, typically using some combination of Divine Power, Righteous Might, and some other long-duration defensive enhancements. Player expected to do this with a Warpriest - as a hybrid Fighter/Cleric character:

Mechanically speaking, I would choose the sorcerer over the arcanist for the following reasons:

• if the bloodline arcana or the 20th level sorcerer capstone were particularly compelling
  
• if I am trying to focus on CHA-related skills and roles instead of INT-based ones, or aiming to multiclass with a class that prefers CHA over INT.
  
• if the specific bloodline powers skew toward defensive abilities where being "always on" is really the point - doesn't do much good to have immunity to critical hits/sneak attacks if you get jumped by assassins but need to activate the ability on your turn.
  
• if I don't want to be bothered with maintaining a spellbook
  

-Eric

Quick question -

An Arcanist picks up a Ring of Wizardry. Which spellcasting progression does this item double - Spells Prepared (as a wizard) or Spell Slots (as a sorcerer)?

I had time last night before my weekly game to re-make a high level NPC sorcerer into an Arcanist, just to take the new class out for a spin. This CR20 foe was an Avolakia Arcanist level-15. Here are my observations:

1.) In a one-and-done combat, the class plays like a sorcerer for most practical purposes (but see below). I chose the Aberrant bloodline for this NPC. At the beginning of combat she activated the Blood Arcana for Long Limbs and Unusual Anatomy - the 15 round duration for each lasted through the battle and re-upping those abilities never came into play.

2.) The most dramatic change I found was the Arcanist's ability to prepare a metamagic spell and then spontaneously cast that spell without further hindrance. This is where the battle got scary - because you're now only using one 4th level slot for that Intensified Fireball, and not losing your move-action, this particular caster was dealing more damage regularly while retaining battlefield mobility.

3.) This NPC fled to end the combat - what I found really compelling about this class is that this particular NPC can now adapt to the PCs' tactics and defenses. The next time they face her, it'll be a different combat -- for me, that's a strong positive especially at high levels. And it doesn't feel cheap like a sorcerer that somehow has the right spells to exploit PC vulnerabilities.

4.) I felt the class lacked a strong tie between the chosen school and the bloodline. It would be more design-intensive, but pretty interesting to have the arcane school and the bloodline interact uniquely. An Aberrant bloodline necromancer that had a specific ability to make it different from an aberrant bloodline transmuter would be a rewarding experience.

Overall, I found this to be a power-up on the sorcerer when used as a recurring NPC that can tailor its tactics based on its previous encounters with the PCs. In my test it was a welcome boost because it adds tactical interest to the game. In a future test I'll make a PC Arcanist who loads up his prepared spell list with meta-magicked spells - I have a hunch there's room for abuse here but I don't yet have anything to back up that hunch.

-Eric

Ah, Tucker's Kobolds. You know, I replicated that scenario once. I had a bunch of goblin alchemists scurring through stone corridors launching bombs at the players. What did I learn from it? It was not a fun encounter for anyone. Actually, I might write about that, the difference between a challenging encounter and a punishing encounter.

Alexander, nice work on this writeup - The material you mention here would make an excellent addition to your guide. There's a huge difference between a tribe of 21 boggard fighters, and a tribe of 21 boggard alchemists. But it's not a difference that can be shown by the numbers. Numerically, these encounters are the same.

BUT - There's also something to be said for increasing challenge by using variety. While the 21-boggard melee in your example is technically a challenge, it is a pretty uniform one. If four of those boggards are clerics, six are barbarians, eight are spear-hurling fighters placed strategically on the battlefield, and the remaining three are a bard, sorcerer, and druid, you have a much more complex, and greatly more challenging, encounter (particularly with a CR11 green dragon circling overhead)

Also, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the merits of using consumables as a challenge-enhancer. Do your 21-boggards have potions of heroism or speed? How about Invisibility or Silence? It's probably worth the thought exercise to include the use of consumable resources in this discussion.

Thanks, and I'm looking forward to further reading!

For feats with variable modifiers or effects, I place the DC or variable effect in parentheses after the feat. For example

Power Attack (-4/+8), Staggering Critical (DC 28)

To save a single line of space, I move the XP number to the right of the CR.

I move the languages and communication options to the top section of the stat block, under Senses.

Like Mauril, I call out the ability modifier to the right of the ability score. Just to save a couple seconds of mental computing if needed.

If a special attack has a DC, I list that DC in the attack line in addition to in the special ability line, for example:

Melee: bite +13 (1d6+4 plus poison DC20)

I have a pretty extensive feat list that's all about channeling. It's full of house-rules and untested material, but feel free to use whatever you like:

LINK

OK, so based on the numbers above for expected caster level and casting stat, you can get a fairly even failure rate across all levels of play by using a DC of 5 + (Spell Level x 3).

But this assumes that you have a baseline idea about how often you (as the house-rule creator) want spells to fail due to fatigue. For this purpose I set the bar low, with a failure rate of around 5-20% for the highest level spell a caster can use. Casting a spell one level lower than your highest reduces the failure rate by 15%.

Characters with only 6 levels of spellcasting see the rate of failure become completely trivial by character level 6, assuming they throw resources into their casting stat. (for purposes of this idea, I am assuming this.) I assume a 4-level spellcaster is even more laughable.

See this google spreadsheet for the math used.

It has a tab each for prepared, spontaneous, and 6-spell-level characters. I have given the stat boosting item at 5th, 10th, and 15th levels.

If this helps you get a better idea of the impact, awesome!

How often do you want spellcasters to fail and lose a spell while fatigued or exhausted? And what are your assumptions about casting stats and availability of mental stat enhancements? Those will play a big part in determining check DCs.

Does this look about right for your group:

Level 1: Casting Stat 17
Level 4: Casting Stat 18
Somewhere between 4th and 8th level, gain a +2 stat item.
Level 8: Casting Stat 21
Somewhere between 8th and 12th level, gain a +4 stat item.
Level 12: Casting Stat 24
Somewhere between 12th and 16th level, gain a +6 stat item.
Level 16: Casting Stat 27
Level 20: Casting Stat 28

If you know (on average) the casting stat and the desired failure frequency, then you can reverse-engineer a DC progression for something like this.

I would simply assign a flat increase to the DC of any associated concentration check required by another circumstance: +2DC if fatigued and +6DC if exhausted to match the associated penalties. This would cut down the clutter of requiring another d20 roll per spellcasting action.

But if you were to add such a roll, I'd suggest using the DC of 10 + spell level as the base for a "generic" distraction caused by a non-leveled spell effect, and then add the +2 or +6 to the DC on top of that depending on the condition.

I had the pleasure of running Feast this past weekend in a 5-hour window during a friend's game day. Had to compress the plot a bit, and play fast-and-loose without battlemaps, but Feast runs really, really well in such a setting. I definitely agree with some above posters that this module's portability is a major strength. Complete and total party destruction, but some days the dice are just not on the PCs' side and the gods demand a bloodbath. Also, the splitting of the party just made it a foregone conclusion:

We laughed. We cried. Mostly at the same time. I've run a LOT of games, and this was one for the books. Two very enthusiastic thumbs up.

We would most likely not replace the fiction with a 3rd article, or simply use it to make the adventures longer. We certainly wouldn't use it to fill up with 6 more pages of maps, because that's not only not in the budget financially, it's not in the budget from a workflow perspective, especially since maps are the hardest part of an adventure to get right.

James, a lot of this discussion has involved the idea of multiple pages of maps, which is clearly out of scope for a lot of reasons. But does the math change at all in the case of a single-page feature like "Maps of Mystery?" Is that something anybody would be interested in pursuing?

While I am not advocating for the removal of anything in particular, I would absolutely LOVE to see the return of a "Maps of Mystery" page. I am still pulling out old issues of Dungeon Magazine and fitting Chris West's maps into my games. They were beautifully done and amazingly versatile.

I'm not sure how expensive, time-intensive, or crazy-making such an addition would be, but I can tell you it would be the single most valuable feature I would take (second only to the adventure itself) from an AP volume.

Doug, are you familiar with "eternal wands" from the 3.5 Magic Item compendium? That might be a solution worth looking into.

Another option that I am playing around with in a home game is to make wands behave like single-spell staves - they store a single spell of 4th level or lower, function at a minimum 5th caster level, and have 5 charges. You can recharge one at a rate of 1 charge per day. The cost works more or less the same as a staff, breaking down like this:

Level 1 wand (CL5) = 400 x1 x5 (2000 gold)
Level 2 wand (CL5) = 400 x2 x5 (4000 gold)
Level 3 wand (CL5) = 400 x3 x5 (6000 gold)
Level 4 wand (CL7) = 400 x3 x7 (11,200 gold)

What I've found is that the CLW wand was a game changer from 2nd to 3rd edition. I ran three long campaigns under those rules and they were always present.

With the shift to PF rules I've found that channel energy is the new game-changer when it comes to keeping the party near-full hit points. My Age of Worms game switched to channeled healing rules about midway through the path and the whole thing became a different game experience.

-eric

So would Raise Dead be better or worse if its cost were related to the condition of the deceased? If you decided to make a mechanical difference between an easy death and a hard one?

Body is completely intact (death by poison, disease) = 500 gold
Body is mostly intact with mortal wound (death by getting hit in the face with an axe) = 1000 gold
Body is pretty mangled (death by some massive amount of damage) = 2500 gold
Body resembles a jigsaw puzzle (death by angry chainsaw-wielding treants) = 5000 gold
Body mostly resembles oatmeal (death by ten storm giant lords-a-leaping) = 10000 gold and a Resurrection spell

If Restoration has a better mechanical use for its costly requirement based on the variety of things it can do, can the same be said if we mix up Raise Dead like this?

Another piece that would be perfect for Reign of Winter is Alfred Reed's "Russian Christmas Music." It's beautifully haunting and the ending is suitably triumphant. It's also a blast to play.

I think if you do the math you'll see that PF's experience track equalizes character levels the same, just without the extra math.

I did the math, and as it turns out - this is basically true. I ran the numbers for a spread of 3 levels (5th through 7th) using 3.5 and PF's fast and medium advancement. I am assuming a completely average advancement track where 4 PCs encounter only opponents of CR equal to the highest party member's level.

SPREADSHEET of ADVANCEMENT

It looks like if you begin characters at 5th, 6th, and 7th levels - in all cases they will converge for a very short time at 8th level, a slightly longer time at 9th level, and just over 50% of the time spent adventuring at 10th level will be all together at the same level.

PF medium track is the slowest to converge, but not by very much. Since there are more encounters in medium track, it will FEEL like it takes longer to converge than the math bears out.

3rd edition's scaling XP system, cumbersome though it was, really helped run games with characters at multiple levels. Due to the level-based XP awards, your characters' levels would more or less equalize over enough time. But that was a clunky system to work with. I had to email XP totals to my players after the session because figuring out XP on the spot just took too long.

But I really think this is the origin of the high GP cost - if your level went down there needed to be a way to also reduce your character's wealth to keep everybody more or less in-line with wealth-by-level.

Some more food for thought as I was discussing this idea with my gaming group last night: Scrolls of Raise Dead would now drop from 6125 gold to 1125 gold. A Staff of Life would have its price nearly halved, from 109,400 gold down to 59,400 gold. These items (and probably more) would be available earlier, to more people in the campaign world, due to the dramatic price drop.

A fellow DM suggested that the rare and costly component was in there to maintain a level of DM control over the whole process. The DM ultimately has control over the PCs' ability to obtain the component. He can either hand-wave it ("Sure, there's 5,000 gp in diamonds that you can pry out of the assorted jewelry in this hoard") or be vastly more difficult ("Your deaths are causing major demand in the global diamond market. You need to travel into the jungles and bribe the locals to mine faster...")

The costly component might as well be "Ask your DM nicely."

Does remove disease trivialize disease attacks?
Does remove curse trivialize curses?
Does neutralize poison trivialize poison attacks?
Does restoration trivialize ability damage and negative levels?
Does remove blindness/deafness trivialize blindness and deafness attacks?

More specifically, does breath of life trivialize death? It brings a character back from the dead, permanently without any negative levels, so long as you get there within 1 round. And it's the same level as raise dead, and it doesn't have an expensive material component. So... does it trivialize death?

And if breath of life doesn't trivialize death, why does raise dead trivialize death? Why is it okay to instantly raise a fallen ally in combat at no gp cost and no negative levels, but not okay to do so after a combat or the next day?

This is a fascinating discussion.

As a (mostly) DM, I can say that the expensive resurrection cost is a deterrent for me to be consistently lethal with encounters. I will happily curse, poison, blind, infect, and horribly maim the characters knowing they can recover with only minor difficulty.

But when it comes to character death, I find myself always fishing for loopholes - "Are you sure you don't have two hero points?", "Did you remember your Damage Reduction?", "Don't you have Fortification Armor?" - because the "go to town shopping for diamonds" side-trek is not really something I'm interested in doing in the middle of an adventure.

On the Breath of Life question - I'd say that Breath of Life does not trivialize death for the following reasons:
- It takes away a round's worth of actions by your healer in the middle of combat when he could be channeling or banishing or flame-striking.
- It likely places your healer in harm's way (in range of whatever killed the dead guy)
- It has no guarantee of success. It only works if you heal enough damage to get past the death threshold - not always a guaranteed thing.

These factors increase the risk, and the drama, of the situation. Which I think is what most of the people in the "Death Must Have Consequences" camp are really asking for.

if you're doing that then there's no reason to keep the 5,000 gp cost of raise dead because there isn't a mechanical reason for it... or because "resuscitating" a "dead" person is something you could do with a cure wounds spell right after a PC has "died" because there's not much difference between barely-alive at –9 and clinically dead at –10. Which means spells like raise dead would only be used for "Bob died and 24 hours have passed, he's most definitely dead, cast raise dead on him to bring him back."

I'm still looking for a valid game-mechanics reason to keep the 5,000 gp cost, haven't gotten one yet. :)

In the previous edition of the game, you lost a level due to being raised. Getting whacked with a 5,000gp fee for being raised helped to mitigate the problem of having Wealth=X while being Level=(X-1). Pathfinder removed level loss, and therefore the additional 5,000gp fine throws the Level/Wealth system out of balance the more often death occurs. I generally agree that it's a relic and should be refactored to better fit the updated rules.

Good call on evolutions!

Hello! I'm looking to tap into the collective knowledge of this community to come up with a list of class abilities or spells that allow a character to temporarily gain access to a feat/spell/ability from a broad list. Basically, these abilities grow more powerful the more source material your game has access to. Examples of what I'm talking about:

Ninja Trick -
Forgotten Trick (Ex): A ninja with this ability can recall one trick taught to her by her ancient masters. When she uses this ability, she selects one ninja trick (not a master trick or rogue talent) that she does not know and can use that ninja trick for a number of rounds equal to her level. She must pay any ki costs associated with the trick as normal. Using this ability expends 2 ki point from her ki pool, plus the ki cost of the trick she chooses.

Cleric's War Domain -
Weapon Master (Su): At 8th level, as a swift action, you gain the use of one combat feat for a number of rounds per day equal to your cleric level. These rounds do not need to be consecutive and you can change the feat chosen each time you use this ability. You must meet the prerequisites to use this feat.

Inquisitor Teamwork Feat -
As a standard action, the inquisitor can choose to learn a new bonus teamwork feat in place of the most recent bonus teamwork feat she has already learned. In effect, the inquisitor loses the bonus feat in exchange for the new one. She can only change the most recent teamwork feat gained.

Magus Knowledge Pool -
Knowledge Pool (Su): At 7th level, when a magus prepares his magus spells, he can decide to expend 1 or more points from his arcane pool, up to his Intelligence bonus. For each point he expends, he can treat any one spell from the magus spell list as if it were in his spellbook and can prepare that spell as normal that day. If he does not cast spells prepared in this way before the next time he prepares spells, he loses those spells. He can also cast spells added in this way using his spell recall ability, but only until he prepares spells again.

To some degree, the limited wish, wish, and miracle spells also do this, allowing you access to spells you do not otherwise know how to cast.

Can you point me in the direction of similar abilities you've come across? I'm pretty sure there are others but I wanted to crowdsource a bit before doing a slow crawl through the books.

Thank You!

-eric

Will, your miniature flying cavalier can actually pack some serious damage. Good luck in final voting!

Here's what I like:
- solid feat choices that help the monster do what it's supposed to do. Taunt is a fun choice.
- you've found a way to get a diminutive creature to put out respectable CR-appropriate damage. Pretty clever.

Here's what I don't like:
- doesn't Gallant Charge basically duplicate Ride-by Attack? And don't you need Spirited Charge to get x3 with a lance? I think you should have just loaded this guy up with bonus Mounted Combat feats as a special ability.
- I think AC needs to come back down and HP go up a bit. Fighting defensively this creature is packing a 29 AC.
- that +32 stealth is pretty useless if he can't turn off his "glowing beauty"
- some of those at-will enchantments, coupled with a WIS-damaging poison are pretty potent. Probably want to make some of these per-day.

Adam, this is one of my favorite monsters in the round. I like its theme, the company that it keeps, and the way it builds on existing Alchemist rules. It's an all-around solid entry and I'd happily use such a creature in my home games.

I think my main critique is that your feat choices are somewhat bland. Your monster is evocative and interesting, and your feat choices should be too. You can achieve the same end-result from the Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Ability Focus, and Weapon Focus with ability score modifications.

Andrew, your hive-minded, trapmaking jungle bug swarm certainly tries to tackle a design space that nobody else has dared to do. Some points for giving it a shot, and good luck in the voting!

Here's what I like:
- meets the mechanical expectations of a CR7 swarm, and seems solid in terms of including all necessary swarm statblock items.
- you create an interesting encounter... between sound mimicry and silent image, you have a good ambush setup.

Here's what I don't like:
- while you start with a bold premise, I don't feel like this design delivers that boldness. In the end, it's just a swarm with spellcasting.

Jacob, while this entry seems mechanically solid, ultimately I don't get a sense that it brings much new to the table. I do wish you good luck in the voting.

Here's what I like:
- I love the dimension door feats. I would have liked to see you build abilities on this core concept.
- the whole thing is mechanically solid.

Here's what I don't like:
- the sorcerer spells weigh it down. Even though you've got a lot of new spells in there, and even though the spells chosen are "fey-appropriate." I would rather not see new monsters built on the "casts spells as class X" chassis. What's more, it's just an exercise in picking spells and doesn't show off your design chops.
- the additional special abilities just don't have that "WOW" factor that entries need at this stage in the game

Steve, I think you've got a great monster concept here. Good luck in the voting!

Here's what I like:
- I really like the basic concept. I think that a hive-mind undead coral reef is pretty innovative.
- good job tying in its back story into known Golarion locations without making it overly dependent on that setting.
- you've thought through its physical makeup and have given good defenses and vulnerabilities based on that.

Here's what I don't like:
- I don't get a good sense of what this creature actually looks like from the flavor text. A coral reef is made up of millions of tiny shelled creatures and while it might provide a home to things that have tentacles or cilia or "appendages" that provide movement, it's not apparent that this is the case here. This is maybe the one entry where my own mental picture of the monster differs from the flavor text you provide.
- I think an anti-magic grapple is a bad move. Grappled spellcasters are already at a huge disadvantage. I'll admit that PCs running around with Freedom of Movement spells active pretty much kills the mood, but I'm not sure this is the way to solve that problem.
- This is one persuasive coral reef. I know undead need charisma to drive their abilities, but an animal-intelligence creature with this high of a charisma seems jarring.

James, this is an interesting take on the "underdark predator" monster type. Uses sonic energy in some new ways, too. Good Luck!

Here's what I like:
- Well-described, very vicious, very monstrous.
- both sonic shroud and vertigo pulse are cool abilities that feel mechanically new.
- I could easily use a monster like this; it's not too specialized to just drop into a home game.

Here's what I don't like:
- Numbing saliva is kind of awkward. I see what you're going for but I don't think this will really work well in practice.
- few stats errors that are slightly off. SR is non-standard for this CR, claws add full STR bonus to damage, etc.
- not enamored with the monster's name. "Hushfoot Bocan" doesn't evoke the kind of menace I hope for with a creature like this.

Tom, this is a deadly-looking beast, with a lot going on mechanically. Good luck in the final voting!

Here's what I like:
- Really neat Thassilonian influence. Well-described visuals. I can immediately see how these creatures would fit into the niche you've created for them.
- Interesting and scary special abilities, though could use some toning down.
- you tie your creature's backstory into the mechanics really well. I understand why you chose the abilities, qualities and resistances that you did.
- It's something that I could easily drag-and-drop into a non-golarion game without issue.

Here's what I don't like:
- It feels like your defensive spell-like abilities do too many things. Any one of your movement powers would be fine, but between teleport, DD, spider climb, and feather fall (not to mention adamantine teeth to chew through pesky barriers), this guy can go just about anywhere it pleases and get into/out of combat on its own terms. Invisibly, too. Seems like there's too much built-in PC frustration here with its defensive suite.
- Disintegration at 0 hit points. That needlessly screws PCs with diehard, ferocity, or similar abilities. I'd be more on-board if this disintegtation happened at death, rather than 0.

Sam, you had me at "trundles."

Here's what I like:
- a mobile, magic-hunting giant flytrap. I like that it uses an established spell (arcana theft) rather than trying to figure out unique mechanics for this. Cleverly done.
- Plug-and-play. I can use this monster anywhere, with little prep. I need to know how Arcane Theft works, but not much else needs looking up mid-combat.

Here's what I don't like:
- this monster needs some way to identify which targets to attack and strip magic from.
- Engorge - this particular vulnerability seems somewhat fiddly and ill-defined. Can its gullet hold four swallowed creatures of any size? Why is there a penalty directly to AC instead of to its DEX for being slowed down? I think both this and the Vacuum Swallow abilities could be cut for clarity and to give you more wordcount elsewhere.
- Throwaway feats like Improved Natural Armor don't do anything for a newly created monster. Just set its AC and use your available feats to better define the monster's role and abilities.

James, Your whole concept here is really entertaining. I can't help but think of this creature as a rogue Modron whose inner machinery is malfunctioning very badly.

Here's what I like:
- this monster forces a thoughtful and tactical approach to combat. Battlefield mobility is not something all groups do well, and a fight with this creature can broaden that experience.
- makes use of the steal maneuver in a clever way.
- thunderdash ability would be so much fun to run. I really like this.

Here's what I don't like:
- defensive abilities seem out of place. Not sure what's up with the DR/silver or the poison/slow weakness. Odd stuff that needs to be explained better or cleaned up.
- bag of holding gullet... interesting but unnecessary. This thing's gullet is bound to have fun treasures inside without making the gullet BE the treasure. Word count is better served elsewhere.

Other Thoughts:
- damaging abilities seem a bit high. I think the aura and the thunderdash damage are probably both a bit much and could be toned down. However, I'd probably change my mind if the PCs were all affected by a communal resist energy spell, which at level 7, would neuter this entire encounter.

David, I think that this entry shows that you are paying attention to what people like about Paizo's bestiaries.

Here's what I like:
- draws on real-world mythology for inspiration; I can envision using this monster in much the same way I'd use a sphinx. I see a lot of positive feedback when Paizo draws on real world myth to populate its monster manuals. So good job here in displaying awareness of that.
- has multiple ways in which it can be used - as heavy-hitting debuffer, stalk and skirmish antagonist, deceptive ambusher, etc.
- makes clever use of new emotion-based spells from Ultimate Magic.

Here's what I don't like:
- while it fits right in with sphinxes, owlbears, and chimeras, a purple-scaled cat thing with two eagle heads is probably more silly than I'll implement as written.
- There will be a lot of bonus/penalty recalculation in a fight with this guy. Not sure that you've found the right work/fun balance here. You've got buffs, debuffs, fear stacking, and multiple enchantment effects forcing people into tactical predicaments. Challenging to run, indeed.
- Descriptive text spends words on stuff that doesn't matter. In this monster entry, I want to see less emotional cookbook, more utility and clarity.

Other notes:
- Even though I think the new spell use is a net positive, you can't ignore the fact that this creature takes some research and preparation to play. Everybody knows generally how a fireball, lightning bolt, or silence spell works; you probably don't need to have the rulebooks open to them all the time. But when you have a lot of new fiddly enchantments to throw around, you will be looking this stuff up in-game.

Daniel, this seems like a bit of a gotcha monster; not necessarily a bad thing but capable of sidelining a couple character types early on. Good luck in the final voting!

Here's what I like:
- solid ambush creature that's constructed to perform its function well.
- feats chosen fit a shadowy movement-based fey quite well.
- nicely thought-out details; light-sensitive, negative-energy affinity, etc.

Here's what I don't like:
- the thing about ability drain is that there's no way OTHER than magic to restore drained ability scores. You don't need to call this out specifically. Drain is a huge issue for mid-range characters since it takes a restoration spell (4th level) and 100gp in diamonds to fix this condition. So 1d8 drain per round is no trivial matter. Plus, this creature is going to get to you first. With a +10 initiative and a +25 stealth, this guy is not only going to catch you flat-footed (that's one grabbed sorcerer in the surprise round; 4-5 points drained, and again at the top of round 1; another 4-5 points drained.) but will also neutralize that sorcerer in round 1 before anyone knows what's going on. I think this ability drain ability needs some polish.

Chris, this is definitely a monster I could see myself using. Couple of quibbles but overall I feel like a group of these would be a memorable encounter.

Here's what I like:
- monster name exactly fits the description. The name "bristlecraw" will now and forever conjure up the image of a giant, spiny, aberrant starfish.
- its mode of ambush is clever and feels realistic for a creature like this.

Here's what I don't like:
- not entirely sure why this needs to be an aberration. I feel that aberrations should have some weird and terrifying cosmic power or origin. This creature feels much more like a magical beast.
- how much constriction damage does this thing do? That's an unfortunate omission.
- the buoyancy thing seems overly limiting and I'm not sure it adds much to the feel of the creature. I think I'd have preferred you dropping this in favor of using your word count elsewhere.

Other thoughts:
- I won't hold this against you, but there's a lot of modular work required here to make this monster function properly. You have to be ready to reference the Entrap, Freeze and Split special abilities from some other book(s), then figure out how they will apply here. This is a monster that takes a little bit more prep-work (or willingness to slow down play during combat) than you might expect.

Its no more a plot device or a "kill the favorite thing of the class" than a rust monster is to a fighter.

The issue I have with it isn't that it takes away a wizard's pet. It's the long and windy road it has to take to get there. If it dealt this particular fate by way of toxin, curse, disease, or insanity I wouldn't give it a second thought. But this whole ability damage, then drag the unconscious familiar elsewhere, perform uninterrupted ritual, etc. That's in plot device territory and feels too overly complicated for a monster tactic.

Jacob, interesting core idea here. I'm on the fence about it because I question the overall execution. Good luck in the final voting!

Here's what I like:
- monster that targets the bond between PC and its companion. This concept feels new to me; not sure I can think of any other specific monster that would target your familiar to turn it against you.
- incorporates "familiar" abilities (alertness, evasion, SR) into its core structure; I like this twist.

Here's what I don't like:
- complicated path to its goal. It wants to transform your familiar into a twisted, aberrant mockery of itself. But it's got to drain away the familiar's wisdom, render it unconscious, perform a 1-hour ritual... it's starting to become just a plot device and not a monster.
- Throwaway feats. Feats are one aspect of a DM's toolbox where you can craft a monster to fulfill its function(s) well. The feats you have chosen do not feel like they serve to define this creature. They feel like feats chosen to fill up space.
- questionable rules savvy. Some basic things are tripping you up. a single natural attack doesn't get iterative attack bonuses. Concentration check is caster level (10) plus casting stat bonus (2).

Russel, love the imagery of this creature. Good luck in the voting!

Here's what I like:
- dead elf visages twisted together into a murderous willow tree. After Second Darkness I was rooting for Treerazor. So what's not to love?
- immediate useability. I can pick this monster and use it right away; it's like an improved shambling mound, and I know how those work. I don't have to "figure out" how to best use this creature.
- I have a fondness for twisted plant creatures and generally think we need more of them in the game.

Here's what I don't like:
- I don't see the point of x/week mechanics, particularly an attack power like Thornburst.
- Throwaway feats (alertness and skill focus). Give it a racial bonus to perception and use these feats to better define the creature's strengths.
- nonstandard racial bonus (+14 to stealth in forests). I feel that racial bonuses typically come in the +2, +4, or +8 variety. Not sure how you derived a +14 number except that it nicely rounds the stealth score to +15. Just feels odd.
- this creature seems like it wants to be a little more vampiric than it is. Right now it's kind of a basic 2-claw grapple monster. The thornburst power is handy but as a whole this monster doesn't have that really sinister ability that would elevate it beyond the level of one of Treerazor's grunts.

Very cool monster, Mike. Good luck in the voting!

Here's what I like:
- creepy Zon-kuthon take on an ethereal filcher. Neat!
- incorporeal aberration. While I'm not sure I'm on-board with your specific incorporeal/blink mechanic, I like that it's not undead.
- feat choices build to the monster's strength. Nice job in building a monster that does its core thing well.
- I'd use this creature with only minor alterations.

Here's what I don't like:
- menacing teeth, blades never come into play. Its incorporeal touch is scary, sure, but there is a visual mismatch between this guy's appearance and his actual attacks.
- discorporating touch shouldn't be a separate pool of damage from its standard incorporeal touch. Would have preferred the 4d6 damage to be listed right in the monster's attack.
- phasing steal is confusing, even after a couple of passes. At first I didn't understand why you were granting a +10 to defend against this maneuver. You have to look at the steal combat maneuver and understand that this is allowing the monster to do something it would not normally be able to. I recognize there's a certain amount of modular reading necessary here but I would have liked to see this ability written more clearly.
- the ravager can absorb items to heal? this needs to be clarified quite a bit. As written it seems tacked-on and there are many simple gameplay questions that open up. How do you retrieve the item? Is the item destroyed if used to heal the creature? How many items can it store at a time?

Erik, just wanted you to know that I appreciate how much effort you've put into keeping this line going. You've opened my eyes to stories I never even knew were out there, and I'll be ready for more once you and Paizo get to the other side of this hiatus.

Best wishes and good luck!

Eric Bailey

A few things I've noticed when looking at wealth-by-level guidelines (for both PCs and NPCs)

• NPCs' challenge ratings are 1 point lower in PF than their 3.5 equivalents, so their available treasure/gear has to be appropriate for that reduced CR.

• Pathfinder sets NPC wealth at EXACTLY 3x standard treasure value for its challenge rating. 3.5 played fast and loose with this guideline; after level 3, NPC wealth averaged 2.75 times the treasure of equivalent level, but that number deviated slightly at each level.

• Pathfinder's default number of level-equivalent encounters per experience level is 20, compared to 3.5's 13.3 encounters/level, so treasure per encounter has to be a little less, and PCs will ultimately have more wealth to work with over time.

• Specifically, it seems like Pathfinder's treasure per encounter table assumes a 4 person party will spend/lose/miss 30% of all treasure awarded between levels. Put a different way, if you award the exact gold-piece amounts given in the "Treasure by Encounter" table over 20 encounters to a 4-person party, they will come out 30% wealthier than the wealth-by-level table suggests.
  

Obviously, no home game runs this way. But hopefully this is helpful.

In your list above, the only one that doesn't fit is the final Heresy of Man scenario, which is Tier 5-9 and therefore would not be "official" at level 10. Otherwise I'd say it looks fine.