Tempest_Knight's page

Will there be sketch covers for the pocket editions?

Quote:

Until a full list of deity sanctifications is published, any deity without published sanctification is treated as “can sanctify to holy.” Any champion may select any of the three Tenets of Good from the Core Rulebook (Paladin, Liberator or Redeemer) regardless of deity.

Point of Pedantry... Tenet is Good/Evil, Cause is specific Alignment...

So that should be '... any of the three Causes of the Tenet of Good (Paladin, Liberator, or Redeemer)...' Or just 'Causes of Good'...

And yet, they managed to cover it just fine.

... I know of some obscure deities that probably won't make it on the list... that are distinctly evil... that the WIP stop-gap will make Holy... but extreme corner-cases aside... should work...

I know a few Champion players who will be glad to hear that there is a fix in the works for the 15th... there was a little worry given the lack of news about how no Alignment would impact the Champion until PC2...

For the record, no, I don't like seeing "40 new posts," on threads like this, but thanks for checking!

Champions will be fine, promise. Here, let me leak two (not final) sentences from the document.

Quote:

Until a full list of deity sanctifications is published, any deity without published sanctification is treated as “can sanctify to holy.” Any champion may select any of the three Tenets of Good from the Core Rulebook (Paladin, Liberator or Redeemer) regardless of deity.

Thanks Alex.

Alright, if you need the GM to specifically say 'yes you can play without an alignment' I'll leave it for Alex to post when he's back on the clock then.

I play Organized Play, therefor, we need an Official ruling anytime we are supposed to not follow the rules as written.

Personally, I think the Champion should have been in Player Core 1, since it is the Alignment Class, and they planned on removing Alignment with PC1...

Tempest_Knight wrote:

Show me were the rules have been revoked?

This blog.

So, nothing happens to the causes and tenets?

Nothing in this blog specifically removes the Alignment restrictions of the Champion.

We have a general 'play it as written if it hasn't been remastered yet'... and we have a few rules that everyone immediately must follow...

So, we have to follow the rules as written for the Champion, but we no longer have Alignment...

So we no longer meet the requirements for any Tenet or Cause, as written, as we no longer are Good and especially not LG, NG, nor CG.

Thus, as written, all champions are no longer legally built.

You could argue that counts as 'straying from your alignment' and thus you lose access to your Focus pool and Divine Ally, and anything that depends on them...

Tempest_Knight wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Please provide the alignment requirements of the champion as proof.

So, you are arguing that Alignment is not a requirement for the Champion?

Yes. Deities have been reprinted, without Required Follower Alignment. Thus, when you check to see if your champion is allowed to be a follower of their deity, there is no restriction.

Please provide the rules that require your champion to have an alignment. What happens to your cause if you do not have an alignment?

Have your read the Champion class rules?

More specifically, Causes and Tenets?

Your Tenet is determined by your Alignment(Good/Evil) and your Cause is determined by your specific Alignment(LG/NG/CG/LE/NE/CE) was per the Champion class rules.

Show me were the rules have been revoked?

Tempest_Knight wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Quote:

If a character option has not been reprinted, characters are free to use the option as previously printed, or to select it at any time.

The champion has not been reprinted, thus you can continue to use the original until it is. So those characters are still legal.

Not without the corresponding Required Alignments... with the loss of ALL Alignments, the characters can no longer meet the Alignment requirements.

If alignment as been removed from the game, how can there be alignment REQUIREMENTS? You’re trying to take part of remaster and part of 2e original and merge them together in a way that is just nonsensical.

Until there is an Official ruling, we must follow the rules as written...

That means that the Tenets and Causes of the Champion can not be used as of the 15th... as you lack the required Alignments.

Please provide the alignment requirements of the champion as proof.

So, you are arguing that Alignment is not a requirement for the Champion?

So, I can have a Chaotic Neutral Paladin? (Sarcasm)

If we want to get pedantic, you could be a Champion, you just can't follow any Tenet or Cause...

Tenets are shared by all Champions based on Alignment(Good/Evil).

Cause is based on Specific Alignment(LG/NG/CG/LE/NE/CE).

Your cause must match your alignment exactly.

With no Alignment, there are no Tenets that match your Good/Evil alignment.

With no Alignment, there are no Causes that match your alignment exactly.

The issue is not with the Class's Rules as Written... the issue is with the removal of Alignment and how that impacts a class specifically built to interact with alignment.

Quote:

If a character option has not been reprinted, characters are free to use the option as previously printed, or to select it at any time.

The champion has not been reprinted, thus you can continue to use the original until it is. So those characters are still legal.

Not without the corresponding Required Alignments... with the loss of ALL Alignments, the characters can no longer meet the Alignment requirements.

Tempest_Knight wrote:

As currently laid out, Champions all become illegal as of November 15th...

see above blog; Specific Rules; bullet #1 wrote:

Alignment: Alignment has been removed from the game. PCs and NPCs no longer have alignment.

This means that all Champions become illegal builds on the 15th, as they no longer meet the Alignment requirements.

Can we please get a fix for this issue?

No. Alignment has been removed, which means all alignment requirements have been removed as well. They are replaced by anathema and edicts.

No where has that assertion been stated as a rule.

There has been nothing removing the Alignment requirements from the Champion.

What is being asked for, is an Official ruling stating that, or however else they plan on fixing that.

As currently laid out, Champions all become illegal as of November 15th...

Alignment: Alignment has been removed from the game. PCs and NPCs no longer have alignment.

This means that all Champions become illegal builds on the 15th, as they no longer meet the Alignment requirements.

Can we please get a fix for this issue?

The Commercial Laser Pistol cannot accept a battery...

It is listed as Capacity 5, thus only able to use a battery with a maximum capacity of 5.

The Batteries come in 10, 20, 40 capacity...

As I recall... Season 7's Faithless & Forgotten trilogy set the major outlook/goal change...

The only clue that the new art is meant to be Zarta is the rough approximation of the Society Guide clothing...

The product page does state "The terrain comes unpainted and unassembled." at the bottom of the "Box Contains:" section...

They have stated that hybrid options in the full book...

Is there an Online component?

What about the new Starfinder Society Factions (Advocates, Cognates, Manifold Host)?

Also, I second my Corvid brother, What about the Shadow Lodge?

Tempest_Knight wrote:

diami03 wrote:

Also....these have to be assembled?

Yep, they are on a multipart sprue...

Similar to Games Workshop minis or the Wizkids/D&D Frameworks minis...

Thanks.

Darn! I was hoping they would remain assembled like the ones I got in Wave 1. I guess I'll just add these to the "Needs to be assembled" shelf of shame with my Kingdom Death Monster minis.

the info page for the Human Soldier lists...

"Box contains:
• 1x Human Soldier
• 32mm scaled
• High Quality Plastic
• Scenic base included
All models come unpainted and unassembled."

The level of detail should be better then the DeepCuts minis, but a little less convenient having to build them...

Also....these have to be assembled?

Yep, they are on a multipart sprue...

Similar to Games Workshop minis or the Wizkids/D&D Frameworks minis...

+14 is possible at level 1 in Starfinder...

+4 from Ability Modifier
+1 Rank
+3 Class Skill
+3 Insight (Skill Focus)
+2 Racial
+1 Theme Knowledge

Doesn't have to be an Operative.

Level 2 allows for +16
+1 more Rank
+1 more from Personal Upgrade Mk 1

Tempest_Knight wrote:

We NEED a correction to the Resorces and Options For Pathfinder Society Characters (Character Options) page to reflect this intent as it is currently diametrically opposed to the written rules.

Already covered.

Quote:

[...] unless the item indicates otherwise.

The sidebar expressly indicates otherwise, no changes or special guidelines required.

The guidance/rule quoted from page 150, only restricts access through the 'ancestry weapon prof' feats... stating clearly that 'a elf/dwarf/etc who has never seen a firearm and trains in traditional ancestry weapons does not gain access to 'ancestry' firearms.'

The specific example being a Dwarf who does not have access to firearms does not gain access to the Clan Pistol and Dwarven Scattergun by taking Dwarven Weapon Training.

It says nothing about how the Character Options page grants access.

Currently there is no rule overriding the Character Options grant of ALL Uncommon weapons to all Gunslingers.

Thod wrote:

2nd edition - Does the PFS access overule the need of being a dwarf for buying a clan pistol?

No.

... While I support this rule ('Ancestry' weapons need Ancestry Weapon' Feat)...

It is currently in flagrant conflict with the access granted in the Character Options section...

Gunslingers (and characters with the Gunslinger archetype) gain access to all uncommon weapons, ammunition, and related items from Chapter 4 of this book, with the exception of Beast Guns and any limited or restricted items below, unless the item indicates otherwise.

The Clan Pistol is an Uncommon Weapon from Chapter 4... as are all other 'Ancestry' guns...

We NEED a correction to the Resorces and Options For Pathfinder Society Characters (Character Options) page to reflect this intent as it is currently diametrically opposed to the written rules.

Do we know what books/APs this goes through yet?

Are Integrated Firearms/Weapons allowed in Society play?

Pathfinder Society question about the Chronicle Sheet;

The Chronicle only lists a firearm in the items list, does it also grant access to it's ammunition?

Sanctioning docs?

or from other (arcane/divine/primal) spells you gain access to.

In Society play you have access to all non-Limited/Restricted Common spells... so there was no issue, unless you ignore the second half of the oft quoted 'problems sentence...

The 'fix' created a restriction on ALL prepared casters.

The 'fix(2.0)' for the 'fix' only lifts the restriction for 3 of the 5 impacted classes...

And that is before we get into a discussion about the validity of 'clarification' changing the rules...

Good grief... we're creating problems where we don't have or need problems.

The Witch and the Magus don't need clarification because they say

Witch wrote:

You choose these spells from the common spells of the tradition determined by your patron or from other spells of that tradition you gain access to.

Each time you gain a level, your patron teaches your familiar two new spells of any level you can cast, chosen from common spells of your tradition or others you gain access to. Feats can also grant your familiar additional spells.

Magus wrote:

You choose these from the common spells on the arcane spell list or from other arcane spells you gain access to.

The whole problem was that Cleric, Druid, and Wizard had 'in this book' in their respective spells section and people got all bent out of shape trying to define what the 'access' definition meant.

The Pathfinder Society (Second Edition) Guide to Organized Play in the Players > Player Basics > Spells entry states clearly that...

Spells from outside the Core Rulebook must be learned using the learn a spell activity before they can be used by prepared casters, even by clerics and druids.

There are 5 prepared caster classes... Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Witch, and Magus...

We have an FAQ entry that lifts that restriction for the Cleric, Druid, and Wizard.

We can get into the validity of a FAQ Clarification rewriting a Rule instead of clarifying... but that is a different issue...

The issue has always been people ignoring the second half of the 'problem' sentence...

As defined by the CRB (Glossary and Index, pg. 629)
Common (trait) Anything that doesn't list another rarity trait (uncommon, rare, or unique) automatically has the common trait. This rarity indicates that an ability, item, or spell is available to all players who meet the prerequisites for it. A creature of this rarity is generally known and can be summoned with the appropriate summon spell.

As defined by Merriam-Webster, as there is no Game Term definition...
Access (noun) 1b: freedom or ability to obtain or make use of something
(and before you ask... 1a relates to access to place/person/thing... 1c relates to entering/approaching a place... 1d relates to the verb usage...)

As defined by Merriam-Webster, as there is no Game Term definition...
Available (adjective) 1: easy or possible to get or use; 2: present or ready for use

Any prepared spellcaster can use the Learn a Spell activity to learn any common spells they have access to from tutors at the Grand Lodge. This adds no additional material cost beyond the standard cost for the Learn a Spell activity. Spells from outside the Core Rulebook must be learned using the learn a spell activity before they can be used by prepared casters, even by clerics and druids.

The important part is that last sentence...

Spells from outside the Core Rulebook must be learned using the learn a spell activity before they can be used by prepared casters, even by clerics and druids.

The Witch and Magus classes are both prepared casters.

The FAQ entry only references the Cleric, Druid and Wizard.

All five classes are prepared casters... the issue isn't the text in the Core Rulebook... each has, verbatim "or from other <tradition> spells to which you gain access." right after the 'spells from this book' text... (the <tradition> should be replaced with the correct tradition for each class for the full verbatim text...)

According to the PFS rules on Rarity and Access, as long as it is not Limited or Restricted, you have Access to all Common options (in this case, Spells)... Until the rule I quoted above that added a new rarity, at least functionally...

We went from Common(open), Uncommon(minor hoops), Rare(major hoops), Unique()...
To Common, Common-ish, Uncommon, Rare, Unique...

Common-ish being not quite Uncommon, but definitely not Common...

That area where you can't just take the supposedly Common option, you have to jump through an additional set of hoops(Learn a Spell) to take the 'Common' spell...

Don't tell but we just updated this rule to be less...cumbersome.

If you want to know why the rule existed initially, you'll have to ask a designer, not my place to say (they do have a good reason, but they've moved away from it).

Is the intention to fully remove the Guides current (9/14/21) requirement that ALL prepared casters must Learn a Spell for any non-CRB spell?

Or is it just meant to lift that onerous restriction from only the Cleric/Druid/Wizard, and still negatively impact the Witch/Magus?

For the purposes of Pathfinder Society play, modify the Divine or Primal Spellcasting entries of these classes (or the Spellbook entry, for the Wizard) to remove the phrase “in this book” or "from this book." These characters have access to all common spells on their respective spell lists as outlined on the Character Options page. The Resource Ownership rules still apply for these characters as normal.

Characters who previously spent gold to Learn a Spell that they now have access to natively are refunded the gold spent.

Spells from outside the Core Rulebook must be learned using the learn a spell activity before they can be used by prepared casters, even by clerics and druids.

Currently, if we accept the FAQ entry as overriding the written rules, we still have the Witch and Magus being left with the guide restriction on prepared casters.

Is the FAQ entry intended to lift the Guide restriction on prepared casters entirely?

Question, are these Pantheons going to be Society legal?

... I have some character ideas starting to form...

Sanctioning?

Now we need to get the Lost Omens books made Pocket Edition as well...

I sense a disturbing lack of Ramming Prow...

Is the sanctioning correct in granting;

"0 Reputation that can be assigned to any faction."

Just to echo OP and present things in a slightly different way: Cover Fire is like the PF1 Powerful Sneak of 2E. It offers the illusion of a benefit.

The easiest way to see how much of a trap it is is to envision yourself as the target. You're behind cover and an enemy gunslinger uses Cover Fire. You have a choice:
A) You can let it count as a regular Strike
B) You can take a -2 penalty on ranged attacks next round to get a +2 AC against the Cover Fire Strike.

If you're not planning on making ranged attacks next round, B is a no brainer. Free AC! Otherwise, you just let A happen. After all, the enemy could have just made a Strike against you instead of using Cover Fire. The choice is in your hands so you pick the option most advantageous to yourself.

Cover Fire therefore can never be stronger than making a Strike. The opponent will only pick option B if they're getting a benefit out of it (or if they think they're getting a benefit out of it).

... Option B only comes up if you make a bad decision of when to use Cover Fire...

For example... Why would you every use it against a pure Melee opponent?

Used intelligently, it is a good, if situational, feat...

Alex Speidel wrote:

GMs who are permitting playtest characters in their games should advertise as such. GMs are permitted to disallow playtest options in their games if they feel they would be disruptive to the play experience or they don't feel comfortable with the rules yet.

I fixed it for you...

We were given a suggestion, notice the use of the word "should"...

And we were given an option to Opt-Out...

Online Guide Team Lead - JTT wrote:

It can result in a GM declaring that they will "Opt-Out" by simply not GMing.

Thank you for pointing out this oft-overlooked detail. Players often seem quick to tell GMs what they "must do," only to appear totally flummoxed when there aren't enough GMs to go around...

And the VO corps is advised to work to getting those disruptive GMs to either stop their disruptive behavior or leave Organized Play...

That is in the Guide...

Playtest rules are now up on the Guide Website.

Thank you...

I would argue that it should be a matter of Opting Out, instead of Opting In... but that is just my opinion...

Tempest_Knight wrote:

Gary Bush wrote:

You have quoted the wrong post. It is in Alex's post.

Why is this such a hot button issue for you?

So, it is not in the blog providing the special rules for playtesting.

There is the right way to do things.

I guess I see how it is being handled as the right way.

A clarification is by definition clarifying unclear wording... not creating a new rule out of whole cloth...

The Guide allows for clarification to be immediately enforced/enforceable...

There is a right way, and this isn't it... but we are also being told that there is not intention on doing it the right way, so...

If the reasoning applies to the playtest classes, why does the exact same reasoning not also apply anywhere else?

It opens a door, that IMHO, should not be opened.

This is a clear violation to being able to take any legal character to any legal table... That has always been one of the biggest selling points for PFS, in my experience at least.

You have quoted the wrong post. It is in Alex's post.

Why is this such a hot button issue for you?

So, it is not in the blog providing the special rules for playtesting.

There is the right way to do things.

Please underline where it is found in the special rules for playtesting

Welcome to 2021! How about a playtest to start off with a bang? After not participating in the Pathfinder Secrets of Magic playtest and reading the feedback from our players and GMs, we put our heads together to come up with a way to engage our Organized Play community that worked within the Pathfinder Society framework. We settled on a model based on the Starfinder Society method that will allow our community to participate in the Pathfinder Guns & Gears playtest (see the announcement here). This framework works within established Society guidelines, doesn’t leave credit on unusable characters, and encourages players to get involved. We believe this method is flexible enough to use for future playtests and will add a section to the Guides to Organized Play to provide guidance to players and GMs.

But enough with the whys and wherefores. Let’s get to the details:

Playtest Period: Pathfinder Society participation in the Guns & Gears playtest runs from publication on January 5 to February 5, 2021. Once this period has expired, players can no longer use the gunslinger or inventor playtest classes until their publication in a future Pathfinder product.

Playtest Classes: This playtest includes the gunslinger and inventor classes as outlined in the Guns & Gears playtest found here.

How It Works: We're opening up Society play for the playtest classes via the use of custom created characters that operate much like our pregenerated characters. We believe this should encourage players to test the waters with custom builds, be it with current scenarios or through our growing stable of repeatable options.

Creating a Playtest Character: Prior to playing a scenario during the playtest period, a player can determine if they want to playtest either of the new classes. The character must have all levels in a single playtest class, and not take archetypes. Although archetypes are important for the playtest as a whole, we're limiting play to single classes in the Organized play portion of the playtest for simplicity. Depending on the tier of the scenario, the player can then use a 1st-, 3rd-, or 5th-level character using the eligible playtest classes and created using the following guidelines.

1st Level: The character can be made using the character creation rules presented in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook and Guide to Organized Play: Pathfinder Society.
3rd Level: This character follows the same rules as above, except they can select one 2nd-level and two 1st-level permanent items. In addition, the player can spend up to 25 gp on other available equipment.
5th Level: This character follows the same rules as above, except they can select one 4th-level, two 3rd-level, one 2nd-level, and two 1st-level permanent items. In addition, the player can spend up to 50 gp on other available equipment.
Credit: Choose which of your characters will receive the credit at the beginning of the adventure. The credit earned for playing a Guns & Gears playtest character follows the same rules and guidelines as applying credit for a pregenerated character, presented in the Applying Credit section of the Player Basics page of the Guide to Organized Play: Pathfinder Society.

With all this in mind, we encourage our players to take an active part in the Guns & Gears playtest, both by sharing your opinions online in the playtest forums and by completing the playtest surveys. We hope that by opening up the means in which players can create and customize characters for the playtest, that we can see some unique and fun builds using these new classes and that such tests will provide the design team with priceless field-agent feedback!

We’ll see you back on January 7 for our first monthly update of 2021.

Until then, don’t forget to explore, report, and cooperate!

I'll abide by the Errata provided, but will point out that it is not a Clarification, as it does not clarify any of the wording...

Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:

GM can ask that no one bring a Playtest Character, but cannot, by the rules, ban someone from playing one.

Alex's comment above contradicts this. And yes, I understand that what is written is given more weight than what a someone from Organized Play staff says on the boards.

Alex Speidel wrote:

GMs who are permitting playtest characters in their games should advertise as such. GMs are permitted to disallow playtest options in their games if they feel they would be disruptive to the play experience or they don't feel comfortable with the rules yet.

(emphasis added by me)

So let this discussion begin...

This is in direct conflict with the rules and therefore cannot be made as a 'clarification' this is errata... that requires a changing the written rules.

Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:

So, does this new discretion apply more broadly?

This is in direct conflict with the basic principles, let alone the rules, of Organized Play.

There is one question, if they are legal for the duration of the Playtest they are legal at all Organized Play tables.

If they are not, then they are not legal at any Organized Play tables.

Or you need to add an addendum to the above rules for Organized Play Playtest to allow the banning of some legal options at GM discretion...

No.

We can be respectful of GM boundaries when new rules are being tested. Not everyone is going to be comfortable with that right away.

The GM can ask that no one bring a Playtest Character, but cannot, by the rules, ban someone from playing one.

I'm all for respecting GMs' preferences, but not at the expense of the rules.

This way leads to GMs banning legal options they don't like.

LeftHandShake wrote:

Alex Speidel wrote:

LeftHandShake wrote:

Do the playtest classes count as "legal character options" for the duration of the playtest, subject to the restrictions specified?

Yes.

Just so there's no confusion, are these "legal character options" as they pertain to this sentence of the Organized Play Game Master Basics, Table Variation: "No[] banning legal character options"?

Well, you should ask what you mean then, saves everyone a lot of time.

GMs who are permitting playtest characters in their games should advertise as such. GMs are permitted to disallow playtest options in their games if they feel they would be disruptive to the play experience or they don't feel comfortable with the rules yet.

So, does this new discretion apply more broadly?

This is in direct conflict with the basic principles, let alone the rules, of Organized Play.

There is one question, if they are legal for the duration of the Playtest they are legal at all Organized Play tables.

If they are not, then they are not legal at any Organized Play tables.

Or you need to add an addendum to the above rules for Organized Play Playtest to allow the banning of some legal options at GM discretion...

Could you give us a level range for the Society Playtest so we CAN plan ahead?

Paizo has a long standing history of the Pregens are Special and don't need to follow the rules...

PF1 examples...
Yoon is just a Small size Human... Amiri has two Combat traits... there are others...

This has led to issues in the past, and will probably continue to in the future, but the Kobold pregens in this case are only usable for 1 module, so not a big issue.