Guide 4.2 and Changes to Pathfinder Society Organized Play

Jiggy wrote:

Kyle, I dare you to kill my tiefling.

After I have some prestige saved up...

Learn from Aaron...it won't be enough.

Or Bob ... I think he's died on Kyle's table 3 times now (twice in one scenario)...

I just wanted to point out I don't kill Tieflings, Right Stuart!

This sux... I am GMing the Wonders in the Weave series this Saturday the 11th. Because the new rules don't go into effect until next week on the 16th, the character I will apply the GM credits to still won't get the boon :(

Hrm... Maybe don't take credit, then later run it again for credit? :P

Actually, that's a valid question.

Mike:

Can a GM decline credit for a scenario now, and then GM it again after the 16th and take the newly boonful credit?

Ryan Bolduan wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Kyle, I dare you to kill my tiefling.

After I have some prestige saved up...

Learn from Aaron...it won't be enough.

Or Bob ... I think he's died on Kyle's table 3 times now (twice in one scenario)...

If I die, it will be to ensure the survival of my team. Even in death I will not be defeated by the forces of darkness!

Chris Mortika wrote:

That makes no sense.

Sometimes, life just doesn't make sense.

The Guide isn't made to cover every single corner-case possible. If it did, then it would bloat to 100-200 pages long. The current rule, which I personally think is a fairly good one, is that Player's can assume a GM knows things about the Core Rulebook, the Guide to PFS, and Pathfinder Society Field Guide. Other than those three sources (as well as spells/abilities derived from those sources) the player needs to bring the book.

As a courtesy however, most players should bring a Bestiary if they plan on summoning things, but it isn't required.

I would not play a summoning character at the table without my Summoner Android/IOS app. It's that good.

To be fair I also expect index cards from wildshaping druids as well. At my home campaigns, it's one of the requirements for "familiarity".

Actually, that's a valid question.

Mike:

Can a GM decline credit for a scenario now, and then GM it again after the 16th and take the newly boonful credit?

Not Mike but p39 para 3 "When you choose to take a Chronicle sheet for GM credit" seems to indicate you don't have to take it the first time you run it.

I was thinking that I reason the forums somewhere in the last few days that Mike had said something about this. He was talking about character creation, but he said that the 16th was a "No later than" date. I was thinking that he'd indicated that we could follow the new rules now, but they weren't binding until the 16th. I'm not certain of how that would apply to GM credit until then,though.
[Edit: Upon further reading, and searching Mike's posts, I found that he did indeed say that changes to characters could be made, but weren't binding until the 16th, but also emphasized that the changes weren't to be played 'til the 16th. He was also very adamant about saying that the Guide doesn't take affect 'til the 16th. So, I guess that since the language has changed in 4.2, and that paragraph was added, that it would go by 4.1 and even if there's the option now, I guess that it wouldn't apply 'til the 16th.

Pure speculation on my part, obviously.

Thanks for opening up Aasimar, Tengu, and Tiefling.

In my opinion, anyone who dumpstats two or more ability scores kinda missed the point of playing a Pathfinder Society character in the first place. Pathfinders should strive for balance.

Good riddance to min-maxed characters and the all-too-numerous Munchkins who love playing them!

After re-reading my above post, I apologize for being antagonistic to Min-Maxers. Some people are competitive by nature and create the most competitive characters they can. That doesn't necessarily make them bad players. Sorry for the blanket assumption on my part. It was insensitive of me to be so harsh towards players who potentially lost their favorite characters due to this ban.

I was thinking that I reason the forums somewhere in the last few days that Mike had said something about this. He was talking about character creation, but he said that the 16th was a "No later than" date. I was thinking that he'd indicated that we could follow the new rules now, but they weren't binding until the 16th. I'm not certain of how that would apply to GM credit until then,though.

If I recall correctly, he said that in regards to characters with newly banned classes being rebuilt to be legal; the players didn't HAVE to rebuild them until the 16th, but if they wanted to rebuild them now and start playing the newly legal one they could.

This makes sense on several levels; why delay the inevitable?

On the other hand, Mike's request to not abuse the new rules was in reference to players making Tiefling or Aasimar characters now, without the boon, before GenCon.

This also makes sense.

So where does this leave us with GM Boons prior to the 16th? I'm not sure. I feel GMs should be allowed to get a boon from running prior to the 16th, because there is no reason to penalize GMs for running games in the last stretch of Season 3. However, as Season 4 hasn't started yet, it's difficult to say for sure unless M&M chip in.

You know, I bet Chalfon and I are pretty close. If I get to count PC deaths for Rats Part 1 and the deaths that happen at Gen Con Saturday night, I bet I've got him beat. ;-)

Good thing I won't increase that count at all.

I'm just going to poke Kyle in the eye for all those poor PCs. Seeing as how I've never met Kyle and only vaguely know what he looks like, I'll be poking people into the eye until I get the respionse of "Hey! You can't do this to me! I'm Kyle Baird!" Then I will smile and recover from the bruises I've gained from those who punched me in the noggin for poking them in the eye.

Darn it ... double-ninja'd while I was editing.
Sean H ... I agree entirely. As you point out, it makes sense, but, it also makes sense to have to wait. I'd be happy with either answer.

• 1.)We can wait, but are free to use it since it was released.
  *or*
  
• 2.)We have to wait. We can use it to make changes or updates, but it's not playable 'til the 16th.

Darn it ... double-ninja'd while I was editing.

Sean H ... I agree entirely. As you point out, it makes sense, but, it also makes sense to have to wait. I'd be happy with either answer.

1.)We can wait, but are free to use it since it was released. *or*
2.)We have to wait. We can use it to make changes or updates, but it's not [i/playable[/i] 'til the 16th.

Huh, that is a different reading than I got. I already rebuilt one of my characters because I wanted to put the past behind me and didn't want to spend any more time playing a character I knew was going away. I'm not even sure where my old character sheet is. Does this mean I can't even play my new character this weekend, even though he is both season 3 and 4 legal after the rebuild?

After re-reading my above post, I apologize for being antagonistic to Min-Maxers. Some people are competitive by nature and create the most competitive characters they can. That doesn't necessarily make them bad players. Sorry for the blanket assumption on my part. It was insensitive of me to be so harsh towards players who potentially lost their favorite characters due to this ban.

Oh, and thanks for the apology. While I won't deny there were issues with characters that completely dominated tables, this wasn't true for everyone. I know my Synthesist was specifically build to trip, reposition and flank with enemies so the other melee characters such as a barbarian or rogue could easily unload their full attacks and take them down. It was always fun helping my party, so I can't say it didn't sting when others were accusing all synthesist players of being twinks and ruining the game.

Ryan Bolduan wrote:

Kyle Baird wrote:

Whatever, you only survive my tables because you bake.

As another survivor, I too will add that Kyle is not full of hot air. He was OUT FOR BLOOD!

Or brownies!

So you mean to quench your blood thirst with tiny fey?!

takes notes

Huh, that is a different reading than I got. I already rebuilt one of my characters because I wanted to put the past behind me and didn't want to spend any more time playing a character I knew was going away. I'm not even sure where my old character sheet is. Does this mean I can't even play my new character this weekend, even though he is both season 3 and 4 legal after the rebuild?

My reading of Mike's post was that characters affected by the bans and need a rebuild were welcome to do them now. The 16th was just the deadline IN CASE you wanted to give them a last whirl, etc...

My reading of Mike's post was that characters affected by the bans and need a rebuild were welcome to do them now. The 16th was just the deadline IN CASE you wanted to give them a last whirl, etc...

That's what I thought, too.

Yes, character rebuilds for archetypes being banned come August 16 can rebuild immediately, or anytime before the 16th and be played in games between now and the 16th.

Also, GMs can choose which running of a scenario they wish to apply GM credit. So, if you run a scenario tonight, this weekend, and on the 17th, you may opt to skip GM credit tonight or this weekend and take the GM credit from running the game on the 17th.

Chris Mortika wrote:

Todd Morgan wrote:

Remember, to play a new race, you have to have the material on hand. So go get an ARG and Blood of Angels and make those characters!

Todd, aasimars and tieflings are in Bestiary I, yes? And that's part of the core assumption?

Chris,

The Player's Core Assumption includes the Core Rulebook, Pathfinder Society Field Guide, and the Guide to Organized Play. As a player, anything outside of those three documents require the player to bring the book/rules to the game.

Tengu are both in the ARG and Dragon Empires. Either source is acceptable since it isn't in the core assumption

Kyle Baird wrote:

Alex Greenshields wrote:

Brendan Missio wrote:

Sounds like sitting at one of your tables Kyle.

You know, I don't know why Kyle gets such a bad reputation. I bet he hasn't killed half the PCs that Chalfon Dalsine has :)

You know, I bet Chalfon and I are pretty close. If I get to count PC deaths for Rats Part 1 and the deaths that happen at Gen Con Saturday night, I bet I've got him beat. ;-)

You guys really brag about this?

I'm sticking with my home game, bye PFS. I don't need this kind of hassle.

-- david
Papa.DRB

It's all tongue in cheek Papa, they aren't really bragging about killing characters.

(Pssst, Andy, keep reading. ;) )

(Pssst, Andy, keep reading. ;) )

Yeah, thanks! chuckle... way late and a few dollars short it seems.

Jiggy wrote:

(Pssst, Andy, keep reading. ;) )

Yeah, thanks! chuckle... way late and a few dollars short it seems.

Always read to the end of a thread before responding. Netiquette 101.

Always read to the end of a thread before responding. Netiquette 101.

Man, I miss when netiquette was emphasized. I brought it up in class the other day and my students looked at me like I was from Mars.

Yes, character rebuilds for archetypes being banned come August 16 can rebuild immediately, or anytime before the 16th and be played in games between now and the 16th.

Also, GMs can choose which running of a scenario they wish to apply GM credit. So, if you run a scenario tonight, this weekend, and on the 17th, you may opt to skip GM credit tonight or this weekend and take the GM credit from running the game on the 17th.

SCHWEET! I guess it was the correct Assumption upthread! That's the option that is the most "common sense" and "fun"!! Yay for option #1 .... We can wait, but we don't have to wait!

Joko PO wrote:

Anyone have any insight as to why the GraveWalker Witch got the axe?

Probably something to do with the flavor, as noted from the text in the PRD.

"Spell Poppet: Each gravewalker carries around a gristly, inanimate poppet stitched from human skin and stuffed with shards of bone, fingernails, and grave dirt. A gravewalker's spells come from the will of evil spirits residing in the poppet, and its ability to hold spells functions in a manner identical to the way a witch's spells are granted by her familiar."

So, why don't they just change the discription? It makes me mad now I have to drop my VooDoo Witch Doctor.

Joe Jungers wrote:

Joko PO wrote:

Anyone have any insight as to why the GraveWalker Witch got the axe?

Probably something to do with the flavor, as noted from the text in the PRD.

"Spell Poppet: Each gravewalker carries around a gristly, inanimate poppet stitched from human skin and stuffed with shards of bone, fingernails, and grave dirt. A gravewalker's spells come from the will of evil spirits residing in the poppet, and its ability to hold spells functions in a manner identical to the way a witch's spells are granted by her familiar."

So, why don't they just change the discription? It makes me mad now I have to drop my VooDoo Witch Doctor.

Because Pathfinder Society doesn't make changes to Pathfinder books. Only the development team for the books would make those changes.

And why would they make a change to their book just for the organized campaign?

Joe Jungers wrote:

Joko PO wrote:

Anyone have any insight as to why the GraveWalker Witch got the axe?

Probably something to do with the flavor, as noted from the text in the PRD.

"Spell Poppet: Each gravewalker carries around a gristly, inanimate poppet stitched from human skin and stuffed with shards of bone, fingernails, and grave dirt. A gravewalker's spells come from the will of evil spirits residing in the poppet, and its ability to hold spells functions in a manner identical to the way a witch's spells are granted by her familiar."

So, why don't they just change the discription? It makes me mad now I have to drop my VooDoo Witch Doctor.

One of my friends has a Witch Doctor, and the familiar works well for it too. He has a compy (the small raptor) and since he's from the Mwangi Expanse, it plays together quite nicely.

I just want to toss in that I'm against the inclusion of additional races (whether by this change or by boons), but am pleased by the general rules tightening and trimming the fat of over-powered and out-flavored options.

I love the inclusion of new playable races. I hope they add more in the future.

I like they added a few new races. I hope they don't add any more. I hope they reduce the number of race boons out there.

Only thing I'd have done differently is grandfather in the archetype characters (and I'm speaking as someone who hates the master summoner and likes the synthesist and hopes they do it right when Pathfinder 2.0 comes out in 8-10 years), say allowing characters to remain in play if they had reached 2nd level after the date of release of the 4.2 rules and disallowing the slow xp option for such characters.

But then again, I if that is my only gripe, oh well.

I really don't understand why anyone is against the inclusion of additional races. How is more variety a bad thing?

I get that some GMs might get a little upset about having their specialness taken away when races previously only available as GM boons are added for everybody. I get that completely. I still want them to add more. GMs with race boons need to simply take solace in the fact that they had access before anyone else. If that's not good enough, I guess I don't know what else to say.

I eventually want to see even more races added to the list of universally available for play. I will never understand how anyone can think that more options is somehow detrimental to the game.

Just my opinion of course. Feel free to disagree.

Have a nice day.

I really don't understand why anyone is against the inclusion of additional races. How is more variety a bad thing?

I get that some GMs might get a little upset about having their specialness taken away when races previously only available as GM boons are added for everybody. I get that completely. I still want them to add more. GMs with race boons need to simply take solace in the fact that they had access before anyone else. If that's not good enough, I guess I don't know what else to say.

I eventually want to see even more races added to the list of universally available for play. I will never understand how anyone can think that more options is somehow detrimental to the game.

Just my opinion of course. Feel free to disagree.

Have a nice day.

Wait, what? GM Boon? GMs don't get special boons. Until this latest update, we got fewer boons than players.

The race boons come from attending conventions, and anyone who did so had the chance of obtaining one. This made conventions cool, but while I am glad they are opening up new races, I wish they chose the eastern ones instead of Aasimar and Tiefling; I feel that the Planetouched should remain special.

Deadrender wrote:

I really don't understand why anyone is against the inclusion of additional races. How is more variety a bad thing?

I get that some GMs might get a little upset about having their specialness taken away when races previously only available as GM boons are added for everybody. I get that completely. I still want them to add more. GMs with race boons need to simply take solace in the fact that they had access before anyone else. If that's not good enough, I guess I don't know what else to say.

I eventually want to see even more races added to the list of universally available for play. I will never understand how anyone can think that more options is somehow detrimental to the game.

Just my opinion of course. Feel free to disagree.

Have a nice day.

Wait, what? GM Boon? GMs don't get special boons. Until this latest update, we got fewer boons than players.

The race boons come from attending conventions, and anyone who did so had the chance of obtaining one. This made conventions cool, but while I am glad they are opening up new races, I wish they chose the eastern ones instead of Aasimar and Tiefling; I feel that the Planetouched should remain special.

Actually, you got a dhampir or tiefling race boon if you were a GM for beginner's box. And I've received at least one other special race boon that was just for GMs at a convention, as well.

The race boons come from attending conventions, and anyone who did so had the chance of obtaining one. This made conventions cool, but while I am glad they are opening up new races, I wish they chose the eastern ones instead of Aasimar and Tiefling; I feel that the Planetouched should remain special.

Having made an 'eastern' character back in season 1 when there was no APG even, I had wished my character had remained 'exotic' with the eastern flavor had remaining rare.

I wish half orcs and elves were seen as 'special snowflakes by more people, but they're not.

I think they tried to find a balance, with the two most mentioned plane touched races and tengu. It's not perfect, but it is fair.

Sean H wrote:

Deadrender wrote:

I really don't understand why anyone is against the inclusion of additional races. How is more variety a bad thing?

I get that some GMs might get a little upset about having their specialness taken away when races previously only available as GM boons are added for everybody. I get that completely. I still want them to add more. GMs with race boons need to simply take solace in the fact that they had access before anyone else. If that's not good enough, I guess I don't know what else to say.

I eventually want to see even more races added to the list of universally available for play. I will never understand how anyone can think that more options is somehow detrimental to the game.

Just my opinion of course. Feel free to disagree.

Have a nice day.

Wait, what? GM Boon? GMs don't get special boons. Until this latest update, we got fewer boons than players.

The race boons come from attending conventions, and anyone who did so had the chance of obtaining one. This made conventions cool, but while I am glad they are opening up new races, I wish they chose the eastern ones instead of Aasimar and Tiefling; I feel that the Planetouched should remain special.

Actually, you got a dhampir or tiefling race boon if you were a GM for beginner's box. And I've received at least one other special race boon that was just for GMs at a convention, as well.

Really? Huh. Okay then.

I wish half orcs and elves were seen as 'special snowflakes by more people, but they're not.

Half-elves may have been special in earlier editions. However, in Pathfinder we get: Calistrian Prostitute (Calistria) (Elf Religious Trait) You worked in one of Calistria’s temples as a sacred prostitute, and you know how to flatter, please, and (most of all) listen.

Something tells me that half-elves aren't all that uncommon anymore.

Mike I have a question about Pg 32 Second full Paragraph second sentence.

While we certainly encourage you to allow fun, engaging roleplaying to take place, if your players are still playing darts at the tavern an hour after the game started, you should prod them into action.

My question is, when are you going to start selling "Official" PFS GM Prods? ;)

My question is, when are you going to start selling "Official" PFS GM Prods? ;)

I initially misread that as "Official PMS GF Prods" - not quite the same!

Mike I have a question about Pg 32 Second full Paragraph second sentence.

PFS Guide Pg 32 wrote:

While we certainly encourage you to allow fun, engaging roleplaying to take place, if your players are still playing darts at the tavern an hour after the game started, you should prod them into action.

My question is, when are you going to start selling "Official" PFS GM Prods? ;)

.... is that a prod FOR dm's or a prod you use ON DM's?

.... is that a prod FOR dm's or a prod you use ON DM's?

More importantly, does having one get you a free reroll?

I really don't understand why anyone is against the inclusion of additional races. How is more variety a bad thing?

I get that some GMs might get a little upset about having their specialness taken away when races previously only available as GM boons are added for everybody. I get that completely. I still want them to add more. GMs with race boons need to simply take solace in the fact that they had access before anyone else. If that's not good enough, I guess I don't know what else to say.

I eventually want to see even more races added to the list of universally available for play. I will never understand how anyone can think that more options is somehow detrimental to the game.

Just my opinion of course. Feel free to disagree.

Have a nice day.

There are two main arguments:

2. Players don't want to feel like they are at a 'zoo' when they sit down at a table.

With halflings, gnomes, elves, half-orcs, animal companions, familiars and eidolons its a bit late to worry about that...

I really don't understand why anyone is against the inclusion of additional races. How is more variety a bad thing?

I get that some GMs might get a little upset about having their specialness taken away when races previously only available as GM boons are added for everybody. I get that completely. I still want them to add more. GMs with race boons need to simply take solace in the fact that they had access before anyone else. If that's not good enough, I guess I don't know what else to say.

I eventually want to see even more races added to the list of universally available for play. I will never understand how anyone can think that more options is somehow detrimental to the game.

Just my opinion of course. Feel free to disagree.

Have a nice day.

Opening up too many races at once, as was said, denies Paizo an easy source of boons. (Con Swag).

I am satisfied at the opening of the three races. Some concepts I had (Tiyet) would have been hard to play in PFS w/o those races, others it saves me a choice* (Do I want a Tiefling Magus or a Tiefling Inquisitor, I only have one boo- oh wait, never mind). ALso it shows that Pathfinder does evolve and grow. I'm thinking we'll still see plenty of humans/elves/gnomes at the table. Most people are attached to their first character. I'm seriously looking at a gnome cavalier for example.

*

Todd Morgan wrote:

2. Players don't want to feel like they are at a 'zoo' when they sit down at a table.

With halflings, gnomes, elves, half-orcs, animal companions, familiars and eidolons its a bit late to worry about that...

I disagree.

It's all tongue in cheek Papa, they aren't really bragging about killing characters.

What I guess you don't know Kyle :p

Mike

My question is, when are you going to start selling "Official" PFS GM Prods? ;)

Yeah like a belt of Kyle so we can notch off our kills :D

Mike

So RAW for the Gravewalker Witch, Undead Lord Cleric ,and Vivisectionist Alchemist there is no reason to ban them.

So RAW for the Gravewalker Witch, Undead Lord Cleric ,and Vivisectionist Alchemist there is no reason to ban them.

Depends on what you mean by RAW. From what I understand its the flavor of the classes thats the issue not anything in their particualar rules. (other than teh undeadlord some issues were raised about the possible time it takes to stat new corpse companions you were ready for.)