Let's Be Clear

Monday, January 11, 2016

Happy New Year, everyone! As we return from our holiday vacations, John, Tonya, and I have been diving into some projects that have been sitting on the Pathfinder Society back burner for some time. We are happy to announce the release of the first of these projects—the Pathfinder Society Campaign Clarifications Document.

As anyone who has ever seen the official list of Additional Resources knows, Pathfinder Society characters have many options. As anyone who is a regular on our forums knows, some of these options can be interpreted in different ways. When these rules ambiguities crop up in a home campaign, where a player is likely to have only one GM, the GM and the player can work together to find a satisfying solution. In the organized play campaign, where players are likely to have many GMs over the course of each character’s adventures, these ambiguities can lead to substantially different rules interpretations from table to table. We created this document to help reach one of goals of organized play—to provide an equitable gaming experience to players all over the world. The Clarifications Document is a centralized place for us to offer official rulings for ambiguous rules.

Many of these interpretations are the suggestions of the developers who worked on the rules in the first place, which have until now been unofficial posts on the messageboards. Others come out of Additional Resources, which we will be trimming down a bit in the next update. The last source is a list of ambiguities I’ve been saving until we had a clear plan for how to address them. I’m sure some of you will notice a couple of rules elements mentioned in the Clarifications Document that are not currently legal in Pathfinder Society. These elements will appear in our next update of Additional Resources.

While GMs are free to use clarifications from this document in their home campaigns if they wish, these are not official errata. The Clarifications Document principally addresses rules material that appears in softcover sources such as the Pathfinder Campaign Setting and Pathfinder Player Companion lines, rather than the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game hardcover books. As part of our Additional Resources process, we plan to revisit this document each month and make changes if necessary. What rules ambiguities have you seen in your Pathfinder Society games that you would like to see resolved?

Download the Campaign Clarifications Document — (8.43mb zip/PDF)

Linda Zayas-Palmer
Assistant Developer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Campaign Setting Pathfinder Player Companion Pathfinder Society
201 to 250 of 809 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
The Fox wrote:
Aren't all of those non-PFS-specific rules issues, Nefreet?

Indeed. Isn't that the point of this document?

PFS-specific things are covered in the Guide and FAQ. This document is for ambiguous rules questions.

Right? So we can help eliminate table variation on unanswered rules?

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Nefreet wrote:
The Fox wrote:
Aren't all of those non-PFS-specific rules issues, Nefreet?

Indeed. Isn't that the point of this document?

PFS-specific things are covered in the Guide and FAQ. This document is for ambiguous rules questions.

Right? So we can help eliminate table variation on unanswered rules?

No. Its not really that ambitious.

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nefreet is right as I read it - this is "the GM's call" on these issues, made by the Campaign GM so that the table GM doesn't have to adjudicate it. Those are exactly the sort of thing that need to be clarified. Alas, there seem to more of them every time Nefreet has a spare minute. ;)

Liberty's Edge 3/5 Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

GM Lamplighter wrote:
Alas, there seem to more of them every time Nefreet has a spare minute. ;)

Well lets just put Nefreet in a room full of kittens and puppies! That should keep him busy with something else for a while.... <evil grin>

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

GM Lamplighter wrote:
Nefreet is right as I read it - this is "the GM's call" on these issues, made by the Campaign GM so that the table GM doesn't have to adjudicate it. Those are exactly the sort of thing that need to be clarified. Alas, there seem to more of them every time Nefreet has a spare minute. ;)

1) There's too many of them to eliminate the inevitable table variation

2) They've stated a few times (and you can see from the document itself) that they're not aiming to be what the FAQ/Errata process is supposed to be.

5/5

Most of the items already in the document seem like FAQ entries, which just have not been around long enough to be asked "frequently" yet - basically pre-emptive FAQs. I guess I'm just not clear on the differences here - questions that need answering are questions that need answering. How and when Paizo wants to handle it is up to them, and I trust their judgement on it.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Some of the stuff in there is straight-up errata - the Glorious Heat and boots of the earth changes, for example.

Scarab Sages

And the change to Spellscar Drifter. That is errata in all but name.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Not sure why it matters if it's called a clarification or errata. This document is clearing up unclear things. Sometimes to clarify, actual change is necessary.

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've just been watching this thread, and not commenting - but now I guess I am getting pulled in.
Reading thru the Blog post I notice the following point of interest...

... Pathfinder Society Campaign Clarifications Document...

...Pathfinder Society characters have many options....
...some of these options can be interpreted in different ways...
...these ambiguities can lead to substantially different rules interpretations from table to table...
...created this document to ...
...provide an equitable gaming experience to players all over the world. The Clarifications Document is a centralized place for us to offer official rulings for ambiguous rules....

...these are not official errata...
...principally addresses rules material that appears in softcover sources...rather than the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game hardcover books. ...

...What rules ambiguities have you seen in your Pathfinder Society games that you would like to see resolved?

SO, it looks like this post is mainly dealing with "rules ambiguities" when dealing with PFS Character options in softcover books. Is that correct?

Almost all of the "rules ambiguities"/"table variation" issues I encounter in PFS deal with rules in the hardcover books - and mostly with those in the CRB. This may be because I tend not to use many things from the softcover books - mostly BECAUSE of the "rules ambiguities"/"table variation" I encounter when I try to work with them. But, in any event, the "table variation" issues I normally encounter have very little to do with PFS Character options, and instead deal with basic rules. (Cover/Concealment, Flight, Perception, Social Skills like Diplomacy, the spell beguiling gift, Stealth, Take 10, Take 20, Etc.)

For soft cover ones... perhaps the write-up on Sound Striker Bard. I have a Sound Striker that I have stopped playing, just because of the "rules ambiguities"/"table variation" with the way her abilities work. Yeah, it would be nice to have a clearer write-up on how to run this Bard Archetype.

Silver Crusade

The paladin discussion in the other thread got me thinking about a related question.

According to the Guide to Organized Play (or whatever it's called this season), Clerics of Irori get Improved Unarmed Strike for free, so they can use their god's favored weapon. This leads me to wonder two related questions:

1. What about inquisitors and warpriests of Irori, since those classes are also supposed to be proficient with their deity's favored weapons?
2. What about other deities with unarmed strike as their favored weapon?

It seems to me that this rule should apply to any divine class that gets proficiency with the deity's favored weapon, and any deity with unarmed strike as their favored weapon. But most of those types of characters have monk levels, anyway, so this probably just never comes up.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Inquisitor, maybe. It's baked into warpriest. ^_^

Sovereign Court 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

Fromper wrote:

The paladin discussion in the other thread got me thinking about a related question.

According to the Guide to Organized Play (or whatever it's called this season), Clerics of Irori get Improved Unarmed Strike for free, so they can use their god's favored weapon. This leads me to wonder two related questions:

1. What about inquisitors and warpriests of Irori, since those classes are also supposed to be proficient with their deity's favored weapons?
2. What about other deities with unarmed strike as their favored weapon?

It seems to me that this rule should apply to any divine class that gets proficiency with the deity's favored weapon, and any deity with unarmed strike as their favored weapon. But most of those types of characters have monk levels, anyway, so this probably just never comes up.

I was under the impression the same went for inquisitors and warpriests. If not, that's a real surprise for me. I think the rule should be the same for everyone who gets favored weapon proficiencies.

Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

nosig wrote:
For soft cover ones... perhaps the write-up on Sound Striker Bard. I have a Sound Striker that I have stopped playing, just because of the "rules ambiguities"/"table variation" with the way her abilities work. Yeah, it would be nice to have a clearer write-up on how to run this Bard Archetype.

You still have ambiguity after the FAQ to the sound striker?

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

How can unchained rogues with Bookish Rogue gain and ad spells to a spellbook? It seems difficult by RAW to get new spells in a book if you don't have the actual spellbook feature.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
Not sure why it matters if it's called a clarification or errata. This document is clearing up unclear things. Sometimes to clarify, actual change is necessary.

Probably because if it is errata, it proves that PFS could give paladins proficiency with their deities favored weapon.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Spellbook access for non wizards in general, there's a number of options that rely on it.

Silver Crusade

Ascalaphus wrote:
Fromper wrote:

The paladin discussion in the other thread got me thinking about a related question.

According to the Guide to Organized Play (or whatever it's called this season), Clerics of Irori get Improved Unarmed Strike for free, so they can use their god's favored weapon. This leads me to wonder two related questions:

1. What about inquisitors and warpriests of Irori, since those classes are also supposed to be proficient with their deity's favored weapons?
2. What about other deities with unarmed strike as their favored weapon?

It seems to me that this rule should apply to any divine class that gets proficiency with the deity's favored weapon, and any deity with unarmed strike as their favored weapon. But most of those types of characters have monk levels, anyway, so this probably just never comes up.

I was under the impression the same went for inquisitors and warpriests. If not, that's a real surprise for me. I think the rule should be the same for everyone who gets favored weapon proficiencies.

From the current Guide:

Quote:
Clerics of Irori receive Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat so they can use their deity’s favored weapon (unarmed strike) without provoking an attack of opportunity.

It doesn't mention other deities with that favored weapon or other classes.

Silver Crusade

Aren't spellbooks just items that you can buy from the equipment chapter of the Core Rulebook? Unless you're talking about gaining spells in the spellbook for free, the way a wizard does at the start and when they level up.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I got something from a soft cover. How about the healing bomb discovery from Magical Marketplace. I have a character built around this, but the discovery does not adequately explain how throwing a healing bomb works. Can my ally choose to be flatfooted if he knows a healing bomb is coming? It mostly matters if I want to heal a roguey type, since they tend to have the most formidable touch AC.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Fromper wrote:
Aren't spellbooks just items that you can buy from the equipment chapter of the Core Rulebook? Unless you're talking about gaining spells in the spellbook for free, the way a wizard does at the start and when they level up.

Not for free, but if they can be purchased with spells in them. The bookish rogue and lore oracle have class features that need access to one in order to work, the Mnemonic vestment works much better with it.

Silver Crusade

I've never really looked into that. I just assumed they'd have to buy the spellbook, then scribe spells into their spellbook from scrolls or something. But if they're using a class feature, it would make sense for them to get at least some starting spells in the spellbook for free, like a wizard.

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
VykkDraygo wrote:
I got something from a soft cover. How about the healing bomb discovery from Magical Marketplace. I have a character built around this, but the discovery does not adequately explain how throwing a healing bomb works. Can my ally choose to be flatfooted if he knows a healing bomb is coming? It mostly matters if I want to heal a roguey type, since they tend to have the most formidable touch AC.

I had forgotten this one. Yeah, I have two PCs with this and it runs different at every table I sit at (sometimes with the same judge, at the same CON, in two different scenarios.)

and here's a link

Healing Bombs and Alchemists Throw Anything.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Fromper wrote:
I've never really looked into that. I just assumed they'd have to buy the spellbook, then scribe spells into their spellbook from scrolls or something. But if they're using a class feature, it would make sense for them to get at least some starting spells in the spellbook for free, like a wizard.

I don't care about the 'for free' part, I just can't quite convince myself that rogues and other characters in this situation can actually have any spells scribed into a book they own. (Whereas wizards and other classes can explicitly write spells into their own books.)

And if a rogue can't scribe spells into their own books, I think that leaves them at the mercy of whatever other party members might or might not have a spellbook available for perusal during a session.

The Exchange 5/5

Fromper wrote:
I've never really looked into that. I just assumed they'd have to buy the spellbook, then scribe spells into their spellbook from scrolls or something. But if they're using a class feature, it would make sense for them to get at least some starting spells in the spellbook for free, like a wizard.

This is like saying that a fighter should be able to make magic weapons, after all "if they're using a class feature (BAB), it would make sense for them to get at least some starting magic bonuses for free, like a wizard can...".

The class ability would (outside of PFS) allow them to use an item of treasure (a wizards spellbook) that they captured some time ago, much they can use potions, or (with UMD) scrolls.

This is an ability that works great - outside of the restricted treasure rules currently in use in PFS.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Tweedle-Dum wrote:
Fromper wrote:
I've never really looked into that. I just assumed they'd have to buy the spellbook, then scribe spells into their spellbook from scrolls or something. But if they're using a class feature, it would make sense for them to get at least some starting spells in the spellbook for free, like a wizard.
This is like saying that a fighter should be able to make magic weapons, after all "if they're using a class feature (BAB), it would make sense for them to get at least some starting magic bonuses for free, like a wizard can...".

AGAIN. I haven't seen anyone asking for it for free. But where a fighter needs magic weapons and has a clear path to said weapons, no clear path exists to the spellbooks in pfs but several ways might be legal including

1) buying them
2) using the spells a wizard has memorized when you loot them
3) having a PC wizard copy their spellbook for you

Liberty's Edge 3/5

How are Wild Shape DCs set? I've received a private ruling from Campaign Staff via a VC I know, but I'd be happier with a black and white ruling.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

DrSwordopolis wrote:
How are Wild Shape DCs set? I've received a private ruling from Campaign Staff via a VC I know, but I'd be happier with a black and white ruling.

The DC to do what?

3/5

following the polymorph rules, would set the DC at the spell you are emulating, wild shape lays out which spell you can emulate at what level

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
DrSwordopolis wrote:
How are Wild Shape DCs set? I've received a private ruling from Campaign Staff via a VC I know, but I'd be happier with a black and white ruling.
The DC to do what?

Yes, this is another rules ambiguity. Say you Beast Shape (not wildshape) into an Emperor Cobra. What is the DC to your poison save?

Some GMs rule it's caster-stat-based, because that's the DC of your spells, while other GMs rule it's Con-based, because that's the DC of poison in general.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
The Fox wrote:
Aren't all of those non-PFS-specific rules issues, Nefreet?

Indeed. Isn't that the point of this document?

PFS-specific things are covered in the Guide and FAQ. This document is for ambiguous rules questions.

Right? So we can help eliminate table variation on unanswered rules?

No. Its not really that ambitious.

Reading through the Blog again (and nosig's highlights), it sure sounds like they're trying to be that ambitious.

I haven't been this excited about a Blog... ever. Which is why I'm offering as much material for it as possible.

This could really fix the biggest problem people have with organized play.

If I'm totally off base with this assumption, please, someone correct me.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Actually, can I just be put on this "team" that's reviewing material for the document?

Scarab Sages 5/5 Venture-Captain, Netherlands aka Woran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Actually, can I just be put on this "team" that's reviewing material for the document?

NEFREET FOR PRESIDENT!

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Woran wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Actually, can I just be put on this "team" that's reviewing material for the document?
NEFREET FOR PRESIDENT!

I'd vote for him. But I just don't think PFS is a democracy.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Can Separatist Clerics access Animal and Terrain Domains?

Universalizing how Knowledge checks are handled to identify creatures would be super nice. I'd, of course, offer my own ideas on the matter, but really anything is better than what we have now.

Spring-loaded wrist-sheaths and table variation (which btw was a really good discussion on the matter).

A basic guideline for handling Masterwork Tools (though even this may be too broad of a topic for one document to cover).

Does a Vicious, Merciful weapon deal 1d6 nonlethal damage to the wielder?

Would Merciful then make the Fire damage from Flaming nonlethal as well?

Durable ammunition can come in non-arrow forms.

Can I cast Animate Dead on a Briarborn Juggernaut?

How does an Oracle of Bones... [search overload]

Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

Nefreet wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
DrSwordopolis wrote:
How are Wild Shape DCs set? I've received a private ruling from Campaign Staff via a VC I know, but I'd be happier with a black and white ruling.
The DC to do what?

Yes, this is another rules ambiguity. Say you Beast Shape (not wildshape) into an Emperor Cobra. What is the DC to your poison save?

Some GMs rule it's caster-stat-based, because that's the DC of your spells, while other GMs rule it's Con-based, because that's the DC of poison in general.

Isn't this clear in the rule under Transmutation - Polymorph in the magic section?

Quote:
In addition, each polymorph spell can grant you a number of other benefits, ... The DC for any of these abilities equals your DC for the polymorph spell used to change you into that form.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm thinking vicious, merciful weapons should be banned, just because it fails the grammar nazi test. You can't have two adjectives on the same word that are antonyms of each other.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:

Isn't this clear in the rule under Transmutation - Polymorph in the magic section?

Quote:
In addition, each polymorph spell can grant you a number of other benefits, ... The DC for any of these abilities equals your DC for the polymorph spell used to change you into that form.

Spoilered reply so as to not derail thread:
I erred in my post: the issue revolves around Wildshape, not Beast Shape. Yes, when you cast the actual spell, the DC is set using your casting stat, but Wildshape is (Su), and that seems to generate the rules conflict.

Edit: Here's a discussion from a few years ago. Not sure if it's the most current discussion, though.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Can this document please, please change the Favored Class Bonus errata from 1/6 to 1/4?

The overwhelming consensus from the boards is that this was too heavy of a nerf.

1/2 may have been too good, but 1/6 has PCs running to be retrained.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fromper wrote:

I'm thinking vicious, merciful weapons should be banned, just because it fails the grammar nazi test. You can't have two adjectives on the same word that are antonyms of each other.

I don't know:

Viciously Merciful: "I could legally kill you for what you did, but I won't, because if you were dead then I couldn't keep hurting you." Sounds like a Calistrian to me.

Liberty's Edge 3/5 Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

Fromper wrote:


I'd vote for him. But I just don't think PFS is a democracy.

NEFREET FOR PRESIDENT FOR LIFE!!

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

This has become like the #1 thing on my mind as I'm driving around running errands today.

If I had a say in how to tackle this, I'd set up a Forum for all the 5-Star GMs to post in. We've played and GMed more than anyone else and we've encountered more table variation than anyone else. Who better to poll than the ones that've had to come up with their own rulings?

Have us make individual threads that bring up the issues one at a time. Have us present all sides of the argument, but not actually argue with one another.

After maybe like a week, Campaign Leadership reads through all the points and issues a ruling that aligns with the Campaign.

You said this document would be regularly updated, like the Weapon Groups listing. Well, as these threads get resolved the document gets updated with them.

Let our Stars count for more than just rerolls. Let us impact change and help guide the Campaign.

(did that sound like a Campaign speech?)

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Nefreet wrote:
Have us make individual threads that bring up the issues one at a time. Have us present all sides of the argument, but not actually argue with one another.

Getting aroden back would be more likely...:)

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

This could be different, however, since there's a clear end in sight.

Person #1 would propose reasons 1, 2, and 3 why their interpretation would benefit the Campaign, Person #2 could add reasons 4 and 5, and Person #3 could counter reasons 2 and 5 with why they might be detrimental to the Campaign.

There'd be no reason to go back and forth, because everyone would understand that their points were being read and evaluated by Campaign Leadership (unlike now, where posters are catering to the larger forum audience, since there's no sign that a Designer is even reading or considering their arguments).

I may be optimistic, but can you think of a more organized method for sorting this all out? We can't leave it up to just Campaign Leadership; I'd prefer they spent their time working on more content.

1/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There are some of us who are *new* to Pathfinder Society play, but have a few years of gaming under our belts that also help to see the fertilizer for the roses, as it were.

Some of us may have even been in campaigns where things have gotten too far out of hand, and appreciate a *simpler* approach versus a more complex one.

The danger with adding too many levels or too many 'vetting' processes is that it disconnects the player base from the campaign creators/authorities.

This is in a perfect scenario, not accounting for personal interactions or political leanings...

Liberty's Edge 3/5

Continuing Wildshape Derail:
Nefreet wrote:


** spoiler omitted **
Edit: Here's a discussion from a few years ago. Not sure if it's the most current discussion, though.

Concisely put. While I and the local venture officer crew fall on the 10 + spell level + wis argument, by a strictly RAW argument I'd have to argue for +CHA rather than WIS.

Sovereign Court 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

7 people marked this as a favorite.

As a not-5-star GM, I'm not so excited about the idea of yet another secret forum where other people get to discuss how the game should be set up. There's already one with the VO forum. Isn't that plenty?

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Grargy rules discussion are every geeks right!

Power to the people!

Goblins do it in the streets!

(opinion subject to change early next year....:) )

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

This has become like the #1 thing on my mind as I'm driving around running errands today.

If I had a say in how to tackle this, I'd set up a Forum for all the 5-Star GMs to post in. We've played and GMed more than anyone else and we've encountered more table variation than anyone else. Who better to poll than the ones that've had to come up with their own rulings?

Have us make individual threads that bring up the issues one at a time. Have us present all sides of the argument, but not actually argue with one another.

After maybe like a week, Campaign Leadership reads through all the points and issues a ruling that aligns with the Campaign.

You said this document would be regularly updated, like the Weapon Groups listing. Well, as these threads get resolved the document gets updated with them.

Let our Stars count for more than just rerolls. Let us impact change and help guide the Campaign.

(did that sound like a Campaign speech?)

There are a few reasons I think this is a bad idea. Firstly, I do think it's often misleading to assume that 5 Star GMs are the most experienced or best qualified, even within just the PFS arena. Often I see, or get the impression that they (we?) tend to be the most set in our ways. I'm only a lowly 4 Star here :P, but I'll include myself in this as well, because the point isn't to point fingers. Being more set in our ways is not the same thing as being good/more experienced/better GM's and being a great GM, or even a PFS GM does not really mean an individual is in a better position to nudge things in the best direction for the campaign as a whole.

I can't think of the number of times I've heard something along the lines of "Well, I don't care <*>, at my table _______"

* What the guide says / what the rules are / what the actual ruling has been / etc. . .

A great deal of the time I see 5 Star GM's push to get something banned or changed, it seems that their is a personal motivation involved, or it seems like a very regional or local issue that they are trying to make a universal rules change to address when the issue doesn't seem to happen or be a problem anywhere else. I often get the impression that "for the campaign" is less important than what seems to be personal agendas. But, here is the thing. Regardless of if it is or not, it will appear that way to everyone else, and will also just lead to more issues late on as other experienced people will encounter the new ruling and poke holes right through it.

I'm also not keen on yet another issue and means of fixing and improving the Campaign as a whole being taken away from all to be handled off screen by a few. I'd actually say it would be a better idea for 4 and 5 Star GMs to have an absolute hands-off approach than to focus on their opinions or points exclusively.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

My idea isn't for 5-Star GMs to call the shots or make decisions, though.

It's a filter. We describe what we're doing already. Campaign Leadership decides what fits.

201 to 250 of 809 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Paizo Blog: Let's Be Clear All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.