February Update— Achievement Points , Stars, Novas, Spotlights and Conventions!

Gary Bush wrote:

Azymondiaz wrote:

Also in pf1 A TON of options are just entirely blocked from society. A metric ton. Literally like half of all content was blocked from society play (rough guess, additional resources was rrreeeaaalllyyyy long with "not legal not legal not legal" and I'm probably slightly wrong on this but not by much) and luckily that didn't carry over to 2e. In 1e like half of the current heritages and ancestry feats and most of the archetypes from current books would have entirely been blocked from society without a boon.

Do you GM? Asking because I see nt stars/novas next to your name.

How can a GM even begin to have an understanding if EVERY POSSIBLE THING was allowed in PS1??? No Way. I seriously doubt a home game GM allows everything. It is too much for a GM to keep track of. And there are some combinations that prove to be too powerful. So those options have been make "not legal". With what is allowed there is already builds that are encounter stoppers!!

At GenCon, I saw a high level inquisitor archer take down the final boss at the end of the special on the first round where he acted first. Perfectly legal build. So we went on to another encounter with the brother of the boss. The other ranger archer took down the boss on his turn, first round. Again a legal build.

There needs to be limits, if nothing else for the sanity of the GM!!

I like the limits. They provide balance for the GM and for the players.

If you don't like the limits of Society play, your welcome to play a home game. But please don't tear down the game that I really like.

funny enough, contrary to your comment, someone else says 90% of content IS legal lol

Yea, I knew that already. My point doesn't change. The limits that our GM (Campaign Leadership) places on us are reasonable.

And to extend that, the limits that were built into the 2e game about common, uncommon, and rare, are good. It allows GMs to balance their games within easily understood boundaries.

stuff

you don't have to keep track of everything. It's insane to think thats necessary. Just ask your player how they do something you don't understand and do it in a simple manner? I know at my location in 1e, our VC would just go "OK and how do you do that" after someone says something weird and it gets explained real fast and everyone moves on. I knew someone that built a swashbuckler with like 2 or 3 other classes and a dozen items that let them do other things.

You just need people to get good at explaining things quickly and easily for the scenario and you can talk and text about the intricacies later

reasonable...good

Let's not forget that these are opinions based on personal bias. One person's "good" is another person's "bad." And let's admit that while we want the community to be healthy, at the end of the day we are at least somewhat selfish in that rules are only "good" if they benefit US. We don't really care if it makes the game better for some other player unless we also benefit from it, or at least are not hindered by it. Its partially why most of these types are arguments fail to gain any traction towards a resolution. We simply cannot please all the people, all the time.

And sometimes, if someone gets 'A', then they feel empowered to ask for 'B' and push for 'CDEFGHIJKetc'... while most people are okay with maybe 'A' and 'B'.

Because hey, if one can get 'such and such' without any real struggle, and 'other item for minimal struggle, what if one really puts their nose to the grindstone?'

Failing to recognize this can be detrimental to a community as much as caving completely and giving far too much away.

It does make sense that the regions are probably going to be a bit different.

At the moment what I'm seeing is that at conventions the boon support for PF1/SF actively pushes people away from 2E tables. Anecdotal I know but I've heard multiple GM's deciding they will GM 1E only at the convention because they wanted a race boon. I don't think I've seen it much from the player side to be honest, but GM side for sure.

Assuming you're at a Premier event (Not a safe assumption round here yet, but if it's moving to less table counts & more RVC decision that coumd improve) - GM one table of 2E and your convention specific benefit compared to a home game is 1/40th of a race boon. 1E it's a full race boon. The new flatter structure for 2E, while probably giving better rewards overall, is always going to be outshined at convention time by the other systems that were top-heavy.

Guess we can see how it plays out, and it seems like getting AcP in is proving tricky enough so I imagine Paizo's tech team may start crying if someone suggested something complex enough to get around that issue (Though I will say, the idea of considering throwing everything on the same AcP system after it's had a trial-run might be a good answer).

I have GMed SFS more often and play PFS2. I hope there could be a shared AcP pool or other accomidation. Cons are often short GMs and allowing for volunteers without worry of missing out is a boon to the whole community.

Any event so designated will receive premier awards just like conventions. However, the number of GameDays receiving that treatment will be limited unlike how it’s been for the past few years so there will a difference between GameDays and conventions for the most part.

Well this would suck because then some of those getting RSP treatment now would lose it. Would that be for just PF2 or would they also lose the PF1 and Starfinder RSP boons as well?

It somehow feels a bit like cheating to take an option knowing that I'm going to toss it away, it feels like I should HAVE to take the suboptimal choice now for the cool stuff later.

How can it be cheating if that freedom was baked right into the system from the beginning, available to everyone?

You have to free yourself from this "I must suffer" thinking :P

The game should be fun at every level. Because the flip side of this "suffer now to have fun later" is people who want to skip past level 1. No! Don't try to skip past level 1, make level 1 fun too!

(And I think PF2 does this remarkably well. Level 1 characters feel a lot more competent than in PF1 or Starfinder. I credit the new multiclassing system; now that dipping classes isn't so easy anymore, it's safer to frontload every class with some good level 1 stuff.)

Well this would suck because then some of those getting RSP treatment now would lose it. Would that be for just PF2 or would they also lose the PF1 and Starfinder RSP boons as well?

I don’t look at it that way. They aren’t so much losing support as it’s changing form. Instead of a 10% chance of winning a paper boon that in the case of race, need dozens of boxes checked to make it valid. Now, they will receive a flat points reward that can be spent on any number of rewards up to and including ancestries. They aren’t gated behind a 10% chance that may never result in a reward.

I think we need to focus on the most powerful aspect of this program being that instead of getting a preselected reward either as a high tier GM at a convention or possibly, but the odds are against, getting one at local GameDays, we give everyone the opportunity to get rewards at their own discretion. This is very similar to when we shifted from physical product support to gift certificates, and then vouchers. It puts the power back in the hands of the individual to decide how much or little rewards they will earn. The more involved you get the more rewards you earn. And you can use them any way you want instead of having them dictated to you.

It saddens me that we spend sooo much time arguing about the nuances of getting minor little rewards. That somehow someone else is getting more. I know I’m just an old grognard, but I harken back to the days when we didn’t have rewards. When we didn’t have experience organizers coordinating all these awesome events. When we didn’t have dozens of books worth of expanded content. When it was all just about getting together, playing the game, and enjoying each other’s company for a few hours. It’s easy to get caught up in the things that really don’t matter. Try to keep that in mind when you decide to put some meaningless (in the grand scheme of things) piece of paper ahead of the fun gained both from playing a game and social interaction.

Explore! Report! Cooperate!

Red Griffyn wrote:

Give ACP for marshaling (i.e. desk duty)

We don't have any method to report that within the online system. It appears that AcP rewards will be tied to reported table participation. Since HQ/organizing staff is not involved in individual tables, or even in a similar fashion as an Overseer, we don't have a system to award them.

Not to mention not all roles in HQ/organization are equivalent so it may not be appropriate to reward them equally.

This is wrong. I just tried out the reporting and it allowed me to report an empty table (with just me as GM). Players are not needed during reporting.

Just add a 'ghost game' and all is fine. I admit I had to take an existing game for it to work. But give it a name like '#1-88 Con Support' and the current system will be able to handle it. Unfortunately 1-00 is already taken and 1-99 tends to be a multi-table special.

No worry - I deleted the session again to ensure my GM credits aren't wrong.

Edit: And this allows to report empty tables that didn't fire as well. The debate therefore shouldn't be if it is technical possible. It rather should be what guidelines would we put in place to enable that.
One paragraph in the 2e guide likely would be sufficient when / when not to allow reporting of 'empty' tables.

Steven Lau wrote:

Well this would suck because then some of those getting RSP treatment now would lose it. Would that be for just PF2 or would they also lose the PF1 and Starfinder RSP boons as well?

I don’t look at it that way. They aren’t so much losing support as it’s changing form. Instead of a 10% chance of winning a paper boon that in the case of race, need dozens of boxes checked to make it valid. Now, they will receive a flat points reward that can be spent on any number of rewards up to and including ancestries. They aren’t gated behind a 10% chance that may never result in a reward.

Sure for PF2, my concern is losing the RSP support for PF1 and Starfinder which does not use that system.

Sure for PF2, my concern is losing the RSP support for PF1 and Starfinder which does not use that system.

I don't understand that RSP support for PFS1e and SFS will change. Maybe I missed something. But since it has not been publicly announced, I can't really comment anymore, nor should any other Venture-Officer.

Steven Lau wrote:

Sure for PF2, my concern is losing the RSP support for PF1 and Starfinder which does not use that system.

I don't understand that RSP support for PFS1e and SFS will change. Maybe I missed something. But since it has not been publicly announced, I can't really comment anymore, nor should any other Venture-Officer.

That was my question... If your not designated as a RSP for PF2 do yo lose RSP for PF1 and Starfinder?

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Steven Lau wrote:

Well this would suck because then some of those getting RSP treatment now would lose it. Would that be for just PF2 or would they also lose the PF1 and Starfinder RSP boons as well?

I don’t look at it that way. They aren’t so much losing support as it’s changing form. Instead of a 10% chance of winning a paper boon that in the case of race, need dozens of boxes checked to make it valid. Now, they will receive a flat points reward that can be spent on any number of rewards up to and including ancestries. They aren’t gated behind a 10% chance that may never result in a reward.

Sure for PF2, my concern is losing the RSP support for PF1 and Starfinder which does not use that system.

Making it a variable or limited thing just feels like it's unnecessarily creating work for the RVC and VOs. For what? 1 extra AcP when you play a game and 2 extra AcPs when you GM?

To be honest, the current RSP has been more than my closest VO has wanted to deal with. I can't see them going through an even more complicated process. And then to do so with the possibility of being told no, because some convention somewhere is happening?

Please, please, please keep things simpler. The PFS rules around 2E (not the game system itself, but organized play) are very quickly becoming a hinderance to getting people involved. We're still having trouble getting everyone to understand how day jobs and downtime work.

Gary Bush wrote:

Steven Lau wrote:

Sure for PF2, my concern is losing the RSP support for PF1 and Starfinder which does not use that system.

I don't understand that RSP support for PFS1e and SFS will change. Maybe I missed something. But since it has not been publicly announced, I can't really comment anymore, nor should any other Venture-Officer.

That was my question... If your not designated as a RSP for PF2 do yo lose RSP for PF1 and Starfinder?

And my point is that this is not the place for VO to talk about RSP.

For marshaling, couldn't you just report it as a repeatable scenario with marshal 1 Dming and marshalls 2 3 and 4 playing, and marshal 2 dming with marshals 1 3 and 4 playing?

Or if that would give the marshals 1.25 credits, just get pfs numbers for Wyatt Erp, Bass Reeves, and Buffalo Bill and report games with them as players.

And my point is that this is not the place for VO to talk about RSP.

This is an odd statement, since this is where it was brought up... Bob Publicly said what Tonya told him, which I assume he had permission to do. So that part is public. So I was going with that.

I have not brought up anything that is not public or asked for anything that would brake my NDA. If Paizo wishes to answer my question where my NDA would then be in effect that is up to them.

Me asking the question I asked is not a NDA thing and can be covered here.

Edit: That said based on Bob's comments it still sounds like a work in process so it might be awhile before we know exactly how the program will work.

For marshaling, couldn't you just report it as a repeatable scenario with marshal 1 Dming and marshalls 2 3 and 4 playing, and marshal 2 dming with marshals 1 3 and 4 playing?

Or if that would give the marshals 1.25 credits, just get pfs numbers for Wyatt Erp, Bass Reeves, and Buffalo Bill and report games with them as players.

Or maybe add a “Convention Support” entry in the list of scenarios in the reporting tool that grants an appropriate number of AcPs. That way you could know what it was for and verify it is tied to a supported event code. Seems like that should be possible.

You can report zero players.

I did just that when I GMed Dragon's Demand as a home game, and none of my players wanted PFS credit.

3.) Provide ACP rebates if costs of boons decreases in the future.

I doubt Paizo would devote time towards building a rebate system. It seems like a lot of effort for the benefit of players who purchased boons before any price decrease.

I don't think such players are disadvantaged at all, since they were able to play their Uncommon ancestry characters for a muvh longer period of time than people who would have waited.

This is wrong

No, you misunderstood the point. Reporting an empty table for a marshal is not an appropriate way to record that effort. That’s why we don’t have a way to record it. That practice being used for overseer is one thing because they are actively involved in the GMing of the event. That’s not the same as mustering players to their seats. I’m all in favor of recognizing and rewarding HQ staff at events. However, GM credit is not the way to do it.

Please, please, please keep things simpler

Agreed. I would prefer a simplified approach where RSP does not apply to PF2 at all, we don’t need it. AcP is awarded statically with Non-conventions receiving standard level, conventions receiving premier level, and the five sponsored cons get premier plus status. We can still keep the RVC discretionary boost for regions that do not have conventions large enough to earn a plus level reward so there is “fairness” across the community.

Ferious Thune wrote:

Please, please, please keep things simpler

Agreed. I would prefer a simplified approach where RSP does not apply to PF2 at all, we don’t need it. AcP is awarded statically with Non-conventions receiving standard level, conventions receiving premier level, and the five sponsored cons get premier plus status. We can still keep the RVC discretionary boost for regions that do not have conventions large enough to earn a plus level reward so there is “fairness” across the community.

SFS and PF1 can keep their RSP until the technical issues are resolved and we can incorporate them into the AcP program. Then we can eliminate REP entirely. At that point, everyone would have an equal opportunity to earn rewards and we would be paperless. Utopia :-)

That would be fine. I still don’t think a 2 AcP bonus is going to have people lining up to GM at a convention the same way a Dhampir boon did, but for gameday support the AcP system is easier to manage than RSP was and looks like it will be a better system. As for RSP, you should either have it for an event or not and not have it tied to whether a con is happening nearby. A sometimes RSP sometimes not system tied to conventions seems like a headache all around.

EDIT: Since the idea of PFS1 moving to AcP was mentioned, I believe it was stated at some point that one possible AcP reward might be purchasing PFS1E replays. While I’m glad we got the PFS1 replays we got, I’m wondering if that’s still a thing that might happen at some point.

Thod wrote:

This is wrong

No, you misunderstood the point. Reporting an empty table for a marshal is not an appropriate way to record that effort. That’s why we don’t have a way to record it. That practice being used for overseer is one thing because they are actively involved in the GMing of the event. That’s not the same as mustering players to their seats. I’m all in favor of recognizing and rewarding HQ staff at events. However, GM credit is not the way to do it.

I guess we miscommunicated then. When you wrote there is no method I read this that there is no technology in place to reward people. In my view this would be the real stumbling block.

The current technology for AcP rewards players and GMs. Technology wise you could misuse that system already now to reward Con support as well. But this would involve reporting ghost games.

It seems to me all that (from a technological point of view) that is needed is an extra line. Disguise it as either Quest or Scenario and you get 1 or 4 points base.

I just checked other entries. Seems in 1e We be Goblins are in the whole list even twice. Somewhere more to the top and then pretty at the bottom of the list again. I also noted that reporting 1-12 seemed delayed after it appeared. So there seems a manual way to add extra lines to a file/database. So that should be a very low hurdle to cross.

I personally don't mind. I tend to GM and not to do CON support. But it seemed to me low hanging fruit.

I think we all agree that the technology exists to do what you suggest, but we would need to first determine the guidelines under how it would function. There are a lot of questions that would need to be answered first. Also, remember that the tech folks have been working on the AcP project for six months and still have not resolved the coding issues. It’s going to be a bit more challenging than snapping our fingers to get all of this in place.

I think we all agree that the technology exists to do what you suggest,

"Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the technology. We have the capability to make the world’s first AcP Program. Pathfinder Society will be that program. Better than it was before. Better… stronger… faster."

I think we are short the 6 million dollars.

How many Achivement points are modules and AP books worth?

How many Achivement points are modules and AP books worth?

The base AcP reward for any adventure (before GM and event multipliers are applied) is equal to the amount of XP the adventure grants.

Awesome, so it would be 12 for a player and 24 for the GM then if I am figuring it right and assuming a book grants a whole level like it used to.

Incidentally, building up those bigger chunks of AcP for playing Plaguestone and APs (which allow you to play as whatever ancestry you want by default) is a great way to start off for players who don't want to GM but want all of their characters to be a given uncommon ancestry. Once you have one character, you'll earn at least enough for the next one by the time the first character hits level 8, even if you always play at home games and never GM.

(And I think PF2 does this remarkably well. Level 1 characters feel a lot more competent than in PF1 or Starfinder. I credit the new multiclassing system; now that dipping classes isn't so easy anymore, it's safer to frontload every class with some good level 1 stuff.)

Unfortunately, I'm finding that quite a few characters aren't really viable at level 1. Fortunately, at least in PFS, that isn't a problem :-).

For example, my bard Champion is being built to wear heavy plate. And so has a pitiful dex. If I had to play that at level 1 he'd be at extreme risk from NPCs (the downside of the new rules is that the only thing really keeping squishies alive is GM mercy :-()

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

(And I think PF2 does this remarkably well. Level 1 characters feel a lot more competent than in PF1 or Starfinder. I credit the new multiclassing system; now that dipping classes isn't so easy anymore, it's safer to frontload every class with some good level 1 stuff.)

Unfortunately, I'm finding that quite a few characters aren't really viable at level 1. Fortunately, at least in PFS, that isn't a problem :-).

For example, my bard Champion is being built to wear heavy plate. And so has a pitiful dex. If I had to play that at level 1 he'd be at extreme risk from NPCs (the downside of the new rules is that the only thing really keeping squishies alive is GM mercy :-()

Just remember, every envoy's alliance character you make gets you 2 pcs that start at 2nd level (or one that starts at 3rd) by level 8. And a 3rd if you make it to level 13.

Just remember, every envoy's alliance character you make gets you 2 pcs that start at 2nd level (or one that starts at 3rd) by level 8. And a 3rd if you make it to level 13.

As I said, in PFS starting characters at level 2 really isn't an issue :-).

I imagine I'll have more than enough GM credit, Boon credits, Accomplishment credits, etc.

Not to mention that there are lots of characters to play at level 1 and then retrain when they hit level 2 :-)

Gamerskum wrote:

How many Achivement points are modules and AP books worth?

The base AcP reward for any adventure (before GM and event multipliers are applied) is equal to the amount of XP the adventure grants.

Thanks for announcing that (it matches what shows up in the reporting system, but we had never heard if it was correct or not). Even better to have it explicitly tied to the XP, that should help when/if we get modules/APs chapters that award different amounts of XP. Definitely should make things more clear going forward.

Can you comment on how that relates to GM table credit for glyph counting? I've been generally assuming that 4 Quests=1 GM Table credit, and Modules/APs would be 2 GM Tables (as was normal under SFS and PFS1). But with all Fall of Plaguestone values being simply 3x a regular scenario, I could see the decision to make the modules XP->table credit just be divide by 4.

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

(And I think PF2 does this remarkably well. Level 1 characters feel a lot more competent than in PF1 or Starfinder. I credit the new multiclassing system; now that dipping classes isn't so easy anymore, it's safer to frontload every class with some good level 1 stuff.)

Unfortunately, I'm finding that quite a few characters aren't really viable at level 1. Fortunately, at least in PFS, that isn't a problem :-).

For example, my bard Champion is being built to wear heavy plate. And so has a pitiful dex. If I had to play that at level 1 he'd be at extreme risk from NPCs (the downside of the new rules is that the only thing really keeping squishies alive is GM mercy :-()

I feel you on heavy armor. Now that armor+dex is such a tight band, it doesn't seem good to me anymore that some classes need to wait a level to reach their natural armor class.

It feels a bit like a holdover from older editions/realism thing that full plate is mega expensive. I mean, to be fair, in medieval times it would be. But arguably medieval full plate gave you an AC bonus that was way, way bigger than dex+light armor was going to give you. It's kinda like a barony putting the whole population's WBL together to make one OP-geared character.

Now that dex+light armor is not that far apart in AC from heavy armor, the big price difference doesn't seem appropriate anymore.

Especially since there's no great halfway option. What are you going to do? Spend money on temporary armor, thus delaying your full plate even longer? And if you're building for heavy armor, nothing less than heavy armor will do.

---

The cheesy option here is to use the level 1 rebuild/full resale rules. Spend level 1 with higher dex and lighter armor, and refurbish when leveling up. It doesn't feel good. But if your role is "tank" but you spend level 1 with lower AC than the rest of the party, that also doesn't feel good.

I'm quite happy to see there are some options here for non-GMs, for people who play less frequently, because that means that more people can eventually get access to there options (compared to PFS1 / SFS).

I generally play PF2 organized play about once a month, and GM about 25% of the time. I make it to Gencon about every other year, or a smaller local con on off years, as a player only, usually making it to around 3 games each (split between PF and SF). So, I build up points slowly, but slowly is better than nothing! I know that eventually I can unlock new and interesting options I would not have gotten in 1E without GMing at a con!

This is a good thing.

I understand the thought that everything should be available all the time, but I have home games I can go crazy with. I don't mind needing to earn it in organized play, so long as it is available to earn.

The cheesy option here is to use the level 1 rebuild/full resale rules.

Ayup, this is what I'm doing.

I agree that its cheesy and I don't like doing it but the system leaves me the choice of either doing this, significantly risking my character or paying a cost (my dex being too high) for the entire rest of my career (not a HUGE cost, admittedly, but significant enough to be noticeable).

The cheesy option here is to use the level 1 rebuild/full resale rules. Spend level 1 with higher dex and lighter armor, and refurbish when leveling up. It doesn't feel good. But if your role is "tank" but you spend level 1 with lower AC than the rest of the party, that also doesn't feel good.

Given this option is available to our campaign, it don't see it as cheesy.

The cheesy option here is to use the level 1 rebuild/full resale rules.

How's this for a cheesy option? All +1 magic armor is 160 gp regardless of base armor. In PFS play we can transfer runes for free.

How I know +1 full plate costs 160 gp:

Though, it seems this option should flood the market with full plate which might make it cheap enough for a 1st level PC to afford? Oh, right, for the sake of simplicity, the laws of supply and demand do not apply.

How about some home game cheese? It says the runes must be physically engraved onto the item (though it also says clothing can be engraved?). Presumably, if you were transferring a rune you would transfer the magic but not bother with buffing out the engraving. So then you con an NPC into believing it's still magically enhanced and sell it for a higher price. If people believe copper bracelets improve their balance, then this should be an easy con.

This makes me wonder what old weapons or armor might look like after undergoing dozens of rune changes.

So buy +1 full plate.

A 1st level character can not afford a +1 armor rune and the armor rune is a level 5 item so they don't have access to it.

A 1st level character can not afford a +1 armor rune and the armor rune is a level 5 item so they don't have access to it.

Nope, this doesn't solve the 1st level can't have plate problem. But at some point in their career (as early as 3rd) they do get access. When that time comes, they can use this cheese to get a discount. Even if they bought full plate at 8 or 12 xp they could still buy +1 full plate at level 3 or 5 and sell their non-magical set rather than buying a +1 rune for 160 gp to upgrade their existing set.

Gary wrote:

A 1st level character can not afford a +1 armor rune and the armor rune is a level 5 item so they don't have access to it.

Nope, this doesn't solve the 1st level can't have plate problem. But at some point in their career (as early as 3rd) they do get access. When that time comes, they can use this cheese to get a discount. Even if they bought full plate at 8 or 12 xp they could still buy +1 full plate at level 3 or 5 and sell their non-magical set rather than buying a +1 rune for 160 gp to upgrade their existing set.

Guess I am just tired as I don't see the problem.

He's saying buy the 160 gp +1 full plate, as a non-full plate wearing character, transfer the armor rune to your normal armor, sell the now non-magical full plate for gold to effectively reduce the cost of a +1 armor rune.

However, this falls into the too good to be true category.

How I know +1 full plate costs 160 gp:
** spoiler omitted **

A much better reference is the rulebook:

A suit of magic armor is simply a suit of
armor or explorer’s clothing etched with
fundamental runes. An armor potency
rune increases the armor’s item bonus
to AC, and a resilient rune adds an item
bonus to saving throws.
The Prices here are for all types of armor.
You don’t need to adjust the Price from leather
armor to full plate or the like. These armors
are made of standard materials, not precious
materials such as mithral.

However, in PFS, usually when you buy things as a bundle, you cannot piece them back out and sell them as individual parts.

That will probably have to be spelled out somewhere in the Guide.

However, this falls into the too good to be true category.

Yep, sounds like an exploit. The developers are trying to add items to the chronicle sheets that have actual value. Let’s not take that and pervert it into something that will make them reconsider it.

That will probably have to be spelled out somewhere in the Guide.

I have added this to the guide team's list for review.

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

The cheesy option here is to use the level 1 rebuild/full resale rules. Spend level 1 with higher dex and lighter armor, and refurbish when leveling up. It doesn't feel good. But if your role is "tank" but you spend level 1 with lower AC than the rest of the party, that also doesn't feel good.

Given this option is available to our campaign, it don't see it as cheesy.

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough.

The cheesy option is: build a L1 character with say, Dex 14, walk around in breastplate for two sessions, then when you've got enough gold, rebuild to Dex 10 and fullplate.

He's saying buy the 160 gp +1 full plate, as a non-full plate wearing character, transfer the armor rune to your normal armor, sell the now non-magical full plate for gold to effectively reduce the cost of a +1 armor rune.

However, this falls into the too good to be true category.

Page 580 under Transferring Runes talks about making a crafting check after 1 day and spending 10% of the cost of the rune, which can be reduced by spending more days crafting.

My memory of the original question that triggered the clarification in the first place was an issue of a barbarian without the craft skill to do a rune transfer, and how much he would need to pay a crafter for 1 day of "labor". In that context, it would be a reasonable interpretation that you would still need to pay the 10% rune cost for the "parts".

The guide text is simpler than the original discussion, and leans towards the interpretation of free "parts" and "labor", which is what's making the rune discount trick possible.