Benjamin Roe's page

One of our annual Philly PFS conventions is this weekend, and there's still plenty of space! We'll be running both 8-99 and 9-00, among other offerings!

Sign up here: https://www.warhorn.net/events/unseelie-court-2017/

Thanks, guys! I look forward to watching Philly PFS continue to grow, especially as we look toward PAX Unplugged and what it'll mean for the area.

John, you're in Newark? If you feel like coming to Philly and GMing, we're running a ton of specials at Unseelie Court next month and I think we still need GMs for some of them.

Hey everyone! Redcap's Corner is hosting our fourth annual fall Pathfinder Society convention this October at our newly moved and renovated Powelton Village location (3850 Lancaster Ave. in West Philly). It takes place from October 16th to 18th and features a ton of recent specials and 4+ star exclusives, as well as all of the new regular scenarios. If we can get up to 50 tables worth of sign-ups (we already have over 30 with sign-ups only having been open for a few days), we'll even add Ruins of Bonekeep level 3 to the schedule! The price to play is reasonably low, scales with the number of days you choose to play, and can be mitigated by GMing a few slots. Check out our Warhorn for more information, as well as the full schedule of events.

Following that logic, you would prefer we were selling new players the exact same Core Rulebook that we introduced several years ago, complete with all the problems that we've identified and fixed in the years since? I'm not a fan of that plan.

I can't speak for everyone who's unhappy about the recent errata, but my issue isn't with updating the books. It's with redesigning their content. I can't see a lot of downside to fixing obvious editing errors, typos, things that actually don't work as written, and clarifying vague writing, but the last few updates have done comparatively little of that, instead focusing energy on actually redesigning rules. If I have the old printing of a book and something seems wrong or vague, I've no qualms checking a different source to see if there's been a wording update, but I stop trusting my books when the new printing is actually radically altering functionality in ways I would have no indication I would need to look up. Paizo's been doing power-level errata for a long time, but it had previously been sparse. The last three updates have been unbearable, especially since so much of the vague writing remained untouched (naga aspirant's naga shape, for instance) in favour of kneejerk power-level errata for things that mostly weren't big deals anywhere but in the imaginations of vocal forum posters.

Let's see:

Plan A: We ignore the problems, refuse to answer questions that people keep asking, and force people in PFS to deal with balance issues. A lot of the audience is unhappy, but hey, you're happy.

Plan B: We fix the problems and you are forced to incorporate them into your home game. A lot of the audience is pleased, but you aren't.

Plan C: We fix the problems, and so long as you're not playing in Pathfinder Society, you ignore all of these changes. (Or just the ones you want to ignore, if that makes you happier.) Yet everybody who values them can have them, so everybody's happy!

We have decided not to go with Plan A. *I* certainly think Plan C is the best, but it turns out that if you really want to pick Plan B, I can't stop you.

It all sounds very reasonable when you say it like that, but as a retailer I can tell you that 4th edition books really did go from "selling really well" to "literally impossible to sell" once Wizards crossed the power-level-errata threshold Paizo's now teetering on the edge of. 4th had the character builder software you could subscribe to, and players nearly universally used that instead of books because they knew they couldn't trust their books to be right. Paizo has PDFs and the PRD to fill much the same role. This update just pushed me over the edge of beginning to feel like I can't trust my books, and it's making my stomach sink. If people stop trusting their books, they'll stop buying them, which will cause retailers to stop supporting the game, which will dry up demand for the game very quickly. I don't mean to get all doom-and-gloom on you, but the last few updates are perched at the top of a very slippery slope.

Benjamin, how exactly did this nerf the arcane archer? I'm building one as my PC at the moment and I really can't see if you just shouldn't have added the arcane archer or if I'm missing something I should know.

The arcane archer took a hit because people were using the FAQ to get early entry into eldritch knight, so that by the time they qualified for arcane archer they had nearly full wizard spellcasting progression AND BAB: aasimar wizard 1/eldritch knight 6/arcane archer X, etc. Such a character is a 6th level wizard upon taking its 1st level of arcane archer at level 8 and has full BAB minus 1. Compare with the alternatives now: fighter 4/wizard 5/arcane archer X (wizard caster levels, but only 5 of them at 10th level, with 3/4 BAB, and you're also not an AA until 10th level), bloodrager 6/arcane archer X (full BAB, but super crappy casting), magus 8/arcane archer X (good casting, and only a little behind on BAB, but it sure isn't wizard casting, not to mention you're an AA at level 9 instead of 7), etc.

I have mixed feelings. Early entry into prestige classes was not a big deal at all for balance, but the previous ruling was so arbitrary and inconsistent. I think the new ruling is way more intuitive and elegant, but I'm sad to see eldritch knights, arcane tricksters, mystic theurges, and (to a lesser extent) arcane archers stop being playable.

Magus
Arcanist
Witch
Druid

It's perfect. You've got your magical fighters, your magical magics, and your magical other magics.

You, 100%, cannot ever learn any spell for your spell list (divine or arcane) before you are capable of casting that spell. Full stop.

That's not entirely true. If you find a wizard's spellbook and decide to copy spells from it, even though some of them might be too high level for you to cast you can still copy them into your book (so they're there when you CAN cast them). I agree 100% that the OP is misreading the sentence in question. The free spells you write in your spellbook when you level up must be of a level you can cast (presumably because higher level spells are too complex for you to think of on your own until you get more experience), but as far as I can tell you can copy spells from other sources with no issue.

In the Advanced Class Guide, the Extra Hex feat has been updated to have the following wording (emphasis mine):

You gain one additional hex. You must meet the prerequisites for this hex. If you are a shaman, it must be a hex granted by your spirit rather than one from a wandering spirit.

By RAW, that would rule out taking one of the non-spirit-specific hexes available to all shamans, but it reads like it's only meant to rule out hexes from wandering spirits. FAQ?

I started this thread over a year ago, so it's funny to see it pop back up now. I did work with a number of players to help them ease into character legality, buying a source at a time, and I'm happy to announce the transition went relatively smoothly. On the "encouraging physical sales" front, I also bought lockers for the store that people can rent to store their books and minis.

I sort of resent the "unless you're just all about selling books" comment. I try hard to support games I believe in, often at little return for the store, but at the end of the day I'm paying rent on my gaming space and I just can't shell out that sort of money to support players who aren't willing to support me.

I run PFS because episodic, structured campaigns are the only way a store can truly offer RPG events with open enrollment, but I have always been fine with people organizing their own games at my store. And I give people plenty of options for things to buy. I've been to stores that sell only the hardcover rulebooks but wonder why PFS isn't generating sales. I carry all the paperback books, a full complement of dice, all the flip-mats and map packs, other game mats, the fiction line, dice bags, tons and tons of minis (both new and used), and gaming aids like the Litko products and Pathfinder cards.

I run my store to support gamers. I don't appreciate the implication that wanting them to support me in return is somehow money-grubbing or wrong.

I picked up this project again, and these are the stats I've come up with. Critiques? Corrections? Again, I'm no gun-expert. Given that Paizo already has rules for automatic weapons--awful though they may be--I'm going to use them, just for simplicity and consistency's sake. That said, how do my numbers look?

Bazooka: two-handed weapon, 6d6 fire, x2 crit, 150 ft. range increment, 10 lbs. loaded, 6 lbs. unloaded

When a bazooka hits, it explodes in 30-foot-radius burst from its point of impact. A creature hit directly takes 6d6 points of fire damage and must succeed at a DC 25 Reflex save or catch fire, taking an additional 2d6 points of damage each round until the flames are extinguished. A burning creature can attempt a new save as a full-round action, and dropping and rolling on the ground grants a +2 bonus on this save. Other creatures caught in the burst also take 6d6 points of fire damage, but may attempt a DC 25 Reflex saving throw to take half damage. A bazooka can be targeted at a grid intersection like a splash weapon. Likewise, a bazooka scatters on a miss exactly like a splash weapon. A bazooka’s rockets are loaded as a full-round action.

Double-Barreled Shotgun: one-handed weapon, 1d10 bludgeoning and piercing, x2 crit, 60 ft. range increment, misfire 1-2, capacity 2, scatter, 10 lbs.

Flamethrower: as WWI flamethrower from Reign of Winter

Handgun: one-handed weapon, 1d10 bludgeoning and piercing, x4 crit, 80 ft. range increment, misfire 1, capacity 15, 4 lbs.

Sniper Rifle: two-handed weapon, 1d10 bludgeoning and piercing, 18-20/x4 crit, 400 ft. range increment, misfire 1, capacity 5, fired as full-round action, 12 lbs.

UZI: one-handed weapon, 2d6 bludgeoning and piercing, x4 crit, 100 ft. range increment, misfire 1, capacity 50, automatic, 8 lbs.

Hello everyone! I am the aforementioned shop owner from Pennsylvania, famed for my knock-down drag-out defence of replay. In a curious bit of irony, Skaldi the Tallest is actually a player at my store, and mentioned this discussion to me yesterday, (correctly) believing I had been referenced in the discussion.

Drogon, it's not that I can't stand you, it's that I think your arguments too often fall into the trap of "A is true and B is true, so there must be some causal relationship between A and B", not to mention you often come across as believing your store is living proof of the one true way to make everything right with the gaming industry. That said, I have been presently surprised by your open-mindedness to other ways of handling PFS while skimming this thread, even if I still believe the causal conclusions you're drawing are wrong, and despite you continuing to dodge people's points by insisting your (sometimes) false conclusions must be real since the situations they're based on really happened.

So, let me start with some premises:

1) Unfettered replay-for-credit would be bad for Pathfinder Society today.
2) The only good reason to deny someone a seat at a table is to prevent that person from turning other people away.
3) A store sinks or swims based on its ability to give its customers what they want (even if, or perhaps especially if, they don't know what they want).

In 2010 when there were around 50 scenarios, and APs and modules had yet to be sanctioned for play, replay-for-credit was a necessary system. There simply weren't enough scenarios back then. That said, I was new to organizing roleplaying games at the time, and my ignorance had worsened my problems. It simply never occurred to me to publish a schedule ahead of time or to offer advance sign-ups, and once you get people used to just showing up, it's tough to retrain them. When replay ended, PFS ended in the city of Philadelphia, the combined result of my short-sighted scheduling and the premature ending of a policy that could have been phased out as scenario supply strengthened. After a year of running a homebrew replacement for PFS, we decided to give PFS another shot, this time with a better organizational system and we've been doing well with it ever since.

However, even Warhorn isn't a perfect solution. Sometimes people sign up early and forget to drop themselves when they realize they have a scheduling conflict. Sometimes new customers show up out of the blue because somebody told them when we play PFS but failed to tell them they needed to sign-up in advance. Normally the scheduled tables go off without a hitch regardless, but sometimes things need to be switched around at the last minute to accommodate everyone. It's just the nature of the beast. Even when the schedule works out as expected, I know there are people who wanted to play and had the time, but didn't sign up because there wasn't anything on the schedule they hadn't already played. I try to let my customers know that they can request scenarios for the schedule and if they give me at least a week's notice I can add to the schedule to try to accommodate them, but scheduling math is actually really messy when you want to keep everyone happy.

Drogon, it sounds to me like you don't suffer from these problems because you've created a false scarcity in available seats by not having a big enough play area to meet the demand in your area. You're leaving money on the table because every customer you disappoint is that much more likely to vote elsewhere with his or her dollars. You're probably right that the new customer is likely to spend more, but which customer spends more is irrelevant. Why aren't you ensuring that you can seat them all? Nothing is more infuriating to me than selling out an event. It means I wasn't prepared for my customers' needs. You're solving scheduling problems by ignoring the bigger problem of not having enough space. I think you'll find that scheduling is messier when you have the space to meet demand, and that the concerns of people with more seats than bodies aren't going to be solved by "running a tight ship". You're inevitably going to be sending people home, or at the very least pointing them elsewhere, which is still disappointing when they have their hearts set on PFS (even if they end up enjoying whatever other activity you steer them toward).

None of this is an argument for replay-for-credit, but it's definitely a plea for options. 99% of the time I'm able to switch people to different tables, or switch one of the scenarios being run, to make sure that everyone can play. But every now and then someone offers to replay for no credit and it ends up being the best solution. Until last night I thought that was fine since the guide appeared to say so, and I'm a little disheartened to hear that it isn't. It's never anybody's first choice of solution. Everybody would rather play something they've never played before, and they'd rather get credit for playing, but sometimes the choice comes down to 1) somebody hurriedly reading through a scenario they weren't prepared to run, or 2) somebody replaying for no credit. For all the risk that somebody replaying might ruin a game for everyone else, it's almost guaranteed to be a bad game when the GM just rushed through a reading without doing real prep. This situation is rare, but it happens, and it should be facilitated.

I don't want unfettered replay, as I agree that part of what contributed to LFR's downfall was how bored everybody got with playing the same scenarios over and over again, but I don't think having the tools necessary to make all of my customers happy is too much to ask. Mike, if Paizo doesn't believe higher scenario output is possible (Drogon is right here, by the way, three per month is the magic number), please at least give us the tools to solve scheduling issues. Ever so occasionally, somebody replaying for no credit really is the best option. My store seats over 100, and we've run over 700 tables of PFS, so I hope my data can be taken as seriously as Drogon's.

Another reason I hate A as an option is its use with weapons like scythes. I have a weapon that deals 2d4 damage and has a x4 crit multiplier. Clearly I choose to use the weapon's original stats at low levels because 2d4 is better than 1d6 or 1d8 and x4 is better than x3 or 19-20/x2. When I hit level 10 or certainly level 15, I'm now presented with having to choose between higher base damage or my existing x4 multiplier. That's a choice that feels bad even if there's a mathematically correct answer. And my sacred weapon feature shouldn't ever be making my weapon worse (and I haven't done the math, but I'm pretty sure 1d10/x3 is worse average damage output than 2d4/x4 even if the non-crit damage is consistently higher), especially if I'm using a scythe because it's my deity's favoured weapon.

Scaling damage never puts you in a position where you might accidentally nerf your weapon. Scaling damage and normalized crit stats can.

How could you Benn? After all our magical bardic adventures together.

- Felicity

Death. To. Most. Bards.

The point remains that there's always going to be a best build. It has never stopped people from playing the characters they wanted in the past and the warpriest isn't going to change that. Normalizing crit stats and damage just takes all of the thematics out of weapon selection.

A. All sacred weapons have a standard crit range and multiplier (19-20/x2 or maybe 20/x3)?

B. Whenever a sacred weapon scores a crit, all of the additional damage is based off the original weapon damage?

C. It works as is (weapon damage scales, crit stats are drawn from the weapon, which means some will crit more often, but only for x2, others rarely but for x3)

I'm honestly not sure how anyone can think option A is any more balanced than option C. This is a seriously slippery slope of fear mongering. Any weapon you want can have the same damage, and now the same crit stats, right? So, why would anyone take a weapon without reach? Should we give all weapons reach? If so, why would anyone take a weapon without the trip quality, etc.? Where does the power gamer fear end?

Of the options given:

C is the easiest to use.
C is the most balanced.
C is the most fun.

Making the damage from every weapon standard is awesome. Suddenly weapons with nothing going for them can play with the big guns. Doing anything else to homogenize weapons strips them of their character. I'm about a 90% optimizer, but I can never bring myself to make the most optimized call when there's another almost-as-good option that fits my character's themes better. And I never had any plans for my warpriest other than a huge pole-axe. Why? Crit range and damage dice are not the only things that can make a weapon good, and polearms are way cooler than curvy swords.

Some people will squeeze damage from a class and others will make thematic choices. Let it be.

If people are really worried about the big scary falcata, then the damage dice increase should only affect the deity's favoured weapon. That way the mechanic can do what it was intended to do without unnecessary complication or stress for anybody, and good weapons still get to retain their character.

Are there any other exploit ideas that folks would like to see. We've got a few that we are planning to add, but I want to see what you have to say.

Here are some ideas that feel like they fit the spell hacker analogy:

Absorb Spell the ability to convert a targeted spell into arcane reservoir points when you succeed on your save against it.

Control Magic the ability to gain control of an ongoing magical effect, such as a summons, or a flaming sphere, or a dominate person, etc. using the arcane reservoir.

Effortless Concentration the ability to trade arcane reservoir points for rounds of concentrating on a spell as a swift action.

Metamagic Flexibility the ability to use arcane reservoir points to add metamagic to ongoing spell effects or spells cast by other people, or maybe even to other people's spells as they're being cast.

Spell Stacking the ability to cast while holding the charge on a touch spell.

Swift Dismiss the ability to dismiss dismissable spells as a swift (or even immediate) action.

Undispel Magic the ability to undo another caster's dispelling.

When I first heard spoilers about the shaman before the first playtest document came out, it was mentioned that the shaman's familiar would take on aspects of the shaman's chosen spirit. Mechanically, I like the small and flavourful abilities each spirit adds to the familiar, but what I had originally envisioned based on those spoilers was a class that got sort of a baked in improved familiar that made it more of a spirit than an animal.

For those not into the familiar, what if the class got automatic improved familiar but from an alternate list of familiars that were actual "spirits"? It would certainly go a long way toward making the spirits feel more involved in the shaman's day to day and would preserve the witch influence provided by the familiar without it feeling like an unrelated animal that just hangs around all the time.

I like this plan. Allow swift action offensive spells centered on the bloodrager instead of uncanny dodge, and then up their saves against their own spells further instead of improved uncanny dodge.

I'm a big fan of the spell list change. It's a great compromise that gets the flavour of the spell list right without sacrificing backward compatibility by giving it its own brand new list. In fact, I'd kind of like a similar approach on the bloodrager maybe. The brand new bloodrager spell list ended up being so similar to the magus spell list anyway, but because it's not the magus spell list a lot of the cool magus spells from books like Inner Sea Magic that actually would have felt useful on a bloodrager will never be available to them.

Anyway, big win on the spell list, even if I'd prefer the base list were witch rather than druid. The witch list is already an arcane/divine hybrid list (that pulls from the druid, no less), so it would be really interesting to see that list given to a divine caster too. It would certainly help quell cries that the witch is absent from the make-up of this class.

And on that note, I don't know that I agree that the witch is completely absent from the class. A few of the hexes feel kind of witchy, and it's a full prepared caster using a hybrid spell list, as well as communing with a familiar. Granted, it uses Wisdom as its casting stat (the native stat of the druid) and druids are also full prepared casters, but honestly a lot of the druidy aspects of the class are just a coincidence of the way the oracle and witch combine with one another. Other than the casting, the class doesn't feel the least bit druidy to me. I wouldn't complain with hexes that functioned more like witch hexes, though: functioning once per person per day.

I'm still not sure why this is a d8/three-quarter BAB class. I normally don't think of shamans as terribly well-built for battle and it would be nice to have a divine full caster that had an arcane caster's frame, especially since witches are more frail and so much of the shaman is pulled from the oracle. I'd rather see this reduced to d6/half BAB and see its spirits (especially hexes) ramped up a bit to accommodate. Especially if this keeps the druid spell list as its base, having an arcane caster's body with divine spells would allow the power to be pushed a little harder on its non-spell but equally mystical abilities.

Anyway, I still think this class is among the most solid, even if its spirits need serious cleaning up. The foundation is the most important part, and I think it's very close.

This is sooooo much better than the first draft. I'm actually really excited about this version. A couple of issues, though:

1) How does Sacred Weapon work with multiclassing? If I take one level of warpriest and five levels of paladin, does my BAB really drop to +1 when using my deity's favoured weapon? Shouldn't this ability say something to the effect of "the warpriest replaces any BAB gained from levels in warpriest with his warpriest level."

2) I don't understand why you have to keep the same enhancement bonuses all day with Sacred Weapon. It makes the ability wayyy worse.

3) Sacred Weapon and Sacred Armour should specify whether or not they need to be reactivated after each increment of duration. Do I need to spend the swift action every minute for Sacred Armour? And every round for Sacred Weapon? I assume not, but it doesn't really say at the moment.

4) If they do need to be constantly reactivated, this class needs to make better use of 1/rd. free actions and/or move actions. Right now it's too focused on using swift actions.

5) I don't like Fervor and Channel being based on Charisma. This class basically wants all of its ability scores to be 14 or higher.

Anyway, I love Fervor and I think the changes to Sacred Weapon are great. I think this is a huge, huge improvement to the class, and I can't wait to see the final version.

I'm not sure what to think about the revision. I thought the original bloodrager was among the strongest of the first drafts, but it definitely wasn't perfect and it doesn't feel like enough changed in the port to this version. I like the additions to greater bloodrage and mighty bloodrage, and I think it was important to give bloodragers some way of melding casting with combat, but it feels a little late in their career and a little limited.

I personally think they borrow a little too much from the barbarian and should lose at least two of the following four abilities: fast movement, uncanny dodge, improved uncanny dodge, and damage reduction in favour of better spell melding at an earlier level. I really like the idea of them accruing points for doing martial things in combat that they can redeem later to quicken spells or add metamagic to spells without increasing the spell level. This lets them first and foremost be face-beaters, but gives them a way to channel that face-beating into relevant magic later on.

I'm glad they got their own spell list, but if the spell list resembles the one published in this PDF, it really, really needs to be accompanied by a mechanic like the aforementioned. There's just zero incentive to cast offensive spells with this class. It rarely (if ever) feels like the right decision, especially since most of those offensive spells are showing up way too late in their career to be relevant. If they get a way to add free metamagic (especially quicken), those spells become gravy on top of the face-beating plan, but right now they just feel wrong.

On the other hand, the list could easily lose those spells and focus more on early entry buffs and transmutation spells, in which case it wouldn't need the extra mechanic. This is trickier because this class really wants spells like Giant Form, Form of the Dragon, and Elemental Body, but they would need to be at much lower spell levels than they normally are, which opens up all sorts of scroll and wand-oriented cans of worms that probably shouldn't be opened. The better bet seems to me to keep the spell list more or less as it is and give it a mechanic that lets it benefit from such a spell list, which it currently can't.

I like Blood Sanctuary. It's a cool little level stuffer that doesn't impact much, but feels really cohesive. Kudos!

This is definitely on the right track, but I still think it feels too much like a barbarian with spells stapled to it, and I think it could be such a simple fix to replace Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge with a pool of points that begins each day empty but builds throughout the day and can be used in place of level increases when applying metamagic feats that the bloodrager knows to spells. It would also give bloodrager players an incentive to take metamagic feats as a replacement for the non-bloodrager-functional Extra Rage Power barbarian staple.

The other classes that get late-entry four-level spellcasting have text like "Through 3rd level, a paladin has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, her caster level is equal to her paladin level – 3." Is the bloodrager supposed to have equivalent text, and if not, do they have a caster level before level four?

One of the developers mentioned with the previous version that that text was intentionally ommitted, and bloodragers do get full caster level from 4th level on. Prior to 4th level, they don't have spells, so they wouldn't have a caster level, but when they hit 4th, they're immediately caster level 4.

My girlfriend and I are going to be playing in a new home game soon, and she got the notion at some point that she'd like to try playing some sort of parasite race. She was inspired by the trill from Star Trek, but after thinking it over from a Pathfinder mechanics standpoint we settled on a concept closer to the parasites from the season one Next Generation episode "Conspiracy". I cleared the basics with the GM and put together a first draft of the racial traits, but I figured I'd bring this to the internet to see if anyone had any thoughts on its balance or could see any obvious exploitable loopholes. We haven't chosen a name for the race yet, so they're somewhat awkwardly just referred to as "parasites" in this write-up.

What do people think? Any obvious balance issues? How do people see this playing?

Mind you, I've seen this thread, but haven't read through it all yet. I searched for "parasite" in this forum after writing up my race, but decided I'd go ahead and post what I've got before delving too deeply into other people's work.

If Consume Magic Items as written were supposed to be an emergency ability, it wouldn't take a standard action to activate. At a standard action, it likely takes you two rounds to get proper usage out of your consumables, which lends itself to planning ahead.

On the other hand, consumables are meant to be consumed. Who says drinking a potion is a better value than consuming it for reservoir points? Some of the things you can do with arcane reservoir points are just as potent situational effects as those of many of the low level potions, scrolls, and wands people keep around anyway. Consumables are already a wasteful use of resources. Being able to expand the versatility of already wasteful items seems fine to me.

It's just a shame that versatility is being hampered by the unnecessarily restrictive action economy necessary to convert your resources. This and Consume Spells should both take swift actions.

Next we will have the class get a rust monster as a familiar...

This!! Make this an option! The arcanist is secretly the magical fantasy land equivalent of a luddite, and has an unquenchable thirst for the destruction of magic items and weaponry. This is the real class niche that needs filling... under our noses the whole time too.

Whew. Finally read all of that. There are a few things people keep saying that are either blowing my mind or just not computing.

First of all, not only is this absolutely still a hybrid class, it's suddenly a shining example of what a hybrid should look like. The main class feature of both the sorcerer and the wizard is casting, and this class uses their spell list but combines their methods of casting. That was always the hook for the class, but now they've taken the core concept and married it to more interesting flavour and unique mechanics. It's perfect. It combines important elements of its parent classes without seeming too much like either one of them. This is what I want from all of the ACG classes. It feels like it has a real reason to be.

This class also does a lot of conventional things in unconventional ways, which is a big part of its flavour. I wish people would keep an open mind to things being done in new ways. The few exploits available thus far feature a brand new way to teleport, a brand new way to counterspell, a brand new way to (temporarily) dispel, etc. Doing familiar things in new ways should be a welcome breath of fresh air. The nuances of these exploits may not have been fully balanced yet, but I wish people would give them a chance before decrying them. It's so rare Paizo reaches out of their normal comfort zone with regard to the way these sorts of things work, it'd be a shame to give them the impression we didn't want new types of abilities.

That all said, here are my class observations prior to playtesting (and I will be extensively playtesting):

1) This class gets so few arcane points at low levels and already has such a reduced number of spells per day, it's going to be incredibly difficult to manage well without feeling boring at low levels. Being able to sacrifice spell slots for points is great, but won't often be possible at low levels with its current resources. Likewise, magic items are much harder to come by at low levels. I don't think regaining points should be any easier, but arcanists should have a way to begin low levels with more points. Having their points based on Cha + 1/2 level (minimum 1 overall) seems more reasonable.

2) Consuming spells and magic items as a standard action is rough. Again, balancing resources is going to be tricky with this class. Forcing them to effectively waste a turn to regain points when so many of their exploits are situational and won't necessarily come up every day seems over the top. They should really be able to convert their resources as a swift action so they only have to do it when they know they're about to need those points. It would go a long way toward compensating for how few spells and points they have.

3) Counterspell is great to have, and I'm excited that this class is filling the niche of being the class that's good at doing all the quirky caster stuff it's hard to do well with other classes. This seems like a much needed stab at making counterspelling a little more realistic and, Paizo, I applaud your willingness to give it a shot.

4) I love teleportation, and dimensional slide is the alternative to dimension door I've always wanted. This ability is better in some ways and worse in others to the teleportation specialist wizard's first level power, but either way I couldn't be happier that this exists and again, Paizo, I applaud the fresh take. This power single-handedly made me fall in love with the arcanist.

5) I'd honestly like to see more of the exploits (especially at low levels) feature other exploits as prerequisites, so it felt like there were little exploit pathways you could follow if you wanted. For instance, spell tinkerer could be a way to suspend the duration of active spell effects (as it currently is) but the ability to strip buffs from enemies with a touch attack could be separated out into a different exploit that requires spell tinkerer as a prerequisite. Finally, if this were done perhaps disrupt spell (now a greater exploit) could be demoted to a regular exploit that requires both of the aforementioned as prerequisites, making it usually available at 5th level when dispel magic first becomes available to wizards. This way, it would feel like there were a number of specific directions the arcanist could focus on (counterspelling, dispelling/suppressing, metamagic, etc.).

Anyway, I can't wait to playtest!!

I agree that the shaman ends up with more abilities, and that some of them are quite strong, but I don't think it invalidates the cleric. Many cleric abilities are also quite strong and useful for different things, plus as mentioned the spontaneous cure and inflict spells are a big advantage the cleric has over the shaman for certain builds.

I will say that the shaman could probably stand to lose Medium armour proficiency. Witch is one of its base classes, which mechanically justifies the loss, and it's hard to visualize a shaman wandering around in a breastplate. This would also help to invalidate the notion that the shaman isn't trading enough power not to invalidate the cleric.

Note also that swashbucklers have it easy in PFS. You can take Weapon Finesse as your first level feat, play three scenarios, and then take advantage of free first level retraining to switch Weapon Finesse out for another feat before playing your first second level game. It's a little cheesy, but not nearly as cheesy as the players who always play a barbarian at first level for its survivability and then retrain to their real character for level two.

I'm sorry, I haven't fully playtested this thread, but I think the designers should just scrap the idea. I mean, a thread suggesting that negativity isn't the answer to everything? Horrible, it should just be a post/archetype in another thread.

\end{tongue-in-cheek}

Touché.

I assume they mean investigator, but infiltrator sounds like a great archetype for the slayer!

I may just be seeing individual posts and not connecting them with other more productive posts from the same posters, but it just struck me that a ton of content on this board so far has been pointless whining about the base concept, which is not only making it more difficult to find the substantial posts, but likely also making it more difficult for the designers to maintain their open-mindedness toward such ideas.

I actually think the bloodrager has seen mostly praise, and the warpriest and skald mostly criticism. There certainly haven't been any universal opinions, but the skald and warpriest lovers and bloodrager haters have been few and far between.

I just finished reading through Jason's thread on the point of hybrids, and I have to say that I'm really disappointed with the way much of the community is handling this playtest. A few things about these classes are not going to change, most notably that they exist and that they are each going to be mechanically rooted in two existing classes. I know a lot of you don't like that (and frankly I'm not sold on hybrids without significant blending, myself), but there are only two productive ways to handle your frustration:

1) Sit this playtest out. If new classes aren't your thing, accept that this playtest isn't for you and plan not to purchase the book. If you find the concept of hybrids irredeemably repugnant, do likewise. They're happening, and all complaining serves to do is increase the volume of text the designers have to wade through to get the useful feedback. If you think these concepts are awful, it's childish to actively contribute to making them worse by gumming up the data. You've written them off. Let people who haven't have their shot at helping to improve them.

2) Playtest. Endure for the greater good, and provide feedback, suggestions, and data that will help improve each of these classes. I happen to quite like the concept of hybrids, but I believe many of the new classes as-written need some mechanical massaging to help their individual components more seamlessly integrate. I've picked my favourites and I'm diligently working to provide useful (not pointlessly critical) opinions, feedback, and suggestions to help make these classes the best they can be. It's the only sure road to meaningfully improve anything about these classes. I'll admit that I'm struggling to stay positive with the investigator, but I'm trying. Maybe for some of you who really aren't taken by these classes, working to improve your least favourites would be more productive? Just try to focus on improvement since "tearing down" isn't an option.

We know that the ACG is going to have archetypes for each of the new classes. List some suggestions you have for archetypes so Paizo knows what the people want!

Arcanist 1) a metamagic specialist, 2) a tinkerer

Bloodrager 1) a dedicated debuffer, 2) a shapeshifter that focuses on polymorphing to augment combat capabilities, 3) maybe a version that skews more toward sorcerer than barbarian and can use actual sorcerer bloodlines, so that some of the more martial and obscure bloodlines (Orc, I'm looking at you) can have their day in the sun

Shaman 1) a build focused much more heavily on augmenting and improving the familiar, maybe with early access to improved familiars or an alternate list of improved familiar options (I'd love to see a similar option for the witch for that matter), 2) a more druidy shaman with a few unique nature spirits and access to the druid spell list (or at least witch) instead of cleric, 3) for that matter, a creepier or more witch-doctor-like shaman

Skald 1) a debuffer, maybe who inspires rage in enemies instead of allies, maybe as some sort of modified Antagonize/tanking plan

Slayer 1) a sniper/gun-oriented slayer

Swashbuckler 1) obviously a gun swashbuckler (which they've already said is happening), 2) a more rogue-like/skillful swashbuckler

Warpriest 1) a debuffer (I know, I know, I like cursing, hexing, and debuffing way too much)

The funniest thing about the swashbuckler is that it's not only already an archetype but also the name of a 3.5 class that worked totally differently than it does. Not to mention, there's a handful of 3rd party swashbucklers floating around out there...a thoroughly overused name, despite being arguably used at its best here in its alternate class form.

A number of the new classes have new names that strike me as not quite ideal for one reason or another, but bloodrager is the only one I completely hate. There may not be any real world analogue, but there has to be a better name.

I just did some combats with a 10th level bloodrager, and I have a few observations. First of all, I love the concept and I think the class is a great start. As the author of epic thread "Dear Paizo, please give us a gish base class!" I think I've demonstrated my love for the arcane warrior niche. I'm a big fan of the magus and have played many of them, but I've been super stoked to play a class that trades the magus's more learned and tactical style for something a little more primal and instinctive. Here's what I learned:

1) The spells feel sort of stapled onto a barbarian. The ability to cast while raging is awesome, and the bloodline powers are really cool and interesting, but the bloodrager gets so few spells and seems so focused on hitting things, that the spells get lost in the shuffle. I rarely had occasion to use them. This leads to the class playing almost exactly like a barbarian with way more limited rage powers that don't allow for rage-cycling. The magus gets Spell Combat and Spellstrike which allow it to combine its casting with its combat in a way that feels seamless. Those methods feel more tactical, though. I don't think a bloodrager should drink from that well, but it should have some way to blend casting with its fighting style that still rewards it being a combatant primarily, maybe akin to the following:

The bloodrager has a pool of points that begin at 0 each day. Whenever he confirms a critical hit or takes damage in excess of 1/2 of his hit points, he gains 1 point. The bloodrager can spend any number of points to cast a spell he knows of a level equal to or lower than the number of points he spent as a swift action.

2) They're really MAD. The magus can get away with being a little more MAD because it lowers its need for Intelligence by use Spellstrike to take advantage of touch spells that don't allow for saving throws. The bloodrager has no such benefit, leaving the need for good physical stats across the board and good Charisma.

3) The spell list is also a little awkward, though I understand why it was chosen. This leads into the first two points, but bloodragers just don't have the Charisma or the action economy to support this list, which was designed for a class with Spell Combat and Spellstrike. I don't know what the solution is here, though. I understand that a whole new spell list sucks from a perspective of backwards compatibility.

4) They don't necessarily need all the barbarian abilities they have. They desperately want some way to blend their casting with their combat better than they currently are, so I can see Uncanny Dodge (Improved or otherwise) or Fast Movement getting the boot to make space.

Those are my early observations, and I'll keep reporting as I keep playtesting.

As you say it there may be adequate justification, but I am wary of any rule which addresses specific other classes...

I think you're misunderstanding what's going on here. The way I understand it, these are all going to be alternate classes. This is a concept that already exists, namely in the forms of the anti-paladin, ninja, and samurai. Alternate classes are basically archetypes that swap so many abilities out they effectively (but not officially) become new classes. The ninja is really just a meaty archetype of the rogue, which is why you can't multiclass rogue with ninja. This is also why ninjas can take rogue archetypes as long as those archetypes only switch out class features the ninja still has.

The idea here is that these new classes will be alternate classes with two parent classes. That's the new ground. A bloodrager can't multiclass with a barbarian or sorcerer because it's already a fancy barbarian archetype and a fancy sorcerer archetype. Interestingly, this also means by default that a skald and a bloodrager can't multiclass because they're both already barbarians.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about these as alternate classes. On the one hand, one thing I really like about existing hybrids like the magus and inquisitor is that if you want them to feel more like one parent class or the other you can do so by multiclassing them with that parent class. A magus 5/fighter 3 feels a lot more like a swordsman who dabbles in magic than a typical magus 8 does, etc.

On the other hand, there are a lot of little fiddly things built into the existing rules that work only with certain classes. There are, for instance, feats that have fighter levels as prerequisites, races who count their Charisma as 2 higher when using sorcerer abilities if they have a particular bloodline, etc. And I like (or at least hope) that building the new classes as alternate classes will mean that they'll enter the system already compatible with many of these things.

I'm honestly not sure which is the bigger consideration for me, but I'm eagerly awaiting the playtest document on Tuesday to see if it sheds any light on the situation. I trust the design team to consider these sorts of things before sharing anything with the public, and if anything needs cleaning up, I'm sure the public will catch it.

Will you guys please read the feat? I'm really, really not asking about the template (nor am I confused about how to apply it). (: it isn't relevant. The feat has other text beyond applying the template.

How does the spell storing magical armour property actually work? It's listed on page 122 of Ultimate Equipment and states "anytime a creature hits the wearer with a melee attack or melee touch attack, the armour can cast the spell on that creature as a swift action if the wearer desires". However, usually it isn't your turn when you're getting hit, which would make spending a swift action impossible.

Please flag for the FAQ!

Why is PFS any different? Why isn't Pathfinder Society allowed to be a campaign like any other, where some stuff is appropriate to the setting and themes while other stuff isn't?

Because most campaigns have 4 to 6 players and a highly focused theme or story. PFS has 55,000+ active players and over 110,000 players overall, and is alllll over the place in terms of subject matter.

Aasimars and tieflings fit perfectly with a human centric world. They're both half-human.

And tengu may be an available option, but realistically, have you ever seen anyone play one? I haven't, and we run 6 to 10 tables of PFS at my store every single week, with a regular player base of over 65 players. Aasimars and tieflings see a lot of play because they're mechanically good and flexible. Tengu are good for precious few builds.

I'm torn on this issue. If they had never introduced the racial boon system, I'd be in favour of opening most of the ARG up for general consumption. I pretty much always favour more options and would always rather players be able to have the kind of fun they want to have than worry about the vague limitations of a campaign setting, especially when humans are still always going to be the most widely chosen race because there's still virtually nothing out there as good as getting a bonus feat out of your race.

But they HAVE been doing racial boons, and I remember how mad a few people at my store were when their tiefling boons were suddenly worthless, and how much more prevalent racial boons are today. In light of that, I actually think it would be a mistake to open up more races. Most racial boons are pretty easy to get, and I like that there's an aspect of hunting or putting some work into getting them. It makes the characters feel more special.

On the other hand, last night I put some work into putting together a racial stat modifiers cheat sheet, and was surprised to learn that (counting each sub-race of aasimar, tiefling, dhampir, and skinwalker) there are around 80 different player race options in Pathfinder. And honestly, the Trox, the races that can fly right at character creation, and the races that are plants or constructs are really the only ones that seem too powerful for your average campaign. So I will say that I feel the racial boon options could stand to be expanded somewhat. I realize that many races aren't available as boons due to their status as "irredeemably evil," but personally I find the concept of irredeemable inherent evil completely absurd. It's my biggest gripe with Golarion as a setting, though I realize that ship has sailed.

I'm not saying constrictors aren't good enough. I also think cats, dinosaurs, and rocs are plenty good enough without being able to wear amulets or armour, but they're allowed to wear those things. This isn't an argument about game balance because the policy isn't about game balance. The argument is about the rules being consistent and easy to follow, and the policy as it exists is about reasonably debatable simulationism.

I've read the FAQ regarding animal companions and familiars and their ability to wear magic items. It makes sense to me, but I have a gripe with it.

The idea of uniformly allowing neck and barding options I like, and I don't at all mind having to own Animal Archive or take Extra Item Slot to gain access to additional item slots (even though I'm pretty much never in favour of house rules, since they're frequently hard for players to remember and they needlessly complicate an already complicated game).

What I do mind is that by campaign RAW (table variance not withstanding) snakes are the only animals not benefiting from neck and barding options. As an owner of the Animal Archive, I can infer from the FAQ that piscine, serpentine, and verminous animal companions/familiars would all fail to benefit from the barding and neck slot rule, but this leaves people in the peculiar pickle of having to own Animal Archive in order to know that their animal companion is not capable of wearing armour or necklaces.

I realize the intent of the FAQ is to ask players and GMs to make reasonable educated guesses about which anatomies can support which item slots, but I think that's a taller order than it may at first blush seem. For instance, even with the explicitly stated snake example, there's just no part of my being that believes a neck slot for a snake is less realistic than a belt or headband slot (both of which appear on the Animal Archive item slot list for serpentine bodies, opening them up for Extra Item Slot availability in PFS). I mean, how is a headband in any way realistic for a snake? They don't have foreheads. And in what way is a belt different than a tight-fitting necklace? Or for a snake, isn't a headband effectively the same as a necklace or belt? Magical items explicitly resize themselves to fit their wearers, don't they?

Looking through the animal companion lists, there are precious few animals whose anatomy seems incompatible with being able to wear a necklace. The only ones I'm seeing are manta rays, stingrays, and crabs. And I can't think of a single animal that couldn't wear armour specifically fitted for them.

I guess I'm just saying that the FAQ as-written is pretty ambiguous, and I think the main reason more people haven't voiced confusion over the issue is because most people don't realize they can't just equip their animals however they want, and haven't seen the FAQ. I also think it's always in the interests of the campaign to be as clear, concise, and uniform as possible. A specific list of which animals can't wear barding and neck-slot items would do the trick, but I honestly think it would be a much healthier ruling (not to mention a smaller workload for the campaign staff) to just fully uniformly allow neck and barding slots. The few cases which would test suspension of disbelief would be well worth the fewer player headaches and table variation that would result.

John, Mike, et al.: as always, I think you're doing a great job, so I hope you read this in the spirit of helpful feedback and not mean-spirited griping and nit-picking. Thanks!

I need some modern gun stats. I'm not half bad at coming up with custom stats, but I know nothing about guns. I figured if anybody would know a thing or two about guns it was the internet, so here are some existing Pathfinder gun stats that seem relevant:

Double-Barreled Shotgun* 1d8, x2, 80 ft., misfire 1-2, capacity 2, 15 lbs., B+P, scatter, move action to load
Lawrence 1917 Flamethrower** 4d6, no crit, capacity 6, 20 lbs. (plus 40 lbs. of tanks), fire damage, 60 ft. line that works more or less like the automatic weapon quality but each shot uses only one of its 6 bursts of flame (as opposed to 10 bullets) and creatures hit must make a DC 20 Reflex save or catch on fire (2d6 fire damage each round until extinguished) plus the tanks add -4 to armour check penalty and a ruptured tank explodes (hardness 10, 5 hp, 6d6 fire damage to wielder, and 3d6 within 20 ft. radius with normal Reflex save)
Madsen Light Machine Gun** 2d6, x4, 100 ft., misfire 1-2, capacity 20/30/40, 20 lbs., B+P, automatic, swift action to load
Maxim M1910 Machine Gun** 2d8, x4, 120 ft., misfire 1-2, capacity 250, 140 lbs., B+P, automatic, usually mounted but if it isn't -4 penalty on attack rolls and knocked prone after firing due to recoil, has a shield that provides cover to firer, if aided by a loader get a +2 bonus on next attack roll
Mosin-Nagant M1891 Rifle** 1d10, x4, 80 ft., misfire 1, capacity 5, 9 lbs., B+P, move action to load
Nagant M1895 Revolver** 1d8, x4, 80 ft., misfire 1, capacity 7, 4 lbs., B+P, move action to load
Pepperbox Rifle* 1d10, x4, 80 ft., misfire 1-2, capacity 4, 15 lbs., B+P, move action to load
Revolver* 1d8, x4, 20 ft., misfire 1, capacity 6, 4 lbs., B+P, move action to load
Rifle* 1d10, x4, 80 ft., misfire 1, capacity 1, 12 lbs., B+P, move action to load
Shotgun* 1d8, x2, 80 ft., misfire 1-2, capacity 1, 12 lbs., B+P, scatter, move action to load

Automatic Weapon Quality A weapon with the automatic weapon quality fires a burst of bullets with a single pull of the trigger, attacking all creatures in a line. This line starts from any corner of your space and extends to the limit of the weapon's range or until it strikes a barrier it cannot penetrate. When an automatic weapon attacks all creatures in a line, it makes a separate attack roll against each creature in the line. Each creature in the line can only be attacked with one bullet from each burst. Each attack roll takes a -2 penalty to account for recoil, and its attack damage cannot be modified by precision damage or damage-increasing feats such as Vital Strike. Effects that grant concealment, such as fog or smoke, or the blur, invisibility, or mirror image spells, do not foil an automatic weapon's line attack. If any of the attack rolls threaten a critical hit, confirm the critical for that attack roll alone. An automatic weapon misfires only if all of the attack rolls made misfire. A single attack with an automatic weapon fires 10 bullets. An automatic weapon cannot fire single bullets that target one creature. When taking a full-attack action with an automatic weapon, you can fire as many bursts in a round as you have attacks.

Scatter Weapon Quality A weapon with the scatter weapon quality can shoot two different types of ammunition. It can fire normal bullets that target one creature, or it can make a scattering shot, attacking all creatures within a cone. Cannons with the scatter weapon quality only fire grapeshot, unless their descriptions state otherwise. When a scatter weapon attacks all creatures within a cone, it makes a separate attack roll against each creature within the cone. Each attack roll takes a –2 penalty, and its attack damage cannot be modified by precision damage or damage-increasing feats such as Vital Strike. Effects that grant concealment, such as fog or smoke, or the blur, invisibility, or mirror image spells, do not foil a scatter attack. If any of the attack rolls threaten a critical, confirm the critical for that attack roll alone. A firearm that makes a scatter shot misfires only if all of the attack rolls made misfire. If a scatter weapon explodes on a misfire, it deals triple its damage to all creatures within the misfire radius.

* Ultimate Combat
** Reign of Winter, Part 5: Rasputin Must Die

Using these stats as the comparative basis, and bearing in mind that the Reign of Winter guns are all World War I era and the Ultimate Combat guns are all earrrrlly versions of those sorts of guns, I need present day versions of the following:

Assault Rifle
Bazooka
Flamethrower
Grenade Launcher
Handgun
Machine Gun
Pump Action Shotgun
Sniper Rifle
Uzi

And really any other common modern handheld weapon I might be missing. What sorts of guns are modern day gangsters, mercenaries, and militaries using?

I feel like the fundamentals are all designed by Paizo already. What I need to know are how modern guns compare to these early guns. Does a modern handgun do more damage than a World War I revolver? Does it have more accurate range? Etc. If those of you with extensive real world gun knowledge could help me tweak all these numbers to get stats for modern weapons, I'd really appreciate it.

I hear ya. I've been running PFS at my store since 2009, and I've never, ever fostered or encouraged the idea that people don't need to own the appropriate sources, I've just been a little lax about enforcement.

I'm not suggesting these requirements will cause players to quit playing PFS. Just the opposite, I'm suggesting they'll cause stores to quit offering PFS since the easiest and cheapest path it offers that store's customers is to cut the store out of the supply chain and take advantage of the free gaming space. I realize that there are a lot of customers out there who are always, always going to voluntarily not take the easiest and cheapest path because they realize the value of supporting their local stores, but I promise you as a retailer it's a vocal minority.

I don't ever blame anyone for buying elsewhere. It would be absurd to expect every customer to spend every gaming dollar they have at my establishment. Hell, I buy the PDFs direct from paizo.com myself (as well as buying the books from my own store) for the added convenience. I also don't have any solutions with regard to the current policy. As I originally said, I'm divided on it (both as a player and a retailer). I want an ownership policy to exist, but I also want to be able to travel reasonably light when I game. I don't have a solution. But I wanted to make sure these points were heard too, because I don't think the policy accomplishes what it sets out to do.

I hope it's clear that I'm not just whining and complaining. I'm trying to provide helpful feedback.

Whew. I had no idea this was going to blow up like this. I appreciate the thorough response, Mike. I'm really, really divided on how I feel about this issue, both as a player and a retailer.

This thread emerged because my store's weekly Pathfinder Society game recently expanded from four tables on one night of the week to three to four tables each on two nights of the week. We expanded to more nights rather than more tables per night because we only have four rooms upstairs, and though our downstairs gaming area is big enough, we felt our downstairs programming (board game night, a weekly Magic tournament, and Netrunner league; all reasonably loud) would simultaneously disrupt roleplayers and be disrupted by them. Unfortunately (first world problems), we're now staring down having to add a third weekly Pathfinder Society night soon. It's a nice problem to have, except that our Pathfinder sales aren't justifying three, or really even two nights. They're not bad at all, especially for an RPG, but they're 4% of our Magic sales and a third weekly PFS night would mean it has comparable calendar time to Magic. So, I'm left trying to figure out how to support the needs of our Pathfinder community without overextending for a game that isn't actually keeping the store in business.

Unfortunately, the current policy of having to 1) bring a pile of books to the store every week, 2) buy a bunch of PDFs (even if you own the books already), or 3) build simpler characters is really fighting the needs of both our store and our PFS community, even though it seems designed to support both. The policy encourages PDF purchases by a wide margin, which means the more the store pushes PFS and the better we enforce the need to own sourcebooks, the more likely we are to actually cut ourselves out of the supply chain. I firmly believe that a rising tide lifts all boats, but if you follow the current sourcebook policy to its logical conclusion, I see more than a few drowning sailors. If stores aren't selling books, they'll stop carrying them, and if they're not selling Pathfinder, they'll stop running PFS. I know PDFs are more convenient, but until Paizo gives stores the ability to sell them, how are stores supposed to keep PFS justifiably profitable?

I realize PFS is the strongest it's ever been and is in no danger of imploding, but I assure you that's in large part due to the prevalent don't-ask-don't-tell policy of most GMs with regard to sourcebook ownership. I've played a few places other than my own store and I've never had a GM ask me to show them a sourcebook. I have to assume that's pretty common, regardless of the campaign's actual rules.

I also realize that consumers have the option of playing PFS from the comfort of their own home, or playing non-PFS Pathfinder (or other games, for that matter), but I'm sure you realize how much of the PFS heavy-lifting is done by stores and how hard we work to make sure PFS is available to people all over the world. It does seem bad for the campaign to disincentivize stores to keep at it.

This is all compounded, of course, by the FAQ entry that states "one need not prove ownership of said material," because that leaves me disempowered to even make sure people are buying PDFs. I know people are breaking the law by photocopying each others' watermarked print-outs or sending each other PDFs, but if customers A, B, C, and D each come with identically watermarked print-outs, I don't appear to be empowered to turn them down per the rules of the campaign.

My approach to business is very definitely that if I do right by my customers, they'll do right by me, and so I don't sweat the few people who will take advantage of our policies and try to squeeze value out of every transaction (social, monetary, or otherwise), but on some level our events have to drive sales or else we'll close our doors and that doesn't do anybody any good. And I hate directly monetizing events if I can avoid it, because it narrows the accessibility of those events, which I promise is bad for everyone involved.