FLite's page

- the wording "run combat encounters without deliberately increasing difficulty" suggests that deliberately decreasing difficulty is fine, was that deliberate and if yes, how would this affect the consistency of game play ?

I think Alex was very clear.

Tomppa wrote:

If that's not the intent, then wording should probably be "run combat encounters without deliberately changing difficulty"

I have written the text above in a very deliberate way, and I am aware that I wrote "increasing" and not "changing."

I'm glad to see this happening. The only "mechanical" change I would recommend is changing "may" to "can" since that's what "may" means in this context.

This is a good point, the guide team has previously been instructed to avoid "may" as it could mean "is allowed" or "might"

I would suggest "GMs are allowed to" or "GMs are encouraged to"

Instead of reading a clarification/errata from a source I know to be official, such as the Developer of a Scenario or an OP official. I have a forum poster, claiming that foundry claims, that Paizo told them. (I have no reason to disbelieve the poster, or Foundry, but no way to confirm either)

While I don't believe the forum poster(s?) or foundry are trying to decieve anyone, I have seen plenty of situations over the years where someone misinterpreted an unofficial comment or even a contradiction as "This is official confirmation of what I believe."

Too many for me to accept that any of these changes are official.

I agree this is a problem that needs to be fixed.

Official clarifications need to be announced officially as stated in the guide to organized play. Any unofficial change in foundry from a pdf needs to be identified as such.

Chronicles that give 12 xp, like APs and some modules, are applied in 4 xp, 8 days of downtime.

Feel free to reach out on Discord. I can jump into a voice channel to discuss more. Just let me know when.

No, when applying the treasure bundles and downtime, it is still applied as a single chronicle. And definitely would not result in multiple reports. (That would cause the player to have 3x AcP if nothing else.)

Thank you, I am referring to the other option where you "sell" your items on hand. As noted in my post that's a lot of spells (potentially) to lose and the "cost" is not defined well via RAW.

-efildam

Darrell Impey UK wrote:

efildam wrote:

Basically, in rebuilding a Wizard (and any other character with a spell book) what do you do with this?

Thanks in advance.

-efildam

If you are choosing to Rebuild you basically recreate your character from first principles, advance it appropriate to the XP it previously had, and then spend gold calculated from the table on the linked page.

You sell items back for the purchase price. So calculate what you paid to assemble the spellbook, and that is what you get back.

Are “alternative ancestry boosts” now legal? The guide currently still refers to the CRB.

They are a core rule, not an optional one, and they are also in the latest CRB printing.

So yes.

I am pretty sure from this post that the answer is "Yes", but there's apparently some debate about it:

If I create a character that is using a class from Player Core 2 after November 15, 2023, once Player Core 2 is released, do they get the Remaster Rebuild?

The Lorespire Remaster page seems to indicate to some that only characters created with 1 session on them prior to November 15, 2023, if you read only the Rebuilding section; my contention is that the Rebuilding section is providing explicit instructions for the rebuild mentioned in the Character Options section. If the latter is accurate, can we remove the date mentioned in the Rebuilding section to prevent further debate?

More precisely, if a character's first game is after Nov 15th, but before player core 2 releases and the character has a class from player core 2, will it be possible to rebuild them.

(Use Case: New player builds Silver Dragon Rage Barbarian. 3 levels later, Player Core 2 drops, and he finds out he could have built an Adamantine Dragon Rage Barbarian if he had waited. Is he out of luck?)

Okay, so what's the rules for 1st Edition Tier 6-7?

The blog post says it's okay to play with three players at the table for 7th level scenarios?

So if I run a Tier 6-7 scenario, I run it with three players and no pregens if three players are at the table?

Or if I run a Tier 6-7 scenario with two players, do I add just one?

Or do I ignore this part of the blog and add one pregen for a table with three players, and two pregens for a two players table?

The rule is:

If there is a pregen available in the level range, you run with 2+ characters adding pregens to get to 4 characters.

If there is no pregen available in the level range, you can run with 3+ characters, adding no pregens.

In PF 1, this would only apply to Tier 9-13 or higher scenarios. (Which are pretty rare.)

Unfortunately the ruling was made after the final guide publication, so it was not incorporated into the guide. I can confirm that the ruling was made as described, and I can request that the current OPC confirm it, but I do not believe any of the PF1 documentation is still being updated at this time.

Can confirm that the intent of the rule is that the beast master's swappable companion (and any similar option) counts as a single pawn that changes form from time to time.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Personally, I dislike Razmir and player characters that follow them, and I guess the same is true for my characters.. those who are religious likely will assume that the god and character are a fraud.

If I know that a particularly motivated character is played at a table, I will likely find fascinating opportunities to do something else... like cleaning my bathroom.

Apparently, there has been some plot development in a scenario, which I have not touched, personally, I am assuming the country is currently consumed from the inside by insidious undead, and I hope it is only a matter of time until an adventure ends with us sending an undead Razmir to whatever fate Pharasma has in store for them.

But that's just me, I am not really flaunting my own divine character's religion so the whole Razmir thing is rubbing me the wrong way in more ways than one.

I understand avoiding players who are acting in bad faith but avoiding people who play characters based on concepts you don't like doesn't seem kosher to me. You're free to play in any game you want or not, but If I don't like Lawful Good paladins it doesn't mean I'm going to ostracize their players because their character isn't what I like. At the end of the day it comes down to the behavior of the player and the character. The religion is most likely background or only brought up in specific RP situations in 90% of Organized play. I guess I just don't understand this way of thinking.

GMs are not free to turn away legal character concepts. But no one is going to ask you to run or play a game you are not having fun at.

Saying "This concept is uncomfortable for me to be around," and setting a healthy boundary is entirely reasonable.

I am not quite to the point Sebastian is, but I have purposely avoided running or playing the Razmir Lodge scenario. I offered it in my region when it came out, and will offer it again if asked, but I personally have no desire to play or GM it. (I feel much the same about bone keep, for different reasons, actually.)

MVulpius wrote:

I notice it says "the orc ancestry/species is now always available for both Pathfinder and Starfinder Society". Since it just says Pathfinder Society does that mean it's been opened up in PFS1e too? Or is that too much wishful thinking? :)

It's being looked into.

GM Redalia wrote:

I believe that orc characters are available in PF1 from this announcement. You would have to own a valid source (it looks like they are in Bestiary 1, Advanced Race Guide, and the Monster Codex.) Unfortunately, none of the orc specific options look like they are legal right now.

I'll let you know if we find out otherwise, of course. And I'll ask about some additional options.

Link to above quote.

I sure hope it's allowed for 1e!

At the current time this applies only to PFS2 and SFS. Alex says he is looking into what it would take to expand it to PFS1. As mentioned, this is a little more difficult since someone will have to look at *which* of the Orc only options can be opened and which will be disruptive or overpowered or confusingly written.

Logsig covered it pretty well.

I have started running games at the local game store. The Venture Captain told me that Pathfinder Society wants us to set up the game to be offered on the Warhorn website.

i have volunteered to run a scenario next week but I have gone over the Warhorn website and it pretty easy to find a game to play but I am completely flummoxed on how to post a game for me to run.

Can someone please help me figure out Warhorn?

The first step would be to create an event to host the session.

Has the VC provided an event? Or asked you to create your own?

By comparison, PFS 2 APs are *only* sanctioned in "Adventure Mode"

Adventure Mode allows GMs to impose house rules, and allows them to alter encounters and statistics in the adventure, and (for APs) allows players to make characters for the adventure that do not follow the restrictions in PFS (provided they follow the restrictions the GM permits.)

Blood Lords and Agents of Edgewatch were not sanctioned (Due to some content that just was not appropriate for Organized Play.)

Except for those two, every AP that has been released has been sanctioned.

For PF2, each book provides a chronicle, and each chronicle can be applied to any character of any level.

Blog wrote:

• The Core Rulebook now allows all characters to take two free ability boosts instead of the printed options for their ancestry. Newly created characters in Pathfinder Society may use this rule; previously built characters may not unless they rebuild the character from scratch with a boon.

• However, to retain the legality of numerous existing characters, the Pathfinder Society campaign will continue to offer the Voluntary Flaws optional ruleset and retain the text within the Guide to Organized Play.

OK. So we have THREE options for new PCs:

1. Vanilla ability boosts as printed
2. 2 free boosts and no flaws, any ancestry
3. Old optional flaw system

Is this correct?

Four Options (at least as I understand it.)

1. Vanilla ability boosts as printed
2. 2 free boosts and no flaws, any ancestry
3. Vanilla ability boosts + Old Optional Flaw System
4. 2 free boosts + Old Optional Flaw System, any ancestry

The replayable code on paizo reporting is currently broken. There is no *official* list of replayable content, as far as I am aware.

Note that if you have not chose *any* school affiliation, you can chose anything except field commission for free. This represents you *having* the affiliation, just never having leaned on them before. (Since Field Commission is a school affiliation, you cannot switch from it for free.)

Schools are as much about the connections you made as your qualifications.

So it is more like taking "makeup" courses. Hanging out with faculty during their office hours. Attending conferences and get togethers. Making friends. Influencing and impressing people.

All Pathfinders (except field commissioned agents) will have *passed* all 3 schools. The school affiliation represents being connected enough to the school to get special benefits.

Conversely, retraining to "Field Commission" involves forging contacts and relationships outside the Pathfinder Society.

OP Guide wrote:

Unless a boon states otherwise, you can only apply one of any given boon to a character.

I know bequeathal didn't have text overriding this in the past, did that change at some point?

If it doesn't, it would be nice if it did. It would be disappointing if you used Bequethal, and then later got something really cool on that character that they can't use...

From the FAQ:

Can I upgrade permanent items?

Yes, players may upgrade permanent magical items or items made from special materials using the Crafting rules on page 535 of the Core Rulebook. Players may not upgrade adventuring gear or consumable items in this manner.

Can I pay the cost difference to upgrade a permanent item instead of using Craft to do it myself?

Yes. The Pathfinder Society has numerous crafters that assist their fellow agents. Use the rules for upgrading magic items on page 535 of the Core Rulebook.

Silbeg wrote:

In fact, this would make no sense, because it would imply you could use them when you are at a higher level and thus having higher skill checks

If the Pathfinder Society does not permit the accrual of time off for its staff, it's any wonder the organization has any members at all. Perhaps that's why the Aspis Consortium was quite nearly able to destroy them. ;P

It is more a case of "Welcome back. Sorry, we don't have any missions leaving right now, we will send you a note when we do. By the way, since you are here now, would you mind teaching this class of newcomers?" (The 50% extra days that Field Commissions get come from the fact that they don't get asked to teach classes...)

I assume that is an oversight and is intended to apply to all the levels. I have forwarded the question to leadership.

So why are the skeletons not evil? I'm not going to be able to play the scenario.

It is hard to believe Pharasma would be OK with this as is.

For completeness sake.

Class features are also harder to retrain than class feats

"Changing a selectable class feature, takes 28 days. "

PFS2 Guide - Retraining

So I have to ask, why did someone decide that was fine in PFS, but not SFS?

Because it *wasn't* fine in PFS2?

Slow speed bounties in PFS2 are supposed to reward 0.5 Reputation.

But as you found out, the system can't actually handle that easily. And players and GMs were unwilling to put in the work to take 1 point of reputation every other bounty, and so people who went slow track got twice the reputation they *should* have on their characters. (Or to put it another way, people who played slow track consistently cheated and collected twice the reputation they were entitled to.)

So now, with SFS bounties, where there is no slow track and it will effect *everyone* someone made the decision not to replicate that error in judgement a second time on an even larger scale.

I actually now regret my earlier support for allowing slow track to expand to PFS quests and bounties. "It will be fine" I said. "People won't take advantage" I said. Boy was I misled.

And now you are upset because you can't cheat in the same way in SFS. So you won't play unless you are allowed to cheat?

None the less, it is still just a forum post by him, not an official errata.

But while I was searching for items for an upcoming character, I found that the Gunner's Saddle has since received Errata. So I figured I'd check in and see if its Limited status might be revisited.

It has been pointed out that that is not an errata, it is just a developer's opinion of how they would have it work. It is pertinent to GMs making rules calls (if the saddle were allowed) but not decisive.

But while I was searching for items for an upcoming character, I found that the Gunner's Saddle has since received Errata. So I figured I'd check in and see if its Limited status might be revisited.

Probably it was made limited because of the lack of clarity. It is possible the errata will make it through to the team that establishes rarity. But that typically takes time to be rereviewed.

FLite wrote:

Secane wrote:

Sorry if this has been ask and answered before, but can you add armor spikes to Unique Armor (named magic armor)?

Like add armor spikes to a Mithral Full Plate of Speed?

I don't see why you wouldn't be able to.

Its to my understanding that armor spikes are a seperate weapon. That when added to armor, makes the armor into spiked armor. As it's it own weapon, it can be applied to any armor.

But since unique armors cannot be modified with additional changes, like material, additional enchantments or special abilities. For example you can't make a +3 Mithral Full Plate of Speed, it can only be a +1, nor can you make an adamantine version of it.

It's been argued that armor spikes, which changes an armor into a spiked armor version, is considered a modification as well. Despite being its own weapon.

Hence I'm asking if there is any clarification on this. Or am I just reading too much into the no additional enchantments on unique armors/items rule.

I think you are reading too much into it.

Sorry if this has been ask and answered before, but can you add armor spikes to Unique Armor (named magic armor)?

Like add armor spikes to a Mithral Full Plate of Speed?

I don't see why you wouldn't be able to.

There is not currently a location where that information is publicly available (in part for spoiler reasons.) Currently the way to find out is to buy the boon.

The Pathfinder society welcomes DMs of all levels. One of the ways you get good at GMing is *by* GMing.

The society rules were kind of confusing, but it looks like pathfinder society only wants you to run either bounties or adventure paths. I would be wanting to run something in the length of 3-10 sessions, not 1 or 30. I am not sure pathfinder society has any adventurers of that length that are legal.

The primary core of society play is actually the Pathfinder Scenario. A single adventure designed to run ~4-5 hours, but which ties into a whole line of similar adventures to form a campaign. So you can run as many (or as few) as you like. You can find them on the Paizo Store here.

(It sounds like you were possibly looking at the "Additional Adventures" page. Those are for people want to run something other than Pathfinder Scenarios.)

If you have any organized Pathfinder Society games in your area, there are almost always people looking for GMs. And the local Venture Officers may even have GM training classes available.

"Don't be a jerk",

Obligatory Nitpick. "Don't be a jerk" was removed from the rule set, both for being too low a bar, as well as to easy to weaponize. (After all, the moment you call someone on "being a jerk" they can countercall on using derogatory language.)

It is now governed by the Paizo Org Play code of conduct, which contains the line: "Participants are expected to respect their fellow players and work together to create positive and memorable experiences."

There is a bunch of additional guidance (for example in the Pathfinder 2e rulebook) on ways you can do that. Specifically:

Page 8 - Gaming For All
Page 484 - Tools for Responsible Play
Page 486 - The Pathfinder Baseline

The Guide does say a bit on this topic link

Quote:

1. A character dies mid-scenario without means of resurrection.

The section on dealing with death contains some intentionally fuzzy language telling the GM to use a soft touch when dealing with PC death particularly for new players, but ultimately, that death can happen and so can TPKs. It tells you to "consider" the situation without telling you exactly what to do about it.

...

I would focus on making sure there really isn't some way of raising the PC that wasn't explored, before even considering CP recalculation.

The GM is instructed to take every reasonable (and in game legal) approach to get the character back into game.

But if the character cannot be raised, the AcP is not adjusted.

2. A player disappears (leaves the table and doesn't return, whatever the reason).

3. A player intentionally has his character abandon the in-game activity.

For the table, these are essentially the same, the only difference is what reward the leaving player receives. Keep in mind the "pregen closest to the PC" means the most similar pregen, with HP, daily resources, etc, as close as possible to the PC who left the game.

So for example, if the PC who left were a wizard who had spent all his daily spells, you would bring in Ezren, with all his spells expended.

Blake's Tiger wrote:

A spell in your repertoire is clearly not a Skill Training or Feat.

I believe FLite was attributing it to a "selectable class feature," which it certainly is, when he proposed 28 days.

PFS might want to decide how long they want retraining a spell in a spell repertoire to take (7, 28, something in between). 28 days of Downtime is 1.3 levels worth of advancement, which means you can swap out a spell sooner than you can retrain it in PFS, assuming that you only want to swap one at your next level-up.

From the Errata, which does not seem to have made it into the second printing

Page 481: Retraining. It wasn't clear how long it took to retrain spells in a spell repertoire, but it should take just 1 week. Add ". Some, like changing a spell in your spell repertoire, take a week." to retraining class features.

I hadn't seen that errata.

So, Uncommon spells can be swapped out just like common spells once you gain access? ... Also, where did you come up with the 7 day figure for downtime to swap a spell?

You would need to check your class for the rules for spell swapping. But taking Bard as an example:

Swapping Spells in Your Repertoire
As you gain new spells in your repertoire, you might want to replace some of the spells you previously learned. Each time you gain a level and learn new spells, you can swap out one of your old spells for a different spell of the same level. This spell can be a cantrip. You can also swap out spells by retraining during downtime.

That said, as far as I can tell, unless the spell was added to your repertoire by a feat it would take 28 days to retrain.

If you are granted access to an Uncommon scroll via chronicle, do you have to use Learn a Spell to be able to add it to repertoire?

That is a very good question.

I do understand the part about anathema's being relaxed and protected from other's actions.

My question is what do one do if one does not want Infamy on their character but the rest of the table, having been warned by the GM that it will generate Infamy, still wants to take the scripted Infamy route?

This is where the society's requirement (in game and out of game) to cooperate comes into play. It is the obligation of the players *and* the characters to come up with a solution that makes the table enjoyable for everyone.

This is obviously a thing where resolving it is going to be different for every table. There is not a single hard and fast rule for every situation, and creating one would only wind up with people trying to use it to grief other players.

My understanding is:

The character does not have the blinded condition, so the difficult terrain and -4 blanket penalty to perception do not apply.

All creatures are hidden from you, so DC 5 flat check for all targeted attacks. Note that this includes targeted spells that require saves. (Unlike PF1, as far as I can tell PF2 does not distinguish between spells with attack rolls and spells with saves when it comes to targeting hidden enemies.)

Characters aren't supposed to struggle with edicts and anathemas as long as they're heading towards the Primary or Secondary objectives [citation needed]. As a GM, I'd probably warn characters, champions or not, if they drift.

Not *quite* correct. (That was a rule in PFS1 for a while and it produced some really, really bad things. Like paladins burning down orphanages occupied warehouses full of explosives in the middle of a city.)

The current rule is that specific actions required by the scenario will not directly force you to violate your anathema.

Note that people can speak outside their turn in initiative. So opponents do not need to wait till their turn to declare their surrender.

Durable Adamantine Ammo is long standing, legal, and assuming you have the book Durable comes from, the only way anyone should ever by adamantine ammo.

I don't believe there was ever an explicit ruling for familiars, but I know that for other companions, it is perfectly legal to have a companion with a level higher than your character level. However is was capped such that your companion was never allowed to have more than your HD +1.

So you would wind up with a familiar that was your total character level +1.

(It is in the PF1 FAQ some where.)

I Do Not like this rule, because it presumes that GMs have Plenty of Time at their tables to do audits of characters to ensure compliance which has NEVER been the case when I've been running The time to do something like an audit, that is.

The rules are written on the assumption that players will read and follow the rules. GMs should not be having to do purchase audits for spells any more than they should be doing purchase audits for consumables.

"I don't like this rule because it is too much work to make sure other people are following it." is really not a convincing arguement.

And all I want is to use the common spells from SoM. This puts me in a situation where I have to choose between just making mechanically the same character OR I use my gold to learn the spells I want (which I could always fail) and hamper my progression to the items I would like to buy for my character.

Yes. This is working as intended.

You want to get something that other characters don't have access to.

You must spend a resource to get it.

We are talking *very small* amounts of gold, and PFS is *hugely* most haul. Most characters will earn 10-25% more gold than recommended by the core rule book.

That is very thorough.

However...

Couldn't most of this thread be summarized in the question,

Hey OP, where do we stand on the cultural access to items and such?

Where we have stood since PF2 started. If you want to know more about which cultural items are common within that culture and which are uncommon within that culture, we have to wait until the book for that culture has come out. Among other things, this involves having people familiar with the culture that inspired it weigh in on the depiction of the culture, so that you wind up with a depiction that is respectful and not an exoticized caricature. (Oh, of course every Asian Tien warrior has a katana. It's a katana, it's from Asia Tien, right?)

Every time this has been asked, that has been the answer. That we don't want to go around painting other cultures with broad, insensitive brushes, and that means taking the time to do it right, not just going down a list and making snap judgements based on our (OPF's) largely western assumptions.

(I mean, the mere fact that people are saying "I can't have a samurai without my Katana" when Katana were *not* the iconic weapon of the samurai, (they were primarily and famously horse archers) does a pretty job of illustrating this...)

Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion wrote:

Expand at all costs is not a sustainable strategy.

But recruiting new players to replace the inevitable players who stop coming IS a sustainable strategy.

You sometimes need to recruit as hard as you can just to stay even.

If you lose GMs, you may have to contract for a while until you get more.

One of the hardest things I had to learn as an organizer is that sometimes you have to take a deep breath, and let the group contract. As the alternative is to burn out your GM pool, and have it collapse.

There has to be a way to use third party content!

reply to Nefreet- look at the extinction curse chronicle sheet,
under the section; key differences from scenarios
it seems that one can play outside the rules, when the chronicle sheet says you can, or am I mistaken?

You can play any character you want and which the GM permits in Adventure Paths. And while you can get credit for them for your society characters, you cannot play them in society scenarios.

Jack Brown wrote:

Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:

I would encourage folks to use creative problem solving to address these issues and those like them.

Such as?

*play with 7 that one time and inform the new person of the organization

That one is specifically not allowed.

The rest are fine as one time things, but as posted above, when they become a weekly occurrence, there is a problem.

At some point, we simply cannot grow the (local) community beyond the numbers the local pool of GMs are able to support.

So while turning away players feels bad, and may not be good for the overall organization, it is the right thing to do on the local level.

A "trusted player" having to step up to GM week after week when they signed up to play is a sign of a community that is trying to support too many non-GM players, and *will* lead to burn out and ill-will.

If a "trusted player" is having to crash GM multiple weeks in a row, it is time to turn away walk-ins until you can source more GMs.

This is not a competition to see who can grow their team the largest. It is a game where we are trying to deliver the best experience we can. If we lose a player to adventure league, and everyone has a good time, that is hardly the worst possible outcome.