LeftHandShake's page

LeftHandShake wrote:

...assumes that those challenges and systems *actually function* ...presumes that all equipment actually works as intended...

That is one possible assumption.

Another is that fixes to mechanics ought to be one of the things that is consistent across tables--as should dealing with not having those fixes before they exist. Consistency in the uncertainty as well as the certainty.

I'm working from the statements of intent in Alex's original post:

If there is an obvious error, you do not require our permission to fix it. If there is something unclear about an adventure, you do not require our blessing to smooth it over.

Tabletop roleplaying games [...] have a GM at the table, with a brain and full ability and power to make alterations as necessary.

We trust our GMs to run the adventures not as written, but as intended

My understanding is that Alex wants GMs to be able to make the necessary adjustments to the scenario as written so that it plays sensibly and fairly. My point (as well as others' point) is that the proposed language doesn't actually say that. There are situations that feel "broken" that by our understanding of the proposed new language can't be "fixed" within the bounds of PFS rules.

We're saying that there's an incongruity between what Alex says he wants to convey and what's actually conveyed. He says GMs don't need to beg for clarifications, they can just fix it... but the PFS rules say you *can't* fix some things. Notably, that third quote says that the expectation was already that GMs would "run as intended", but the section of the guide in question is called "run as written". I don't think we're wrong to be confused.

On wanting guidance to define what an obvious error is and/or how to resolve obvious errors: I submit that this probably falls into the category of things that the OP team believes GMs should make a judgment call on.

The question from Talon Stormwarden was about the resolution of an "obvious error to fix vs a change that increases difficulty, which is prohibited." Everyone here is capable of using our judgment to choose a different number (etc), we get that. The problem is that sometimes that appropriate number *is more difficult than what's written*. For example, if a level 5 (non-ooze) monster is listed with an AC of 12, a GM might reasonably infer that the digits got transposed (an obvious error) and it was supposed to be 21. But that change would "intentionally increase the difficulty" of the encounter, which isn't allowed. Same thing for ignoring the aquatic trait for a "fish-monster out of water": it feels like an obvious error, but making the monsters *not suffocating* at the start of combat (or before) "intentionally increase[s] the difficulty" relative to what's written.

The people asking for more clarity aren't idiots or incapable of making judgment calls, nor are we incapable of recognizing errors. We're carefully parsing the language and noting that it doesn't give as much freedom as the OrgPlay team seems to want/intend it to give.

First, I really appreciate this issue being addressed. I am one of the "vocal minority" or "rules Hellknights" that finds the current wording problematic and restrictive. Speaking only for myself, I've never thought that GMs can't make *any* changes from what's written-- I'm extremely familiar with the OrgPlay Guide-- but rather that the guide doesn't provide enough latitude to fix some issues in PFS scenarios.

To be clear, the main issue in the current guide is the sentence immediately *after* the bullet-point list in Alex's "current text" section (emphasis added): "Beyond the above, GMs are encouraged to make choices that would result in the most enjoyable play experience for everyone at the table and that emphasize PCs are the heroes of the story." The listed items are explicitly phrased as *exceptions* to the general principle. They can't / shouldn't be changed or fixed by GMs.

The proposed language is an improvement, but I still think there's a mismatch between the stated intent ("if something is broken, fix it") and the actual words in the (proposed) guide ("fix it unless it's one of these things"). My topline recommendation is just to give GMs permission to fix *anything*, using their discretion and best judgment to work out the author's intent while trying to make rulings that are fair and fun for everyone. No exceptions.

Issues like the air mephit's +19 Reflex save are ameliorated with the new language. On first glance, the problem with aquatic enemies in non-aquatic environments is also resolved, because of the addition of the words "player-facing" to the clause about changes to traits. However, the second item in the "GM must" section says not to "deliberately increasing difficulty". Increasing difficulty *relative to what*? If it's "relative to the adventure as written," then a PFS GM can't say, "Of course OrgPlay doesn't want the enemies to be dead or dying when the combat starts; the author clearly forgot about the aquatic trait, so I'll ignore it." If it's relative to (subjectively interpreted) author intentions, then the GM can make such a reasonable ruling.

Similarly, the requirement to "maintain the presence and functioning of skill checks, subsystems and similar challenges" assumes that those challenges and systems *actually function*. If GMs are charged with "maintaining functioning" of scenario mechanics that are fundamentally broken as written, then they can't (necessarily) make reasonable, fun, and fair rulings to fix them.

Likewise, the restriction against adjustments to equipment (etc) presumes that all equipment actually works as intended. Several years ago, I pointed out that the daikyu was unusable as originally published. I was accused of being excessively pedantic, but the daikyu later got errata (and then a spiff-up in the remaster). The light from wayfinders can't be turned off once it's on, and it doesn't really work with the remastered light spell. I think PFS GMs should be allowed to permit players to turn off their wayfinders, and to have the light be on (or follow) the wayfinder; I think you want that to be allowed too. But under the proposed wording, "GMs must not []
[c]hange player-facing [...] items [or] spells".

TLDR: Don't put categorical restrictions on GM fixes to scenarios or rules. Emphasize GMs using their best discretion and judgment to interpret scenario intent so as to maximize [OrgPlay goals].

Going from needing 3 points with five PCs to 5 points with 6 PCs (to get the top tier reward) is a big jump-- almost punitive for having a sixth PC.

Running away from the final encounter would still allow Anohatsa to "fill[] in missing details, willing to tell the true story
following Wanikkawi’s death". I suppose a table that fails to reach the final encounter at all (e.g. due to time constraints) but still survives would not get the conclusion.

In general, is there any way to summon a PFS dev / OrgPlay leader to resolve issues like the ones discussed here, especially with regard to success thresholds?

Various issues in the current language of the PFS Remaster Rules linked above:

1) Game Rules 1.3 says (as an "example") that monster abilities such as Grab are no longer automatic, instead allowing a free skill check. There is no such rule in Player Core nor GM Core. The rules were published in the (unsanctioned) Core Preview, and it will apparently appear in Monster Core, but does not exist yet.

2) Game Rules 1 says that GMs should start using the remastered rules "immediately". The only mentions of November 15 pertain to character options, not rules. I *think* you mean for the remaster rules to apply from November 15 onward, but that's not what it says.

3) Specific Rules 1.2 describes what to do with good and evil *traits*, but not what to do with good and evil *damage*. The Remaster Core Preview (released alongside Rage of Elements) says (p4, left column), "[Spirit damage] will replace alignment damage ([type list]) in many situations," but a rule for replacing/changing the damage type does not appear in PC1, GMC, nor the PFS document.

4) The current phrasing of the holy/unholy conversion rule is ambiguous, incomplete, and gives unwarranted discretion to the GM:

....a) The current phrasing gives the GM discretion to replace the good/evil traits with holy/unholy on *abilities*, but not on creatures themselves, nor on items (unusual, but exists).

....b) Giving GMs discretion to decide whether a good/evil trait should be converted to holy/unholy is completely unnecessary and generates table variation without reason. The given example says that a "GM *may* choose to give them the unholy trait". Why or why not? Is there any situation in PFS in which a member of the leadership team would look at the evil trait on a pre-remaster monster and say, "huh, I wouldn't make that unholy"? In the spirit of (a) above, is there any fiend in PFS that (in the opinion of any OrgPlay leadership member) should *not* get the unholy trait?

....c) The language in the example is inconsistent: the GM *may* give the quasit's Strikes the unholy trait, but *should* treat its weakness to good as a weakness to holy. Why the difference in tense / imperative? Confusingly, the second sentence begins with the word "likewise", as if it's giving a second example of the same concept, but the plain meaning is different.

....d) The conversion rule says nothing about handling aligned damage on *player* abilities. I *think* you intend it to be spirit damage, but nothing actually says that. E.g., a good champion's Divine Smite, which deals persistent good damage. Is this now spirit damage? Should it have the holy trait? The current conversion rules are silent, as they only speak to *enemy abilities*.

Heyo, checking in.

The lack of a returning rune is one thing, as Perizia can use hydraulic push at will. The bigger problem in that encounter is that the Nixies have the aquatic trait, so they can't breathe anywhere in the room. If the PCs can keep Perizia talking for thirty seconds or so before combat begins, the nixies fall unconscious.

This is the second time this has come up in PFS2.

Is it intentional that Valgomorus, an (intelligent) Wight, has the defenses of a mindless skeleton? (Including immunity to mental?)

Can I re-up this question that hasn't received a response? This really looks like a copy-paste error from the skeletons' statblock, and it's a significant contributor to Valgomorus being too powerful for a level 3 creature.

Relative to a Bestiary wight (level 3), Valgomorous has...

That's a generous set of trades even without the immunity and resistances, but those really put it over the top.

Someone else has already brought up the problem with the number of sod hounds in that encounter. I'm a new-ish GM who has been hesitant to register my home game PFS sessions because the language in the GM guide (http://www.organizedplayfoundation.org/encyclopedia/pathfinder-2-0-gm-basi cs/) seems to prevent GMs from resolving problems like this in the scenario text or game rules (which come up often due to editing issues):

"Scenarios are meant to be run as written, with no addition or subtraction to the number of monsters"

"As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgments, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com."

"GMs may not change the mechanics of encounters. Specifically, for combat encounters, the mechanics include the creatures presented, the number of opponents in the encounter, and the information written into the stat blocks for those opponents. If an encounter is a trap, haunt, or skill check that needs to be achieved to bypass a situation then the listed DCs and results are not to be altered, as they are the mechanics of that encounter." (emphasis added)

These passages seem overly restrictive to me, preventing GMs from fixing problems in the scenario text or CRB because they can't "contradict" a published source nor change "mechanics", and explicitly says you can't "contradict" the GM guide itself. In the thread asking for feedback on the PFS Guide, I suggested that these passages should have an authorization for GMs to resolve errors, typos, and contradictions, or simply add a "to the greatest extent possible" clause; I was told that my reading was too restrictive and I should come here for advice.

So: How do PFS GMs interpret those passages? What do they mean to you? To me, they are a clear and explicit command to follow the scenario mechanical elements as written, which in this case means obeying "the number of sod hounds is 3" and "the number of sod hounds is 4", which is impossible.

I know how to make a choice to resolve such contradictions or problems. My question is whether doing so is consistent with the PFS Guide and how GMs treat the language in the guide. Implicitly: Does the language in the Guide matter?

I agree that RAW, Acid Splash's splash damage only hits the target of the spell. However, I'm fairly sure that Paizo intended the splash damage to have a 5 foot radius, and I have two pieces of evidence.

First, Hei Feng's avatar form does lightning splash damage, and the caster is listed as immune to it (Gods and Magic p63); this clause is (almost) pointless unless non-thrown-weapon splash damage has an area.

Second, Jason Bulmahn seems to think Acid Splash's damage has an area, as displayed when GM'ing Band of Bravos (ep5, I think). When asked by a player whether Acid Splash works this way, Jason dismissively says something like, "Yeah, that's just how splash damage works."

Hopefully this gets errata'ed soon.

Sorry for the threadsurrection, but I can't find any reference to this on the rules forum.