LeftHandShake's page

There hasn't been resolution of the (very good) question about conflicts between "not intentionally increasing difficulty", fixing "obvious errors", "maintaining the functioning subsystems", and (apparently unrevised) allowance for GM discretion with respect to "terrain or environmental conditions described in the adventure but not given mechanics". Let me give a concrete example from a recent PFS scenario; I'll keep details to a minimum.

In 6-02, the PCs climb a mountain. Under the specified mechanics, it takes 8 to 16 hours to do so; it is quite unlikely that the party does it in less than 12 hours (roughly 2% chance for a party of 6, under generous assumptions). The adventure starts "early in the morning", and there are *at least* 5 hours of (non-strenuous) activity in the adventure before the ascent. There is an additional segment of the ascent that is not given a timeframe.

There is a combat after the climb, with no discussion of environmental conditions. Under the proposed new language: (1) Can the GM deem that it is nighttime and thus dark? (2) Can the GM have all the PCs be fatigued, because they have been climbing a mountain for at least 8-16 hours?

If the GM "maintains functioning of subsystems and similar", then they would know that it's likely been 18+ hours since "early morning". It's reasonable to infer that it cannot possibly still be daytime at this point, and the guide gives latitude for conditions that were not given mechanics by the adventure.

Following the rules of the game, they've been traveling overland for well over 8 hours (even accounting for "breaks to rest and eat" per the adventure), and thus should be fatigued. By RAW, it's almost impossible to *not* be fatigued for the final combat. The (generously calculated) chance of ascending in 8 hours is about 7 in 1 million for a party of four and 1 in 2 billion for a party of six, even pretending that the unspecified segment takes no time at all.

On the other hand, either of these changes would intentionally increase the difficulty of the encounter (under the assumption that many or most GMs won't consider time so carefully, and many will forget the fatigue rule), which is forbidden. Which PFS rule takes precedence in this conflict?

I came here to raise the same points of confusion, and the implications for the final combat. It's *very* possible for each phase to take 3 hours *and* the party reaches the highest point threshold. Heck, it's not that implausible to get some 4 hour segments and still get the highest threshold.

Getting *any* 2 hour threshold is very unlikely, especially with more than four PCs, is rather unlikely. For simplicity, assume *every* check has a 50% success chance. The probability that each individual PC rolls at least one failure is 75%. With four PCs, the probability that no more than one roll a failure is just over 5%. With five PCs, that falls to about 1.5%, and is less than 0.5% for parties with six PCs.

With these rules, there's almost no point in paying attention to time: it's going to take 12+ hours to get up the mountain. Given the other timing in the scenario, that *should* make it nighttime in the final combat, if not earlier:

- starts early morning, Masuhei arrives in a few minutes
- "a few hours" (3+) for boat ride
- 10-15 minute walk to lodge
- a few minutes for "false briefing"
- about 1 hour while Kukuha meditates
- unspecified time to investigate lodge grounds
- a few minutes to talk to Aojimitsu
- ~12 hours to ascend Soruseiji, plus encounters
- "a few hours" (3+) to descend Soruseiji, arriving "in the evening"

Even if you condense the "few minutes" and unspecified time activities to be about an hour total, there are 20 hours accounted for in one adventuring day.

Is it supposed to be night/dark in the final combat? Are the PCs supposed to be fatigued from *climbing a mountain* for over 8 hours?

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].

This scenario's secondary objective section is missing the sentence that actually rewards reputation ("Doing so earns each PC 2 Reputation with their chosen faction"). As far as I can tell, this is the only PFS2 scenario with this text missing.

Is this intended? Can we get a campaign clarification or errata?

According to the secondary objectives (p15, right column), this scenario doesn't actually provide additional reputation for attaining the objectives. It *describes* the objectives, but the usual sentence providing the reputation ("Doing so earns each PC 2 Reputation with their chosen faction") is missing. As far as I can tell, this is the only PFS2 scenario with this text missing.

Is this intentional? Should PCs actually get additional rep for hitting secondary objectives? Has this been clarified?

As a suggestion/request, please rewrite the Table Variation section of the OrgPlay guide.

The simplest, easiest fix would be to replace the phrase "Beyond the above" with "In all cases" or "No matter what". As written, it creates exceptions to the instruction to "make rulings that are fun and fair". Three of the five bullet points are more or less straightforward (major plot points, number of monsters, no banning legal character options), but the other two ("No changes to armor, feats, items, skills, spells, statistics, traits, or weapons" and "No alteration of mechanics of Player Characters") are ambiguous and unclear.

All I'm asking is for the OrgPlay rules to clearly and unambiguously allow GMs to make rulings that are fair and fun for everyone involved *no matter what*, without regard to what aspect of the game rules it pertains to.

Another small issue that should be fixed: on p11, left column, the DC of Deception or Performance checks to swap tales is not increased in high subtier, unlike all other skill checks in the preparation segment.

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?

I had the same questions as mizinamo, and also three more smaller ones:

1) In high subtier, encounter 1C has a variant monster called enraged little man of the woods, which is marked as both [unique] and [rare]. These traits are usually mutually exclusive. Moreover, with 28+ CP, more than one enraged little man of the woods will appear, making it impossible for them to be "unique" (which the rules specify to have the usual meaning of "one-of-a-kind"). PFS table variance rules say that traits can't be changed, nor can the number of monsters appearing, but what happens when they conflict with the rules of the game?

2) The conclusion has this sentence: "If the PCs aren’t fully clear on what happened, Anohatsa fills in missing details, willing to tell the true story following Wanikkawi’s death and the PCs’ breaking the silence." Just below that, the Reporting Notes says, "If the PCs learned of Wanikkawi’s fate and the true story of Niishan’s founding, check box B." Doesn't the first sentence mean that box B will always be checked in any non-TPK playthrough?

3) The secondary success conditions further confuse the preparation points thresholds. It says that the party "successfully help[s] prepare for the Festival of Fire by earning at least 2 Preparation Points (or 3 Preparation Points for groups of 6 PCs) in two or more Preparations." As written, the PCs can be *told* that they succeed at each of the three Preparation tasks (and get rewarded!), but *actually* fail them as far as reputation is concerned. Is this intended? What's going on?

GMs are provided with the following guidance on the Remaster Guidelines page:

Right, I know about that, and it says nothing about alignment damage converting to spirit damage. That passage is about the good and evil *traits* converting to the holy and unholy *traits*. Neither the word "damage" nor "spirit" appear.

As a heads up, the latest update to the guide yesterday includes an erroneous change: it updated "flat-footed" to "off-target", but the new term is "off guard".

More importantly, the various changes to the guide still don't address how alignment damage works; see my post on this thread from Nov 13. The gist is that there is no sanctioned source that says what to do with alignment damage. Everyone *thinks* it's supposed to be treated as spirit damage, but there is no sanctioned source that actually says so.

The Remaster Core Preview mentions converting alignment damage to spirit damage, but the sentence is in the future tense, it's not universal, and this document is not sanctioned.

I posted these questions on the OPO Discord server yesterday, but haven't received any response, so I'll repeat them here:

1) The section entitled "Repairing Hatahasi" begins with the phrase, "Repairing Hatahasi requires the PCs to succeed at three DC 15 skill checks". The paragraph then provides an outcome for what happens if they succeed two or more times, but does not describe what happens if they succeed less than three times and thus fail to repair Hatahasi. After the box text, the next paragraph begins, "Once Hatahasi is repaired, Whiirii offers the PCs a drake rifle." What if it isn't? Does the scenario end right then in failure? Do they just not get the drake rifle? The scenario's success conditions don't make any mention of actually repairing Hatahasi, which is the entire point of the adventure.

2) In encounter B, the air mephits are specified to attempt to Disarm a PC, but their Athletics modifier is +1. The OrgPlay table variance rules allow a GM to change specified enemy tactics in some situations; is this one of them?

3) In encounter C, the text says, "the scrit fights until reduced to 10 hit points or fewer ... at which point he attempts to flee". In low subtier, this enemy only has 8 hit points, which is fewer than 10. Does it flee immediately at the start of the encounter? Is there GM permission to fix that?

In response to a prior question: yes, your familiar can learn spells from other familiars. Player Core, p181 (similar text is in the APG): "You and your familiar can use the Learn a Spell activity to teach your familiar a spell from another witch’s familiar. Both familiars must be present for the entirety of the activity, the spell must be on your
spellcasting tradition’s spell list, and you must pay the usual cost for that activity, typically in the form of an offering to the other familiar’s patron."

What's omitted from that rule is any mention of *consent* from the other familiar-- it just says they have to be there, not that they have to actually allow you to do so. In this adventure, there's no benefit to doing so: by the time you could capture Runt, the adventure is over and you can learn spells for the same cost anyway.

In addition to the issues noted above:

- Ezren speaks Undercommon, which no longer exists

- Ezren's wayfinder will fail when activated (due to illegal targeting), like all remastered wayfinders. This is more of a "please fix with errata" than a pregen issue

- Ezren has a wayfinder, but has no way to access it

- text of prestidigitation has typos on Lem's sheet

- Feiya speaks Aklo, but has no way to access this uncommon language

- evil eye is listed as a focus spell in the spell section, but it is a cantrip (admittedly, the rules about "focus cantrips" are somewhat contradictory)

(Internal quotes removed) That's not correct, per the bolded text in the quote. Nothing requires you to be sanctified to choose a Cause of Good.

Page 106: Replace the tenets of good with the following text:

The Tenets of Good
You gain the holy trait and add that trait to any Strikes you make.

Is there a difference between being sanctified and being (un)holy? Is there a difference between taking a cause of good and accepting the tenets of good? I thought it was required.

LeftHandShake wrote:

...

The new monster abilities (Grab, Knockdown, Push, etc) are available on Archive of Nethys.

Now I'm extra confused. I did miss that the monster ability rules were actually published in RoE (in the Abilities Glossary, not mentioned in the Updated Rules sidebar), not merely previewed in the web pdf, but the monster abilities page on AoN still links to the original Bestiary version of Grab (etc). I've been using legacy Grab even after RoE was published; have I been running it wrong for three months?

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*.

I'm currently wrapping up running this PbD, at the end of the final encounter. The PCs have defeated all of the undead (including wights spawned by the commanders), but are in rough shape. Do they need to get off the battle map to end the encounter and stop taking 8d6 fire each round?

The scenario says, "Once the PCs defeat the wights, they can move away from the area to escape the wildfire. When they’re out in the open..." It's not clear whether that means, "The PCs are able to leave the area," or "The PCs automatically and instantly leave the area."

In two of the three images of them in the book show them without feet, but instead a trunk that extends to the ground; the third is not bipedal. I should have said they "likely" or "usually" don't have feet. The sourcebook only provides those three examples, so it's what we have to go on.

Creature type traits aren't usually capitalized in the rules; see, e.g. Vengeful Hatred (https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=6). Likewise, creature types are not always referred to explicitly as having that trait; see e.g. Favored Enemy (https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=503). That refers simply to "an enemy that belongs to the chosen category". Do you think there is any reasonable interpretation of "belong[ing] to the chosen category" that is *not* "has the corresponding trait"?

Saying there's a difference between "creature type" and "type of creature"-- when the rule explicitly refers to one of the creature types-- is quite a stretch.

Once Impossible Lands is sanctioned, can I (as a PFS GM) rule that sacred nagaji cannot wear equipment with "worn footwear" as its usage entry, even though they have the humanoid trait? Can I rule that conrasu can't wear footwear because they definitely don't have feet, nor do they have the humanoid trait, in no way resemble a humanoid, and don't even reason like humans?

And you can't refer to the humanoid trait rules to label something as humanoid that doesn't have the humanoid trait.

This is a rules problem with an easy fix. Why shouldn't it be fixed?

I'm not sure this is the place for it, but I just noticed something that needs PFS clarification, and probably eventually errata for several ancestries (or the CRB). CRB p535 says:

It’s assumed that items are meant to be worn by humanoids; any item that can or must be worn by a different type of creature either states this in its description or has the companion trait.

The following ancestries (at least) don't have the humanoid trait: automaton, leshy, conrasu, poppet, skeleton, and sprite. No (or few) items are listed as being for undead, constructs, fey, plants, or aeons. By the plain English meaning of that sentence, worn items cannot be used by these ancestries; that's a problem.

This is a "rule [that] seems to have wording with problematic repercussions" (CRB p444), so maybe it's meant to be papered over by table GMs. But can we get an official ruling or clarification to fix this?

Oh, huh. I was interpreting "the labyrinth" as the necromancer's catacombs, but I guess that's not intended. I implied it to my players, so I should probably clear that up.

My table is nearly done with the duergar combat in the Temple Route, and has already set off four of five pillars, so we *should* report a location success before the timer goes off.

So we will have ten days to do *one combat*, and the scenario ends after 10 of 16 tables finish that encounter? It really feels like we're moving on from the main part of Act 2 too quickly-- and the rug will get pulled out from under 40% of tables during the finale.

My players just dispatched with four elite abrikandilus in under 3 rounds. Because these are the Bestiary 3 version, which has updated / clarified language, their Wreck ability is essentially unusable unless they Disarm a PC... and Disarm only works on a crit. And attempting a special ability that destroys valuable PC weapons on a crit and does (essentially) nothing otherwise seems made for Feel Bad Moments.

Prior to that, the party was summoned out of the Sunken Halls by a messenger. Six PCs were fighting four (large) giant eels in a 5x5 room. But for it being underwater and thus 3D combat (whee?), it would have been pretty close to a sliding block puzzle. The gunslinger was informed that his dueling pistol won't work, and then was thrilled to learn that his backup crossbow wouldn't do much either, due to piercing resistance.

Ack, I forgot about Pathfinder Reinforcements. And I missed the schedule change; only 5 days left, not 8. Whoops.

My players finished their second of three areas a little while ago. We have 8.5 days left, and are at 5 of 10 success on the Sunken Halls (7 of 10 if the House GM chooses to apply excess Labyrinth success to the Sunken Halls).

Should my table forgo starting the Sunken Halls? There's very little chance they'll be one of the next 3 (or 5) tables to finish it, but they'd likely complete it within the time allotted. With the structure of this special, starting this area is trading the private fun of "play more Pathfinder" for the public cost of "raise threat meter" due to an extra required rest.

Is it bad etiquette if they want to go ahead? How much should they know about the cost to the house?

Also: Location Successes and Rests continue to diverge: 27 Location successes vs 21 Rests.

Oh, hm. I didn't think the "round down" rule applied to a calculation like this-- there's no in-game effect of the number of accumulated successes / you don't "need" an integer. So I figured it was "has the number of successes reached two-thirds of the number of tables?"

For PFS scenarios with a success conditions of, "if at least half of the PCs succeed on the check", and there are five PCs, does the group need two successes or three successes?

I repeat my question from above: Are we using the correct reporting thresholds for area successes, etc? We have 16 tables, so to get to 2/3, we need 11 successes, not 10.

In the future, I'd suggest instructing table GMs to only report a rest if it's *not* after immediately completing an area. I think that will lead to fewer accounting discrepancies (we're currently at 20 location successes but only 18 rests, an impossibility).

Is another rest forced on each table at the end of Act 1? I *think* so, but I'm not sure.

Also: The tracker spreadsheet doesn't seem to have the right goal thresholds set. We have 16 tables, but the location success thresholds are set at 10 each. 10/16 is less than 2/3, so I think the threshold is supposed to be 11 successes. I think there are other "round up" issues on the sheet.

Mine are still working on the first area, Unsealed Way. They dealt with the skeleton combat in 3 rounds and the Aspis fight in under 2, but the social encounter plus **four** additional exits to explore has just bogged us down.

Ah, I see. That is strange formatting.

Also, by "latter" I totally meant "former". I expected the House GM to post the House GM text, and for me to post the blue Table GM text.

I haven't started because I'm waiting on confirmation one way or the other.

Will you (GM Numbat) be putting the House GM red boxed text into our channels, or should individual table GMs do that? I was expecting the latter from previous experience, but either is fine.

Has anyone run subtier 5-6 before with high CP? Some of the encounters look like they're just too crowded for the space. For example, one encounter starts with four ochre jellies, and there isn't enough space for PCs to engage all of them-- they're spilling out into adjacent passages. Those ochre jellies are decently likely to split and spawn more... which also can't be engaged. The combat just looks like a long slog of fighting one or two jellies at a time.

Four giant moray eels in the sunken chamber is a little tight, but at least it's a 3D space. Two empress bore worms take up 30% of the space in their chamber, so combat will be pretty static. Any thoughts?

Also, the left column on p7 (Location Successes) says, "Once the House
reports a number of successes equal to the number of tables, that location is considered fully explored." However, each of the three instructions to the GM refers to "successes equal to two-thirds the number of tables".

For planning and expectations, which of these is correct?

I did my prep for Roll20 for this today (subtier 5-6). I upscaled and trimmed the maps and (mostly) fixed the aspect ratio problem-- but not entirely, because Roll20 can just snap to grid. I made tokens for the non-Bestiary creatures.

Let me know if any of you want files, or even a full R20 copy game.

Heyo, checking in.

I don't think I'm making a judgment call. Here's the second paragraph of the CRB rules entry for "Conditions" on p453; it's the first "mechanical" paragraph after a brief, general definition of a condition.

Conditions are persistent; when you’re affected by a condition, its effects last until the stated duration ends, the condition is removed, or terms dictated in the condition cause it to end.

It is explicitly stated that "conditions are persistent" until they are ended in one of those three ways. There are other monster abilities that inflict conditions on a PC with no duration or terminal condition, and they're assumed to be permanent until removed by some other means. This is why I said in both prior posts that there isn't any ambiguity. In this case, the rules are clear on what happens.

So the allowance for GM discretion with respect to "[u]nclear rules, or situations or player actions not covered by the rules" doesn't help. Likewise, consider the strength of the language in these sentences:

"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. What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right for your table during cases not covered in these sources."

and

"GMs should run Pathfinder Society adventures as written, which means: no change... no addition... no changes... no alteration... nor banning"

versus...

"Beyond the above, GMs are encouraged to make choices..."

The first quote is from the table variation appendix, and is very clear and direct about what *cannot* be violated. The second quote lists the things we can't change, specifying what it means to "run as written" (and my understanding is that "should" is meant as an imperative). The third quote immediately follows that list, and it qualifies itself as subordinate to it: "beyond the above".

This is what I mean by the GM lacking the clear authority to fix some problems with PFS scenarios. I'm aware of other problems that have come up, as mentioned above by albadeon. If someone from the OrgPlay team is reading this: please change the table variance document to allow GMs to make *any* adjustment that they believe to be reasonable and fair, even if it would clearly violate the scenario text, Pathfinder rules, or OrgPlay guidelines.

Also: I renew my question about what has primacy: the boxed rule on p444 about "problematic repercussions" or the OrgPlay guidelines about what can't be altered by GMs.

Thanks. I'm aware of that rule from the box on p444, but my understanding is that the OrgPlay table variance rules qualify what can and can't be adjusted by appealing to that rule. That is, the specified list of what can't be changed under the "run as written" OrgPlay specify elements of the adventure that cannot be changed by the GM, period. Is that not actually the case? Does p444 override even the OrgPlay table variation rules?

I don't think any author *intentionally* made an effect with this outcome. The creature is *almost surely* written incorrectly: I think its designer meant for the -2 penalty to stack with frightened, and for it to either expire when frightened does or to last (say) 1 minute. There are abilities that work like that (e.g. "frightened 2 and fleeing as long as it's frightened"), but it's not written that way.

That's why I specified in my post that there's no ambiguity or lack of clarity-- things that the OrgPlay guide lets you fix. I really wish the guide would clearly give GMs authority to fix *anything* that's problematic. Instead, we get this statement (in the Table Variation Appendix):

"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."

To me, the very plain meaning of that passage is that GMs can fix anything to make it fair *unless* it would violate the OrgPlay or Pathfinder rules. Those include the prior list of what it means to "run as written". They should be more clear about what has primacy: the CRB, OrgPlay rules, or fairness & fun.

I understand that no one's going to come hunt me down if I don't mark this player as dead due to a badly written monster ability. But I'd like to not have to feel like I'm breaking the rules when doing that.

It doesn't look like there's a thread for this adventure yet; apologies if there is.

The cairn wights in the first combat have a critical failure outcome for Funereal Dirge of: "The creature is frightened 2 and takes a –2 status penalty to saving throws against drain life." This is problematic on a couple levels.

First (and less problematic), it doesn't do much: the status penalty from the crit fail doesn't stack with the status penalty from frightened, so it does very little in the short term.

Second (and potentially quite problematic), the status penalty has no listed duration. As written, the effect is permanent. Moreover, the ability lacks any relevant traits, so there's no way to remove the effect: a PC who critically fails this save takes a permanent -2 status penalty against Drain Life.

By the rules of OrgPlay, that's a permanent negative condition that isn't cleared at the end of the adventure, and thus the PC must be marked as dead. This is *almost surely* not intended, but it's the scenario as written.

I have read the table variance rules very, very carefully and repeatedly. There is no ambiguity or lack of clarity in how Funereal Dirge works, it's just (probably) written incorrectly from what the designer intended it to do; it has the same phrasing in the Bestiary.

Within the bounds of the OrgPlay rules, am I allowed to not run the ability as written? If so, what gives me that permission? Is it the dictum to "provide a fun, engaging, consistent experience", and being marked as dead due to a badly written ability isn't "fun", and wouldn't be "consistent" with how most GMs would run it (because they overlooked the problem)? Is it that this sentence doesn't include the word "abilities", so the GM can change monster abilities: "No changes to armor, feats, items, skills, spells, statistics, traits, or weapon"

I'm asking for guidance on the OrgPlay principle that gives the GM permission to not "run [the] Pathfinder Society adventures as written".

I'm having the same problem, but it *didn't* happen last month-- or at least not for very long. Un-pend me, please?

As a heads up, the OrgPlay guide still says/implies that only human PCs get an ethnicity, but other ancestries also have mechanical ethnicities (and options locked behind them). FLite seemed to say that this issue would be fixed back on Sept 24, 2020, but the language hasn't been changed.

The conclusion is scheduled for October 21st.

The scheduled end has been changed to the 17th because the house finished Part 2 so quickly; see the newest post in the main campaign thread.

Speaking of being done, please make sure you report your successes in this section. I'd like to make sure every table gets a chance to finish one encounter here, and your reporting helps me do that.

Is this a change to the schedule, or just a hope/preference? I have players asking when their characters are free (to join another game).

**AID TOKEN: Provide Knowledge**
**Original Source**: LeftHandShake
**Aid Character Name**: Ian Caine
Effect: Gain the benefits of an automatic success on a check to Recall Knowledge.
**Boosted?** No

We heard you guys needed a hint. With love and kisses from Salia Team Six.

**AID TOKEN: Burst of Healing**
**Original Source**: LeftHandShake
**Passing To**: efildam
**Aid Character Name**: Thane
Effect: A fellow Pathfinder heals all the PCs by 3d8 (boost is included)
**Boosted?** Yes

Thane has been busy on this adventure, but he had some time to spare you some healing. With love from Salia Team Six!

What's the reporting procedure / outcome in Part 2 if an objective is met, but some tables are still working on that track? Part 1 has language explicitly saying that "extra" successes are applied by the House GM to another objective (and Dennis did that), but as far as I can tell, there is no such instruction for Part 2.

The house is 1 success away from completing the Defense objective, but the Ritual still needs several. What should tables in a Defense encounter do when that objective is achieved?

Question: When can the party use the Mushroom Ring benefit? I think "at the beginning of combat" means "before enemies are revealed an initiative is rolled". That is, the benefit can't be used to "poof" monsters into other monsters by lowering CP once the battlefield is revealed.

Is that correct?

Quote:

Okay, they've finished encounter #7. I will hold off on reporting.

I don't think that's in the spirit of interactive specials. The point is to accrue successes to trigger the conditions that they bestow to make subsequent challenges easier.

You're withholding a reward from the rest of the house by doing that.

Above, it seemed like another GM asked me to *not* report a success on encounter E so that they could run it for their table; I was trying to respect that. By "hold off", I mean to wait to see if that table is successful; if not, I would report on E. If they are successful, I would report in another category to finish it off.

My concept of "in the spirit of an interactive special" might be off, so let me pose this question: Are tables *required* to run the 7th and 8th encounters if they have time? My table agreed to do the 7th, and it got a bit dicey. One player has voted against running the 8th encounter. They're not sure whether they'll get an overnight rest at the end of part 1; one caster is tapped out on spells, another has half their slots left, and the magus has cast only one spell (of 4), convinced they will fight 9 or 10 encounters in one day.

Do I have to start the 8th encounter, even if a player votes against it?

Okay, they've finished encounter #7. I will hold off on reporting.

With about 5 days, 3 hours left, the house needs:

2 more successes in encounter A (mushroom ring)
4 more successes in encounter B (talking animals)
2 more successes in encounter C (befuddled Pathfinders)
3 more successes in encounter D (scary plants)
1 more success in encounter E (chart the course)
3 more successes in encounter F (disguised forces)

Let's make a final push and see how many objectives we can wrap up.