Mark Stratton's page

They have in some regards. I mean Strixx are allowed for just anyone to play in PFS 2e society even though they aren't common.

The rules on rarity of have not changed. Occasionally, though, an ancestry or something will be made accessible through a campaign ruling (often times there is a lore-related reason, but not always.). Gunslinger is uncommon, but they made it accessible for all society member, as an example (and it wouldn’t have made sense to release a book full of gunslinger stuff and not have it playable in org play.)

I haven’t seen anything suggesting bugbears will be playable as PCs. I have no idea if they will ever be playable.

Keirine, Human Rogue wrote:

Unpopular answer, but yes. LLMs are built on stolen information illegally obtained. They can be the future all everyone wants, doesn't change the fact that they stole from people to make their learning arrays. If you can't write but have ideas then, I don't know, collaborate with someone who can write but is short on ideas. Reach out for human community to support your weak areas and in turn, support other people's weak areas. Hell, pay someone to write it for you.

Great. Our entire societies are built on a lot of awful things.

As I said, your political choices and struggles are not everyone's. It turns out there are enough fights for all of us to choose from. May I ask for the permission to not take your fights on top of mine? Or do I have to impose my fights on everyone?

I shouldn't be forced to some political opinions to be able to engage with Pathfinder. It's fine if Paizo has some political views that I can read across the lines of their products, but it's not fine when they enforce them on me.

I am sympathetic to the situation you find yourself in, but this isn’t a political decision. It’s a business decision, made by a company who gets to decide how products bearing its name can be made. That’s a business decision. You may not like it, and I understand why you don’t, but if you want to use Paizo’s stuff, then yes, it’s fine for them to enforce their views on AI on it. Now, I draw a distinction between generative AI, where a person asks AI to generate something whole-cloth from nothing, and AI used to take something which exists and clean it up. But I’m not sure there’s a way to make that distinction, really, when I’m reading a scenario. Paizo doesn’t want AI in its stuff, right? Well, they have every right to make that rule and to enforce it on any person wanting to use their stuff. It IS fine that they enforce that on any person making products with their name.

Building a character a certain way to take advantage of some process or procedure shouldn't result in a free rebuild. You chose to roll the dice and gamble, knowing that any of the rules of OrgPlay could change, and gambled wrong. Either pay for the rebuild or find a way to make that dedication more useful in play.

Is there some process by which the quality of these adventures will be evaluated? I ask because, at Gen Con, the cost to play PFS/SFS was around $22 for a standard scenario and $30 for the specials. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want to shell out that kind of money for something that's utter garbage. I just want to be sure there's some sort of vetting or evaluation process.

This new path DOES have one major advantage in that it lets people write stuff who might otherwise not get that chance, and I am sure there are some really good writers/creatives out there, so there will likely be a few gems in the adventures that get submitted. But I suspect there will be many that will be...less than ideal.

As well, I have to be honest in that I am really disappointed that if you don't subscribe to the Pathfinders Printables line (because not everyone owns a 3D printer or is interested in printing stuff), you basically get screwed and have to wait a month. As it is now, even though I still can't subscribe to the Pathfinder/Starfinder Society Scenario line (though I could before the new store came on line), I can buy an adventure on release day and run it that weekend. Now, I have to wait a month (or ask to get the adventure from someone who will get it on day one.)

I don't know - maybe there are more advantages here than I am seeing but I doubt it.

Newer scenarios, except for specials, are designed for somewhere in the neighborhood of 2-3 hours. Some may run a bit shorter. It may have been your GMs moving the table a little faster, it may have been the group just made good progress, it may have a been a scenario that just doesn’t run long (which may be the case for many lower tier scenarios.)

And there was no “keep it under two hours” memo.

Glad to hear this, confused why it wasn't first thing we got about the situation.

Because AoN decided to make a public statement before anything had been worked on, discussed, finalized, etc. Certainly, Paizo started the ball rolling by notifying AoN in June that they were going to end the partnership agreement that existed at the time. But AoN is responsible for publicly making a statement before anything was final (and, I might add, by also deliberately withholding some information from their statement that made it seem worse than it was.)

While I think Paizo listens to the community more than any company I know , it is weird that despite them saying they were still trying to make a deal everyone assumes they were cutting AoN off at the knees and only the community yelling at them fixed things.

That’s an odd take.

PDF subscriptions have been something people have been asking for since the days of Dungeon and Dragon, so pre-2007. I don't have the search fu to find the old post from co-owner Vic Wertz from years and years ago about why this wasn't feasible at the time or a viable option in the future, but that future was many years ago.

One of the things that subscriptions do for Paizo that a lot of customers might not consider is that it gives us a means of accurately predicting what portion of a printing is going to sell through immediately, which in turn allows us to set print runs at quantities that will meet our long-term sales needs but also not leave us with tons of stock for years on end that we can't sell. There was traditionally a fear that offering digital-only subscriptions would make our print runs smaller, and thus our per-unit cost of goods higher.

I'm not sure this is still the case, or that it ever was, but it is part of the inertia at play in making the transition toward digital subs. When there are very real potential consequences for a decision like this, it certainly makes the math of whether it's worth the resources to implement a lot more complicated.

Of course, the reality is that people who can't do physical subs for whatever reason and who might subscribe to a digital option, are generally cancelling their physical subs, and thus not subscribing to anything. Unfortunately, there's no easy way to test the cost/benefit of adding new digital-only sub infrastructure until we can accurately gauge whether that option cannibalizes our print subs to an extent that it's not feasible.

Anyway, that's a lot of words to say that this is a conversation and request that is now nearly 2 decades old, and for which there is still no simple answer. But as Maya said above, it's ongoing and we're constantly exploring options that we hope will work both for our customers and Paizo.

Well you have the PFS and SFS scenario lines which are ONLY pdf so subscribing to physical copies isn’t possible.

Gee, it's almost like the decision to sever AoN never should have been considered at all. It's nice that you are somewhat walking it back as a company, but given the outcry and the possible/actual impact to your sales and profit, I am not surprised. I also don't see anything in there that comes from Jim where he apologizes for literally throwing AoN under the bus as a part of his former posting. I also think that putting such an emphasis on the CUP is fine...if I believed anything under the CUP was safe. Seems like I recall something about Paizo themselves considering removing the CUP entirely not to long ago....hmm.

Nothing was ever going to happen to AON except the loss of some art and not getting some stuff early. No matter how much people either misunderstood what happened or deliberately tried to convince people it was worse than it was, AoN is still pretty much in the same place they were before.

Agents of Edgewatch is NOT sanctioned.

And the link for Spore War USED to be there. I’m running this AP right now, and we have finished the first 2 books and I got the sanctioning document for those chronicle sheets.

My main character is a cleric, and if someone took a healing scroll and gave it to my character, I would refuse it. I decide when and how my character heals people. If they want to control their own healing, they should take a potion.

I have other things to do in combat than just heal people.

I'm a big fan of Demiplane, both the tools and the reader, but it feels like I'm just going to be eaten alive for stating anything I like about it in this environment.

I'm also highly active in their Discord, regularly chat with their staff, and have seen a lot of their improvements and passion for their community and the games they host. They're making a platform that supports many different game systems, so sometimes it's not perfect for the game you want.

I also think people miss when they're looking at the price: Anything Paizo you buy there comes with the Paizo PDF. It actually just adds it to your Paizo library or you get a discount on Demiplane once your accounts are linked.

And if it exists on Roll20? You get it there too. Free. I know people love Foundry (and I've been shouted out of discussions for not being a huge fan of it before) but for money saving, the Demiplane/Roll20/Paizo setup is just better.

I use Demiplane for the Marvel Multiverse RPG, and only because by buying the books did I get the stuff free there. But for Pathfinder? I won’t give them a cent, because my experience is that it is horribly, painfully slow. I have waited for it to get better, but every time I check it, it’s still slow.

So, I’m glad you like it and that it’s useful for you (and you shouldn’t be pilloried for like it), but for me, it’s nothing short of garbage, and I won’t pay anything to use it.

Also maybe I'm in the minority here but a way to save money may be, idk, not releasing somewhere in the ballpark of 2 books a month when those returns haven't been enough to outweigh costs, to the point you had to increase costs on also digital files.

How do you know the returns haven’t been enough to outweigh costs? Costs for nearly everything have gone up. Do you expect them to keep things less expensive so they lose even more money?

Please, tell me how you know that specific financial information.

Thank you!

So 31 July?

Gen Con starts July 30, so I presume that day.

I read the blog but there didn't seem to be a place to comment.

When will the repeatable status for scenarios begin?

The beginning of the new season, which launches at Gen Con.

Not gonna disagree on 2, but on 1... you do know that they sent multiple emails asking for clarifications and questions for weeks which were all ignored by Paizo right? You know they sent advance notice that they were going to make a statement after those weeks of ghosting that was also ignored too, correct? I think at this point it's clear that even if they sent a word for word copy of the statement 2 weeks ago there's a non-zero chance it'd have also been ignored because Jim et al were apparently too busy to care about AON's mail after giving them notice.

I think it's really silly to call AON a bad partner given the entire everything about how this has been handled by Paizo. Paizo didn't even deign to answer questions about what they were allowed to do under CUP - they had to look it up themselves and still seem a little confused in that video.

I am aware, yes, but we won’t really know what would have happened because they didn’t send the their statement. And on that, I do consider them a bad partner (and part of this is informed by my own background with partnership agreements, etc.). I get that you (and many others) don’t share that opinion, and that’s okay.

I will take an unpopular stance here, but for all the talk of a lack of trust in Paizo, I have lost a measure of trust in AoN.

But, at the outset, Paizo should have broached this issue well before giving them a 30-day notice (which was probably the minimum required by the agreement.). I think Paizo owed them better than that.

But there are two issues where AoN doesn’t get a pass from me:
1. They didn’t share with Paizo what their statement was going to be or give them much advance notice. That’s not being a good partner.

2. They knew they had 6 months to remove the art, and that it would only take 1 hour to do so. However, they intentionally omitted that from their statement, allowing people to come to the conclusion this would become a time crunch and an overwhelming burden to complete within 30 days, and they let that idea foment and spread for however long before they addressed in their video. That’s a pretty big and important piece of information to leave out, and I doubt it was accidental.

Now, if you want to come here and say “But Paizo started this!” or the like, you’re free to do so, and the record is clear that Paizo exercised its rights under the agreement to terminate it. I’m not going to argue any of that.

But AoN doesn’t have completely clean hands in this, either. So, no, I’m not sure I can trust them.

I hope, though, that these feelings pass and these two great entities work out an arrangement that is good for them both, and better than the agreement that’s ending.

nanophreak wrote:

Even overtly negative outcomes that prove in retrospect what we've already gotten is actually Paizo's best effort, such as removing images from Demiplane which would show the legal expenses they claim are real and not an excuse.

Note that Paizo DOES make money from Demiplane. So the cost of dealing with images from Demiplane could be MUCH higher than the cost of dealing with images from AoN, and it could STILL be ENTIRELY true the legal expenses for the AoN deal are too high, and the same expenses for Demplane aren't.

Owen,

I just want to say ‘thanks’ for coming here and providing some industry insider knowledge and perspective. I think it’s helpful for everyone here, as I doubt any of us actually work in the industry. And, I think it’s instructive to have this sort of information to help us make sense of things. I know your comments aren’t about the current situation (for the reasons you mentioned in another post), but they give us some good context whereby maybe we can better evaluate what has happened.

Thanks for that very important contribution to this conversation - I truly do appreciate it.

I am saddened by the turn this conversation has taken.

From personal attacks against Jim, allegations of corporate greed directed at Paizo, and personal attacks and insults against other players, some of you have taken an already horrible situation and have made it even worse.

I served for 14 years on the board of directors for a not for profit (a service based organization), 4 of those years as national president and chair of the board. We had several partnership agreements with other service-related organizations. And those agreements had to be carefully negotiated because they had to serve the interests of the parties in the agreement. And when they didn’t, those agreements might have to change or go away completely.

So, for me, it isn’t hard to understand Paizo’s position here, even if I don’t know in exacting details, because the agreements have to benefit the parties, not put them or their interests at risk or expose them to vulnerabilities.

I know some have taken issue with Jim specifically calling out AoN by saying they made the announcement while discussions were taking place. I know some of you found that troublesome/offensive/whatever because you thought maybe they were doing something of a drive-by on AoN. I don’t read it that way, and I don’t agree with that opinion, but I an understand how a person could reasonably read it that way.

Everyone here wants a good outcome for everyone. I don’t think cancelling subscriptions or the like gets us there, but that’s for other people to decide. But maybe we should let cooler heads prevail, let Paizo and AoN try to work out an arrangement that works better for both. That should be the outcome we all want.

I just hate the personal attacks that people have engaged in here, impugning the character of others, etc. It’s just uncalled for, and frankly, doesn’t reflect well on a community that I have generally been proud to be a part of.

Let’s all do better. All of us.

Go in peace.

With one Scenario per month (per game), are we only going to have a 12 scenario season, or will seasons be extended beyond a calendar year to allow for longer Metaplots or larger story arcs? Or will it be one Paizo scenario, plus one Infinite scenario, to actually match the same schedule but in a different manner. (Perhaps Paizo writing the meta-plot, and Infinite handling the more episodic stuff).

What are the rules for Infinite and how does one go about writing and submitting work? I do have some ideas and I've been writing custom adventures for local players for about 4 decades. I think I could probably put together some compelling scenarios, but I've never fully understood the rules of how to do any of this stuff.

In the blog:

So the formal rules will come out before GC, and the basics of PI and SI are already available online.

They damaged Organized Play when they decided to tell players how they should play, rather than supporting the ways players already wanted to engage with the game.

The changes reduced choice and made participation harder for many people, particularly those who live in remote areas or have difficulty travelling. Organized Play should exist to serve players, not to suit Paizo’s administrative convenience.

In a digital world, where technology can expand access and create more opportunities to play, moving towards a more restrictive and linear model seems entirely counterintuitive.

They literally did none of this. And the VC of the online lodge gives a great explanation of why this is false.

OP exists to serve players AND a marketing role for Paizo, not some “administrative convenience.”

SuperParkourio wrote:

Reactive Strike only disrupts manipulate actions, and even then only on a crit. How did you reach the conclusion that a hit wouldn't disrupt a ranged attack but a crit would?

Because I wasn't thinking clearly, it doesn't disrupt it unless the ranged attack has the manipulate trait.

This is only my opinion, and nothing more.

The trigger includes… “makes a ranged attack…”

To me, and this is only my opinion and interpretation, that means the attacker actually makes the attack and it is resolved first (whether it hits or misses isn’t the point here.). Then, once that’s resolved, the trigger has occurred, and then the fighter can make his reactive strike.

This is how I GM this at my tables.

Am I reading the text too literally? Yes, but not it doesn’t say “declares a ranged attack” it says “makes” and nothing says it interrupts the action (but on a crit it interrupts the action, so I see that as the fighter sort of gets the jump on the ranged attacker.)

BUT, I would also add if you had the reactive strike interrupt the ranged attack and the figther either disrupts the attack or kills the ranged attacker, that’s some pretty heroic stuff right there, and I think that’s okay, too.

I don’t think with this specific thing it really matters, i would just pick one and be consistent.

And, of course, other reactions (like Nimble Dodge) DO get resolved before the triggering action, but it’s pretty clear in the text that it has to (or it would be worthless.)

As a player and GM for Pathfinder and Starfinder Society, this really bothers me.

The rules are free online, yes, but for most things not in the Player Core or the like, you have to either have the pdf or the physical book. I buy pdfs because I can put them on my ipad and take them to conventions, etc., without having to haul a bunch of books around. It’s now more expensive to do that, though I would also agree that the prices are still in line with what others manufacturers charge. That doesn’t mean I have to like it.

And, I will re-iterate my profound disappointment that I can no longer subscribe to the Scenario lines, because those are .pdf only and this wonderful, amazing new store can’t do .pdf only subscriptions, so my cost to GM those games is more expensive because I can’t get the subscription discount (and all of this is unrelated to this price increase announcement.)

This new store has cause no end of problems for I don’t know how many people. And I guess what we are supposed to take away from it all is, “hey, we gave you the best of the worst!”. I’m not sure that’s reassuring.

Paizo has always come through before, and I expect them to do so again. But it’s taking a lot longer than I think is reasonable. This should have been addressed ahead of time.

Now, I need to decide if I’m going. to continue buying .pdfs, or just play with my current inventory and be done with it.

Then what is OP on about with the pricing?

Because if you are not a Venture Officer, you don’t get them for free, and a lot of people who GM this game are not Venture Officers, so they usually end up having to buy the scenarios (if they can’t get loaned a copy.)

Ask me how I know. :)

I am glad I am not in your lodge. We would likely clash and clash often because of your almost hostile and confrontational attidude.

Agreed. I think it’s best to just no longer engage with them. There’s no value in doing so.

Mark Stratton wrote:

I think it should be noted that what’s being missed is that Paizo shouldn’t be going out if it’s way to make MORE work for it’s unpaid GMs and volunteers, and though that isn’t the purpose of this change, that’s exactly what the effect is.

Others have said the same thing.

Yeah but 10 minutes of work isn't really that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things especially if you have venture officers that are competent at their position and actually help the GMs. I know that sounds really blunt but man oooo man the biggest strengths of my lodge is everyone will go out of their way to help one another with prep and running a scenario.

10 minutes for you! As someone who works 3 jobs, any extra time I have to spend in prep beyond what I normally do is really hard to do.

Perhaps you shouldn’t judge other people by your own privilege or ability to spend all that extra time.

I think it should be noted that what’s being missed is that Paizo shouldn’t be going out if it’s way to make MORE work for it’s unpaid GMs and volunteers, and though that isn’t the purpose of this change, that’s exactly what the effect is.

Others have said the same thing.

If this were my home AP campaign, sure, I’ll do that work (and I do) because in volunteering to GM for my group, I accept that work. But, as a GM for organized play? No, I don’t agree with that - Paizo can, and should, provide those stat blocks so as to minimize the extra work that GMs need to do.

Mark Stratton wrote:

Those of you saying “this isn’t a big deal” - it may not be a big deal for YOU. But as someone who organized conventions, sometimes you have to hand a GM a scenario and ask them to run it on the fly. “But, Mark, they can use their phone to get the stat blocks!”. It isn’t that simple. Some convention halls don’t have good cell reception, and most don’t have available wi-fi. I can’t tell you how many times *I* have been asked at a con to run something on the fly.

I will never do it again. Having to go out and search for those stat blocks, and have multiple tabs or whatever, is not only inconvenient, it greatly slows the table down.

Ok I've got to know this but you surely have had to look up stuff haven't you. Spells, monster abilities, subsystems, lore, pictures not included in the scenario, and Im sure more.

Not during the game, I don’t. I capture all that stuff in my prep so I almost never have to look up anything in game. And that info that I need to add to a stat block, I can just add to the pdf in the scenario, and then print it out. I don’t have to go find stat blocks, compile them by encounter, do my own layouts, etc.

And because I spend so much time in prep to get that info ahead of time so I don’t have to waste the time of the players at the table, I will never run cold again at a con if I ALSO have to worry about finding the stat blocks.

That's fair enough - running something cold, with no prep time, feels like a very fair and valid reason to want to have all the stat blocks in the scenario.

But - how often are people running things cold? I mean, I don't claim to be the most prolific GM, but I've been GMing in Org Play for nine-ish years, I've got my Five Thingies, I've GM'd at three Gen Cons (six, if you count online Pandemic ones) and dozens of local game days and conventions, both IRL and online. And I can count the number of times I've been asked to run cold on one hand, with fingers to spare.

I get it happens, but - does it really happen often enough, to warrant being a major, or even a significant, driver of policy?

Happening in org play generally and happening at conventions are two different things. While it can happen at regular game days, I think that’s a pretty small number. Conventions, though? It happens a LOT.

I have GMed or HQed at 10 gen cons, and probably 7-8 Origins, and I don’t know how many smaller, local conventions. And it has happened at least once at just about every one of them. It happens.

I have been involved with PFS since 2011. I was there in the “before times”, when only unique stat blocks were included. A few years later, after repeated requests from Venture Officers, Paizo started adding all stat blocks to the scenario.

Those of you saying “this isn’t a big deal” - it may not be a big deal for YOU. But as someone who organized conventions, sometimes you have to hand a GM a scenario and ask them to run it on the fly. “But, Mark, they can use their phone to get the stat blocks!”. It isn’t that simple. Some convention halls don’t have good cell reception, and most don’t have available wi-fi. I can’t tell you how many times *I* have been asked at a con to run something on the fly.

I will never do it again. Having to go out and search for those stat blocks, and have multiple tabs or whatever, is not only inconvenient, it greatly slows the table down.

So, I am begging Paizo to reconsider this decision. It is a horrible decision with tremendous potential negative consequences, and very little positive upside.

And let us just be clear here: there is no doubt in my mind this decision was made because Paizo honestly believes it will improve development, etc. and thus improve the program. People shouldn’t be questioning their motives or motivations - it is well-intentioned.

But I don’t think it will have the positive impact they believe it will.

Ask the store if they can loan you a copy.

To add another wrinkle to this, a lot of local "lodges" have multiple sessions of the same scenario on a game day with VOLUNTEER GMs. If these VOLUNTEERS are expected to pay out of pocket for the privilege of running at someone else's event, AFTER spending hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars on books ($65/ea), maps ($25-30/ea), and minis (yeah, I know, from Wizkids, but still $8+/ea), I see a lot of VOLUNTEERS dropping out. I VOLUNTEERED to run a scenario at a game store 90 miles away, but the VC said that he couldn't give me a copy of the scenario, not even a hard copy when I get there an hour early. Guess who's no longer VOLUNTEERING to help out?

Are they TRYING to lose VOLUNTEER GMs???

Marcia Schoonover
The Once and Future (now maybe non-existent) GM

The VC absolutely may loan you a physical copy to run from. In fact, any person can loan another a physical copy of a scenario to run. That has been the case for years. Perhaps your VC didn’t know that (and if your VC did not know that, then that’s a major issue that needs to be resolved.). If the store owner is a registered retailer with Paizo, I believe they also get the scenarios, too, and could loan you a physical copy.

But, generally speaking, it has been true since the beginning of organized play here that GMs were generally expected to buy their own scenarios, that’s not new.

I always appreciated having the full stat blocks of monsters in the back of each PFS scenario. I'm pretty upset that's going away.

Not having to flip between bookmarks for each monster was such a godsend, especially for multi-table specials.

I am not upset by this, but I am pretty darn disappointed. In 1e, a lot of venture-officers pushed hard to get all stat blocks included. This made prepping scenarios a LOT easier and take less time. But, I guess neither of those factors and how they will impact GMs were at all taken into consideration.

It’s almost enough, but not quite, for me to cancel my society subscriptions and stop GMing society play altogether.

I understand all of that, but the ability isn’t a spell. Why should it use the rules for spells? That’s why I asked if it use the medicine skill (since that’s the connection’s skill.). (Honestly, using medicine doesn’t make a lot of sense either.)

If the rules said something like “For spells or other non-skill abilities…” then that would answer my question.

Maybe it is supposed to be treated AS a spell for this purpose but I don’t see anywhere that it is a spell, so I can’t presume the rules applicable to counteracting using a spell are applicable.

Maybe I am reading too much into the “For spells…” language or reading “spells” too literally.

I certainly don’t see anything that says it should be the spell or class based DC-10. And while Perses13’s suggestion that the counteract rank of TV would be half the character’s level rounded up (I mean, that’s effectively what spells are), I read that section as relating to the TARGET’S counteract rank, not the rank of the spell/ability being used to counteract the target effect/affliction.

I just don’t think this ability is particularly well-written on that regard (but I like that countering is a secondary effect of the healing!)

Perfect Harmony for the healing connection says:
“ Perfect Harmony Whenever you Transfer Vitality to a single target, attempt to counteract any one affliction affecting that ally, or attempt to counteract an effect of your choice imposing one of these conditions: blinded, dazzled, deafened, drained, enfeebled, sickened, or stunned. If you didn't counteract the effect, but you would have if its counteract rank were 2 lower, instead suppress the effect until the beginning of your next turn. The effect's duration doesn't elapse while it's suppressed.“

What check would I be making and what would my bonus be? And what level is the effect?

EDIT: I presume, for the Healing Connection, I would use Medicine for the check as that is the connection’s skill?

Thanks.

I have a question about the chase in this scenario.

1. Goblins appear to start at least 1 obstacle ahead of the party.
2. Goblins move 1 obstacle per round.
3. Goblins act first before the PCs.

Okay, I get all of that.

But there is this part:
"If the PCs are on the same obstacle as the goblins, each player may use their turn to attempt...check to wrench a train model from a goblin's hand."

How is that possible?

The goblins move to a new obstacle. The players spend their turn overcoming a prior obstacle. So, let's say the group gets enough points from crit successes. So, the others who didn't go could then conceivably move to the obstacle with the goblin (assuming it's the next obstacle) and then make an attempt to get the train? Am I understanding that right?

Certainly it isn't suggesting that ALL PCs have to be on the same obstacle as the goblins.

I'm just a bit confused about this part of the chase (in addition to the conversaton about where the "Conservatory" obstacle isn't even there.

OMG. I completely missed that. Thanks, James!

I have a question about a creature's ability in this AP.

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,...

You probably should have put the details of the scenario in the spoiler tag.

The item’s language seems clear to me:

“At the end of any turn where the persistent damage can’t overcome this resistance, end that condition.”

It isn’t conditional on whether or not the damage could overcome the resistance, but whether or not it can’t. The GM rolled a 3 - the persistent damage could not overcome the resistance, and thus, the condition ends. Rolling less than the resistance would mean, at the end of that turn, it can’t overcome the resistance.

I believe that is the right call. Otherwise, the item is entirely worthless against any random die roll for persistent damage where the size (d4, d6, etc) is greater than the resistance. Under the second interpretation, a d8 persistent damage would always continue if the resistance is 8 or less, for example.

No spoilers, but Mike ran that table for us and my character died.

PFS1e & PFS2e are two completely different systems. I'm curious... How did your GM not know the difference? It's from 2016.

But, yeah, you cannot mix the two.

The OP said the GM was brand new.

Ok it is 4:00PM on Friday and SNAFU is here. The main thing I was trying to get people to understand is that a 3 day time frame is not enough time to get anything together.

My point is the rules that we need to look even if they were on Nethys right away there is not enough time to be ready to use them. We need time to look over the rules implement them and then worry about enforcing them. The date should be in time for PaizoCon and not just 3 days.

I gave some time for things to happen, and yeah.

Respectfully, your point keeps changing, so I don’t know how anyone will be able to give you a satisfactory response.

Your first point, which included profanity and words in all capital letters, was that Paizo was forcing people to buy the remaster books. You were then corrected on your error.

Then your point was that the remaster rules should be an addition to the game, not the default for the game. More responses were made by some pretty knowledgeable people to try to help allay your concerns.

Now your point is that the rules aren’t currently available at AoN, which we know, and which they are working to get up to speed. And people have pointed out that all we can do is to do our best. Paizo isn’t going to show up at your table and tell you are doing it wrong, especially when full access to the rules online isn’t available yet.

So, I am having trouble trying to find a way to help address your concerns, because they keep shifting, and I honestly do not know which of these things is the most important to you and your group. People here are honestly and genuinely trying to help you. Please accept that help - it will end up with a better long-term result for you and your community.

The game you ran on Friday - what problems did you encounter without having the rules online? I presume you didn’t have the Remaster books because I think you made it clear none in your group were going to buy them, which is a fair and legitimate choice. So, not having the rules, what problems did you encounter in trying to run that game?

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Quote:

If a character option has not been reprinted, characters are free to use the option as previously printed, or to select it at any time.

The champion has not been reprinted, thus you can continue to use the original until it is. So those characters are still legal.

Not without the corresponding Required Alignments... with the loss of ALL Alignments, the characters can no longer meet the Alignment requirements.

If alignment as been removed from the game, how can there be alignment REQUIREMENTS? You’re trying to take part of remaster and part of 2e original and merge them together in a way that is just nonsensical.

As currently laid out, Champions all become illegal as of November 15th...

see above blog; Specific Rules; bullet #1 wrote:

Alignment: Alignment has been removed from the game. PCs and NPCs no longer have alignment.

This means that all Champions become illegal builds on the 15th, as they no longer meet the Alignment requirements.

Can we please get a fix for this issue?

No. Alignment has been removed, which means all alignment requirements have been removed as well. They are replaced by anathema and edicts.

I’m not against people having the option to rebuild, I was talking specifically about being able to rebuild a Runelord.

To use the remaster rebuild requires you to bring your character into conformity with the remaster rules. But, there are no remaster rules for Runelords, nor should there be - they are built specifically under the concept of schools of magic, prohibited schools, and the like, none of which exist in that context in remaster. So, there would be no way to rebuild your Runelord to be in conformity with the remaster rules.

By all means, gather support from other Runelord players. I wish you the best.

I am one of the “other” Runelord players. I like my character (he’s only level 1 or 2 at this point, not a lot of games under his belt.). But for the fact that Abjuration sucks for a Runelord (but it’s what I want to play), I have no desire to remake any part of my character.

So, it’s anecdotal, but that’s one for the “not supporting the request to change the rules for Runelords.”

Aaron Shanks wrote:

kcunning wrote:

Wait wait wait wait, what are "interactive" scenarios? Those sound kind of cool...

Those are the massive specials we play at conventions—many tables playing the same game and the results have canon in-setting consequences.

what determines if a con "gets support?" I've always just bought my scenarios. It was fine when they were $4 each, but now they're $6 and soon they'll be $9 each. And the only solution is either (what I presume is) a large con, or the VO prints them up with their own money and hands it to the GM? Still not thrilled with it.

The person organizing the PFS/SFS component can request support for the con. If they get it, they can make arrangements with Paizo to get the scenarios into the accounts of each of the GM who is running a particular scenario. So if I was organizing PFS for a convention and you were one of my GM’s and you were going to run a particular scenario that you did not have I would turn in your name and your contact information and the scenario or scenarios, and then at some point they will push all those scenarios out to the GM’s that don’t have them.