Mark Stratton's page

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.

I'm sorry but increasing the cost of organized play scenarios by 50% is absurd! Too many VOs have a tough time finding GMs already, and now you're going to penalize GMs more? I understand increasing the cost of physical products; that makes sense to me, but increasing the cost of a pdf which many buyers may only run once is a bad idea imo.

For a few years I've only GMed PFS at a local con once a year. I'd love to do it more and I'm actually learning how to GM PFS online but I if I have to drop $9 for a pdf every time I want to run a game, I'm going to have to reconsider.

If a convention gets support, then the GMs can get the scenarios for free.

Secondly, VOs can loan out the physical copy of any scenario they have for a GM to use. I’m. not thrilled about the cost going to $8.99, even though I get them all for free, but an individual GM may not actually have to pay the cost.

How long woud it take to retrain the Cause of the Champion Dedication?

7 days or 28 days?

=)

Wouldn’t that be 28 as a class feature?

Anybody have an estimated run time for this? I finished prepping this and it looks like it will run very quickly.

My table took around 4 hours.

B) On the Familiar Faces/Making a A Getaway bit: It feels a little odd to call out predominantly high-level scenarios -- Revecka and Waterfall are all from scenarios that are too high for the characters to have encountered. I know the sidebar calls out player, not character, but this is awkward from a "ask about a ton of different scenarios, across all the player's chronicles, and then it might not matter at all". Usual heavy callback scenarios are limited to a smaller number of relevant scenarios that are often signaled by Metaplot tags.

There are 3 NPCs in each of those parts. What I did was have a player roll a d3 in each part, and then asked about the specific scenarios related to the corresponding NPC. I wanted to avoid the very thing you mention - asking about 6-8 scenarios and then having most of them not apply.

I just ran this today, and I had pretty much the same questions you all did. I’m glad to see some answers, but I just ruled stuff on the fly because that was my only alternative.

I will say that the maze riddle helped the characters at my table - it kept them from looking down when they had the chance to do so.

The large map is totally useless. There is no reason that even needs to be a map because it’s functionally all just theatre of the mind, EXCEPT perhaps for the one encounter that could end up in a fight (my table made friends of them, so it was a non issue.). I feel bad for people who bought the tiles for this just to have map that was pointless.

And, I’m just going to request that when authors put monsters in a scenario, that they pick ones that have actual art. Some of the monsters do not have art, which of course, makes creating pawns for them (I run in person so I use physical pawns) difficult.

But, all of that aside, the table was really enjoyable to run and my players had a GREAT time, particularly with reconnecting with NPCs they had met before.

I use Acrobat. I just use the “Fill and Sign” option and it allows me to add text then.

But notably, not last year.

Correct - we had the same space (or at least the same amount) that we had last year, we just had a few more tables this year.

Many of the judges who used to come to Gen Con have moved to Gen Con Online.

Please note: 'all of Sagamore Ballroom' does not strike my memory as accurate. I remember it as 'all of Sagamore ballroom, shared with the D&D tables'.

No, “all of Sagamore Ballroom” is correct, at least for the last 8 or 9 years (edit: up until and including 2019).

This is all anecdotal, but I think the first year I GMed for PFS at Gen Con was 2014, and as I recall we had the entire Sag that year (I played the year before, and we were in a different, and much smaller, room.). But in 2014, I don’t recall sharing the space with any D&D tables.

I was disappointed to not be able to get tickets for the special events. But when I got to Gencon it was clear why: the Pathfinder presence seems to have shrunk considerably since the days of 1e. Where once we had all of Sagamore ballroom, now we have shrunk down to 1/3 of it or less.

Does anyone know the reason for the decline? Is 2e less popular?

We did have more tables this year than last year, so that’s a bonus. But, for every table we have, we need a GM. Imagine how the room would have looked if we had the entire Sagamore, but most of the tables had no GMs. There is a lot of player demand, but without GMs, we don’t have a table for them.

And as I believe that Paizo pays for that space, they have to make some guesses as to how much of the room will actually be used - I mean, they don’t want to throw money away.

I hope the increased demand this year would mean we can get a little bit of the Sagamore back next year, and a little more the year after, etc. That’s my hope, at any rate.

By the way,I want to give a huge shout out to Phox (I think that’s his name). That dude did ALL the work - mustering, ran a TON of bounties with little time off in between, AND had to work on fixing RPGCHRONICLES when it suffered an attack.

He was a total rock star!

For this, my 10th consecutive GenCon, I put away my well loved purple shirts for the orange of HQ, and experienced life on the other side. It's easy when you're GMing, trying to focus on the players in front of you and giving them the best game you can, to have the other hard-working volunteers in orange fade into the background, the forgotten gears that keep the clock turning. But this year, things were different. I got to see just how much work goes into making the process as smooth as possible for GMs and players alike, and I have a deeper respect for those that give their time and energy so that others can have a better experience.

And players notice the work put in. More than once a group I'd helped handle a scenario mix-up or generics seating request found me later in the event to thank me. That sense of fulfillment, while different than that of running an excellent table, will burn just as bright in my chest for a long time.

Thank you Paizo, the Organizing Committee, our GMs and my fellow HQ for helping us all have such a good time. To next year!

Welcome to Team Orange! :)

I volunteered for 8 slots - 7 at the Info Desk and 1 as a GM (I GMed the PFS special at tier 7-8).

PROS:
I got to meet a ton of new people, some interested in PF or SF, and some who were experiencing organized play for the first time. I seated lot of people for Bounties, and even ran one to help out the only Bounty GM we had for one slot.

I got to see a really good college friend I hadn’t seen in 25 years.

I got to reconnect with people I only ever see at Gen Con.

I got to watch two solid and exceptional volunteers get rewarded: VC Bill Tobin getting his Campaign Service Award and Gen Con Lead Organizer Heather Vigil be awarded the Order of the Wayfinder.

I watched Lucas Servideo’s Pathfinder Academy bring in a lot of kids to try out PF for the first time.

Organized Play is about people, and people playing games. I’m super stoked to have been a part of this phenomenal program once again!

Until next year!

We can’t seat generic ticket holders until after the start time of the event. Once the start time passes, we will seat as many generic ticket holders as we can, including for the specials.

Jack was one of those people who you may not know very well, but couldn’t wait until you saw them again. I only saw Jack at Gen Con, and during the one visit I made to MSP to GM for Skal Con. He was just a fun guy to be around. He was always kind to me and had asked me to come back to Skal Con (and, one day, I will return, if for no other reason than I think doing so in his memory would be a small way to thank him.)

I can’t imagine how those who knew him so well are handling this news - I wasn’t a close friend of Jack’s, and I know how empty this feels to me.

So, let his name be written on the Wall of Remembrance, and may Pharasma guide him to his richly deserved reward.

Godspeed, Jack.

Unfortunately, only 1-06 is Repeatable (edit: of the list you gave).

You can only play a scenario again with a different character if it is designated as Repeatable.

Or if you have earned a number of replays and burn a replay.

I am bumping this again.

There is still no boon for the archetype. This is pretty frustrating. Is there a way to ask for stuff like this other than Posting in this forum? It really feels like an oversight that there is still no way to access this archetype, while it was specifically mentioned to be legal.

It may not be an oversight. They may have decided it was legal at the point the source book had been released, but had not yet decided on how access would be granted. There may be an in-game way that it will later be made available, or it may be some other way.

But, it may not be an oversight.

It was recently implied to me by a PFS GM in good standing that I could claim GM credit for sanctioned adventure paths that I've run in the past even if they were OUTSIDE of the context of organized play. So now I'm posting this to confirm under what circumstances I am allowed to claim GM credit.

I've been running Extinction Curse for over two years for both friends and paying clients. We've covered a LOT of ground during that time, and if true, would be quite a boost for my PFS rewards. None of these games were held within the context of organized society play. That is, there were no sign in sheets, chronicles, or adherence to Society rules limitations.

Can I really claim GM credit for them? Could I have misunderstood said individual, or they were mistaken?

When you run those games outside of PFS rules, then you are running it in “Adventure Mode.” In that mode, you aren’t bound by the limitations of PFS - someone wants to play an Anadi? They can, and they don’t need a boon. You want to use Hero Point cards, or the critical hit or critical fumble decks? Go for it! (That’s what I do for the Abomination Vaults campaign I am running.)

Each AP has a Sanctioning document that tells you at which points you will earn a chronicle sheet, and any special rules that might apply to that AP. You can find the link to the sanctioning document (which also contains the chronicle sheet) in the item’s page on Paizo’s website.

On page 5 of the scenario, it refers to bottled sunlight but doesn't say if it's lesser, moderate, etc. I presume for Tier 1-2 it's lesser, but what about tier 3-4?

The pawns are too low-res to print (not that I would -- that's not a very maintainable activity, especially in comparison to the preprinted ones that I already dearly miss getting new ones of!…

I couldn’t disagree with you more. Not only is the resolution just fine for printing, it’s also more economical for me to print them when I need more copies of a monster than come included with the physical price.

5. Having to buy the hardback version of information that has already been reprinted many times and is in some cases obsolete is just a step too far. Or rather, having to buy the pdf as well as the hardback is a step too far.

I mean, I love Kingmaker, but there is a limit.

And so, one does just what you have decided: you buy only what you want/need, and nothing further. I don't see why that's a problem.

Just to make sure I understand this - if I want to run this for PF2, the “bestiary” itself is included in the AP. There isn’t a separate one to purchase, correct?

And, if we could knock of the edition wars here, that’d be great.

I have a question about something at high tier.

thanks!

Recently, all my Paizo PDFs (which I *did* purchase) are password locked and cannot be edited. This makes it impossible to do things like fill out a chronicle sheet or make notes prior to game time.

If I even try to PRINT these pdfs onto physical paper, it scatters the text into what looks like wingdings.

Is this new? Am I supposed to know the password for the pdf? Is there some other method of downloading editable (or at least printable) versions of these scenarios? Can we at least get a printable version of the handouts and chronicles? I'm having to screencap them and then print a *really* fuzzy version right now...

The password protection is not new. But, what I do in Acrobat is use the SIGN tool, and then SIGN YOURSELF. This will put box where you want it and you can type in it. It works the way the typewriter tool used to work. That’s how I do my chronicle sheets.

Occasionally, I do get the Wingdings thing when I print chronicle sheets. Sometimes, closing and then reopening the document fixes it.

I am sorry that you were disappointed. I am. It wasn’t the usual presence we are accustomed to, but there are number of factors. First, a lot of people still aren’t comfortable gathering with thousands of other people in such close proximity. Second, Gen Con Online certainly took a fair number of players and GMs, some of whom might otherwise have been in attendance in Indy. Third, as to the content of the special, no special appeals to everyone - I have played most of the specials, and this one was one of my favorites. YMMV. And, I am sure there are likely other factors, as well. If Paizo thought or knew attendance was going to be significantly lower, then they may have decided the financial expense of renting the entire Sagamore wasn’t justified - if you thought there were a lot of empty tables in the room as it was, imagine if we had been in the entire Sagamore.

On a more personal note, I volunteered roughly 48 hours at HQ to help out and to try and make sure people had a good experience. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m sorry that, as a volunteer, I failed in that attempt in regards to you.

BNW is right - it’s an unusual, single datapoint. I wouldn’t read too much into it. Hopefully next year things will be closer to normal.

Alex Speidel wrote:

Only the Repeatable tag (on a product page or in a PDF) makes an adventure Repeatable.

Does this mean 1-05 is repeatable?

The pdf has the Repeatable tag.

I don’t think it is, I just don’t think they fixed the pdf.

I’m not big on VTT, but if Paizo produced high quality maps for use on VTT you better believe I’d buy them! Flip mats are fine, but scaling up maps in APs usually is frustrating for me.

Aaron Shanks wrote:

There are no more Bestiary or Alien Archive books planned. There will be new creatures. There are no plans for new pawns. Paizo is keeping the basics in stock for as long there’s enough demand.

EEK! I didn't know Paizo was doing that poorly. I thought Starfinder was being moderately successful.

I don’t know if it means Paizo is doing that poorly, or just those particular products. How many monster books do we need, after all?

So let me get this straight: you decided to keep stuff like NPC cards or Equipment/Bestiary cards and scrapped the pawns line...?

That's... silly, to say the least. You can get more uses from pawns than from cards. Pawns can be used in plethora of systems, not just Pathfinder. Cards are useless for someone who plays, let's say, Savage Worlds or 5e. I mean, I'm not into details of the sales of Paizo products so I don't know if that's more affordable, but common sense tells me, that more people are buying miniatures than some little spell cards boxes (correct me if I'm wrong).

Obviously the decision was already made, but it's extremely disappointing, as you were the lead in the affordable flat miniature market, offering enormous collection and now it's gone. Not a fan.

I am a GM and a player, and even as a player, I make use of the cards. My Druid can summon animals, so I grab the cards for the animals he can summon and ta-da - have the stat blocks in front of me without having to haul around an entire book.

So for me, the cards have tremendous value as a player.

PF Coop wrote:

I too am disappointed at the discontinuation of the AP Pawns.

However…there’s a solution if you have the PDF of the AP. there are programs that will extract all images from a PDF. You then take the images of the monsters you want and copy/paste them into a Word document. Print on card stock paper.

The only issue is to make them stand up. If you have access to a 3d printer or a friend who does, then it’s simple. Print a base.

If you don’t have access to a 3d printer, then do the old trick of printing two copies, cut one from the top down to the half-way mark, cut the other from the bottom up to the half-way mark and put them together.

I admit that the 3d printer option is better.

Another option that I found remarkably useful years ago when I was running APs that didn't have pawns at the time, is that you can use photoshop or Gimp to make a blank pawn template using one of the PDFs (just make a template for a page with each size, by filling the pawn outline with white. Then you can paste in monster/character art as needed and print them. What I did was make my pawn sheets like this, and then print them on sticker paper. Then use existing pawns I already had and put the stickers on them. Then you can still use the Paizo bases. And the glossy finish of the pawns make it easy to peal off the stickers and reuse later.

First, thanks for your helpful and constructive response - I appreciate it!

Second, I currently make my own pawns from the PDFs when I need extras of monsters in a set (PFS scenarios notoriously and frequently require more of a creature than come in a set of pawns.). I use 8 1/2 x 11 sheets of sticker paper, attach the to chipboard and cut them out. So, i can still do that - that’s why I asked if they could at least produce the .PDFs. I don’t always have time to go find art and create the actual pawn itself before printing them.

But, thanks again!

This year has not bounced back to in-person play as much as we had hoped.

The gamers in Indianapolis would like a word with you. :-D

I understand what you’re saying, Aaron, and on the issue of pre-pandemic pawn sales, I didn’t realize they were weak - that’s why I was perplexed at how many sets had been produced for 1e. My thought was that if the sales were poor, they wouldn’t have made as many sets as they had previously. But, I get it - companies don’t make products that don’t sell.]

We have no intention of sacrificing traditional play…

Thanks for explicitly saying this - that’s reassuring. I get that a lot of gaming has gone online and there will be players that won’t come back to a physical table. For those who will play in person (many of whom prefer to do so), there has to be something for them. That’s why I hope Paizo might decide to continue to at least produce .PDFs of the pawns, even if they don’t produce the physical product. But that’s also a time and cost vs. reward analysis, and maybe the reward isn’t there.

Thanks for clarifying - much appreciated!

As a Canadian, I'd like to point out that shipping a single AP book 2 hours north of Paizo costs $12.20, takes 7-11 days and isn't trackable. Yet to ship that same book to someone in Florida costs $4.29, takes 4-8 days, and is trackable.

For the record, whenever I order anything from Paizo, even though I get a tracking number, it is never trackable. The webpage always tells me that info isn’t available, and than at some point a couple of weeks later, it magically appears at my house. Now, I usually just use the basic shipping so maybe that isn’t supposed to be trackable (but if that’s the case, I don’t know what good providing me a tracking number does.)

I live in the continental U.S.

I am incredibly incensed that the pawns are being discontinued. For a GM who travels a lot to GM, and/or the GM who runs games at conventions, I found the pawns to be an easy-to-carry and more economical alternative to miniatures. I also liked the fact that, using the PDFs, I could make additional pawns of creatures when the physical product didn’t have enough of a certain creature.

So, now that these won’t be an option going forward, I’ll just go back to using my old set of Alea Tools to represent the monsters. Sure, it’s more immersion breaking, but at least I can afford it.

How did they produce 6 bestiaries worth of pawns for PF1, 3 for PF2, and all of the various APs and other special ones, and only now decide “yeah, there’s no market for this.”

I mean, I’m sure the business numbers support this decision, but I’m still irked. I wonder if it would be worth it to produce new ones that are .pdf only, and then people could just download and print them? I mean, I do that already for extra pawns, so that might be a more cost-effective solution.

At any rate, I’m just venting my disappointment.

I went through the latter half of PF1 upset that they wouldn’t sanction Wrath of the Righteous for PFS, even in what was then called Campaign Mode. That *finally* happened, which makes me happy (though my group moved on to PF2 and isn’t going back to PF1.)

People should accept that there is, from time to time, content which either isn’t appropriate for Organized Play, or is mechanically too difficult to incorporate into Organized Play.

This AP sounds like the former. So, that’s two APs (Edgewatch is the other, I think?) that aren’t sanctioned for Organized Play. There is a ton of sanctioned content available, and there will be others. Can’t people play this one AP (or 2, counting Edgewatch) for no credit? Is that really such a huge sacrifice?