Petronius's page

The link in the header "Follow this forum thread for update notifications and to report any issues." still points to the 5.x forum thread.

Thanks! I'm not sure whether we meant to change that or not, since the banner is specifically about the Remaster changes. That banner will be going away (in the not-too-distant future, I think), but it may be worth adding a link to the feedback post to the Intro page or somewhere else helpful.

Sorry, I was sent a direct link and didn't see this was a PFS1 question. I think I assumed otherwise since there was talk of clarifying.

The Guide and other procedures for PFS1 are unlikely to get further updates or clarifications, as the 1e PFS program is no longer actively producing new adventures.

We volunteers on the Guide Team will take a look at making sure the rules as clear as possible in the PFS2 and SFS2 Guides, though. So thanks for the nudge!

Monkhound wrote:

- You can never have multiple chronicles of the same adventure on the same character regardless of how you received the chronicle

they really need to make this clearer, I understood it as you could get credit for a character once as a player and once as GM

You the player can get one Chronicle for playing and one for GMing.

You simply cannot apply those two to the same character, which is what the bit you're quoting says.

=-=-=

Game Masters earn GM table credits and Achievement Points each time they GM an adventure. You can earn a Chronicle for GMing once per adventure (unless the adventure has the Repeatable tag), typically the first time you GM the adventure.

PFS2 Guide > Core > Being a GM > Concluding an Adventure > GM Chronicles

One Chronicle per Character: Each character can only earn one copy of a Chronicle for any single adventure. You cannot replay an adventure for credit with a character that has already received credit for that adventure.

PFS2 Guide > Core > Playing an Adventure > Before the Adventure > Rules for Replaying

You can earn additional Chronicles from playing by using Replays, as others said above.

I suspect the community can come up with replacements for the useful parts of scenario tags. One way might be to add, say, the equivalent of the Metaplot tag to pages on the Starfinder Wiki. Just saying.

I think we already lay out the metaplot scenarios on the page for each season. (If I’m misremembering, we should definitely do that.)

(Full disclosure: we formed a nonprofit recently to formalize the structure behind the running of the PF and SF wikis. I am the president of the nonprofit. But I would make this suggestion anyway.)

A new version of the Guide to Organized Play: Pathfinder Society (v6.04) was just published!

Changes:
Player Options > Spellcasting Service Costs: Corrected prices and added explanation of calculations

Links:

A new version of the Guide to Organized Play: Pathfinder Society (v6.03) was just published!

Changes were relatively minor, including updated tenses re: deity deaths, expiration of the Remaster Rebuild, etc. Other changes include:

I see nothing but positive changes.

And I was not prepared for Chk-Chk in those sunglasses.

For real! All three of them are total BAMFs in this art!

I’m guessing it’s the “kill without mercy” edict that took Mother Vulture off limits.

Yes, it’s “kill without mercy if it benefits your community,” but that might actually make it even less of a fit for the Society.

(Just speculation for the record; I have no inside knowledge about this.)

A query- When voluntarily replacing borrowed consumables, are the regular access rules waved? E.G. Could a player who was lent a bottle of Elsie's Excellent Bottled Vim (A keepsake consumable from Rusthenge) replace the vial after they used it? Or could a 6th level character choose to pay to replace a potion of quickness (an 8th level item) they were lent?

I cannot make official rulings—I just lead the team that writes them up—so whatever grain of salt is necessary. That said, the text says “you can replace the item” without reference to how you do so. Since replacing is explicitly exempt from the rule against PC-to-PC transfers, there’s no functional difference between your PC buying a replacement and handing it to the other and going with them to the store and paying for what they have Access to, so to speak.

In short: yes.

(With the possible exception of the keepsake consumable you mention. I don’t know that one specifically, so if it’s a one-time item, for example, you couldn’t use this ruling to just keep getting copies. But typical items, go to town.)

These revisions have been published as part of v6.02 of the Guide to Organized Play: Pathfinder Society.

"Run as Written" has been replaced with "Run Prudently" and is now a summary of the player-facing rulings only.

The revised list OPC Alex started the thread with has been moved to just before "GM Discretion" and both are under the new heading "Permitted Table Adjustments" so that all the rulings on potential GM adjustments are in one place in the Guide.

A new version of the Guide to Organized Play: Pathfinder Society (v6.02) was just published!

Major changes:

On the Remaster page, the staff of transmutation is listed as an example of something you can still buy, and in the Withdrawn table as something you cannot.

Could have sworn we fixed that before. Thanks! (Resolved now by deleting the example.)

Petronius wrote:

Blog is a Paizo staff thing. I wouldn't be surprised if it shows up there, but [a] I have no knowledge whether it will and [b] I don't know how quick the turnaround time on blog posts is.

OPC Alex announced it on its own thread, in General Discussion (the subforum where the discussion took place which led to the new errata forum).

* Announcement (stickied post in Org Play > General)

* Foundry Errata Forum

The problem is that the forum link seems to have posts that say “X issue has been fixed” without explaining how.

This is a known issue, but one I can't really influence. You are not the only one who has raised it, so I can assume it's been heard. I have no info to share, though.

Petronius wrote:

GM Discretion currently says GMs can allow:

PFS Guide wrote:

Alternate or creative skills used to bypass or overcome traps and skill checks.

The way I had been interpreting those lines was: it's OK to use creativity to bypass a check (e.g. "well, because you're flying, you can skip this Acrobatics check!") but not to provide a substitute check (e.g. "sure, use Warfare Lore instead of Athletics to influence this NPC, because they think warriors are cool, and I'll say it's at DC.").

But it says "...bypass or overcome..." (emphasis mine) which is more than just skipping them. If we mean only bypassing, we should say only bypassing. I also just don't think it's nearly as fun to say the only place you could get creative with skills is if they are Profession skills.

Sure, some players will try to say nonsense like "I Perform the actions of picking a lock" and some GMs might even let them. It's wrong, but we can't write rules for every possible nonsense; if nothing else, once you think it's nonsense-proof, they'll just invent better (worse?) nonsense.

But more than that, I don't think it's a good plan to put restrictions on everyone just because a small number of folks (some of whom are acting in bad faith) will be tempted to abuse the unrestricted system.

I’ll add that creative uses of skills have been allowed since long before this draft language, though maybe not quite as explicitly as some might like.

GM Discretion currently says GMs can allow:

Alternate or creative skills used to bypass or overcome traps and skill checks.

But naturally, in the next line it immediately runs into the issue you mentioned about alternative skills potentially being at a higher DC:

DCs and results of a check are part of the mechanics and cannot be changed.

So we may need to clarify that a bit. But alternative skills are for sure allowed.

It's easy to think "well, he wrote not increasing, he didn't mention decreasing, but he probably meant that as well". You can see in this thread that quite a few people weren't sure how to interpret it.

I defer to your greater experience, but I think folks should approach this much like my preferred way of running: assume what’s written is intended, and only make a change when it is obvious one is needed.

(Reasonable people can disagree about what’s “obvious,” of course. Any rule we make will be and can only be imprecise.)

I think it might be helpfully to describe the things that are good about having consistency in an organized play campaign, so that people understand the big guiding ideas behind the actual rules. (Also, "Run as Intended" does have a nice ring to it.)

I’ll just say again that I plan to push hard not to use a heading that can be abbreviated RAW or RAI, because this really isn’t either as those abbreviations are typically used. (And these rules are similar enough that I think it’s best not to muddy the waters by using one of those abbreviations.)

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.

I don't think anyone said you are wrong to be confused. Certainly not an idea I meant to convey & apologies if it came across that way.

The intent of the draft seems clear to me: open things up some while keeping certain things off-limits for changes. Your position also seems clear: you think there ought to be fewer or no exceptions. I don't think you & I are going to agree, but then we don't need to for Alex to make the final call.

Good point on the section title. Frankly, it probably shouldn't be called anything that has the acronym RAW or RAI, since it is not and was not really saying either as those are typically used.

The people asking for more clarity aren't idiots or incapable of making judgment calls, nor are we incapable of recognizing errors.

If anyone said anything implying any of that here, it must have been moderated before I saw it. Regardless, you seem reasonably on top of it to me! :)

It's always good to hear about places where the seams/edges might be showing. Appreciate you & everyone else for bringing them up. Thanks!

I like the new changes, and agree with the replacing of "may" to "can" or "should". Also, pedantic me would like a consistency with the use of commas; the third bullet in the "GMs must" section does not include the (proper) Oxford comma, while the first bullet in the "GMs must not" section does include the Oxford comma.

As the guy who will be doing the final copy-paste and integration into the Guides, I can assure you that the Oxford comma would only be omitted if I didn't notice it was missing. Because I agree that it belongs there & everywhere. But I appreciate the heads up!

(I will leave responding to the call for additional guidelines to the OPC.)

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

As you know*, 'don't use "may"' is in the Guides' style guide. The only place "may" occurs in the Guides now is in policies directly copy-pasted from paizo.com. It's also on our recurring tasks list to search & destroy every so often in case one sneaks in.

* For observers who might not know: I'm the volunteers (VO) Guide Team Lead, and the person I'm replying to is a major contributor who iirc put this rule into the style guide personally. "As you know" is meant to be overly formal, with a nudge and a wink.

Can we include Increasing DCs or adding ad-hoc negative circumstance modifiers to this?

While the FAQ seems to cover this, it would be helpful to get that part clarified in this portion.

GMs must not:
- Change player-facing armor, feats, items, skills, spells, statistics, traits, or weapons, or any other mechanics of player character options

That's not the line item that adjusting DCs would belong in. That line item is essentially "PC items & other options work how the rulebooks and Org Play campaign rulings say they do; you can't just say 'I don't like x so I'm banning / nerfing it at my tables.'"

No comment from me on the merits/pitfalls of the idea, just saying that's not where it would go.

...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.

There are probably other possible assumptions I'm not thinking of, too. My point is less about what the correct one is and more that I think your statements are overselling how certain it is that that's the assumption.

These are meant to be guidelines with certain exceptions (which I read as intended to preserve fairness; no GM can say "I don't like x, so yours just doesn't work"). I understand that you are arguing against having exceptions; we're not going to agree about that, so I'm not even going there. As others have said, that would just put everything in Adventure Mode.

Alex Speidel wrote:

- Reskin enemies to avoid phobias or for personal preference without altering mechanical traits

As a primarily online GM, lots of the token icon of swarms are phobia-inducing, so we've adapted to use a blank circular token with text Swarm of Something to avoid causing discomfort. Glad to see it being considered in the Guide. (And I also get to use Lego for spiders, yay!)

The only new thing here is the explicit mention of phobias; the policy has been 'reskin for player comfort' for years.

I think "of something" is a clever approach, though!

Petronius wrote:

Darrell Impey UK wrote:

Petronius wrote:

Added multiple references & links to new PFS adventure errata forum

Is it worth mentioning this, potentially important, forum somewhere publicly?

It's not a Guide project; we're just linking to it. That said, where did you have in mind?

PFS Blog or its own thread?

Blog is a Paizo staff thing. I wouldn't be surprised if it shows up there, but [a] I have no knowledge whether it will and [b] I don't know how quick the turnaround time on blog posts is.

OPC Alex announced it on its own thread, in General Discussion (the subforum where the discussion took place which led to the new errata forum).

* Announcement (stickied post in Org Play > General)

* Foundry Errata Forum

Is it possible for the single-page layout to default to showing full tables rather than tabbed for convenient PDF printing?

"Get better PDFs" is pretty high on the tech wish list. I don't think there's a switch to flip to default to full tables for printing, though. At least not with the basic printing that's currently what we have.

The mildly good news is at least toggling to 'no tabs' works when you do it on the regular page (before clicking print) or on the print version page. That's annoying to have to do it at all, I 100% agree.

All I can say is I agree and there are some things (which I don't fully know) behind the scenes tech-wise that need to happen first. Thanks!

Petronius wrote:

Added multiple references & links to new PFS adventure errata forum

Is it worth mentioning this, potentially important, forum somewhere publicly?

It's not a Guide project; we're just linking to it. That said, where did you have in mind?

Cyrad wrote:

The remastered draconic and demonic bloodlines for the sorcerer completely replace their focus spells with new ones that have different names. Would the team consider making a ruling that draconic/demonic sorcerers can choose whether to gain the Core 2 focus spell or the CRB focus spell? The old spells grant unarmed attacks, which are desirable for players with melee combat sorcerers. Removing them would also be incredibly disruptive for PC concepts that rely on them.

I will ask about that ruling, but it's up to staff.

Thanks!

I have asked, and the answer is no for that exception.

Links:

Guide: bit.ly/PFS2_Guide

Change log: bit.ly/PFS2_changelog

Single page layout: bit.ly/PFS2_onepage

Sorry, old link to the Guide itself. (Goes to the manual redirect page now, so it will still get you there eventually, but not ideal.)

Correct link to the Guide: bit.ly/GuidetoPFS2

A new version of the Guide to Organized Play: Pathfinder Society (v6.01) was just published!

Major changes:

Currently 'lodges' keep a paperwork trail of complaints. All they can do is not accept volunteers for conventions or local hosted venues. Banning someone from PFS would be rather extreme and with email sock puppets it is going to be hard to enforce.

TBH it's volunteer run and the process to talk to people about complaints and the target of said complaints is unprofessional and just done by your local VC & RVC. It is fair? well - they create a record after the fact. Everyone is just a volunteer and doing what they know/can and it's a mix of RL experience, politics, fandom, etc.

I would just push back slightly on "unprofessional" in the sense that, while the process is run by volunteers, there is still a formal process for dealing with issues. It's fairly robust since a couple of years ago, there was a big conversation and project to improve the process.

Link to the relevant section in the venture officer handbook

Quote:

Foundry and OP products part deux

Did someone say my name?

I just want to clear something up, quoting TMun from a discord sever:

Tmun wrote:

[...]the volunteer developers who make the system for Foundry aren’t making these changes, nor is anyone from Foundry Gaming LLC. The product is made by Metamorphic under contract from Paizo and Andrew White is the point of contact between those two entities.

If we’re going to be pedantic that Paizo staff posting is a problem because it isn’t a specific member of Paizo staff, can we be equally clear what is meant by the “Foundry Team”. Because the last thing I want is complaints about the volunteers or issues on the system development board because everyone is upset at the wrong people. This literally has nothing to do with either PF2e on Foundry nor the Foundry software.

This is a Paizo first party product receiving errata from Paizo staff. That it happens to be usable on Foundry software shouldn’t matter as to the argument. This isn’t a VTT versus other VTT/PDF war issue and I don’t want it to turn into that. This is 100% a Paizo internal problem.

I'm not accusing anyone here, but I have seen a lot of mentions of "Foundry" and "Foundry Team" in various discussions and I think it's important for us to be clear about what is being discussed.

--------

I understand that people are upset that:
A. Andrew White isn't listed as campaign leadership. Given that just last week Shay mentioned working on the "Foundry/PDF" updates then I would hope that we can agree that this seems likely that whatever update to guide, or post from Campaign Leadership, that is needed will come to support Andrew.
While we're on this topic I would like to also mention that prior campaign leadership members aren't listed under campaign leadership. If we're being pedantic about who is and who isn't campaign leadership the Org Play guide should...

Former staff are correctly omitted from campaign leadership. Currently, forum rulings from prior Org Play staff expire when they are no longer staff. If the rulings are good enough to keep, they should be written into the Guides or another official document like the Character Options page.

I get that not everyone likes this idea; there has been at least one extensive discussion among VOs about it. I'm not about to debate the merits; I'm just clarifying how things currently work. End of the day, it's not up to me anyway; also, when a ruling is needed, GMs can make a sensible call that happens to align with older forum posts. Similar to the need for the forum in this discussion, though, I really want players & GMs not to have to hunt for answers. (The new errata forum will avoid hunting.)

Rulings from awhile ago that have not been added to an official document? Well, we've processed what we know about and have an ongoing project to review the forums. ("We" here meaning the Guides Team, the volunteers [VOs] who update the Guides, led by me.)

As far as getting links added to the Guides, the OPC has had two days back in the office since being on the road for awhile. We're meeting soon and will discuss how best to post links. My thought is to use the Intro page at least and probably mention it in the Core Guide, GMing section as well.

I'll add the usual plug for checking out the Intro page. I've tried to pull together a bunch of useful links inside & outside the Guide on a short page along with summarized change logs. Always happy to hear feedback; just want to mention it when I can, since it's easy to jump to a place in the Guide and bypass the Intro page--which is a tool I like to make sure people are aware of.

Thanks for the discussion, folks! Just noting that it's now on the Guides Team's "list of stuff we need to run by the Org Play Coordinator."

Don't let me step on any discussion--just confirming the concern has been noted. (And for the record, this sounds like something that's very much between Paizo staff to work out the details, not something I or any other VO will decide.)

Cheers!

The remastered draconic and demonic bloodlines for the sorcerer completely replace their focus spells with new ones that have different names. Would the team consider making a ruling that draconic/demonic sorcerers can choose whether to gain the Core 2 focus spell or the CRB focus spell? The old spells grant unarmed attacks, which are desirable for players with melee combat sorcerers. Removing them would also be incredibly disruptive for PC concepts that rely on them. I'm not seeing any compelling reason why these focus spells should become totally inaccessible. It appears the spells were replaced in order to grant less niche options.

Also, the Draconic Options Table in Lorespire appears to have a typo: the Crystal Dragon erroneously has fire damage instead of piercing damage.

I will ask about that ruling, but it's up to staff.

Crystal Dragon has been mentioned by a couple of folks; it's on the short list. It does look like a typo, but I'll double-check with staff.

Most likely we won't be able to make changes (if any) for at least 2-3 weeks, maybe longer.

Thanks!

This came up in the v5.x thread, but reposting it here so it’s in the thread for the version of the guide that it appears in.

Draconic Bloodline was reprinted. The Dragon Types are listed in the bloodline. Chromatic and Metallic Dragons don’t appear. It is clear that a new/remastered Draconic Sorcerer cannot select from those options. It is not clear whether or not a Sorcerer that does not rebuild can keep their Dragon Type. Based on the ruling for Oracles that they have to use the new Mysteries, presumably Sorcerers have to use the new Bloodlines. And the new Bloodline does not include Chromatic and Metallic dragons.

However, the remaster rules strongly imply that a Sorcerer who does not rebuild can keep their dragon type:

Remaster Rules wrote:

Characters which have been rebuilt using their Remaster Rebuild may not use the chromatic or metallic dragons for any of these options.

If no Sorcerer can use Chromatic or Metallic Dragons, then the guide should say so. If Wyrmblessed can continue to use the chromatic and metallic options, since it was not reprinted, but Draconic cannot, please clarify. If Draconic can continue to use those options if they don’t rebuild, definitely clarify, because that potentially affects someone’s decision about whether or not they want to rebuild.

We will take this up on the Guide Team & with the Organized Play Coordinator, but I wouldn't expect any movement for at least 10 days. No guarantees after that on timeline; I just know it won't be sooner.

edited to add: Also, thanks for bringing it over to this thread, as well as summarizing & clarifying! We always appreciate it!

Also, might be best to move discussion into the newer Guide v6.xx thread since this thread is technically outdated (and v5 doesn't include Player Core 2 rules/rulings). This v5 thread should be un-stickied soon, but I don't have that power directly. Cheers!

Could the duration of the Flash of Grandeur reaction for the Grandeur cause be clarified for PFS? I'm interested in playing a Grandeur Champion, but I really want to avoid having to discuss the duration of that effect between GM's. There has been some discussion about it on Reddit already, but nothing official.

Discussion 1

Discussion 2

For the record, clarifications at this granular a level are not found in the Guide. Not a critique at all, just this isn't the most directly related thread. This question is most likely to be handled by errata; there's also a chance it could be handled just for Org Play on the Character Options page.

That said, I will pass along to the volunteers (VOs) who look into this sort of question. Thanks!

The ahem was a "nobody saw this, move along" of lightly teasing myself, not any sort of criticism of you to be clear. Cheers!

Thanks, really nice to see the change log etc.

One small issue:

On the Remaster page, the link in specific rules 5, Dragons points to

Link wrote:

https://lorespire.paizo.com/tiki-editpage.php?page=v5pfs._.Pathfinder +2e+Remaster

And it should point to

Fixed Link wrote:

https://lorespire.paizo.com/pfs2guide._.Pathfinder-2e-Remaster#Dracon ic_Options_Table

Thanks! There may have been ahem a couple of other bad links on that page, too, but they should be fixed now.

That "v5pfs._." business in the page address is an artifact of how we made the switch to the new organization of the Guide (and stashed the old pages out of public view, but kept for a bit in case we needed them).

Bad news: there may be other bad links of that nature we haven't caught yet; good news: this sort of error should be (better be!) quite rare, since we shouldn't be re-organizing things very often.

Note: version 6.00 was live as of July 30, but between GenCon and recovering from GenCon, Paizo staff has been a bit busy, so this post is just going up.

Also, quick plug for the Intro page, which has a quick summary of recent changes, quick links to frequently used sections of the Guide, links out to other campaign rules, and more. There is also a link at the bottom of each of the primary pages back to the Quick Links section of the Intro page. Let us know your ideas for improving those as well!

Greetings, Pathfinders! Your friendly neighborhood Guides Team lead here.

The Guide to Organized Play: Pathfinder Society (Second Edition) has been updated on Lorespire.Paizo (link) to version 6.00!

Version 6.00 is a major reorganization of the Guide, which now has the same structure as the Starfinder Society Guide. There have been minimal rules changes, although there are numerous parts rephrased or clarified. For reference / to aid the transition, we have put together a summary spreadsheet (link) ordered by where sections were ("Sections by v5 Source" tab) and where they are now ("Sections by v6 Destination" tab).

As always, please use this thread to leave feedback on the Guide itself. Keeping on topic keeps this thread as helpful (and your suggestions as easy to implement) as possible. Please do not use this thread for program implementation / campaign rules discussions; off-topic posts will be removed. Use other threads (existing or new) to give feedback on the Pathfinder Society (2nd edition) play experience.

Explore, Report, Cooperate!

Link to the current Rubric

The current home of organized play is lorespire.paizo.com

I did include the links to both Guides with the rubric in context but I could have made them clearer.

We on the Guide Team generally want to nudge folks to link to subsections within the larger page rather than separate pages; context is useful, plus breadcrumbs / backlinks are not available on most sub-pages. (I would like to change that, but it's not the only thing on the wishlist.)

Also, Lorespire is just the SFS1 and PFS2 Guides plus the Venture-Officer handbook; it is not the new home of the OPF. Not trying to be a jerk about it, but I am told the distinction is important.

If a player feels a GM is good or bad, tell the GM after you get your chronicle. Most people like feedback but be constructive about it - there's too much harshness as is. Conventions tend to be more stressful for GMs as there's much to do, so consider the situation.

If you are going to judge someone's performance you should be smart about it - knowledgeable, specific, and constructive and expect your play style to receive the same treatment. Read GM101 and other notes on improving an RPG session.
PFS is never going to have a GM or Player rating system as it really falls under the OPF.

Unfortunately, the Organized Play Foundation no longer owns www.organizedplayfoundation.org since last fall. It's now a redirect to an online casino.

I believe the OPF is still working on their new website.

Without further discussion of the merits/flaws of this particular idea, something a bit similar already exists in the Guides to Organized Play: both include a GM rubric. (PFS2 & SFS1, although the rubric is identical in both. It's not even a copy-paste; it's a single page that gets subbed into both of them behind the scenes.)

The rubric is only formally used to evaluate GMs who are trying to earn their 5th GM nova / glyph, which requires 150 GM table credits and some other things, including 3 formal peer reviews using the rubric.

It's a good starting place for any GMs to improve their game, though, and it could be helpful at any point in a GM's career (although it would not be appropriate to post rubric reviews publicly outside some larger official project to do so). The rubric was crafted so that it does not rest on style of play (like doing voices or not) but on more general ideals.

It also does not mean doing voices or other ways of adding flavor & making a memorable experience are ignored; far from it. One of the 5 areas is "The GM made efforts to make the game distinct and interesting" which accounts for ways the GM makes things vivid without telling them a specific way to do it.

Just figured it was worth a shout out that we do have a tool in this vein, even if it is not linked to public reviews. Cheers!

Alex Speidel wrote:

We made it very clear when we first posted the Remaster Guidelines that characters would not be granted a second rebuild. Players who elected to build characters using classes slated for a remaster should have been aware that they would not be granted a rebuild.

As a data point of one:

Yes, it was clear to me that characters would not get a free second rebuild...

...but it was not at all clear to me that a PC of a non-remastered class, created in the last nine months, would not be eligible for a free first rebuild.

As it happens, I rolled up an alchemist in that intervening timeframe, planning to rebuild upon release of PC2. IIUC I must now spend AcP to rebuild them.

Now ITOT I hoard my AcP as well as any nonmetallic dragon would, and can take the AcP hit just fine – but if I understand it right, I find the situation somewhat irksome.

I have no interest in arguing with you, but for reference in the larger discussion, here is the text from the Remaster page of the Guide, which has been there since before November 15, 2023 (I think since around November 1, but would have to check):

On November 15, 2023, all characters with at least one game reported are granted one free rebuild. This is a full rebuild; you may completely alter a character’s ancestry, class, background, and any options selected. You may not alter the adventures a character has participated in, nor may you alter a character’s Reputation earned.

I would have to check our receipts to be 100% sure, but I don't believe it's ever given an indication that any PC except those with reported games prior to November 15 would get a rebuild at all.

I see your line of thinking, and while the nonexistent "second rebuild" referred to might more accurately be called a "second round of rebuilds," there is no indication that any rebuild would be granted to PCs built after November 15.

In fact, the discussion around that time would imply the opposite. People who wanted to build PCs of yet-to-be-Remastered classes were strongly advised to wait until the Remastered class was out for that reason, as I recall.

In fact, I'm pretty sure the text was originally added specifically with conventions in mind. It's not very fun to show up for a day of gaming only to be told "Surprise! Hot fix to the rules of the road, your PC is now invalid" after all.

A gaming event is meant to refer to an active adventure and does not refer to a convention or other gameday, correct?

It's intended to cover both cons and individual tables. More specifically:

[1] Any stand-alone game that's started before a rule change effective date does not have to use the updated rules.

This includes games at regular gamedays, but for those, treat each run of an adventure as a separate thing. (That is, the part 2 rule for cons doesn't mean if your gameday goes on forever, you never need to change.)

[2] When a change is effective during a convention, all games at the whole convention do not have to use the updated rules. (The idea is it's not great to make people scramble to rebuild their character in the middle of a con, especially if it's a rules change that takes effect immediately.)

But again, I'm just giving a heads up. The final published Guide text is the rule.

This might be too specialized of a question, but do we have an idea on how this will affect PbP games? Would a character be able to keep their spells and abilities if the game started before August 1st but then continued past that date? Or should we recomend any Gorumites looking at a game that looks like it will run over that date to rebuild first?

Short answer: yes. That is, if the game starts before August 1, Gorum is treated as alive until the game ends.

I'm the Guides to Org Play lead VO. We were just discussing this sort of question and clarifications to the language in the Guides.

Disclaimer: per the Guide text, only specific Paizo staff can make official rulings. So my word is not law, but this is my understanding of the intention and I've been drafting the revisions.

The current language (here):

Timing: To reduce confusion and chaos, rule changes announced during a gaming event do not take effect until after the event ends.

We are looking to make some clarifications, although I don't have a timeframe. I'm hoping it won't be long, though. (As part of the process, I am looping in some of the PbP venture officers to verify the new language fits PbP needs.)

Just don't fire off the moowhip from below the belt. If you do, of course, you'd look like you had a bad case of...

Laclale♪ wrote:

Pathfinder Provision providing oil of unlife is for void healing character, but why section name for it is unchanged, and no scroll of harm in said Provision?

Hi, I am the Guide lead. If you mean the "Negative Healing" section, the update to "Void Energy Healing" is already drafted and will be published during the next update (hopefully this week).

Whether there should be a scroll of harm in the Provisions is a question for Alex / Paizo Org Play staff. I will make a note to ask, but Alex will probably see it here.

I talked with OPC Alex and he confirmed that the scroll of harm is not missing from the Pathfinder Provisions list, but left off on purpose. I have no more information than that, so I can't help with any follow-up questions.

Pathfinder Provision providing oil of unlife is for void healing character, but why section name for it is unchanged, and no scroll of harm in said Provision?

Hi, I am the Guide lead. If you mean the "Negative Healing" section, the update to "Void Energy Healing" is already drafted and will be published during the next update (hopefully this week).

Whether there should be a scroll of harm in the Provisions is a question for Alex / Paizo Org Play staff. I will make a note to ask, but Alex will probably see it here.

Alex Speidel wrote:

Dubious Scholar wrote:

Is the Tiefling's Fiendish Strikes feat subject to the same change as Aasimar Celestial Strikes?

Huh, yeah, definitely should be. Dunno why I didn't check to see if there was a tiefling equivalent.

Lorespire Remaster page wrote:

The aasimar feat Celestial Strikes and the tiefling feat Fiendish Strikes are no longer legal for play. Nephilim characters with either feat must retrain it for another ancestry feat at 13th level or lower.

The word Nephilim in that sentence feels confusing as that new ancestry could never actually take any of those feats, suggesting the removal of the first word in that second sentence.

Done!