Tempest_Knight's page

******** Pathfinder Society GM. Starfinder Society GM. 600 posts (611 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 79 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 600 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
4/5 5/55/55/55/5

Richard Lowe wrote:
Tempest_Knight wrote:


We NEED a correction to the Resorces and Options For Pathfinder Society Characters (Character Options) page to reflect this intent as it is currently diametrically opposed to the written rules.
Already covered.
Quote:
[...] unless the item indicates otherwise.
The sidebar expressly indicates otherwise, no changes or special guidelines required.

The guidance/rule quoted from page 150, only restricts access through the 'ancestry weapon prof' feats... stating clearly that 'a elf/dwarf/etc who has never seen a firearm and trains in traditional ancestry weapons does not gain access to 'ancestry' firearms.'

The specific example being a Dwarf who does not have access to firearms does not gain access to the Clan Pistol and Dwarven Scattergun by taking Dwarven Weapon Training.

It says nothing about how the Character Options page grants access.

Currently there is no rule overriding the Character Options grant of ALL Uncommon weapons to all Gunslingers.

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

Alex Speidel wrote:
Thod wrote:
2nd edition - Does the PFS access overule the need of being a dwarf for buying a clan pistol?
No.

... While I support this rule ('Ancestry' weapons need Ancestry Weapon' Feat)...

It is currently in flagrant conflict with the access granted in the Character Options section...

Resorces and Options For Pathfinder Society Characters wrote:
Gunslingers (and characters with the Gunslinger archetype) gain access to all uncommon weapons, ammunition, and related items from Chapter 4 of this book, with the exception of Beast Guns and any limited or restricted items below, unless the item indicates otherwise.

The Clan Pistol is an Uncommon Weapon from Chapter 4... as are all other 'Ancestry' guns...

We NEED a correction to the Resorces and Options For Pathfinder Society Characters (Character Options) page to reflect this intent as it is currently diametrically opposed to the written rules.


Do we know what books/APs this goes through yet?

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

Are Integrated Firearms/Weapons allowed in Society play?


Pathfinder Society question about the Chronicle Sheet;

The Chronicle only lists a firearm in the items list, does it also grant access to it's ammunition?


Sanctioning docs?

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cordell Kintner wrote:
or from other (arcane/divine/primal) spells you gain access to.

In Society play you have access to all non-Limited/Restricted Common spells... so there was no issue, unless you ignore the second half of the oft quoted 'problems sentence...

The 'fix' created a restriction on ALL prepared casters.

The 'fix(2.0)' for the 'fix' only lifts the restriction for 3 of the 5 impacted classes...

And that is before we get into a discussion about the validity of 'clarification' changing the rules...

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Josh Klingerman wrote:

Good grief... we're creating problems where we don't have or need problems.

The Witch and the Magus don't need clarification because they say

Witch wrote:

You choose these spells from the common spells of the tradition determined by your patron or from other spells of that tradition you gain access to.

Each time you gain a level, your patron teaches your familiar two new spells of any level you can cast, chosen from common spells of your tradition or others you gain access to. Feats can also grant your familiar additional spells.

Magus wrote:
You choose these from the common spells on the arcane spell list or from other arcane spells you gain access to.
The whole problem was that Cleric, Druid, and Wizard had 'in this book' in their respective spells section and people got all bent out of shape trying to define what the 'access' definition meant.

The Pathfinder Society (Second Edition) Guide to Organized Play in the Players > Player Basics > Spells entry states clearly that...

Quote:
Spells from outside the Core Rulebook must be learned using the learn a spell activity before they can be used by prepared casters, even by clerics and druids.

There are 5 prepared caster classes... Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Witch, and Magus...

We have an FAQ entry that lifts that restriction for the Cleric, Druid, and Wizard.

We can get into the validity of a FAQ Clarification rewriting a Rule instead of clarifying... but that is a different issue...

The issue has always been people ignoring the second half of the 'problem' sentence...

As defined by the CRB (Glossary and Index, pg. 629)
Common (trait) Anything that doesn't list another rarity trait (uncommon, rare, or unique) automatically has the common trait. This rarity indicates that an ability, item, or spell is available to all players who meet the prerequisites for it. A creature of this rarity is generally known and can be summoned with the appropriate summon spell.

As defined by Merriam-Webster, as there is no Game Term definition...
Access (noun) 1b: freedom or ability to obtain or make use of something
(and before you ask... 1a relates to access to place/person/thing... 1c relates to entering/approaching a place... 1d relates to the verb usage...)

As defined by Merriam-Webster, as there is no Game Term definition...
Available (adjective) 1: easy or possible to get or use; 2: present or ready for use

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Society (Second Edition) Guide to Organized Play > Players > Player Basics > Spells wrote:
Any prepared spellcaster can use the Learn a Spell activity to learn any common spells they have access to from tutors at the Grand Lodge. This adds no additional material cost beyond the standard cost for the Learn a Spell activity. Spells from outside the Core Rulebook must be learned using the learn a spell activity before they can be used by prepared casters, even by clerics and druids.

The important part is that last sentence...

Quote:
Spells from outside the Core Rulebook must be learned using the learn a spell activity before they can be used by prepared casters, even by clerics and druids.

The Witch and Magus classes are both prepared casters.

The FAQ entry only references the Cleric, Druid and Wizard.

All five classes are prepared casters... the issue isn't the text in the Core Rulebook... each has, verbatim "or from other <tradition> spells to which you gain access." right after the 'spells from this book' text... (the <tradition> should be replaced with the correct tradition for each class for the full verbatim text...)

According to the PFS rules on Rarity and Access, as long as it is not Limited or Restricted, you have Access to all Common options (in this case, Spells)... Until the rule I quoted above that added a new rarity, at least functionally...

We went from Common(open), Uncommon(minor hoops), Rare(major hoops), Unique()...
To Common, Common-ish, Uncommon, Rare, Unique...

Common-ish being not quite Uncommon, but definitely not Common...

That area where you can't just take the supposedly Common option, you have to jump through an additional set of hoops(Learn a Spell) to take the 'Common' spell...

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

Alex Speidel wrote:

Don't tell but we just updated this rule to be less...cumbersome.

If you want to know why the rule existed initially, you'll have to ask a designer, not my place to say (they do have a good reason, but they've moved away from it).

Is the intention to fully remove the Guides current (9/14/21) requirement that ALL prepared casters must Learn a Spell for any non-CRB spell?

Or is it just meant to lift that onerous restriction from only the Cleric/Druid/Wizard, and still negatively impact the Witch/Magus?

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Society FAQ; UPDATED How can clerics, druids and wizards learn spells from sources outside the Core Rulebook? wrote:

For the purposes of Pathfinder Society play, modify the Divine or Primal Spellcasting entries of these classes (or the Spellbook entry, for the Wizard) to remove the phrase “in this book” or "from this book." These characters have access to all common spells on their respective spell lists as outlined on the Character Options page. The Resource Ownership rules still apply for these characters as normal.

Characters who previously spent gold to Learn a Spell that they now have access to natively are refunded the gold spent.

"Guide > Player Basics > Spells"; important section wrote:
Spells from outside the Core Rulebook must be learned using the learn a spell activity before they can be used by prepared casters, even by clerics and druids.

Currently, if we accept the FAQ entry as overriding the written rules, we still have the Witch and Magus being left with the guide restriction on prepared casters.

Is the FAQ entry intended to lift the Guide restriction on prepared casters entirely?


Question, are these Pantheons going to be Society legal?

... I have some character ideas starting to form...


Sanctioning?


Now we need to get the Lost Omens books made Pocket Edition as well...

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I sense a disturbing lack of Ramming Prow...


Is the sanctioning correct in granting;

"0 Reputation that can be assigned to any faction."


Cellion wrote:

Just to echo OP and present things in a slightly different way: Cover Fire is like the PF1 Powerful Sneak of 2E. It offers the illusion of a benefit.

The easiest way to see how much of a trap it is is to envision yourself as the target. You're behind cover and an enemy gunslinger uses Cover Fire. You have a choice:
A) You can let it count as a regular Strike
B) You can take a -2 penalty on ranged attacks next round to get a +2 AC against the Cover Fire Strike.

If you're not planning on making ranged attacks next round, B is a no brainer. Free AC! Otherwise, you just let A happen. After all, the enemy could have just made a Strike against you instead of using Cover Fire. The choice is in your hands so you pick the option most advantageous to yourself.

Cover Fire therefore can never be stronger than making a Strike. The opponent will only pick option B if they're getting a benefit out of it (or if they think they're getting a benefit out of it).

... Option B only comes up if you make a bad decision of when to use Cover Fire...

For example... Why would you every use it against a pure Melee opponent?

Used intelligently, it is a good, if situational, feat...

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

Online Guide Team Lead - JTT wrote:


Alex Speidel wrote:


GMs who are permitting playtest characters in their games should advertise as such. GMs are permitted to disallow playtest options in their games if they feel they would be disruptive to the play experience or they don't feel comfortable with the rules yet.

I fixed it for you...

We were given a suggestion, notice the use of the word "should"...

And we were given an option to Opt-Out...

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

bugleyman wrote:
Online Guide Team Lead - JTT wrote:
It can result in a GM declaring that they will "Opt-Out" by simply not GMing.
Thank you for pointing out this oft-overlooked detail. Players often seem quick to tell GMs what they "must do," only to appear totally flummoxed when there aren't enough GMs to go around...

And the VO corps is advised to work to getting those disruptive GMs to either stop their disruptive behavior or leave Organized Play...

That is in the Guide...

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

Online Guide Team Lead - JTT wrote:
Playtest rules are now up on the Guide Website.

Thank you...

I would argue that it should be a matter of Opting Out, instead of Opting In... but that is just my opinion...

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

Gary Bush wrote:
Tempest_Knight wrote:
Gary Bush wrote:

You have quoted the wrong post. It is in Alex's post.

Why is this such a hot button issue for you?

So, it is not in the blog providing the special rules for playtesting.

There is the right way to do things.

I guess I see how it is being handled as the right way.

A clarification is by definition clarifying unclear wording... not creating a new rule out of whole cloth...

The Guide allows for clarification to be immediately enforced/enforceable...

There is a right way, and this isn't it... but we are also being told that there is not intention on doing it the right way, so...

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

If the reasoning applies to the playtest classes, why does the exact same reasoning not also apply anywhere else?

It opens a door, that IMHO, should not be opened.

This is a clear violation to being able to take any legal character to any legal table... That has always been one of the biggest selling points for PFS, in my experience at least.

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

Gary Bush wrote:

You have quoted the wrong post. It is in Alex's post.

Why is this such a hot button issue for you?

So, it is not in the blog providing the special rules for playtesting.

There is the right way to do things.

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

Please underline where it is found in the special rules for playtesting

this blog wrote:


Welcome to 2021! How about a playtest to start off with a bang? After not participating in the Pathfinder Secrets of Magic playtest and reading the feedback from our players and GMs, we put our heads together to come up with a way to engage our Organized Play community that worked within the Pathfinder Society framework. We settled on a model based on the Starfinder Society method that will allow our community to participate in the Pathfinder Guns & Gears playtest (see the announcement here). This framework works within established Society guidelines, doesn’t leave credit on unusable characters, and encourages players to get involved. We believe this method is flexible enough to use for future playtests and will add a section to the Guides to Organized Play to provide guidance to players and GMs.

But enough with the whys and wherefores. Let’s get to the details:

Playtest Period: Pathfinder Society participation in the Guns & Gears playtest runs from publication on January 5 to February 5, 2021. Once this period has expired, players can no longer use the gunslinger or inventor playtest classes until their publication in a future Pathfinder product.

Playtest Classes: This playtest includes the gunslinger and inventor classes as outlined in the Guns & Gears playtest found here.

How It Works: We're opening up Society play for the playtest classes via the use of custom created characters that operate much like our pregenerated characters. We believe this should encourage players to test the waters with custom builds, be it with current scenarios or through our growing stable of repeatable options.

Creating a Playtest Character: Prior to playing a scenario during the playtest period, a player can determine if they want to playtest either of the new classes. The character must have all levels in a single playtest class, and not take archetypes. Although archetypes are important for the playtest as a whole, we're limiting play to single classes in the Organized play portion of the playtest for simplicity. Depending on the tier of the scenario, the player can then use a 1st-, 3rd-, or 5th-level character using the eligible playtest classes and created using the following guidelines.

1st Level: The character can be made using the character creation rules presented in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook and Guide to Organized Play: Pathfinder Society.
3rd Level: This character follows the same rules as above, except they can select one 2nd-level and two 1st-level permanent items. In addition, the player can spend up to 25 gp on other available equipment.
5th Level: This character follows the same rules as above, except they can select one 4th-level, two 3rd-level, one 2nd-level, and two 1st-level permanent items. In addition, the player can spend up to 50 gp on other available equipment.
Credit: Choose which of your characters will receive the credit at the beginning of the adventure. The credit earned for playing a Guns & Gears playtest character follows the same rules and guidelines as applying credit for a pregenerated character, presented in the Applying Credit section of the Player Basics page of the Guide to Organized Play: Pathfinder Society.

With all this in mind, we encourage our players to take an active part in the Guns & Gears playtest, both by sharing your opinions online in the playtest forums and by completing the playtest surveys. We hope that by opening up the means in which players can create and customize characters for the playtest, that we can see some unique and fun builds using these new classes and that such tests will provide the design team with priceless field-agent feedback!

We’ll see you back on January 7 for our first monthly update of 2021.

Until then, don’t forget to explore, report, and cooperate!

I'll abide by the Errata provided, but will point out that it is not a Clarification, as it does not clarify any of the wording...

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

Gary Bush wrote:
Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:
GM can ask that no one bring a Playtest Character, but cannot, by the rules, ban someone from playing one.

Alex's comment above contradicts this. And yes, I understand that what is written is given more weight than what a someone from Organized Play staff says on the boards.

Alex Speidel wrote:
GMs who are permitting playtest characters in their games should advertise as such. GMs are permitted to disallow playtest options in their games if they feel they would be disruptive to the play experience or they don't feel comfortable with the rules yet.

(emphasis added by me)

So let this discussion begin...

This is in direct conflict with the rules and therefore cannot be made as a 'clarification' this is errata... that requires a changing the written rules.

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
GM OfAnything wrote:
Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:

So, does this new discretion apply more broadly?

This is in direct conflict with the basic principles, let alone the rules, of Organized Play.

There is one question, if they are legal for the duration of the Playtest they are legal at all Organized Play tables.

If they are not, then they are not legal at any Organized Play tables.

Or you need to add an addendum to the above rules for Organized Play Playtest to allow the banning of some legal options at GM discretion...

No.

We can be respectful of GM boundaries when new rules are being tested. Not everyone is going to be comfortable with that right away.

The GM can ask that no one bring a Playtest Character, but cannot, by the rules, ban someone from playing one.

I'm all for respecting GMs' preferences, but not at the expense of the rules.

This way leads to GMs banning legal options they don't like.

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

Alex Speidel wrote:
LeftHandShake wrote:
Alex Speidel wrote:
LeftHandShake wrote:

Do the playtest classes count as "legal character options" for the duration of the playtest, subject to the restrictions specified?

Yes.
Just so there's no confusion, are these "legal character options" as they pertain to this sentence of the Organized Play Game Master Basics, Table Variation: "No[] banning legal character options"?

Well, you should ask what you mean then, saves everyone a lot of time.

GMs who are permitting playtest characters in their games should advertise as such. GMs are permitted to disallow playtest options in their games if they feel they would be disruptive to the play experience or they don't feel comfortable with the rules yet.

So, does this new discretion apply more broadly?

This is in direct conflict with the basic principles, let alone the rules, of Organized Play.

There is one question, if they are legal for the duration of the Playtest they are legal at all Organized Play tables.

If they are not, then they are not legal at any Organized Play tables.

Or you need to add an addendum to the above rules for Organized Play Playtest to allow the banning of some legal options at GM discretion...


Could you give us a level range for the Society Playtest so we CAN plan ahead?

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Paizo has a long standing history of the Pregens are Special and don't need to follow the rules...

PF1 examples...
Yoon is just a Small size Human... Amiri has two Combat traits... there are others...

This has led to issues in the past, and will probably continue to in the future, but the Kobold pregens in this case are only usable for 1 module, so not a big issue.

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Goblins get an out:
You can always select a wolf as your animal companion, even if you would usually select an animal companion with the mount special ability, such as for a champion's steed ally.

And, that's what I get for not checking Rough Rider... ^_^

... now to rummage through the pile of GM credits...

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

Cavalier is currently limited to Horse only, with two exceptions found on Chronicles...

Requires the AC have the Mount special...

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

Quote:
if the combatant did not move at least half their speed on their turn and is not engaged in melee combat, a laser fires at them...

Is written as an AND gate... thus requiring both be true for the conditional to be true...

~

So, is the intention;
1.) You get shot only if you both didn't move nor are in melee.
2.) You get shot if you are in melee or moved, but not both.

~

Right now it is written as...
If A AND B, therefore C

Played it with a GM insisting that it is a NAND gate, any you must invert the conditions...

~

For those potentially confused by this...

We are given 2 conditions (A & B) and a conditional (C)

A = did not move at least half their speed
B = is not engaged in melee combat
C = a laser fires at them

~

An AND gate requires both conditions be true for the conditional to be true.

In this case;
A = did not move at least half their speed [TRUE(1)/FALSE(0)]
B = is not engaged in melee combat[TRUE(1)/FALSE(0)]
C = a laser fires at them[TRUE(1)/FALSE(0)]

A+B=C
0+0=0 (moved)+(in melee)=(not shot)
1+0=0 (didn't move)+(in melee)=(not shot)
0+1=0 (moved)+(not in melee)=(not shot)
1+1=1 (didn't move)+(not in melee)=(shot)

~

Played it with a GM insisting that it is a NAND gate, any you must invert the conditions, thus...

A = did move at least half their speed (REMOVED 'not' from the condition)
B = is engaged in melee combat (REMOVED 'not' from the condition)
C = a laser fires at them

A NAND gate requires both conditions be true for the conditional to be false.

A+B=C
0+0=1 (didn't move)+(not in melee)=(shot)
1+0=1 (moved)+(not in melee)=(shot)
0+1=1 (didn't move)+(in melee)=(shot)
1+1=0 (moved)+(in melee)=(not shot)

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

Tonya Woldridge wrote:
Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:

I'm sure I saw it in 'Official Paizo Voice'(TM)... I'll dig around, see what I find...

~
{EDIT}

Sanctioning Adventure Paths for Pathfinder Society" blog, 6th paragraph wrote:
Alternatively, if you are participating in a Pathfinder Adventure Path with an ongoing home group undertaking the entire campaign, you may receive credit for playing the sanctioned portions of the adventure as if you had played a pregenerated character. In this case, GMs running the Adventure Path are not bound to the rules of the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign when running the campaign or the sanctioned portion of the adventure. Pathfinder Society characters and characters from an ongoing Adventure Path campaign may not play in the same adventure.

Sanctioning Adventure Paths for Pathfinder Society blog

I knew I had seen it 'officially' somewhere... So, from its inception, 'Campaign' mode was SPECIFICALLY intended for Home Games.

Note... this is not intended to restart the debate...

Pulling up language from 2012 and prior campaign leadership to make your allegations of bad faith stick to current leadership is inappropriate.

...

That was specifically disproving that the statement that Campaign Mode never meant Home Game was a False statement.

We have never had an official statement rescinding that intent... at least that I have seen... according to long standing Society Rules, unless specifically contradicted by newer rulings, all old rulings are still true.

~

That said, PF2 doesn't have the grandfathered statement, so I concede the Bad Faith statement.

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

GM OfAnything wrote:
It's perfectly appropriate for a PFS GM to apply the Easy or Very Easy adjustment to the DC 20 for Aid. That will depend on the difficulty/complexity of the task the character is attempting to Aid, but it's clearly in the rules.

As 'GM discretion'... something we required, in Society play, to defer to Campaign Leadership...

The Exceptions are only for things not covered/unclear in the rules or 'Creative Solutions' (arguably the same thing...)...

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

In Organized Play we have a standing rule that, we the table GMs, are not allowed to make the 'GM discretion' rules, as the GM is Campaign Leadership.

We are to run following the written rules, as modified by Campaign Leadership and the Scenario... GM discretion is called out for dealing with unclear rules and 'creative' solutions...

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It sure would be nice if this position was taken for PFS2...

~

Thanks for getting the Society Playtest rules out ahead of the actual Playtest document! ^_^

Now to make sure my local GM corps are at least passingly familiar with them...

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Sounds like a druid would go well with those and the Plaguestone chronicle.

I was noticing that too...

As I recall, AoA had mostly Occult/Arcane spells... so we are getting a nice mix so far...

Do you know of any Ooze summoning spells? We have gotten 'access' to a couple from Expanded Summons between the two APs...

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

The first chronicle has Juggler or Staff Acrobat access...

Environmental Spells...
A few Expanded Summoning options...
and some interesting 'nature-y' snares...

...

As Jayne Cobb would say... I just get excitable as to choice... I kinda want to build 4 characters out of those options...

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion wrote:
...

Sanctioning Adventure Paths for Pathfinder Society blog

I'm going to just post up the link... can we quick picking at this, please?

Monty Python wrote:
And now for something completely different

... so, FLite any plans for interesting builds from the options on the Extinction Curse chronicles?

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

It is my 'bad' habit of nitpicking semantics...

~

Monty Python wrote:
And now for something completely different

... so, TOZ any plans for interesting builds from the options on the Extinction Curse chronicles?

I would love it if the Character option boons were not all tied to the PC with the chronicle...

I would love the archetype(s) for one character... the Snares for a second... and the Spells/Summoning for a third...

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

CrystalSeas wrote:
Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:
so, people, everyone all right with dropping it?
You don't have to get agreement from other people in order to stop posting.

... we do need agreement if this thread is going to go back to useful discussions...

I'm happy to drop it, but will not ignore attacks...

And, as I have stated repeatedly, I have no issue with the decision to not sanction AoE.

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

Eric Nielsen wrote:
if your response includes that word (including in quoted replies) you profile gets changed. Just don't quote the response and it should stop.

... I know... I was just having some fun with it... ^_^

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

Rysky wrote:

You don’t don’t stir the pot and lob insults and then demand everything drop on your say so.

Whether it’s a home game or not is irrelevant. Whether it’s just you playing both the GM and the PCs by yourself is irrelevant.

I haven't lobbed any insults.

I have been insulted and accused of insulting people.

And as the 'given reason' for not sanctioning was that it should only be played in a 'Home Game' does indeed make "whether it’s a home game or not" relevant.

~

I notice the 'never said it' has stopped... and since I quoted the Official statement, the new position is 'too old, doesn't count' and/or 'it's irrelevant'... or just personal attacks...

~

Nothing beneficial will come from continuing this, so, people, everyone all right with dropping it?

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

Gary Bush wrote:
Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:

Just remember the Bestiary (1) is both sanctioned, and also, not sanctioned...

It is listed under "Legal Sources"

But it is not defined under "Books"

Ergo, it is sanctioned, but we have no directions on how/what is sanctioned...

So that makes it a legal source for summon spells and for GMs to use but nothing in the book is sanctioned for player's to use in Society?

Hmmmmm... Didn't realize this. Thanks for heads up.

... That is how most of us have been applying it... (at least from what I have seen)

But it is one of those 'Technically...' issues...

A strict reading of the rules would keep you from using anything in the Bestiary, as there is no listed 'Availability' for anything in it...

A loose reading of the rules would allow you to using anything in the Bestiary, as there is no listed 'Availability' restricting anything in it...

... It would be nice to have all of the "Legal Sources" also defined under "Books"

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Stephen Meadows Jr wrote:

Repeatedly shown and ignored...

...

No. I am not going to believe you over my own eyes.

No, repeatedly saying something is not showing it.

...

...

I'll not touch your Ad Hominem attacks...

Sanctioning Adventure Paths for Pathfinder Society" blog, 6th paragraph wrote:
Alternatively, if you are participating in a Pathfinder Adventure Path with an ongoing home group undertaking the entire campaign, you may receive credit for playing the sanctioned portions of the adventure as if you had played a pregenerated character. In this case, GMs running the Adventure Path are not bound to the rules of the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign when running the campaign or the sanctioned portion of the adventure. Pathfinder Society characters and characters from an ongoing Adventure Path campaign may not play in the same adventure.

Sanctioning Adventure Paths for Pathfinder Society blog

Simply put, from inception, 'Campaign mode' has been 'home game'...

Now, you too have seen it...

~

TOZ...

The 'core' of the Organized Play team are Paizo Employees... this has generally lead to OrgPlay and Paizo to generally be seen as interchangeable...

We have all done it... So, its not ground to make/break an argument on...

In Organized Play, yes, the current team IS beholden to past team decisions. The current team is also allowed to reverse past team decisions.

Given the FACT that 'Campaign mode' = 'home game' was built right in, it IS a 'Bad Faith Argument' to argue the it does not.

~

I had hoped we all would be willing to drop it, but it looks people don't want that...

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

Not again!?!

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
Michael Sayre wrote:
[lots of stuff]
Thank you for taking the time explain the Organized Play Team's decision not to sanctioning Agents of Edgewatch. I know it isn't always easy to wade into the comments, but I'm glad you did.

... I too thank you for your time and effort... and I do apologize, as I seem to have a tendency to come off as more confrontational than intended...

... any way we could get some reinforcements to help hold off the Smurf invasion?!

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

oh no... its spreading...

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

... If only for my edification, could you... I only have a copy of the Season 10 Guide...

Though you don't need to post all of them... I trust you...

DM me with what you find please.

~

I'm sure I saw it in 'Official Paizo Voice'(TM)... I'll dig around, see what I find...

~
{EDIT}

Sanctioning Adventure Paths for Pathfinder Society" blog, 6th paragraph wrote:
Alternatively, if you are participating in a Pathfinder Adventure Path with an ongoing home group undertaking the entire campaign, you may receive credit for playing the sanctioned portions of the adventure as if you had played a pregenerated character. In this case, GMs running the Adventure Path are not bound to the rules of the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign when running the campaign or the sanctioned portion of the adventure. Pathfinder Society characters and characters from an ongoing Adventure Path campaign may not play in the same adventure.

Sanctioning Adventure Paths for Pathfinder Society blog

I knew I had seen it 'officially' somewhere... So, from its inception, 'Campaign' mode was SPECIFICALLY intended for Home Games.

Note... this is not intended to restart the debate...

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

... Definitely not an 'artifact' from applying Zombie to a Grindylow...

Hopefully we get clarification before I run it in a couple of weeks...

1 to 50 of 600 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>