Tomppa's page

(No, you can't use SF2 options in PF2e society games, unless something specifically says you can, like the dragonkin or skittermander options. Just like you can't use PF2e android options in SF2e society games. But HMM has a strong point that you should check the boon, as it says what you can use.)

Also, a new book getting published does not allow for a rebuild - If android gets reprinted in a PF2e book with updated texts, you treat that as an errata (so no rebuild there either, unless specifically stated) and if we get a variant android or new feats/heritages in a book, you don't get to rebuild it just because new options became available.

I mean - you said it yourself, you can just not prepare the specific tactic if it's not necessary. You could also just hand out shields/bucklers/aeon stones with shield spell if you wanted the whole party to benefit from the shields up tactic.

Also, you have 5 tactics (if you haven't picked up more), of which you can have 3 prepared (if you haven't expanded it) but you can only have an ally benefit from 1 per turn, it's highly unlikely you'll use all of your tactics anyway, so having 1 dead tactic per scenario is hardly an issue.

There's also an additional work-around: Players are responsible for their downtime, and you need to spend your downtime before the next session. However, you could check with your fellow players what kind of characters they are going to bring, before the start of the next session, and if you find out that there's 4 gunslingers, you could spend your downtime to retrain your level 2 feat into tactical expansion and pick Reload! and something else.

That being said, reload is probably the only tactic that really, really requires teammates to do specific things to be useful. And it's an awful tactic. I tried using it in a group with 3 reload weapons (crossbow and 2 firearms) and it was... basically used never. Gunslingers often have fake out, and that requires a loaded firearm, so they like to end their turn with a loaded firearm. Other characters often have some other third action, so they'll do "[class action], shoot, reload" instead of shoot, reload, shoot. It's also massive headache trying to follow which characters have their weapon loaded and which do not, and it gets complicated if the other characters try to coordinate their loadedness to enable you to give them a reload... which you could have also spent to give them a free strike, or to give them a free move. The reload tactic just didn't feel worth the hassle.

Granted, my experience is from playing a commander just from lvl 1 to level 2, and now watching a commander dedication (with reload and gather to me) play partway through level 2 - they had reload prepared as their tactic, but decided to switch it out after it basically never was useful.

EDIT: I forgot to add that I don't really see society adding a house rule for one class to get a bit more flexible, when the class already has built-in flexibility in it. I don't think this is that much different than if a rogue player asked for free retrain out of gang up, because their group happens to have 0 other melee characters.

Except that it's impossible to know the RAI in this case. Both scenarios are just as plausible.

Scenario 1: The two newer boons give you access to the red mantis assassin. You can make a red mantis assassin wielding a sawtooth saber IF your class gives you access to sawtooth sabers, such as Champion or cleric, or from any class you choose if you have another way to access sawtooth sabers, such as the boon from Mark of the Mantis.

Scenario 2: The two newer boons give you access to the red mantis assassin. It's a mistake on the boons that they don't give access to the sawtooth saber. You can make an RMA from any class you choose.

Scenario one is Undesireable because it limits the boons usefulness to just a few classes, without extra hoops. Scenario two assumes that this limitation is not intentional, that it is a mistake.

The problem with scenario 2 is that we really shouldn't be assuming mistakes in sanctioning rules and boons. How about, let's say Scrounger archetype? It's from player core 2, where everything is standard availability. Maybe it's just a mistake that it lacks access condition, and we should be able to choose it freely - or any other uncommon option that's "shadow banned" by being "Standard availability" but no access condition - Just like the sawtooth saber. It's standard. It doesn't have access condition. PC needs to have something explicitly stating that you get access to it, to gain access to it.

IF the boon was completely useless without access to sawtooth sabers, the "too bad to be true" "obviously not intended" argument would be stronger. But the boon is not useless. It is perfectly useable even without access to sawtooth sabers - just at a more limited scope. And that's what really throws this problem into gear.

I mean - the archetype also requires training in the sawtooth saber. Should we also assume that the boon gives the character trained in sawtooth sabers, because otherwise only a fighter, or a human, (or cleric or champion, vindicator, or avenger) can take it at level 2 where it's clearly intentioned to be taken, as it is a level 2 feat?
Clearly not. How you get trained in the weapon, is clearly a problem the player needs to solve themselves. So why wouldn't access likewise be a problem the player needs to solve?

Typically a rare thing would require a boon, but check the text on character options page:
Character options

Always check the entry for the book containing the option you want, on character optios page, just in case there are any limitations or restrictions or changes.

As I was getting at and HMM said, boons are intended to work. They are not intended to give empty promises. The only reasonable way to interact with this boon is to presume that it gives access to things that one can not generally gain access to.

Yes, I'm aware of the wording of the boons themselves. But I, and other GMs as well, have the ability to think for ourselves. As such, I repeat, it seems pretty straightforward to me.

And I will also rule it the same way - allowing people with the boon to play their RMA characters with sawtooth sabers, regardless of what the boon says - but that doesn't mean that the wording isn't problematic. As it's written, that's not how the boon works. The way it's written, requires a PC to have 2 of the boons to actually get a red mantis assassin with sawtooth sabers, UNLESS they make a very specific kind of build - Champion, Cleric, (Or, I think avenger/vindicator may also give access to the sawtooth saber).

It would be easier to say that needing 2 boons is not intended, if the two RMA boons were completely useless without the third one - But they are not. The two RMA boons work perfectly fine, without access to sawtooth saber, IF you can get access through some other way, like champion or Cleric. So the boons are not empty promises, they are just Limited In Scope, unless you get the third boon which expands their useability greatly.

Also, if access is not required for proficiency (through weapon profiency feat), then the archetype works just fine without access to the sawtooth saber - it's just that you can play a RMA that is trained with sawtooth sabers but doesn't actually have sawtooth sabers. Which is a bit weird, but again, the boons works even without access to the sawtooth sabers. Which is why it's so bewildering that the boons don't give access to sawtooth sabers.

Boon 1 requires an additional acp purchase of the Secondary Initiation boon...

Boon 2 could be read to not need the purchase of Secondary Initiation. ... I'd suggest the purchase of the SI boon. So, pretty much like boon 1.

Boon 3 is just access to worship Achaekek.

Secondary Initiation does not give access to sawtooth saber. Sawtooth saber does not have "Access: You are a member of the red mantis assassins" and it doesn't have "access: You are from Mediogalti island" either, so neither Secondary initiation nor world traveler give access to it. Which is why this is such a hassle.

Additional issue with boon 2 is that while it says you get "access to all common and uncommon options which require membership in the red mantis assassins", there's actually nothing saying that sawtooth saber requires membership in it.
It is very Reasonable to deduct that the boon means sawtooth sabers too, but that is not what the boon says.

Since the two boons give access to the archetype and the archetype requires you to be trained in sawtooth saber, I think it would be reasonable to assume that they also give you access to the saber. Not giving access to the saber seems pretty blatantly to be "too bad to be true": "Congrats, you get this boon for an archetype that you can never use."

I think most reasonable GMs/VOs would look at the issue and go "... Well, obviously you can get the (pretty sucky) saber if you can get the actual archetype" but just to be safe from potential table variation, I personally I would hunt down the last boon that also gives access to the saber, because RAW that is what you need. (even though boon hunting is generally frowned upon, this current bad/missing wording on the boon kinda forces you into it).

To expand on Squark's answer:
You don't link it to your character, the GM (or whoever is responsible for Gary Con reporting) needs to report the game here on paizo.com with your player number and character number as one of the players, for the game to show up on your character.

While pfsreportingerrors is the correct email to help you with the issue, I would First recommend contacting the GM (if able) or the PFS volunteers of Gary Con (if possible) to fix the reporting. If that doesn't work, pfsreportingerrors can help.

It is rare. To use it, you would need to have something that explicitly says that your character has access to it. To my knowledge, no such thing currently exists.

You could say (maybe in spoilers) the scenario it is from, that could help answer the specific case.

Generally speaking, if it says you get access, then that is what you get: *access*. Access means that you are allowed to buy the item even though it's normally rare or unique or uncommon and your character normally wouldn't have access to it.

Getting an actual item (instead of just access) is extremely rare, almost unheard of - I don't remember a single instance off the top of my head, and if there was an example, it was probably something relatively insignificant (like getting a free wayfinder, which you already get for playing 2 scenarios) but I do know some scenarios give you boons that represent items (like one scenario giving you... I think it was a basket of fruits or something, that you can use limited times to heal yourself).

Note that the amount of gold earned depends on the level of the character receiving the chronicle sheet, not on the tier played - so if four level 1 characters played a scenario (low tier), they would get 14gp for 10 treasure bundles found.
If another party had a single level 1 character and five level 4 characters, it would be on a high tier, but the level 1 character would still receive 14 gp for the 10 TBs they found, while the level 4 characters would earn 64 gp each.

This is an issue that pops up every now and then. I strongly believe that the intent is to cross out items the players missed either due to their own actions (failed a check or made a decision to not explore a place) OR if the scenario has alternative, mutually exclusive paths (some scenarios give you an option to run version A, B, or C), then they can't find the items on the paths you did not run. But, if an item was not able to be found at all, but was listed on the sheet, I just assume access is given 'as a reward'.

Note that since it's run in 'Adventure Mode', As the GM you have the power to make whatever changes you feel like in the adventure. You could have the quest giver (Forgot her name) hand out All the magical items to the PCs at the beginning of the adventure, if you wanted, or drop an item they missed to the boss' treasure pile.

Highly likely that it will.
Generally speaking, uncommon ancestries require 80 acp, and rare ancestries require 160. There are a few exceptions though, but we'll see it when the book gets added to character options page.

FAQ states that if you get access to one version, you also get access to the upgraded version (provided it has the same rarity), it should probably also work in the other direction.

Sometimes the chronicle sheet includes items that aren't in the actual scenario. As such, I believe the rule means that you should only cross out items that the players *had a chance to encounter* but *missed due to player actions/dice rolls*, OR, if the scenario has variation (choose version 1, 2, or 3, each gives different item as a reward) you should cross out the items on the path that was not taken. Basically, if it wasn't missed due to choices/rolls made, don't cross it out.

If, for some reason, there was an uncommon item that was found only at low tier and not at all in high tier, I wouldn't cross it out for high tier tables because that would feel like punishing players for their character choice, and could (potentially) influence what characters players choose.

The quote in the Character Options page says:
"All dead or missing gods (pages 312-314)"

Acavna and Amaznen are from Azlanti Pantheon (page 300-303) and thus not included in that restriction. Also, Acavna's description says that she no longer grants divine powers, but other azlanti gods descriptions mention that they still have priests and clerics, so it's unclear if all or none or some of them should be valid choices for a PFS cleric.
Aside from Sicva who is explicitly called out as restricted.

I think people are making the lvl 10 cap into a bigger thing than what it actually is. PF2e didn't have scenarios for level 11 characters before the end of year 3, so it's not like this actually has any effect for the next 3 years, end of year 4 saw the second scenario, end of year 5 we got the third, and this year we are getting fourth level 9-12 scenario and first 11-14 scenario.

All of those were level 9-12, so they were still playable at level 9-10, and a lot of folks probably played them as such, so not all of the characters involved even were lvl 11+. We're literally getting just a single lvl 10+ scenario per year (on average) so those high level characters aren't seeing play anyway aside from once a year - announcing this plan in advance seems very far sighted, and helps set the expectation.

Meanwhile, I love the level 3+ starting characters, a lot of builds come online at level 3 (or 4-5) so skipping lvl 1-2 is nice.

True, but I tend to err on the side of the players in issues like this:
Option A: ... It's probably supposed to be able to use it's abilities without a 50/50 failure chance. This favors the players.
Option B: It's abilities have a 50/50 failure chance. For some tables, this means that it works every time. For some tables, this means it never works. Ruling it this way, will make the scenario harder for the players.

I just don't think it's likely that scenario writer really wrote a situation where "here's a helper for you, but for some tables, he arbitrarily refuses to help.", that doesn't seem like a fair/fun experience.

Regardless, I wouldn't fault a GM whichever way they ruled it, both seem valid. The "requires a flat check" feels a bit more "RAW", but way less intended.

I wouldn't make it roll a flat check unless the holder would need to make those - it has communication: telepathic images, so I would just assume that the holder can give it clear enough mental image of the situation. Giving it flat checks seems like effectively reducing it's uses by roughly 50%, and doesn't *feel* intended.

I highly doubt a VO would ban you for having a different interpretation of the rules than they do. A GM could ask you to bring a different character or play a pregen or fix the character, if they believed it wasn't legal, though.

The character options state that all agents have access to all firearms "with the exception of Beast Guns and any limited or restricted items below, unless the item indicates otherwise." The book indicates that simply having the Dwarven Weapon familiarity is not enough to gain access to dwarf firearms. If dwarf firearms need both dwarven weapon familiarity AND access to firearms according to the book, then simply having access to firearms is not enough to give access to dwarf firearms.

It's pretty clear what the intent here is, and while your interpretation is also plausible, "Everybody gets access to all ancestry-limited firearms" is clearly too good to be true when compared to how nobody has access, by default, to clan daggers or elven curved blades. It's clearly not intended that clan pistol is something any random adventurer can find on the market, but clan dagger is not.

pH unbalanced wrote:

So, now that the Remastered Runelord is out, how should Legacy Runelords be treated going forward?

It uses the Core Rulebook Wizard chassis, which doesn't get a remaster rebuild since we are now outside of that window. But it also utilitizes "a character option other than the entire class" which should therefore be treated as errata and auto updated.

I have not yet tried to figure out if the new Class Archetype mechanically functions on the Legacy chassis, but I suspect it will be odd.

Can I just continue to play it using the Legacy version? Or must I update it to the Remaster version, and if I do so, must I also update to Remaster Wizard? (Or *can* I update it to Remaster Runelord & Remaster Wizard if I decided I wanted to?)

None of these options would upset me (although, like I said, I expect weirdness if the answer is Remaster Runelord on Legacy Wizard) -- just want to make sure I'm doing it right.

(This character was built from a Charity boon I won in a raffle, which also gave it a unique background allowing Runelord access, so it might be a real corner case in a lot of ways.)

Repeating this question now that the Remastered Runelord is live.

In the absence of other guidance, my VC is going with "Existing Wizards were grandfathered in, so you can continue to use Premaster Runelord," so if the intent is something different, please let me know.

March update / character options page

Previously existing characters with the Runelord class archetype as printed in Secrets of Magic may continue using it alongside the legacy wizard class as printed in the Core Rulebook. New boons for this version may not be purchased.

New characters or characters which have rebuilt to use the remastered wizard class in the Player Core must use the Runelord class archtype as printed in Lost Omens: Rival Academies.

As a general rule, the OP team does not provide guidance on edicts or anathema, as they are inherently subjective. Runelord anathema should evaluated in the context of their former spell schools and common sense for the game. A temporary fireball is not considered creating something and attacking an enemy would not violate an anathema against protecting others or changing a physical thing.

The argument isn't that "you're too trained, it doesn't qualify as an improvised weapon", the argument is "you're not actually improvising, pick an actual weapon to represent your weapon of choice, instead of claiming that you're improvising when you are not."

It's not about a character losing benefits, it's about a player building an "improvised" weapon build that does not actually use improvised weapons - if the character always fights with a broom, make a staff-build instead of an improvised-build, because that character is not improvising and you shouldn't be claiming that they are.

Imagine someone playing a wizard but describing it like each of their spells isn't actually spell, but a consumable - they say they are throwing an alchemist fire, but they are casting a fireball. They say they are giving you an "elixir of extra actions", but they are casting a haste. If they want the class fantasy of alchemist, they should be playing an alchemist, not reskinning a wizard to work like an alchemist.

Or the improvised weapon, but other way around. Imagine playing a character where you describe how you pick up the leg of a chair and swing it at the troll, dealing... (2d12+4)x2+d12 damage! "How the heck is that leg chair hitting that hard?" "Oh, improvised weapons suck, so this is actually my +1 striking heavy pick (fatal)" -> No, if you want to improvise, improvise, if you want to use a single weapon, make a build that uses a single weapon instead of claiming you're improvising when you're not.

ESPECIALLY if you're using a build that constantly breaks the weapons. How many brooms are you carrying around?!

That's a fair concern. Aside from some very specific situations (you're in a room that's specifically cleared/empty, like a cell or some something) I would personally as a GM assume that there's *something* within grasp that you can grab and use as an improvised weapon, **at all times**. Claiming that "nope, no loose rocks, no branches, no nothing" in an abandoned ruins or dungeon seems just... hostile, for no good reason - preventing a character's build from working for no benefit whatsoever - But I recognise that some GMs are less comfortable with "yes and.." / improvising and if the room looks very empty on the map (like most of the flipmat tiles), they may be tempted to say that "nope, nothing here you can use".

I hope that you never face a situation where the GM goes "there's nothing here you could use as an improvised weapon" because I think that shouldn't really ever happen.

... No, I'm saying that if your character concept revolves around using the same object every single time, go for a weapon that best represents what you're doing instead of expecting a GM to always rule the same way.

My character has a bag of bricks they use as "Improvised" weapons: No way to be sure what stats Gm will give it.

My character has a bag of Bricks - light hammers actually, brick just fits the theme better and gives a nicer mental picture: 1d6 martial thrown 20ft agile.
If a GM complains about bricks not being light hammers/that's taking 'reskinning too far' -> "Fine, the character wields a bag of light hammers (for the GM), (everybody else is free to imagine them throwing bricks)."

Point is: If you want to benefit from abilities that require improvised weapons, actually improvise your weapons on the fly. If you want a character that uses a specific object as their weapon of choice, don't go for an improvised build because they aren't improvising, go for the closest actual weapon and just introduce it during character introduction and check with the GM that they are fine with the (hopefully just a small) re-skinning, like using using a staff that 'looks like a broom' or using a spear that 'looks like a pitchfork'

I agree - I need to rephrase that "consistently using the same thing is no longer improvised" bit - I too did have an improvised weapon user (in 1e), that always used a beartrap as their weapon of choice. However, I always asked GM if it was okay to treat it as an 1d6 weapon and didn't care about the damage type GM would assing to it - and if they had said "no, too unwieldly for 1d6, it's 1d4" I would have just responded with "Fine, show me a stick that's big enough for 1d6 and I'll use that instead."

The problem with "consistently using a specific object as an 'improvised' weapon" only comes up if it's used as an excuse to get more from the weapon than what a baseline actually improvised weapon would be: If you're fine with your favored improvised weapon (be it a wooden sword, a broom, an umbrella, a brick) getting the same stats as a stick, a long stick, or a rock that you pick off the ground, then there's probably no issue. But if the favored 'improvised' weapon is something like "a very sharp chunk of silver" or "a cold iron pot" and the you describe it in a specific way in an attempt to get it to function as if it had specific qualities, then you should probably use an actual weapon instead. Like a silver dagger or a cold iron frying pan.

If you buy a bag of bricks and plan to use them as weapons, they probably aren't "improvised" anymore. A common 'loophole' that gets suggested when talking about improvised weapons is buying something like, a chunk of precious material and bludgeoning people with it as an "improvised" weapon, for a fraction of the cost of an actual precious material weapon, and that's clearly not intended - if you want your "weapon" to count as a special material, you need to pay the listed price for it. And if you consistently use a specific item as your improvised weapon, it's no longer 'improvised' and you should use actual weapon (stats) to represent it.

You probably would need to pick them up during an adventure, but they wouldn't 'carry over' to the next one if you found one you liked (and it wouldn't be an improvised weapon anyway if you started to use it regularly).

Improvised weapons are up to individual GMs. I would assume that most let you choose between an 1d4 finesse/agile pointy thing (basically a dagger) or a 1d6 bludgeoning thing (basically a club) or maybe 1d8 two-handed blunt thing (basically a two-handed staff), anything above those seems... I want to say unlikely, but also partly unreasonable. An improvised weapon should always be *worse* than an actual weapon (because it isn't meant to be used as a weapon), so I'd probably pick stats from a simple weapon that is closest in resemblance and maybe drop a trait or two off.

Yes, this does mean that the new magus would never benefit from having an "improvised weapon with forceful or backstabber" because there are no simple weapons with those traits, but honestly, that archetype is amazingly bad (aside from a single OP feat it has) and would work much better (or rather, at all) in regular campaign where you could talk with your GM beforehand and either agree to a list of random possible improvised weapon stats, or to some sort of point-buy "build your own improvised weapon" system.

Talon Stormwarden wrote:

To be more specific, PCs do not get to keep any of the treasure found in the scenario. The ONLY monetary or physical reward PCs receive is the treasure bundles awarded at the end of the adventure plus anything explicitly stated on the chronicle (for instance Intro 1: Second Confirmation has a boon that awards a Wayfinder). The commonly held "in game" explanation for this is that all the treasure is given to the society and then the agents are paid an amount of gold indicated by the treasure bundles.

in fact the scenario in question is Intro 1. The chest at C2 has gems worth 25gp

If you check the Treasurebundle section at the end of the scenario (p.38) it's actually accounted for in the TB's (TB for overcoming the hazard).

In any case, the scenarios have gold and item rewards for two purposes: One, the items can be used during the adventure and 2. the scenarios might be run outside of society play, either as oneshots or some GMs might include them in their own campaign, in which case the campaign characters would get to keep the items/gold. But for society purposes, your only rewards for a scenario are: Gold per the TBs, XP, Reputation, possible boons, and possibly unlocking some items through the chronicle sheet's item list. Society characters do not get to keep anything they find after the adventure is done.

Spoilered blessed boundary because it's not really relevant to the topic, I just think it's an interesting example of ambigiuous spell

What loopholes? They want us to use the remastered rules whenever possible. For this encounter, it looks quite possible to do so. And I wasn't looking for a way out of running Captivating Song. I started that thread so I could wrap my head around how "sustaining" it worked.

The problem is with the "for this encounter". If you're supposed to update for the remaster version of a creature for this encounter then you should be updating for all encounters, which brings out various issues as I pointed out earlier - invalidating tactics, invalidating synergies between creatures, accidentally buffing or nerfing creatures when there were deliberate changes in the statblock.

Run Prudently

GMs can change the presentation of adventure elements (reskin) to avoid phobias or otherwise ensure a positive experience for all players, but cannot change the mechanics of those elements.

GM's CAN

Adjust obvious typos or errors in a scenario
Use alternate maps (or areas of provided maps) for encounters
Reskin enemies to avoid phobias or for personal preference without altering mechanical traits

Per the guide, you aren't supposed to change the mechanics, and swapping from captivating song to stench is not a typo, nor is it an alternative map. The remaster rules for society statet that if a player option has been reprinted with the same name, it's treated as errata - it does not apply to monsters. Even before remaster, if an adventure had a statblock for a creature that was different from the bestiary entry, you wouldn't change it for the bestiary version - so why would you do it now?

Further, if this is the specific scenario I'm thinking about, it has 3 different harpies - creature 5, 7, 9. Swapping the creature 5 harpy for the bestiary harpy also gives it a bigger damage for it's attacks, different AC, different HP, and a disease, plus changes skills, making several mechanical changes to the combat: While it could be 'easy' to just swap out the song for the stench for the creature 7 and 9, those don't have statblocks printed anywhere else, so how do you adjust the ac, hp, dmg and skills? Just guesstimate what they would be? Then you're just making stats up, not "running with the remaster version".

Messing with the statblocks is unnecessary, and just creates more problems if it's taken as a general guideline.

I don't think there's any good reason to change a creature that has a printed statblock in the adventure, to a different statblock.

Why would you ever do that? What does this accomplis? What's the benefit? The GM is just creating additional work for themself and potentially causing either lore inconsistencies, or messing up the intended mechanical encounter.

SuperParkourio considers to use the one from the remaster because the Captivating Song action of its legacy version is poorly written and leads to doubts that significantly change the difficulty for players to deal with it, as discussed in the thread

Legacy Harpy: Extending Captivating Song.

If this is the case (as written, ability is ambigious) then the solution is to try and work out a reasonable adjudication on how the ability works - not to try for loopholes to replace it with a completely different ability.

As an example that I stumbled upon recently, old Blade Barrier - now Blessed Boundary - is just poorly written and ambigious. But if a scenario has a creature that has Blessed boundary on it's statblock, Your job as a GM is to figure out how you run blessed boundary, and then run it consistently like that when it props up - not to go through a spell list and try to figure out if the creature could prep a different spell instead.

Or the recent thread about roiling incant. Spellschools got removed which causes issues with it's abilities, the creature has engulf which requires striding twice which in turn uses landspeed, but it only has fly speed. The correct solution is to work out a reasonable way to run the creature, not to scour a monster core to look for a closest match and replace it with a different creature.

Use the provided statblocks (but fix obvious issues).

The problem with changing to "remastered versions" is that it can have unintended consequences that significantly change the difficulty of the encounter.

The NPC statblock in the scenario can have deliberate changes in it and switching to the 'new version' might override these - for example, there's a scenario where a monster has a favored enemy type of an ability (typically human), but for the scenario the favored enemy is an ancestry that is highly unlikely (possibly even impossible) to be a PC. This seems to be a clear balancing choice, ensuring that the creature does not get to fully use it's most powerful tools. Switching to the default version would mean that it suddenly becomes a lot more effective against humans.

In the harpy example - while it might not be relevant in this specific adventure, changing to the new version and switching from captivating song to stench fundamentally changes what the creature is about - from drawing the opponent close, to keeping them away. In some other scenario, this could completely change the encounter or even invalidate it: "Harpies on the rocks! Oh no, try not to get captivated and drown!" vs "Harpies on the rocks! No worries, let's just... Not go there.!"
Or it could otherwise mess up the encounter design - maybe the harpies have allies that have abilities that only work on fascinated opponents, maybe there are traps they are pulling PCs into, and so on and so on.

Changing from a specific creature to a creature that has a different name but is the "spiritual successor" is completely out of the question. Despite Archives of Nethys thinking that Vordine is the remastered version of Barbazu, it is not: They are two completely different creatures with different names, lores, abilities, and functions, and while they are both creature 5, they are very different in terms of difficulty, and in how they can utilise their surroundings to their advantage. Mechanically, they both serve the same function - melee fiend at creature level 5, but that doesn't mean they are interchangeable at will.

There's also a scenario where an enemy, if you were to switch to remastered version, gets a completely new ability. The remastered version has DC 27 for that ability (because it's higher level) but the scenario version is scaled to 4 or 2 levels lower, and that DC 27 would be way too much for the PCs. It's also a ranged ability that hampers movement (and deals a lot of damage on lower level PCs) which would make an already difficult combat even harder as PCs already have trouble engaging the monster. It's just one more example of a why deliberately switching statblocks or trying to update them to 'remastered versions' is a bad idea.

The bottom line is that the adventure was written with the specific statblocks and there's absolutely no reason to go changing them, unless you're fixing a specific error.

I have, I think a bit over 60 scenarios GM'd and played on a rough guesstimate. During those, I know my investigator has died twice, once on lvl 8, once on lvl 9, and I think a different character of mine died in a scenario, but it got retconned because there was some sort of mix up (accidentally used wrong scaling and run high tier instead of low tier, or something similar).

I've killed one actual PC, I've had two pregens die at my table in different scenarios (they were filling up the table that had just 3 players, so no consequences for any players).

One 1st season scenario I GM'd would have ended in a TPK, but I had a misunderstanding about how shields work and because of it, the last surviving party member (druid) stood standing and managed to cast heal, reviving the whole team, and turned the tide of the battle. Without it, it would have been a TPK.

The one PC I killed was also almost a TPK - whole party was on the ground, dying or stabile, except for the last PC who killed the boss, and managed to save... almost everyone, before people bled to death.
As a player, I had a similar experience in a different 1st season scenario, where the whole party was dying except the fighter, who managed to kill the boss at the last moment. That time, they managed to revive the whole party though, despite some really, really grievous wounds >.>

Oooh, and I wasn't personally part of that table, but we had 2 tables run the same scenario at the same time, from year 2 I think - one of them breezed through it (high tier), one of them took a TPK in the first encounter.

Firstly - I would treat any spells that were evocation spells before the remaster, as if they still had the evocation tag for this monster. I would also count any spells that are 'spiritual successors' to old spells like if they had the evocation tag (force barrage being the new magic missile, which used to be evocation, as an example).
If it got hit by remaster spell that very strongly feels like it would be evocation spell (like, say, some sort of "lightning strikes from the sky!") I might also count that as an evocation spell... But this would be more context sensitive decision and I'd be tempted to rule in a player's favor.

Secondly, yeah, not being able to use it's engulf, which it clearly is supposed to be able to use, would be 'too bad to be true'. It has only one movement speed so that's the one I would use for it when using engulf.

If it has like, "speed 10ft, fly 40ft" then this question would be more complicated, because one could argue that it's intended as a balancing factor that it can only move 20ft if it wants to use engulf and not 80ft and we don't actually know what the devs were thinking - but now that it only has one speed, it's clear that's what it's supposed to be using.

Your experience is highly atypical, as more often the complaint is that PFS adventures are very railroady, without the characters really having much say in where the adventure goes. Sure, you can Solve issues in different ways, but the issues and problems you are facing are pre-written.
Practically speaking all PFS players know that the scenarios have pretty rigid structure and we're just along for the ride, although sometimes there's room for improvisation and very creative solutions, so trying to run off the tracks is extremely rare.

If a PC tries to go way off the rails, the typical response (after trying to gently guide them back on tracks) would be that "that's outside the scope of this adventure, your character can run into the sunset if they want to, but they won't be participating in the rest of this scenario" or similar.

That being said, "it's what my character would do" is not an excuse to act like a jerk - there's a difference between a player who is willing to work with others to have their (wildly acting) character participate in the adventure (in which case it's a character problem and can be solved ingame) and between a player who is not willing to work with others to have their character participate (and who uses "it's what my character would do" as an excuse), in which case it's a player problem and needs to be dealt with outside of the game.

1) as many have pointed out, this depends on the group, location, and adventure. For example, last game I played we had some absolutely delightful RP going on - we had an academy dropout caster and an ustalav academic caster that had good banter about how "real life teaches you everything you need to know" versus "you couldn't even finish school, while I graduated valedictorian", combined with two kitsunes that were extremely polite and respectful of the spirits in the forest of spirits while the academics were scoffing at them, and lastly but not least, a leshy (nature spirit) thrown into the mix and being kinda in their natural environment.

It had some good sitcom like energy with the friendly but competitive banter, some minor cultural clashes, and all in all was super fun. Not all tables are like that, though, but it helped that the players were familiar with each other and we had plenty of time while the adventure was on the shorter side, so we didn't need to rush.

2) On the other side, the previous adventure I played saw the group almost TPK to a boss fight, and my lvl 9 investigator had to buy their second resurrection to continue their journey. Some fights are easy, sure, but this ties in with a different problem 2e, especially AP's have:

2e often has a lot of combat, especially adventure paths. GMs often try to cut out some combats to streamline the experience a bit - and often this means cutting 'filler encounters' that aren't 'plot relevant', but also they are often the more easier encounters. However, if you cut out all the easier encounters, you end up with an adventure that's very tiring - every combat takes long and is (potentially) dangerous, and that can lead to fatigue. 2e needs those easy, light combats to maintain pacing, and it makes those dangerous, high-stakes combats feel more impactful. They exist, even in society scenarios, but they aren't super common, and not all scenarios have those difficult combats.

Also, constant PC deaths, especially in low levels, aren't necessarily fun, nor do they support growth as they can discourage players from continuing with the campaign. That's probably a reason why lower level scenarios are often easier... But those too do have encounters with TPK potential, especially the ones with a solo bosses.

As the sanctioning requires that you use the provided pregens, I would run it with the provided pregens as they are. Sadly, this means that it's a poor 'learning experience' for new players.

Using the provided pregenerated characters is required for Threshold of Knowledge.

Inner Radiance Torrent was originally Limited, now that it's been nerfed, does it change from Limited to Standard?

It's up to the GM - "you CAN allow". Some GMs may allow you to improve the degree, some might not. This is also relevant for Life Shot, which says that willing targets are flat footed - in some tables, you might be flat footed AND improve the degree by one step. The FAQ merely states that the optional rule is in use - and the optional rule is that a GM can allow, if they wish and if the situation warrants it. Without the FAQ, the optional rule would not be allowed, which would be a blanket ban for GMs to allow it.

It's important to understand the context here. That rule is there because of a creature which 'overheals you' and attempts to kill you by giving you too much health, and when fighting it, it makes sense to sometimes hit your allies, and sometimes your allies may even want to help you to hit them. It's not intentend as a blanket "All abilities that target allies are always one degree of success better", it's intended to make creative solutions/using hostile abilities against allies easier (like shoving an ally out of harms way, or picking them up in an aqueous orb) - it's not meant to improve random abilities which were meant to be used on allies from the beginning.

Bones Oracle + Domain Acumen at lvl 2, or oracle dedication and basic mysteries -> domain acumen, costing you lvl 2 and 4 feats.

I'm not sure if there are any other ways currently to access it. But is there a specific reason why you need the domain, maybe that could be substituted with something else? Like touch of the void from champion?

Ah, I misread, I thought they beat up the summoners.

Yeah, Okay, the missed the boss fight and 90+% of the loot.
However, there's no instructions on how much gold you should deduct per missed encounter, and there's an argument to be made that "sneaking around the summoners" is a "clever solution" to avoiding the combat, but it's down to semantics.

In any case, I don't think a GM should go around changing scenario rewards without actual clear printed instructions on how to do so.

That advice isn't strictly speaking a clear rule,though.

The Guide says that "this value represents the total gold piece value a character receives for defeating all enemies and finding all treasure" but the emerald spire isn't written for pathfinder society, there could be, for example, an item on a floor that's value is more than the total wealth gained for that whole adventure. If the players miss that item, would you give them 0 gold despite them killing everything else and finding everything else? Obviously not.
To modify the gold value, you'd need to know what encounters are supposed to give how much gold. That information (for PFS) isn't written anywhere for the emerald spire, so just reward them the full amount.

Just cross over the items they missed (as per guide, p. 16, step 7).

Especially if you only spring this onto the players *after* the game, they'll probably be disappointed - If missing loot meant losing gold, they (probably) would have just crawled through every nook and cranny and room, instead of playing it safe and smart.

ALSO, for this adventure, something like 90%+ of the loot is tied to the summoners anyway. If this was a PFS scenario, there would probably be rewards for copying notes and figuring out stuff.

So the contradiction is that the Guide says "characters created 15 nov. 2023 or later must use the reprinted version" while the remaster states that the classes in PC2 can use the old chassis if they were created prior to august 12.

Use the newer text to avoid the confusion.

After 15th of november 2023, all new characters using classes from PC1 must use the PC1 version, not the old version, and after 12th of august 2024, all new characters using the classes in the PC2, must use the PC2 version.

So, if your class was in PC2 but your character was made between 15th of novemeber and 12th of august, you don't have a free rebuild available, but you can continue to use the old class chassis.
Note that some of your abilities (feats, sub-class options, etc) may have received updated texts, and these must be treated as errata.

I'm getting ready to GM 5-08, and I'm trying to figure out where I can find the battle-mat which is used for "C. The Final Exam"? It's not labeled, and I can't seem to find it anywhere. I suppose in theory I could just use the image from the scenario, but that seems optimal since it's got "non-terrain" markings on it.

Product thread

[Custom full-page map]
Flip-Mat: Deep Forest
Flip-Mat: Darklands
Map Pack: Caverns

You might be able to use a PDF extractor of some sort to grab just the map, without those markings, if they haven't flattened the image. At least on newer scenarios that works, but I have no recollection if that worked for this old scenarios.

Ye, for Society play, you really need to plan your character being self-sufficient, so the odds of someone using a shield but not being able to repair it is really low - after all, what would they do if they went into a scenario where nobody in the party knew how to repair shields?

You also can't craft items for other players, unless you consistently play with the same person every time, and you craft items just so you can lend them out to that person during sessions, since wealth transfer isn't allowed.

Crafting skill checks definitely do come up, though.

Is the exemplar class allowed in Pathfinder Society? The boon text I can see says "exemplar multiclass archetype" which to me implies archetype rather than class

Character options

All Pathfinder agents have access to the rare exemplar class. The exemplar archetype is only available as a boon from the Boon Store.

Aren't they the exact same weapon? Both are 1d6 bludgeoning martial clubs with L bulk, 1 hand, shove, thrown 30ft, and the grippli/tripkee trait? Why change it anyway?

By default, there's no rules for "just changing one weapon to another".
However, if you're still level 1, you can sell back equipment at the original price, and then buy the new weapon, effectively losing nothing.

If your first chronicle sheet was received before... November 15th last year I think, you have one use of the remaster rebuild for the character. As part of that rebuild, you may sell back equipment at full price, and then purchase a new weapon, effectively switching it out for free.

Both of those options do require that you have some sort of character rebuild available, though - either lvl 1 or remaster rebuild. Outside of those, there's no special rule allowing switching weapons (other than transfering runes at that 10% gp price), although in this case as the weapons are literally identical, I doubt anyone will mind if you just call your rungu a Cruuk instead. Technically speaking though, they are two different weapons because they have different names.

There was a thread not that long ago that had ideas about crafters being able to trade or sell items to other characters, if you want to take a look at the discussion. It's not really feasible, as it'll be a wealth transfer one way or another, not to mention that it would be either extremely easy to abuse or a horrible burden on bookkeeping.

Most importantly:
If you ever feel that crafting was a poor choice, remember that you can always retrain the feats and skill increases you chose, with 7 days of downtime per feat/skill increase.

Second: A lot of players/characters skil earn income rolls, because the reward is basically pocket change. Crafting has a tiny advantage over earn income: your earnings are calculated based on your level, not your level -2, and the DC is based on the level of the item you're making. You'll get best results if you figure out [a consumable] that your build constantly uses anyway, and you can keep crafting it day after day. That allows you to make the crafting check versus a low DC while earning more than your earn income peers per day of downtime.

To really benefit from crafting, requires spending considerable IRL time on optimising your downtime. For many, it's just not worth the hassle. For those who really dedicate the time to figure out the options, you can get results such as: Rolling DC 15 as a level 4 character with +14 on the skill, critting on 11+, and (effectively) making 1gp per day spent (8gp for the downtime of a scenario). At level 4, you can get 64gp from the scenario, so 8gp extra is 12,5% increase in your earnings. A regular earn income check (DC 16, but your skill and bonuses probably aren't maxed) from the same time is 2,4gp (or 4gp if you crit), so you're earning more than triple (or double) extra compared to them.

One issue is that the best items to craft are: Expensive, lower than your level items that you don't need right now, but those aren't super common in the end (which is why I recommend consumables instead)

I can't answer these for 100% certain, but:

can I still use the Career Change boon to quickly retrain feats and such without having to switch to the remaster chassis and lose the School benefits?

Remaster rules

will we get a refund

Traditionally, the answer has been that No, there's not a refund - your acp got you the option to play the ancestry/heritage early. However, other ancestries and heritages that were changed to common/always available got an updated text in the boon, giving them a free resurrection, so you probably get a free resurrection too.

(Free feat seems unlikely, but then again, the only one that lost anything was ganzi - previously, they gained that random resistance instead of LLV->DV upgrade like other planar scions, now they get the vision upgrade like everybody else and need to spend a feat for the resistance. Aphorite previously got the same Low Light Vision, so your Nephilim "aphorite" lost nothing compared to your old Aphorite and doesn't need a free feat to be exactly identical to the old version. If you check how tiefling/aasimar was handled when nephilim got reprinted, the character options state that nephilims get to choose either aasimar or tiefling, and they count all old aasimar OR tiefling feats as having the nephilim trait, or vice versa. I expect the same to happen with aphorite and ganzi, meaning that your nephilim can still select aphorite feats as you previously could.)

It would be cool if nephilim had the option to take a free lineage feat INSTEAD of gaining the vision upgrade, though! Would also make them more appealing for ancestries that already have dark vision...

The (other) enemy has Retributive strike but no champion's aura, and retributive strike refers to the aura to determine the range.

I'd ignore the prerequisite of having used twin parry. The enemies were given these reactions for a reason, and to me it seems clear that they are supposed to be able to use the reactions too, so I'd just let them twin riposte as a reaction if someone critically misses them.

"As a reward, the NPC gifts players [an uncommon weapon] at the end of the scenario."
However, chronicle sheet does not list said weapon.
To me, this seems like an obvious error: There is no point in handing the players a weapon, then taking it away immediately, and not giving access to it on the chronicle sheet. However, messing with the chronicle sheet seems extremely dubious.

Would this be considered an obvious error that a GM would be free to correct, adding it to the chronicle sheet's list of items unlocked?

To emphasise, I don't really care about this specific example (despite having asked it elsewhere too) specifically - I just think it's an excellent example of a situation where 'an obvious error' might not actually be one.

I wholeheartedly welcome these changes!

However, the wording here:

Run combat encounters without deliberately increasing difficulty

seems to imply that a GM may deliberately lower difficulty of encounters. Is this correct? Is the intent that a GM may add Weak template on some enemies or maybe even reduce the numbers of enemy creatures in encounters?

It's clear that GMs always have the ability influence the difficulty of an encounter by running enemies more smartly or having them make tactical mistakes, but the old version explicitly called out changing encounters as a no-no, while the new text seems imply "Please don't make stuff harder, but feel free to make it easier if that's good for the table".

If that's not the intent, then wording should probably be "run combat encounters without deliberately changing difficulty"

For my own pathfinder agent, I record the exact creatures, but I mention it (and throw the list) to the GM before the game/at the start, and mention that it's unclear what the type should mean - they get to make the judgement on when it applies and when it doesn't.