Tomppa's page

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

"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.

There's nothing saying that you must use official art, and indeed in meatspace games you might not even have tokens with appropriate art, but rather a random assortment of miniatures or just generic markers etc.

I'd avoid purposefully using misleading art, tho - for example, if the players are faced with lizardfolks, you wouldn't want to use zombies or skeletons.

Personally, I think the token art should be as representative as the description you're giving them, but not much else. If the players want to know whether that's a lizardfolk or a serpent folk or a nagaji (or just a very large kobold) (Or a werecrocodile), they get to roll a recall knowledge for it. This is especially true with undead, unless they are specifically described in a clearly identifiable way: if it's just a pile of bones animating, then sure, it's a skeleton (probably). But if you check the art for a skeleton champion and say, draugr, they look very similar and could easily be mistaken for one another. And if the skeleton has even a bit more armor or a closed helmet, it's no longer immediately recognizeable as a skeleton guard.

This ties a bit into a somewhat popular discussion about "if we're facing a skeleton / zombie, is it metagaming to know that bludgeoning / slashing works against each?" to which my answer is that you typically shouldn't know you're facing a skeleton/zombie without an RK check. You can definitely gamble that it's a skeleton/zombie, but it could just as well be draugr or a flesh golem, or possibly a Morhg, ghoul or a wight.

What software are you using to handle the pdf?
For me, adobe Acrobat (free, not paid) allows to mark and sign the pdf and then print it as pdf just fine, as does opening it in edge, firefox, or chrome (I'm not sure if any of those are using some sort of extension?)

In either case, I really recommend giving rpgchronicles a try.
As others have explained, there's no need for an account - signing up to your game on rpg chronicles is just as easy for the players as it would be on any other platform, such as google sheets or where ever you may want their details to. Just throw them the link, they click it, they fill in their details.

It also automatically calculates the challenge points for you, and creates the chronicle sheets. There's a minor issue that isn't immediately apparent: If I recall, it doesn't check the boxes for "and you befriended/killed/let the BBEG go free" checboxes, unless you go to the end, insert the chronicle code, and then go one step back again to select the checkmarks.

Honestly, filling in the chronicle sheets is such a chore, and rpgchronicles is such a huge QoL boost to that.

It's a bit of a corner case, but given the guide text (emphasis is mine):

Players can also use the Second Chance AcP Boon (to clear death) or the Pathfinder Condition Removal AcP Boon (to clear all other conditions.) When it is not feasible to purchase these Boons immediately after the game, GMs are encouraged to work with players to ensure that the Boon is purchased in as timely a fashion as possible, and not immediately mark the character “dead” as above.

I think it might not be wholly intended by the earlier text, but I still think it would be fine, to have the GM report the game and the character purchasing the second chance immediately afterwards. It would be weird to have a character die permanently in a scenario that results in you having enough acp for a resurrection.

It would depend on "what counts as religion"? Had it said "follower of a specific deity" then it would disqualify you from godless healing, but gods & magic p. 92, "philosophies and spirituality" says:

The following pages present examples of the diverse religious and philosophical practices of the Inner Sea region.

It then goes on to list various pantheons, esoteric order of the palatine eye, god calling (definitely a religion), Green faith (also clearly a religion), Laws of Mortality, Prophecies of Kalistrade, Sangpotshi, Shoanti Animism, and atheism.

Are all of these religions? Is Laws of Mortality a religion in itself? If yes, then you could very well choose laws of mortality (or other deity-less religion) to follow and fill both prerequisites - not having a patron deity, yet following a religion.

If you're still level 1 or if you have the remaster rebuild (or are willing to purchase a rebuild), pick up the 1st level feat, Quadruped. You and your mount could be a single unit, so thematically you'd be riding, while mechanically you just have a better movement speed.

If you pick the first level champion feat, Faithful steed, you can select Legchair (grand bazaar) as your steed. Technically it says that

Your companion is a strange creature, akin to a chair with bestial legs.

but nobody would probably mind if those legs stand on the slides of the rocking horse, at least it's closer to what you're looking for than a horse.

Anyway, I don't recommend trying to reskin an actual horse/animal to a rocking horse, because rocking horse sounds like a construct/mindless creature, and it would be pretty misleading for the rest of the party and GM as to what your mount actually is.

Yes, similar to how old oracles are now kinda hosed as their mysteries are written with the same names, so they are erratas, and are automatically updated, but the class chassis does not update without spending a rebuild, and the two do not mesh together.

It's just the class chassis that stays the same if you don't remaster.

"If a character option has been reprinted with the same name, use the new version as if it were errata. " -> this applies to the sub class choices such as rogue rackets, sorcerer bloodlines, and oracle mysteries.

It's highly unlikely or near impossible that Organized Play would allow trading between players. Some reasons:

1. the bookkeeping would be absolutely a nightmare, and would be basically impossible for a GM/VO to verify when auditing a character. How would you verify that the crafter A really spent the downtime to craft the item character B bought?

2. At what price would the crafter sell the item to the other PC? If it's at the cost the crafter spent (pay 50%, craft for the 50% discount), you would be effectively transfering wealth to the buyer, as they are getting a 1000gp item by paying just 500gp.
If it's at the regular cost of the item, then the buyer isn't getting anything out of it - they could have just bought the item regularly for the same price - but the crafter is essentially getting extra gold. Crafting as a downtime activity 'earns' better than earn income because it's always just a discount and you can't turn it into actual gold, but with this method you could. Either method results in someone having more gold at their disposal than they should have. At best, it would give the buyer double the downtime - their own, plus someone else crafting, and at worst, it would give permanent 50% discount to all items for some characters.

2.5. Your argument that "it's as if they crafted it themselves" is not true - the buyer didn't invest skill increases or feats or equipment or downtime into crafting. You could have a dedicated crafter for a single of your own/friends PC, and effectively double their wealth by just having the crafter PC craft and sell everything to them at 50% the cost of what it would regularly cost.

3. Some items are, by their nature, 'limited'. You can only get access through a chronicle sheet to some uncommon/rare items - and those items are a reward for playing that adventure. Thus, only 2 (or 3, with a replay) of your characters can ever get their hands on that piece of equipment. Allowing a crafter to sell it to whoever would break this 'reward' and 'limit', as suddenly the rare limited item is at everyone's disposal.

3.5. Tracking access would be impossible too. "Oh I bought this [unique item] from player A's crafter." "Oh, yeah, I crafted that, I'm player A. yeah I bought my own copy of the item from some crafter at a convention 6 months ago. Yeah I think they said they bought it from someone else. Yeah sorry I have no idea where the original copy came from, I just assume there's an adventure/charity boon/AcP boon somewhere that gives you access to this."
OR you'd have to share copies of chronicle sheets for items when you sell them, which circles back to point 1 - bookkeeping horror.

In short, the system would be just ripe for abuse and cheating, and even with strict oversight it would create uneven playing field where some characters gain way more than others.

tl;dr it's just not necessary. You can buy all the equipment you want, at the regular price, except for the items that you aren't supposed to be able to buy. PC crafters would either mess with the regular price, or the restrictive rarity on some items.

... The only sensible way to implement this would be:
Buyer has to also have access to the item or they can't buy it
Buyer spends gold equal to the printed cost of the item
Crafter receives gold equal to the gold they spent, not for any discount they got through crafting (so typically 50% of the gold)
But at that point, there would be literally no point for these rules, as nobody gains any sort of benefit and the crafter just loses their downtime, effectively, so why bother.

Ferious Thune wrote:

It’s available for all classes, just not for characters created after November 15th, 2023. I think in other threads you established that you group was good, because the characters had credits from before then.

The current guidance is that no character that did not have at least 1XP before November 15th, 2023 gets the rebuild, regardless of class. Some of us would like to see that amended at least for Alchemists and Oracles, as those characters potentially become unplayable if they don’t rebuild.

I support you in your endeavors.

It feels like you two are talking past each other.

On November 15, 2023, all characters with at least one game reported were granted one free rebuild.

It doesn't matter what the character class is - if they were created a week or month or 6 months ago, they don't have a free rebuild.

The point is that old characters got a rebuild to transition into the new remaster versions of classes, while new characters - those created after the deadline - do not get a rebuild, because they don't need a rebuild, because they can already build using the new classes.

-----

Now, the gripe everyone is having is that this system does not take into account characters that were created after 15th of november, but using classes that did not yet get reprinted before PC2. If you're one of the folks who rolled an oracle this year, before PC2, and managed to get 12+ xp and played the character at level 2+, you're stuck with a broken character unless you purchase a separate boon to rebuild the character.

As stated previously, any characters created after November of 2023 are not granted a free Remaster Rebuild. Characters who wish to rebuild must purchase a boon to do so.

EDIT:

Hello, all!

Player Core 2 releases on August 1, bringing eight more Remastered classes into play: alchemist, barbarian, champion, investigator, monk, oracle, sorcerer, and swashbuckler.

...

- As stated previously, any characters created after November of 2023 are not granted a free Remaster Rebuild. Characters who wish to rebuild must purchase a boon to do so.

Oracles

Because they share the same name, all Oracle mysteries are automatically updated to use the new Cursebound condition. As such, oracles gain no benefit from choosing not to use their Remaster Rebuild immediately and are strongly encouraged to do so.

There is a [non-zero amount] of characters that were created after the rebuild cut-off date, that are using classes reprinted in PC2 - such as an oracle that had their first game 3 months ago.

Are the only solutions really to either buy a rebuild boon or throw the character away?
Could a class chassis maybe qualify as a "selectable class feature" for the purposes of retraining it? This would allow oracles (and others) retrain from the old version into the new version at the cost of 28 days, if all they want to do is to update the basic chassis?

It's important to note that while they do get "a full turn", they don't get "an additional action/turn" like they did in previous editions. Also, they may win initiative without succeeding in ambushing, or they may lose initiative while still being succesfull in ambushing the PCs:

Let's assume PC has +10 perception, and monster has +10 stealth.
Scenario one:
Monster rolls at least 10 on the dice, PCs roll less than 10. Since monsters initiative (20 or higher) beats the player's perception DC (20) AND it beats their initiative. Monster is undetected and gets to take a full turn because it is now their turn in combat. They probably have a mechanic to benefit from the undetected condition (like ranged sneak attacks or something) but they could just as well stride forward and make two strikes, doesn't really matter - it's a normal combat turn for them. Then, the PC gets to act, also taking a full turn.

Scenario two: Monster rolls 9 (or less) on the dice, PC rolls even lower. Monster still gets to go first (because they won initiative) but since they did not beat the perception DC, they aren't undetected. PC gets to take their turn normally afterwards.

Scenario three: Monster rolls 10+ on initiative, but PC rolls even better.
Monster is still undetected to the PC because they beat PC's perception DC, but PC gets to go first. Since the monster is undetected but NOT unnotice, PC that won initiative knows that someone is around and they get a full normally turn: they can start moving, seeking, casting spells or otherwise preparing for the inevitable attack that is likely to come next. Monster gets to take their full turn afterwards.

As you can see, there is no "surprise round" here. It's just two questions: Did avoid notice beat perception DC? If yes, they start undetected. Who won initiative? They get to go first.

Relevant rules are in GM Core

People who are surprised can't take Reactions before their first turn.

Reactions in encounters

Even casters have 3 actions per turn, and since casting typically takes 2, casters should have something useful to spend their third action on, like guidance, intimidation, battle medicine, bon mot, athletics, recall knowledge...

Don't get me wrong, getting slowed 2 as a caster IS harsh and eats away the majority of what you can do, but it's unlikely to crit fail twice in a row (with your heropoint) and if shield is the only 1-action thing your character can do, that's kinda on you. You could be taking out resources such as healing potions or scrolls or bombs and using those. You could be providing flank, aiding, or on the very least, tank a hit or two.

There's no hard and fast rule saying that attacking a downed creature is infamy-worthy: The question is extremely context sensitive.

1)
I think it boils down to: "Is the creature still a threat? If yes, stabbing it again should be fine."
If it's some sort of bloodthirsty monster that attacked you just to kill and eat you (not necessarily in that order) like a trollhound or something, you kinda do have to kill it even though it's unconscious because it will just renew it's attack.

Is it a reasonable creature that you could probably negotiate with and that might surrender, but still clearly hostile for no good cause? Seems like a grey area, like Aspis agents or bandits or enemy soldiers: They are the instigators, and you can't be sure they won't fireball you the moment they open their eyes, despite the fact that they probably should realise they've lost and they should surrender.

Is it an intelligent creature that's not directly hostile but the conflict is more of a misunderstanding/you're the instigators? Such as you got framed, or the guards assume you are up to no good, or society sends you to smuggle stuff into/out of a country, or the attackers are misinformed/controlled/confused? Probably not a good idea to stab them when they are down.

2)
Hard to say, "how often". I think it depends on the situation. Does the team have some other healer and/or does the fast healing creature have access to additional healing? Maybe it could get up, as there is a chance it could get back into the fight. Does it have to rely on just the fast healing to continue the battle? Probably would not get up, because it would: Spend an action picking up a weapon, spend another to get up, probably a third to either attack once or move - and the next hit is going to drop them back down anyway. An intelligent combatant would probably just surrender at that point.

There's a flipside to this coin, though: If your action (to stab an unconscious creature) is BAD, then leaving them to die should be equally bad: the decision to take action or not to take action and whether they are the same is an age old philosophy question, and it could be argued that if you cause the creature to die because you stab it and that's BAD, then your allies choosing NOT TO HEAL/STABILIZE the creature and cause it's death that way should be equally BAD.

There are exceptions, but generally speaking: If I'd give you infamy for 'ensuring that the creature is dead', then it implies that you the pathfinders aren't supposed to kill those creatures, and I'd apply the same infamy for the PCs that intentionally attack with lethal force or that fail to prevent them from dying. I would absolutely use the dying rules in that instance to give the PCs a fair chance to save the dying NPCs.

Huh. I'm surprised - I was pretty sure that existing characters would get to live and adventure as they were, and only new characters were affected - kinda like with pre-master wizards vs remaster wizards.
A full rebuild is a kinda fair compromise, though.

As there's a good chunk of players who don't actively follow the forums and paizo news, how would you recommend GMs to handle situations where someone sits down with a gorumite after august 1st, and they haven't yet heard about the change?

There's also a bunch of non-core 20 deities that are going to die. Will those be handled with the same rules (immediate rebuild when one of them is announced, like with God, Varix the Despoiler, and Sturovenen the Dragoneagle?) and do we need to wait for OP's confirmation for each death/deity, or can we just assume that any that dies results in a rebuild?

That seems to be an error in the guide - the actual book And the Character options page confirm that they are, indeed, uncommon. However, the character options page gives all characters access to nephilim and changeling:

All Pathfinder agents have access to the following Uncommon options:

Ancestries and Heritages: changeling and nephilim versatile heritages (pages 76-79).

https://paizo.com/pathfindersociety/characteroptions

Guide -> Character creation -> select ancestry

3. Select an Ancestry

Ancestry follows the normal rules PC pg. 41, CRB pg. 33Player Core page 41
Core Rulebook page 33
(click to close) with minor modifications to adapt to the languages of Golarion. In addition to the common ancestries in the Player Core, characters also have access to the following ancestries provide the player owns the corresponding book:

Kobold (from the Advanced Player's Guide )
Ratfolk (from the Advanced Player's Guide )
Tengu (from the Advanced Player's Guide )

Note the Leshy and Orc ancestries are now common ancestries in the Player Core and remain available. The Nephilim (formerly Aasimar and Tiefling) and Changeling versatile heritages are also now common and remain available.

In addition, everybody starts out with 80 achievement points, which should be enough for any single uncommon ancestry or uncommon versatile heritage AFAIK, although since they are single-use boons and you don't want to risk the character dying and losing the boon, it's best to keep 40 acp saved up for the Second Chance (resurrection) boon.

Players also gain 80 Starfinder AcP, which is separate from 2e acp, and you can use that to buy System Traveler: Android, which allows you to play an android in 2e without spending any 2e achievement points.

Not long ago I was in a session where half the group got ** spoiler omitted ** in the final battle. We found out when we received our chronicles with gold deducted. During the game we only knew that we had the Fatigued condition after being touched.

Discussing it afterword, the opposite conclusion was reached on every point: We wouldn't realize it was a curse at the time, and wouldn't notice at the end of the session either. The curse continues past the the end of the adventure, so that's as good as permanent. But it wouldn't have mattered even if we did know.

This is really unfortunate, because it's not a good call on the GM's part, and contradicts the guide on several parts: (These are in additon to Cordell's point about the curse actually not being permanent)

Firstly,

Other PCs can use their spells, feats or class abilities to assist characters in recovering from negative effects.

They can also contribute consumables or even some of their gold, but they are not required to.

Characters can always use gold earned during the adventure to clear conditions and those costs must be deducted on the scenario Chronicle by the GM.

The above part gives you the option to use gold, but doesn't force you to.

Extra days cannot be allowed after the adventure specifically because extra time is exploitable. And therefore, there is no chance to prepare Remove Curse and no opportunity for saving throws at each stage.

There's no clear rule about the extra days, but I have to point out that they aren't exploitable. They aren't downtime days, and there's already an indefinite amount of time between the scenarios. I would love to hear the examples for argument "you can't remove conditions by resting for a day and prepping the spell because it could be exploited".

This was not a bad ruling, nor a careless decision. This was an experienced and capable GM who considered our arguments, checked rules on Nethys and the Guide, consulted both Reddit and Paizo boards, and checked with other venture officers as well. That's about as thorough as a body can be; there's no wrongdoing to complain about.

It's a ruling that (sounds like it) was made on the spot, based on the guidance you and the GM could found at the time. There's some supporting words in the material for the way he handled the situation (Old wording addressed all curses as permanents, the sentence I quoted above says the GM MUST deduct the gold, etc), but the way he did is definitely not the intended one and is missing the context. It's not my intention to blame the GM for any wrong doing, or say that the ruling was bad or careless - I can very much see how he'd arrive to the conclusion at the moment, and I can see how the conclusion makes sense. I also know that not all venture officers always agree on every point of nuance in the rules. It is my strong opinion, based on the arguments and evidence, that the GM reached the wrong conclusion, but it is difficult to prove it "beyond any doubt".

My understanding is that those traits weren't removed from old content: Old spells continue to exist as they were, Unless they were reprinted with the same name in which case the new version is treated like an errata.

Any previous item or ability which relies on the existence of spell schools to function (such as the staff of transmutation) may still be purchased or chosen. However, as spells printed after the Remaster do not have spell schools, the utility of these options will diminish over time.

Bolding is mine. New spells do not have spell schools, utility diminishes over time... Seems to imply that old spells still have spell schools, and you can continue to use them but as spells get reprinted ( = errata'd) and new spells lack those traits, the item/ability will grow weaker and weaker as time passes, unlike new options which grow stronger and stronger with added content.

Alex Speidel wrote:

your witch gets one (1) fancy knife

That limitation isn't mentioned in the feat or the clarification.

If a Witch has 6 knives, could they turn them each into a wand one day at a time?

No? Why not?

No, because:

it stays as a normal wand until and unless you change its spell during your daily preparation.

The point is your witch gets one (1) fancy knife which can become one (1) wand of a spell of your choice. You can change this spell at any time during your daily prep.

Yes, the original feat isn't... Written perfectly. Yes, the clarification could state "one wand that lasts until your next daily preparations" to eliminate any and all confusion.

However, Alex has clearly stated what the intent is: You get one wand, with one spell, that you can change during daily prep. Not six wands with six spells.

I probably wouldn't go around listing the player numbers of each participant, as that seems to be more information shared than is necessary. If a single player reports that they may have a typo / their game wasn't reported, I'd probably give them my email/discord info/some other way of contact (if the only current option is a public board) and then move on from there.

Sounds like it should be relatively simple to: Figure out who their GM is, and then check what the GM has reported for the game, and see if you can narrow down the issue from there.

I'm not sure if there are any items or feats or archetypes that require membership in eagle knights, but if you want your character to 'officially' be a member of an organization, I would recommend picking up the Secondary Initiation boon. It costs only 2 achievement points - you start with 80 and you typically gain 4 for playing a scenario, so it's extremely cheap and ensures you actually count as a member of the eagle knights in case it ever actually matters.

Can we get a PDF version of this? Please?!

Will someone please, for the love of god, simplify this treasure bundles mess for newbies and casual gamers by posting a table or "wealth by level" chart of the expected gold players are supposed yo have for when their charters reach each level?!

The issue is that not everyone will have exactly the same amount of gold at any given level. As others have said, (partially) failing a scenario, missing a hidden treasure, playing a scenario at slow track (half the rewards), playing quests or bounties, rolling well in your earn income or crafting rolls, or selling back old equipment you no longer use can change the amount of gold you have compared to others.

NO ONE seems to ever make this frickin' easy by simply having an easily readable table that simply says "Lvl 1 starts with X gold. Lvl 2 has Y total gold. Lvl 3 has Z total gold." Everyone seems to overly explain it in complicated "At this level you get 1.4g per bundle" or "at that level you get 2.8g per bundle" without the helpful aid of saying how many frickin' bundles you're expected to get per level. Just. Simplify. It. Per. Level!

You start at 15 gold. If you're only playing games, you don't need to know anything about bundles. Nothing at all. Your GM will tally up how many bundles you found during an adventure, and calculate how much gold that means for each character.

Look, I'm garbage at maintaining character sheets. And I'll never care enough to try. I'll never scour through them and do the math and track all the crap because I have a life outside Pathfinder and just really don't care. But I'm *trying* to play fairly. So I want a low effort, just-look-at-this-table, wealth by level guide for Pathfinder Society.

It would probably help if you did the tracking immediately when you got the chronicle sheet: Just update how much xp and gold your character has immediately after the game. That's much easier than playing 3-5 scenarios and not giving it a thought and then trying to later figure out where the sheets are and how much you have and what's your xp.

Unfortunately, you do need to be diligent in maintaining your character sheet. You need to tally your XP to know your level, and you need to keep track of your gold. A table that tells you how much gold your character "probably has" at any given point can be a handy tool to make a sanity check against when you're doing your own math, but even then you'd still need to count all your equipment you've purchased and consumables you've used: if your expected gold amount was 42gp when you hit level 2, and you now hit level 3 and you're expected to have earned 66gp more, you still need to know how much of that 42 gp you spent during level 1. Are you also expecting to only make purchases when you level up? Most characters buy new stuff between each scenario - maybe buying more consumables to replaces those they used, or maybe they had saved up gold to buy that Striking Rune and want to buy it as soon as they have the cash.

Why is it frustratingly hard to find something so frickin' simple that just does the math for me so I don't have to figure out what the hell "treasure bundles" are and how much freakin' gold I get?! They standardized the play. Just post a frickin' table for casual gamers already and make our lives 1000% easier dealing with this crap.

After the game, when you get your chronicle sheet, just check how much gold you got and note it in your character sheet, just like you do with XP. "Oh, I got 22gp, I had 1,5gp, strike that through and write 23,5gp." job done.

I think a lot of the issues you describe are related to the organized play and how it is structured, but they are also highly dependent on the GM, and the scenario being played.

As there is typically just 4-5 hours to finish the scenario and you kinda need to finish it in one go, GMs tend to be predisposed to hurrying the players along because often players don't necessarily move the adventure forward on their own. Likewise, some scenarios have way too much story (and/or combats) stuffed into them to nicely fit into a 5 hour slot, and I've had games where the GM flat out tells us that this is going to be a long scenario, so they are going to keep up a good pace.
Personally, I've also told one table that the scenario will be way too long, and asked how much time everyone had and was willing to dedicate to it - and then we played it for... I think 9 or 10 hours, and I let the players push the plot onwards and RP with the NPCs.
The thing here is though, that the skills of the GM make all the difference in whether you feel hurried and whisked along, or whether you feel like you're actively participating in the scenario.

The lack of roleplay stems kinda from the same issue, but I think this is specifically an issue in online games where the typical 'banter' between characters gets cut out because you can't really throw comments or talk on top of anyone due to how VTT voice works.

3) Then GM just tells us what all the skills we can use are and asks for rolls. There is typically very little player agency here, just DM asking for rolls. (not super interesting)

[4) mission starts...

That just sounds like the normal "after the briefing, here's what you remember about these places/people/topics" roll, given how you structured those points, and yes, there's not much player agency because it kinda literally is just "what does your character know that's relevant to the scenario" roll.

Number 4 can also depend on the adventure, but also on the GM.

5 is definitely not true. There are more than a few scenarios that have a reputation of being potentially deadly, I've killed PC or two, I've heard the adjacent table TPK to an encounter while our table was struggling to keep everyone alive (and I later nearly killed two PCs while running the same adventure) and I bought my first Second Chance (resurrection) boon for my investigator after the last game, as they were miraculously the only one dead in a boss fight that the rest of the team just barely clutched.
That being said, again, it depends on the GM. Some GMs run enemies less effectively, some run them more effectively, and it can vary from game to game based on a variety of factors such as running for new players vs running for veterans, what level the adventure is, and how well the GM prepped the combats.

I have to admit that some adventures I'm also more excited for than others, and if the plot seems particularly interesting/relevant (I always read the short scenario descriptions before deciding on my character) I may postpone playing the scenario until I can secure a spot at the table of a GM I know from before. Playing with random GMs and random players isn't Bad, but you just can't always guarantee that the game is as Good as it could be.

I would say that PFS OP can be for you, if you're looking to play games when it fits you and finding a stable group seems difficult - but it is definitely better when you get to know the people from the community and strangers around the table become more familiar to you.

I'd also be interested in hearing which adventures you played in 2e, to get a better idea on what may have influenced your perception of the game?

Doesn't seem like it.

Multilingual allows you to learn two uncommon languages, but that doesn't help with Androffan if it's rare. That being said, I'm not 100% sure if it is actually a rare language: It's from Ancestry Guide, but ancestry guide doesn't give it a rarity - I think AoN has just extrapolated it's rarity from the fact that androids themselves are rare, so it makes sense that the language is also rare.

It's all a clean slate.

At the end of 1e, some scenarios had Legacy Boons on them that Might influence 2e scenarios, but no clear benefits to 2e characters.

There are some legacy backgrounds available for your 2e characters if you played 5+ scenarios in 1e from specific seasons that give you some minor extra benefits:

most notably, Ruby Phoenix enthusiast (5 scenarios played froom season 3) gives your character access to one uncommon monk weapon from a list (which might be beneficial for some characters), and Former Aspis Agent (5 from season 7) allows you to access uncommon options as if you were a member of the aspis consortium - specifically, asp coil is a very decent 1-handed martial reach weapon that's available to aspis agents. You should check the other backgrounds too!

AFAIK, nothing says that old spells suddenly lost components: Old spells, unless they were reprinted, still have the components, so they provoke as usual. New spells don't have components, instead they have the traits (concentrate or manipulate) built in, so they provoke as normal.

In effect, nothing really changed, just how the information is presented (either somatic/verbal components for the old spells, or concentrate/manipulate trait for the new spells).

"PFS GMs must follow STRICT RAW" is a myth.

As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgments, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience.

If you truly, honestly, as a GM believe that the fact that the new CORE book doesn't mention verbal and somatic traits means that old spells suddenly lost those traits and that that means Produce Flame doesn't provoke an AoO (But Ignition, the new version of it, does) then sure, you can make that argument BUT you'd be 99% wrong on what the actual intent is.

I heard a rumor that spells will no longer have the verbal and somatic component traits in Remastered PFS. Is this true? If so where might I find that rule/errata?

You're Kinda correct. Spells that have been (re)printed in player Core or GM Core don't have verbal or somatic components (and going forward, new spells they print won't have those either). They still provoke though, because they have the Concentrate and Manipulate component.

If the Remaster removed the somatic and material components from legacy spells, but makes no mention that they retained the manipulate trait, then I don't see how they do.

Remaster did not remove the components from legacy spells. Nothing, anywhere, says it did. What it did do is that it Reprinted some of the legacy spells, and THOSE now have the traits instead of the components.

Bonus fact: Note that while a lot of the damaging cantrips did not get a reprint in core, the PF2e Errata lists all of them with the change that they lose the "plus your ability bonus" from damage, and get an extra die instead. Check the errata for specific cantrips.

You can see your games and their details on "my account" -> "organized play" -> sessions. You could ask your GMs if they have the copies of the chronicle sheets in their own archives / if they could re-write the chronicle sheets. (it doesn't show treasure bundles though)

Granted and Purchased Replays can only be used on sanctioned content that is scenario-length or shorter. Each granted or purchased Replay allows one replay of an adventure you have already played as though that adventure had the Repeatable tag.

Little Trouble in Big Absalom is scenario length or shorter, so it's replayable with a replay. As usual, the same character can not have more than one copy of a chronicle sheet.

"Scenario-length or shorter" probably means anything that grants 4XP or less, so you can't use it to replay something like, a module or an AP book that grants 12xp, or that book of the dead adventure that gives 8xp if I recall correctly.

It further says that PCs can use their spells to clear conditions, but doesn't say whether those PCs should be allowed to rest a night (at the end of the adventure) to prepare those spells.

It seems to be generally accepted that the PCs can take the time required to rest and cast the spells, etc.

Guide says:

The following conditions are not automatically removed and must be cleared from the character before the end of the adventure or the character ceases to be available for Organized Play:

- Death
- Permanent negative effects, including polymorph or petrification
- Curses

Non-permanent effects are automatically removed. My understanding is that when you're looking at an effect, don't concentrate on what the written duration of the effect is - concentrate on what the end result is. For example, poison isn't permanent, and it isn't death or a curse, but if the last combat ends while a PC is poisoned with a poison that can result in their death (or something like permanent blindness), you shouldn't just handwave it - you should resolve it to the end - because the end result is potentially permanent.

Also it's possible for a character to be unaware they have an ongoing curse (or disease) until after the adventure is over. For instance, a character hit by an Animate Dream or an Augnagar will know that they are fatigued or drained, but might assume those conditions will wear off after a night's rest, not knowing they're cursed.

What to do in that case? Is the character to be marked dead? Or given a chance to buy a casting of Remove Curse or Pathfinder Condition Removal boon before being marked dead?

The GM should let the player know that they have a permanent negative effect that needs to be resolved, at the end of the scenario. This isn't a game of "GOTCHA!" - you can't just wait until the player is about to get up from the table to announce that actually their character contracted a curse and are now permanently dead since it wasn't dealt with.

Or allowed to roll the saving throws for each stage? Or (if non-deadly) assume they will eventually make their saving throws, so they're just fine?

So - I'm not sure if there's an official clarification anywhere, but as far as I know and as far as I've seen other GMs and VOs discuss this, it seems that the common method of resolving these issues is:

You have a condition. Is it permanent OR does it have a chance to permanently affect (such as, kill) your character? No? Then no need to worry, society takes care of it, or it goes away on it's own.
Is it permanent OR does it have a chance to permanently affect you (such as kill)? Seems it's common that GMs let you roll your saves until you either die/reach a point where the effect is permanent/saves no longer help or you decide to pay up for the removal.

So, from your examples:
1. Permanent effects, need to be removed through boon/spellcasting
2. You'll eventually succeed at the save, no need to worry about it FOR GOBLIN POX, but for graveknight's curse, you need to either save against it until it's gone, or get help in removing it, or you'll die to it. Since a crit failure may immediately result in death, spellcasting services (or spells from other PCs) is STRONGLY RECOMMENDED. I have no idea how you consider Goblin Pox to be potentially deadly - it can not ever kill you - or why it's compared to graveknight's curse.
3. This WILL kill you without spellcasting: It is literally incureable without intervention, the damage can not be healed. You need boon and/or spellcasting to get rid of the curse.
4. This doesn't permanently affect you, and will go away on it's own, eventually.
5. This is exactly like Bog Rot. It is permanent without intervention. Must receive boon or spellcasting or the character is unplayable because of a permanent negative condition.

1) Does a type 4 curse even count as a permanent condition? Or a type 2 for that matter.

Unclear. It is a curse, so according to the guide, it needs to be cleared from the character... But you can just clear it by waiting a few days and rolling a few saves, so it should be fine?

2) If it does, should the player be informed their character has a curse before the end of the session, so they can do something about it?

Yes, you can't just stealth-kill their character without giving them a chance to resolve the issue.

3) If the curse is noticed, are they allowed to make the expected saving throws for each stage, on subsequent days?

Very likely yes. If the rest of the party is allowed to use their spells or class abilities to help them, then they are probably allowed to rest in order to use those abilities, so your character is also probably allowed to rest, and if you do, you'll need to roll for a new save.

4) If the curse is noticed, are they allowed to rest a night and prepare Remove Curse to cast on themselves?

Same as above. If you can remove the condition yourself, you should obviously be able to remvoe it from yourself.

5) If they are allowed to rest an extra night at the end of the adventure, is that exploitable somehow? I dunno how... maybe taking extra time to learn a spell or replace a dead familiar or craft some arrows... or maybe go back to look for more treasure they missed earlier?

Not really, no. If you think you found an exploit, you didn't.

The sanctioning for Advanced Player's Guide says that the dwarf feat "Defy the Darkness" is restricted.

The feat was reprinted in Player Core. Sanctioning for Player Core does not list it as restricted.

Are the dwarves now allowed to get Greater Darkvision at level 5, or is this just an oversight?

Search/track/scout seems like it'll probably run into table variation.

Firstly - Visual tag doesn't mean that YOU have to see, it means that you have to be seen:

A visual effect can affect only creatures that can see it. This applies only to visible parts of the effect, as determined by the GM.

Follow the Expert has the visual trait because you must be able to see the expert to follow their lead, presumably.

There's no tag for "this requires the user to be able to see". Blinded condition doesn't specify any specific tags that become impossible to use - it merely states that you can't detect anything using vision.

Hunt Prey is very clear case of "should work" because it says it's enough for you to see OR HEAR the target.

Seek:

You scan an area for signs of creatures or objects. If you're looking for creatures, choose an area you're scanning. If precision is necessary, the GM can have you select a 30-foot cone or a 15-foot burst within line of sight.

Personally, I'd let a blind character seek, but there might be limits to what you can find. You couldn't find a creature that's hiding up in the ceiling, and stuff you find is stuff you run into - unlike seeing characters that could spot the thing from a distance. On the other hand, if the target you're seeking is making sounds (like a creature breathing), I'd let you seek (and find) it from a distance.

Track? If you have scent or you have an animal companion that can see, I'd probably let you track without question. Without either, it would be a lot more context sensitive to what you can track. I think it's impossible to just rule either Yes or No without considering context: You might be tracking a light in the darkness of the night (clearly a visual activity) or you could be tracking a trail of blood drops (smell? Touch? visual?).

Scout:

You scout ahead and behind the group to watch danger

Seems pretty hard to watch for danger if you can't see anything. I could see GMs ruling this either way - either stating that you can't scout as you can't watch, or ruling that you can scout using other senses, or ruling that you can scout but you'll only provide initiative bonus if the encounter can be detected with senses other than sight, etc.

Sadly, it feels like you'll probably run into a lot of table variation that is both dependent on the GM And the Context of a particular situation.

Eldritch Trickster rogue apparently wasn't reprinted in the player core - is it still a valid option for remaster rogues, or is it removed from options because rackets are part of the class chassis?

On a more general level: can remaster classes use class options/subclasses that haven't been reprinted? For example, can clerics choose deities that have not been reprinted in the new format? Can a druid pick flame or wave order from SoM? Can rogue use Eldritch Trickster, or can a witch choose a patron theme that hasn't been reprinted?

That's... pretty upsetting. My Runelord is level 4. When I asked after I got the boon I was told I would be able to purchase a rebuild to give it to an existing character. Even if that wasn't the case, I still don't think this is fair. If you ask me, it feels like we're being punished for having chosen to make a Runelord. Everyone else will get to make any kinds of changes they want (background, ancestry, whatever) from this special kind of rebuild, but Runelords will not be able to make any changes because if they do, they're forced into the new version of the class and therefore lose the ability to be a Runelord. It's obviously not my decision, but I just think it would be fair to let Runelords rebuild without updating to remastered wizard, since everyone else gets to rebuild whether they're a class getting remastered or not.

Probably not the ideal solution, but - you could create a (new) wizard (using the old rules) now, with the deviant background, buy them the runelord archetype, and then ask for refundon the (old) wizard's runelord boon.

You wouldn't lose any Achievement points, and you'd get more playtime with your cool new background... But obviously, it's just a work-around. Considering the donation amounts that the charity boons fetch, I feel like they should probably include some sort of semi-rebuild for stuff like this :(

Several weeks ago, I foolishly purchased a rebuild boon. I've downloaded it, but have not yet applied it.

Any chance I could get the ACP refunded for that? (This is the character with the boon.)

It's fine if not -- lesson learned...but I figured I might as well ask.

Best to e-mail the address given in the blog about boon refunds, they've typically been very lenient about this stuff when you've purchased a boon close to the changes, (especially if you haven't used the boon/played the character in between)

Where is the rule that states you get PFS Lord for free?

(And where do we get the PFS Organised Play rules while the www.organizedplayfoundation.org website is dead?)

There's a topic on this forum: OPF-Website Guide Outage which links to PDF versions of the guides while the website is down.

The rule can be found in character creation, at step 11:

During their training, Pathfinder initiates attain a certain level of proficiency and background knowledge. To represent this, by default all pathfinders start with Pathfinder Society Lore as a trained lore skill as a bonus skill proficiency. If they would already start with Pathfinder Lore skill from their background, they gain either Academia Lore or Scouting Lore as trained skills.

and under "Additional character options", it explains that "Characters who have ties to a school or who are Field Commissioned receive a bonus lore at first level. (This replaces the Pathfinder Society lore that all agents gain by default.)"

I will miss the free lore skill that came with school training. More Lore skills at the table is fun. Any chance we could replace training with something like “all PFS characters are automatically trained in PFS lore”? It’s honestly never really made sense to me that you’re average Pathfinder wouldn’t know the basic history of the Society.

Can we just add PFS Lore as a bonus lore to all characters?

This actually already exists :D The lore you get from the PFS training replaces the default PFS lore that all Pathfinders get as part of the character creation. If you don't choose a school, you get PFS lore automatically :D