bugleyman's page

Maybe when the forums are reborn anew!

I'm curious: is that officially a thing?

I've long been expecting Paizo to just kill local forums altogether, which seems to be the common play in the age of Reddit. Seemed even more likely when they didn't make the cut for the new site. And now there's a big financial squeeze thanks to Diamond. I'll be genuinely surprised if a new local forum happens.

Interesting; I had personally hoped they'd pivot to the token model, but for people who prefer pawns I'm glad this is happening.

*ignores conspiracy thoughts of this always being the original goal and previous statements being a show to make this palatable*

Now, now...you may be becoming even more cynical than I am (if such a thing is possible). ;-)

Sounds like a workable compromise has been reached.

THOUGH A VALID POINT AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE COMPANY IS IMPORTANT, A SENTENCE OF THIS REPLY WAS REMOVED AS PER THE WISHES OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED - EDITED MEC 7/16/2026

I just saw this; THIS is how one does transparency! You are a credit to the company.

Well for two reasons. One is that pointing out bad actors doesn't work when the bad actor doesn't exist. The person that in some examples you gave hasn't worked for close to three years with Paizo so you know.

I didn't, actually; I've kinda tried to block out the details, but that the person in question is gone absolutely matters. However that happened, good on Paizo, and thank you for telling me.

And the other thing is that for as s**%ty as I and my friends were treated by upper management I have equally been helped out by lower management(?) and their friends.

My beef was specifically against upper management, so I thought it relevant. That said, I truly did not mean to make anyone uncomfortable, and I thought not naming names would suffice. I was clearly wrong, and I am sorry.

I've read most of the conversation here, and a lot of my feelings have been said better than I could hope to.

...
I sincerely hope this is all just a big mess of poor communication and unhappy necessities of survival for Paizo. But it feels to me like a light just went out somewhere inside the company, and I'm scared it won't come back on.

For what it is worth, I think you put that rather well.

I don’t think Paizo is the company I knew back when Pathfinder started. I love a lot of the people working there, but they aren’t the same people I used to know. How much of that change exists in the upper management, I couldn’t say. They have certainly made steps that feel out of sync with what I remember, but who can say how accurate my memory is?

Your memory matches mine. And to be clear re: upper management -- there has been a clear pattern of questionable behavior or the last half a dozen or so years. I have watched as management has:

* Fired Sara Marie (for what, by all indications, was simply standing up for her people -- at least one of whom then resigned in protest).
* Ignored reports of a hostile work environment and retaliation...ultimately leading (or at least heavily contributing) to the formation of a union.
* Quietly made several little changes, that, taken as a whole, are hard to see as anything but a misguided attempt to protect intellectual property. (Changing PDFs to make it no longer possible to extract images; removing flip-mat preview images; printing maps at weirdly low resolutions and later explicitly citing IP concerns as the reason). While one of these was later reversed, they still show a pattern of fundamentally misunderstanding technology, which in my not inconsiderable experience just screams upper management...
* Made a series of oddly poor decisions around the economics of Organized Play, most of which were ultimately reversed...but only after the damage was done. As a result, OP is in a death spiral, and a mere shadow of its former self.

If anything good is to come out of the Diamond fiasco, as terribly unfair as it clearly was, perhaps it will be a reckoning at Paizo where they decide what sort of company they ultimately want to be. As a privately held corporation, they at least have a bit more latitude than most. And it is, after all, their right to choose; just as it is our right to choose whether we want to support them. For me, personally, the answer over the past several years has mostly been no, and the poor handling of the AoN situation isn't helping. If some choose to characterize that as me breaking out the torch and pitchfork...well, I can't prevent that.

TLDR: No, our memories aren't perfect. No, we don't have perfect information. But our experiences and observations are valid, and at the end of they day, what else do we have?

---

THOUGH A VALID POINT AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE COMPANY IS IMPORTANT, A SENTENCE OF THIS REPLY WAS REMOVED AS PER THE WISHES OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED - EDITED MEC 7/16/2026

I'm just saying, hundreds of angry posts from everyone involved calling for any kind of extreme action like boycotts, canceling subscriptions etc without even knowing the entire picture, within 24 hours of any issue occurring is not a good thing, no matter who you support.

Ypu aren't personally doing it, fine, but there are people who see any post, take it the wrong way, and pour vitriol out.

Characterizing choosing not to buy something as an "extreme action" or "vitriol" is...a take.

Also it's bad form to try to through AoN under the bus by defensively blaming them for sharing an announcement when they seem to have been unsure where they stood...

Sadly, this sort of thing is pretty much par for the course when it comes to Paizo leadership in recent years.

To be fair, I haven't trusted Paizo's management since they did Sara Marie dirty. But as Maya Angelou put it: when someone shows you who they are, believe them.

Also, I saw this question floating around a few times, but yes, the community email is just me! I've received over 1200 emails. I can respond to some of them but not all of them since I am one human, however I am READING all of them. If they ask any questions that are not answered in the blog, I'm responding myself. It's going to take me a while, so I appreciate your patience please!

I'd just like to recognize how much it sucks to bear the brunt of a decision that was beyond your control. I'm sorry you're stuck in the middle of this, Maya.

The phrase "eating the seed corn" comes to mind.

It seems highly likely that, for example, having Paizo art on AoN leads directly to more than enough sales to justify the associated expenses (just like Organized Play, to which they've also been taking the ax for years). But since such things are difficult to directly quantify, the spreadsheet wins. Obviously this is not a problem exclusive to Paizo, but it certainly feels like it was getting worse even prior to the Diamond debacle.

Paizo's transition from a labor of love (that might just turn a profit) to a profit making enterprise (that makes cool stuff) has been palpable for a long time. I suppose that I just need to come to grips with the fact that, for better or worse, the Paizo of old is no more. But I can't help but feel that something of value has been lost, nor wonder if society has been conditioned to accept as inevitable something that is actually entirely avoidable. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

They damaged Organized Play when they decided to tell players how they should play, rather than supporting the ways players already wanted to engage with the game.

The changes reduced choice and made participation harder for many people, particularly those who live in remote areas or have difficulty travelling. Organized Play should exist to serve players, not to suit Paizo’s administrative convenience.

In a digital world, where technology can expand access and create more opportunities to play, moving towards a more restrictive and linear model seems entirely counterintuitive.

You're not wrong -- and Organized Play's issues have nothing to do with Diamond -- but imo this is not the time or place. People are losing their jobs, and at a really bad time. :-(

Brutal news to read. I'm so sorry to everyone impacted.

Same. As usual, it always seems to be the little guy that takes the brunt of...well, just about everything. :-(

can someone who knows more about the law tell me why diamond is incentivized to appeal the termination of an exclusive contract to provide a service they are no longer actually providing

Because the law is written to serve wealth, not logic. I'm sorry if that comes across as a bit glib, but that is the crux of it. :-/

Personally I think the more pertinent question might be why is Diamond even being allowed to appeal said termination? They are explicitly failing to hold up their end of the contract, and from what little I remember of contracts from business law, that should be the game right there. But obviously I am not a lawyer -- thank heaven -- so wtf do I know? ;-)

Stat blocks are returning to scenarios?

And just like that, GMing PFS is back on the table.

Yeah, there is a thread about it in the general discussion. The errata has been removed and a statement of intent exists, but the new fix hasn’t t been formalized.

Thank you. :-)

Well, now it seems like the whole errata on this is getting walked back.

Good! To be honest, that seemed pretty much inevitable from the jump, but has Paizo made a statement to this effect?

...

What is its favorite color?

Now that's just OP. ;-)

Is PFS even trying to implement it yet?

My understanding of PFS is that errata are live immediately, and GMs cannot ignore them.

Per the guide to organized play:

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

This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this Guide, a published Pathfinder RPG source, errata document (like the Pathfinder FAQ and Errata), or official FAQ (like the Pathfinder Society FAQ) on paizo.com. It does mean that only you can judge what is right for your table in situations not covered in those sources.
------------------------------------------------------------

So yeah...at least as far as the rules, it appears that errata are in effect (and mandatory) as of the day they are published.

This errata/change is pretty much a disaster. As such, for my home game I'll be ignoring it, and as for PFS -- well, I was pretty much done running that anyway. This just cements that decision.

The only other thing I can say is that this likely won't will be the final word on that matter, because it is broken.

Yes I think there has been a down turn in quality and I wish they would just slow the hell down.

Sadly I believe that shipped sailed back in 1E. The transition from "stories first" to "rules first" was a pretty clear one at the time, and the resultant growth in fixed costs really seems to have locked them into maintaining that focus (imo).

Don't get me wrong; Paizo makes (one of?) the best crunchy fantasy RPGs on the market, but it is profoundly frustrating that seven years into 2E we're still wresting with fundamental things like how weakness works.

This is a case where a simpler rule that doesn't worry about rounds at all works better than a more complex rule that does.

I agree! And if you read my posts carefully, you will see that I have the agreed the entire time. The problem is that my players don't, even after reading this thread.

Paizo could solve this problem in five minutes with a FAQ entry, giving me something official to point my players to. And so I asked if anyone was aware of that having occurred. Instead of an answer, I got a bunch of folks insisting that -- despite the existence of this thread -- there is no problem (with the added bonus of several being pretty condescending).

I do not understand how this sort of reception is supposed to help the game, or Paizo, but we should be trying to do better than "if it isn't a problem for me, then it isn't a problem."

I'm gad to see some new errata. Hopefully this marks getting back on schedule.

Unfortunately it's not about "this not being asked frequently enough". Paizo does not answer rules questions about PF2 outside of errata. Full stop. They haven't in years, ever since people like Mark Siefer left. We can't get anything answered these days.

Hell, we can't even get errata right now for absurdly basic questions like "how many spells are in an Oracle repertoire?" where the rulebook literally contradicts itself in the same block of text.

It's extremely frustrating.

Well...I guess I should consider myself lucky, then.

I'm sorry you can't get an answer. :-(

Bugley man, is this the GM? Is it players who think they just can’t use delaying actions if they roll badly for initiative?

If it is the GM, then the issue is bigger than delay because casting spells late in the initiative order is going to have issue if rounds are measured in combat rounds and not the time between players turns.

But if the players (whether GM or not) understand that, then they do understand how delaying works too, there is just some reason they think it works differently?

You don’t generally see “official FAQ” for things like how to make an attack roll or how to determine AC, because those things are clearly stated in the rules. Players who ask questions about them on forums have other players answer those questions and developers don’t chime in because the rules on it are clear.

You do see newer players occasionally ask these questions in live stream or live AMA type events and sometimes developers will explain it there, but that is not any more official FAQ than the response you get from players here. Typically, FAQ happens when a large section of players are interpreting rules differently from each other and there is nothing close to a consensus.

This thread is very old and has had the occasional player reask the question, but the consensus on the issue has never come close to shifting.

I am the GM. And while the rules seem quite clear to me, my players brought this up, and I wanted to do my due diligence before just shutting them down. A search returned this thread, as well as multiple Reddit threads -- meaning this has come up before -- but no official answer. I guess I just genuinely expected this to be a quick check in the FAQ to clear it up, but I guess this question isn't asked frequently enough to warrant inclusion (which seems odd, given that issuing a ruling on a message board is effectively free, and Paizo has deliberately designed an extremely codified system in PF2...but I digress).

In any case, thank you for actually trying to be helpful; it is appreciated. As a very long time member of these boards, the number of unsolicited drive-by responses that amounted to "rules are clear, u r dumb" has been profoundly disappointing.

The notion that the last person in initiative cannot delay their actions just because they rolled low on initiative is ludicrous.

It doesn't make narrative sense. It doesnt really make game logic sense. There is no benefit whatsoever to enforcing it, so it doesn't make practical sense either.

Yes, I get that many don't find the rules unclear. As it happens, I don't personally find them unclear, either. But several of my players do, and the existence of this thread (and others like it) is a pretty good sign that my players aren't alone, and as such, official clarification doesn't seem like a unreasonable request.

It feels weird that I have to keep repeating this, but here we are...

I'm not saying you're wrong to ask. I'm following the answer.

Part 1 (what you asked): No, there is no clarification or official ruling.

Followup: One is unlikely, I would not count on ever getting one.

It seems to me that that information could have been conveyed without also asserting that the RAW is clear (thus implying the question needn't have been asked). Sorry if that wasn't what was intended in this case, but it is an all too common response in this forum.

No.

But because it isn't unclear, I wouldn't expect it to ever come up in a FAQ or something, either. Officual rulings aren't even common for things that DO need a clarification.

*sigh*

Yes, I get that many don't find the rules unclear. As it happens, I don't personally find them unclear, either. But several of my players do, and the existence of this thread (and others like it) is a pretty good sign that my players aren't alone.

That's a management failure, at the end of the day. This stuff is a necessary part of the process, and management allocating no time or budget to it is a mistake.

THANK YOU. I simply don't understand why so few people seem to get this. One thing decades in corporate America taught me is that "it costs too much, there aren't enough resources, it isn't our area of expertise" and the like are ultimately just euphemisms for management failure. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well, and when it isn't done well the responsibility ultimately rests with the people in charge.

Thanks, but as I thought I had clearly indicated in my previous post, I'm not looking for interpretations. I am looking for is an official clarification.

Nor does telling me that clarification is unnecessary in any way settle the debate (which I am NOT trying to rekindle). So while I appreciate that responses attempting to explain the rules may be well-intentioned (if a bit patronizing, especially since I *personally* agree that the RAW are clear), they aren't helpful. In my opinion the existence of this thread really leaves little doubt that a clarification is in order.

So with that out of the way, I'll try again: is anyone aware of any official ruling ever having been issued?

Just necro'ing this thread years down the line to say that our group ran into this exact issue today. I personally never found the rules ambiguous, but to my surprise several of my (smart and earnest) players felt otherwise!

Is anyone aware of an official clarification ever being issued? Or even just a comment from a designer?

shroudb wrote:

I think people are overcomplicating stuff.

Having a developer who's responsible for rules/balance stuff, or even for a part of them, say to Maya and in turn they inform us here that (as an example here):

"I spoke with the developer who did the remaster of the Psychic, and they told me that their metrics showed the class as ok, hence why there weren't any buffs, and that the nerf to IW was because the framework for force damage had them lower the damage"

or "I spoke to the dev who wrote the monster mythic abilities rules, the reason Mythic Resilience is different than Mythic resistance is X".

would go a terribly long way towards alleviating a ton of the issues that frequently pop up.

Heck! we have whole threads dedicated to errata that one can peruse to get a list of questions, and then grab the relevant dev, to give us at least some answers.

---

I'm not talking about more complicated technical issues, that would require a TON of work to actually fix (instance of damage), but even simple things are left in the void.

---

Having absolutely no communication, not even aknowledging the issues that appear, is not the correct way to go forwards imo.

As a long time DM and player, I tend to disagree. Sometimes table fixes work better than anything Paizo might put out. A group that finds a problem comes up with a table fix that the group likes can often work better than an official ruling from Paizo.

With all due respect, the fact that a group is often able to patch the rules is beside the point. Ambiguities should not be allowed to persist, especially in a game as heavily codified as Pathfinder 2E, where so much of the value of the 1,000+ page core rules is in providing a consistent, clear foundation upon which all the fiddly bits will rest.

Let me give an example that cropped up on my table earlier today. Our group had a disagreement about the way delay works (the specifics aren't terribly important, but interested parties can look here for the gist of it). The way this falls could easily be the difference between a character living or dying. Yet that thread is now over six years (!) old, and the issue has never been settled. No designer feedback has been provided. Nothing about it appears in the FAQ (that I can find), nor was the wording cleared up in the remaster. Perhaps Paizo simply doesn't consider the rules to be ambiguous, but the fact that this exact debate has sprung up in multiple other places online (for example, here is a thread on Reddit) would tend to indicate otherwise.

How is something this foundational in the core rules going answered for more than six years--including through a remaster--good for anyone? Especially when the entire matter could be settled with a single sentence? I just don't get it.

So yes, I'm worried about quality. I don't know that it has gotten worse since the remaster, but it doesn't appear to have gotten any better.

Uh, isn't that normal? I've only ever been to a smaller con, but they never schedule old scenarios, only ones from the last season.

I've been to many, many cons, including four Gen Cons, and no, that definitely isn't normal. Certainly newer stuff gets played more, but it's never been exclusively new stuff. In fact, in my experience one of the draws of going to bigger cons was getting to play stuff you may not have been able to play locally.

In any event, I've had my say, and probably won't be replying further (especially given that there are far, far more important things going on in the world right now).

Driftbourne wrote:

3. The missing stat blocks is eaisly delt with now that AoN has a feature that lets you download all the stat blocks for a scenario with one click as a single printer-friendly PDF or that can be used on a phone or tablet.

Unfortunately this only helps if they are showing the correct stat blocks. There are still errors in 7-01 (at least).

** spoiler omitted **

As much as I appreciate AoN trying to pick up the ball Paizo so casually discarded, killing stat blocks -- along with the subsequent refusal to even discuss the matter -- marked the end for me as a PFS GM. It was just a bridge too far in terms of GM prep effort (not to mention too casually disdainful of customers in general) to sit well with me. As the saying goes: “You must find the courage to leave the table if respect is no longer being served.”

In fact, I'm currently running a (non-PFS) group through Seven Dooms, but once that wraps up, that'll be it for me and PF2 entirely. The ability to drop in/out easily via PFS is what kept me coming back to PF2 in spite of my somewhat lukewarm feelings about the system, and with that ability now gone, I'll just run something else entirely (Dragon Bane, perhaps?).

As a customer since near the very beginning, I'll still check in every few months to see whether Paizo has course-corrected, but that'll probably require entirely new OP leadership. PF3, maybe?

I'm a my cup is half full kind of guy, lets look on the bright side.

1. More blocks mean more games played.
2. GMs and players get more frequent breaks.
3. The missing stat blocks is eaisly delt with now that AoN has a feature that lets you download all the stat blocks for a scenario with one click as a single printer-friendly PDF or that can be used on a phone or tablet.
4. The shorter scenarios are easier to prep and set up at the table, with fewer maps and pawns to carry around at a convention. Even more important if you are GMing more than one scenario at a convention.
5. There are 10 normal blocks and 10 scenarios available from season 7, plus whatever is available for the start of season 8. That's enough scenarios to not have to repeat any.
6. I would imagine a chance to be the first to play scenarios for the new season would be very popular, which is likely why new seasons start at the largest gaming convention in the world.

These all seem like big benefits for running a large convention. Meanwhile, you can still play older scenarios in other places.

I'm not denying that there are advantages. I'm merely pointing out that one of the predicted disadvantages of the scenario changes has already come to pass (and sooner than even I expected).

For me the whole situation would rankle less if OP leadership had simply taken the time to explain their thinking (the way James explained the thinking behind the AP changes) as many requested, but alas, they did not. I get that they're busy, but between that and the months-long radio silence on Starfinder 2E adventure sanctioning, it really feels like the OP team simply can't be bothered.

Oh well.

According to today's blog, the Gen Con 2026 PFS schedule will, with the exception of the special, consist exclusively of new format scenarios (that is, the 3hr, no stat block format scheduled to debut next month). That means that literally all PFS content from 2025 or earlier -- six and a half out of seven seasons, or 93% of existing PFS 2e content -- will be entirely absent from organized play at the largest gaming convention in the world.

While I've given up any hope of response from Paizo to the community's concerns about the scenario changes, I can't help but be curious what the "of course the scenario changes won't reduce the variety of content being offered" crowd from a few months back would say now...

This feature addresses a huge void in the PFS prep space come January. Here's hoping they're able to stick with it for future seasons.

That's a great feature.

Sad that it came to this, but still a great feature.

At this point, lack of a response is the response.

Precisely what I said in another thread. They know best, and simply aren't interested in hearing anything to the contrary. :-/

At this point all I can really hope for is that someone higher up the food chain recognizes the current death spiral for what it is and steps in before it is too late.

Disappointed in the lack of response to all the feedback from the August update with the changes to how PFS is going to work.

After this long, it's pretty hard to not take the lack of response as the response, if you know what I mean. :-/

On the plus side, last weekend I attended a great little local con, and I finally got to play both Vaesen and Mothership. Yay!

Not a single post here who isn't in support of a generic chronicle. Paizo, PLEASE consider this.

What you gain by not allowing a generic chronicle: ?

What you gain by allowing a generic chronicle:

* GMs have more material to run for credit, rewarding them for their efforts to run more of what you produce. Reward GMs. I can't emphasize this enough. It really is the core of any organize play program. Without rewarding volunteers in this way, to those who choose to spend their time preparing to run to your player community, it just feels like a huge snub, though I know it's not intended. The reward structure is just not there for SFS2E the way it is with PFS2E. The logical conclusion is that SFS2E will be played less, and APs even less. I don't think that is a sound business decision.

* I can't imagine that allowing a generic chronicle would generate less sales; in fact, reason would dictate it would result in quite the opposite for Chronicle-awarded Adventures and APs.
* Players receive credit for playing SFS2 AP products, and satisfaction. For some, it can make the difference about whether they play SFS2 or not.
* SFS2 becomes an equal choice with playing PFS2.
* I'm a very long time organized play player (Since 2001) and author of 2 organized play adventures (in Living Greyhawk). Much of my interest in Pathfinder came from having the chronicle award, when 4E D&D was not offering chronicles. I migrated from 4E to Pathfinder because I wanted an org play program that rewarded players and GMs.
* Honestly, I think this is the biggest mistake of SFS2E rollout. The GM achievement is also an issue, but you've hinted that there may be change in the future.
* You have a community of willing and very able volunteers to address a generic chronicle. Let the love flow. Please.

It's kinda crazy that there hasn't been any comment on this from Paizo.

[Oh and also, I don't know why 3 Novas aren't showing on my profile.]

I have the same problem with 3 of my 4 GM stars. I hope you have better luck getting an answer than I have.

That is definitely not what I meant but you read my words as you wish.

Alternatively, you might consider the possibility that I don't have an agenda, and you're just not sending the message you intended. Because I honestly don't know what else you meant with declarations like this:

The PFS team has all the info we use in our own analysis and more.

...
They have the full picture and we do not.
...
And we cannot give feedback without that. Only opinions.
...
Which is likely why they have not actually asked for feedback BTW.

Not only do you explicitly state that Paizo "have the full picture and we do not" -- which I have explained is not the case -- but you very much come across as "Paizo can do no wrong, so keep your feedback to yourself."

Also, point of order: Whether or not these changes will ultimately hurt PFS isn't actually a matter of opinion, but of fact. While it's true that we'll never know for sure either way, it remains useful to differentiate between a matter of fact (albeit one about which we lack perfect information) and a matter of opinion ("vanilla ice cream tastes better than strawberry ice cream"). For instance, it is possible to be wrong about the former, but not the latter.

As I said, it's only an opinion and we will likely have to wait a few months more to know the whole of it.

The truth is that nobody will ever truly "know the whole of it," because perfect information simply doesn't exist. How could it? Even if the reporting system and underlying database weren't poorly designed — and to be clear, for those who know what to look for, they absolutely are — how would one even collect data about tables that didn't happen...from every GM at every game day, everywhere? That is manifestly impossible.

Consequently, it seems to me that what you are in effect doing is summarily declaring invalid any analysis that is not based on a (non-existent) complete dataset. Which is not a hill I'd choose to die on, but you do you.

Personally, I'll rely on (admittedly incomplete) personal observation coupled with deduction. And yes, I could still be wrong...but not all arguments are created equal.

We don't need to wait and see how that will play out because we can look at what just happened and see how the new rule would have applied. The answer is badly.

Yup.

I'm a little slower to ascribe malice. I think its one of those gamer things where solution A is not perfect therefore solution B must be the right answer. This goes double when someone assigns a rule, and the rule starts to seem like an unchangeable fact when rules are very changeable. (IE, making the treasure in a scenario balance out to the payout was (is? I think they changed that?) Was an enormous fiddly nit picky PITA that provided only the pay out of.. a little bit of immersion and complying with the rule? I think the immersion could have been solved with a check and or a Bill for in game damages...

To be clear, I don't actually believe that someone at Paizo is trying to kill organized play.

I do, however, believe that removing stat blocks is such a comically bad idea that I can understand why someone might.

I think Paizo more often than not gets things right, but occasionally they get obstinate about sticking with really boneheaded decisions (like say, Pathfinder Online). I did a few years as a software engineer right out of college in the late nineties, and it was blindingly obvious that Paizo really had no clue what they were biting off with that one (though they at least had the sense to eventually spin Goblinworks off so it wouldn't take the whole company down with it).

The stat block decision seems similarly clueless...no matter how I come at it, it just makes no earthly sense.

Pirate Rob wrote:

Here's the thing. Somebody needs to gather the statblocks. It can be done once by Paizo, or it can be done hundreds if not thousands of times by GMs, and adds another point of failure.

Eyup.

I cannot for the life of me, after ...10+ years of asking at least (with a break in the middle largely because they started putting the monsters in), get a sensible answer on what kind of "development" an appendix of critters needs to be function.

Needs. to be functional.

NOT

What kind of development it gets.

If you can't swing the kind of development it gets just run it through an online templater and stick it on there the same way any other DM could. I can't see how any error could possibly be worse than it not being there. If you copy paste in a flux capacitor instead of capacitor flux someone will let you know.

WHY make someone replicate that work ad nauseum?

The bottleneck in running OP is new DMs. How much easier is it to say "here's a scenario, there's the monsters" than " oh right, heres the scenatio, there's the mechanics, go to this other website and download the monsters and switch back and forth between the two files...

On the other hand, if you wanted to hold a pillow over the face of organized play so it dies a slow, quiet death, then this would be a great way to do it.

As I've said before, I can live with the narrower level bands, and with the shorter scenarios (and hey, at least the price is coming down correspondingly). But no stat blocks is a deal killer, and will absolutely ravage the PFS GM pool. Putting aside the question of whether aggressively pursuing cost savings for PFS scenarios (i.e. marketing) is really even a good idea, cutting stat blocks is just an incredibly short-sighted way to go about it.

Just started reading and prepping this.

Love the wine call back to 1-11. I really love continuity details like that.

Can it be?

I've run that scenario two or three times, and every time played up the wine. That is a an awesome callback (and 1-11 was a great scenario, except for the maps -- which made no earthly sense).

I've very sorry for your loss.

I'm glad you got to say goodbye; that's no small thing. When I lost my mother several years ago, she went quite suddenly (pulmonary embolism).

I don't think its a big deal since APs already work this way, but it has been pretty convenient to have everything already included.

To me, APs and PFS scenarios are very different beasts.

For instance, I'm currently running Seven Dooms, for which I have a pretty beefy desktop PC, effectively limitless power, and very good (and redundant) Internet access. Not to mention I'm using a Foundry package for the adventure, so all of the stat blocks are right there.

Contrast that with my PFS experience, nearly all of which takes place in a game store, where I typically have much less space, rarely have access to AC power (so no beefy laptop, even if I were willing to bring such an expensive item to use in a public venue), and where Internet access that is often iffy (doubly so for conventions, which is where I play the rest of my PFS). Finally, I often have significantly less prep time for PFS.

YMMV, but to me personally that just isn't a very useful comparison.

To be fair, I'm much less frustrated now that Erik Mona has clarified that the new PFS scenarios will be $6 rather than $9 (i.e. this isn't a stealth price hike), which means I'd actually resume buying them...but pulling the stat blocks is overall too big a blow to my QoL as a PFS GM. My own situation aside, it strikes me as inherently inefficient, because work that could be done once and included with the scenario now has to be done many times (I know there are shared resources available, but I also know that not everyone will use -- or even know about -- those resources).

Overall it just kinda feels like buying a car without tires, only to then be told it's not a problem because tires are available separately.* :-P

* And yes, I do understand this is a flawed analogy. All analogies are, in fact, imperfect -- literally by definition. ;-)