mjmeans's page

What books are required to run this for credit? Am I allowed to borrow books I don't own from the local VL/VO to run it?

Is anyone at Paizo looking into this? Or even seen this post?

Looking at the PFS Chronicle Fate of Many Things. I see one of the possible cards listed is Books (Idiot). However, the instructions say to record the drawn card, but it also says to put any evil cards back in the desk and draw again until you get a non-evil card. It's poorly written but the implication seems to be that you should record the first card you draw, but keep drawing until you get a non-evil card, which doesn't make much sense, even though that is how it's written.

Anyway, there is also a second issue and that is if you are supposed to record the first non-evil card, then there is a boon for Books (Idiot) that is impossible to get because that card is an evil card! Should the boon have been something else?

Analysis of the cards that have boons:
Alignment: 2x LG, 4x NG, 1x CG, 2x LN, 1x TN, 1x CN, 1x NE
Suit: two of each.

If the NE card was actually a typo, then logically shouldn't it be The Foreign Trader (TN, books) to match the overall pattern of distribution that is apparent with all the other cards except The Idiot?

Looking at the PFS Chronicle Fate of Many Things. I see one of the possible cards listed is Books (Idiot). However, the instructions say to record the drawn card, but it also says to put any evil cards back in the desk and draw again until you get a non-evil card. It's poorly written but the implication seems to be that you should keep drawing until you get a non-evil card and record THAT card. If that is true, then the recorded card could never be Books (Idiot), yet it is a card with a boon! Should the boon have been something else?

Analysis of the cards that have boons:
Alignment: 2x LG, 4x NG, 1x CG, 2x LN, 1x TN, 1x CN, 1x NE
Suit: two of each.

If the NE card was actually a typo, then logically shouldn't it be The Foreign Trader (TN, books) to match the overall pattern of distribution that is apparent with all the other cards except The Idiot?

For the rules quote:

Magic wrote:

Supernatural Abilities: These can't be disrupted in combat and generally don't provoke attacks of opportunity. They aren't subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or dispel magic, and don't function in antimagic areas.

Yes, I'm aware of that. You misunderstood the question. My question was interpretation of the grammar and whether the (Su) specific protections applied only to the way the spell effect was activated (no AoO, can't be counterspelled, etc.) or it if also applied to the activated spell and the spells ongoing effects as well.

There seems to be a consensus that it applies to all effects and through any consequential chain of effects as well.

This consensus would also mean that if a ninja uses Vanishing Trick, another PC would not be able to use spellcraft to identify the spell "invisibility" because there is no actual spell; it's just an effect similar to the spell invisibility. Likewise, any contingency on becoming invisible by the spell invisibility (which would include spell activation or completion items) would not be triggered by using vanishing trick for the same reasons.

The question was posed to me, by one of my players, in a generic form. Vanishing Trick was the first example I came up with that could be used as an example to post to the forums.

To clarify. The invisibility spell creates an invisibility effect while it's functioning. The "effect" of the invisibility spell is being invisible, and everything else listed under the effect subheading and description subheading of the invisibility spell.

If I understand them correctly, both Melkiador and Ryze Kuja interpret the words "functions as" to operate by drawing in by reference the invisibility spell's "effect" of being invisible into the vanishing trick as it's effect, but disregarding every other "effect" stated in the invisibility spell's entry and modifying it as explicitly stated in the vanishing trick where ambiguities would arise; like changing duration to 1r/level and target to personal only instead of personal or touch, but most importantly also changing it from a spell to (Su). So dispel magic, greater dispel magic and even mage's disjunction would not be able to dispel a vanishing trick conducted by a level 1 ninja. Though spells such as invisibility purge would still work.

This seems to also be consistent with a similar discussion in https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ta9h?Does-a-creature-with-change-shape-revert -to, though there was no authoritative response.

Does anyone else have any comments on this, one way or the other?

Hi All,

The question hinges on exactly what part of the Vanishing Trick is protected by the fact that it is (Su). The trick states "This ability functions as invisibility". Which is correct?

1. (Su) refers to the trick itself and the protected (Su) effect (cannot be dispelled, not subject to SR, does not provoke AoO, etc.) is only the activation of the trick. Beyond that it "functions as" the spell invisibility. And as that spell is subject to being dispelled. So the (Su) doesn't extend down the chain of effects to the spell effect of invisibility. i.e. the wording "functions as <spell>" negates the "(Su)" protection for that part of the entire effect. Spell effect would be protected only if it had instead said "This ability provides the effect of <spell>" since (Su) says the effects of the ability cannot be dispelled, etc.

2. (Su) applies to the entire ability and all chained or referenced abilities, effects, functions, or whatever language is used; such that the invisibility spell function in this example is also protected by virtue of being initiated by the (Su) ability Vanishing Trick and therefore can't be dispelled, etc.

There are likely other (Su) abilities that state "functions as <spell or other ability>.", so the answer to this question would therefore apply to all such (Su) abilities unless the ability specifically states otherwise.

Mark

The part that says "Mind blank even foils limited wish, miracle, and wish spells when they are used in such a way as to gain information about the target" is particularly problematic. It literally means that if the result gains information about the target then the wish is foiled in some way, without exception. i.e. no matter how convoluted or indirect that the wording of the wish is constructed, it's foiled.

There is nothing in the spell's description, or in any other rule that I've found, that says that this only applies to "direct" information and not to "indirect" information about the target.

So basically the spell creates a two step test:

1. Would the result of the spell allow the caster to gain any information about the target protected by Mind Blank?

2. Was the magic or item used a divination (school), wish, limited wish, miracle, etc.?

If the answer to both questions is yes, then the spell either completely fails (targeted divination) or is somehow modified so as to thwart gaining ANY knowledge of any kind about the target (area divination not revealing the target; wish, et. al. foiled).

This seems OP. If Mind Blank protected only direct information then that would almost completely nerf it's wish protection since players are quite inventive and could surely devise a wish wording that could indirectly gain the information that would normally be considered direct information. For example, Mind Blank and Invisibility... The wish could be that the target constantly releases visible steam from their body; thus gaining direct knowledge about the current location of the target, without using a divination spell. Or how about even simpler, "I wish the target was not invisible"?

Referring to http://legacy.aonprd.com/coreRulebook/spells/mindBlank.html

I was researching Mind Blank and it's interaction Invisibility and with True Seeing. Clearly Mind Blank perfects the Invisibility and renders True Seeing to having no effect. But I think Mind Blank may be otherwise OP. Lets discuss through example!

Lets say a character, named MB, is currently protected by Mind Blank.

Let’s say that you want to use divination magic to find out what MB had for dinner last night. Sorry it fails, because divination magic is blocked from revealing any information about MB. What if you scry the restaurant where you know MB had diner last night to watch while the restauranteur is going over the weekly receipts? Sorry that would reveal information about MB so it fails too (or at least all the records referring to MB are visibly blank to your scrying). What if you want to use a discern lies spell to ask one of the other people who was there having dinner with MB? Sorry that fails too, because it reveals information about MB.

What if you use a wish spell to teleport MB’s table receipt to you? It is totally unprotected and you know exactly where it is because you can see it through a window. Sorry that fails too, because it reveals information about the MB.

What if MB is a bard and has published his memoirs which are available is hundreds of libraries worldwide, and you want to use a wish to teleport a copy to you or create a duplicate copy for you? Sorry that fails too.

What if a copy of those memoirs is right in front of you and you don't want to touch it because it might be cursed, so you use a wish to create the effect of an unseen servant and you direct the servant to turn the pages for you. Sorry, the unseen servant is created but it can't turn the page for you because it would reveal information about MB.

What if you want to know whether some other person is the MB’s parent, child, or no relation at all? Sorry that fails too. Whether and how person X is MB's relative is also information about MB and that is protected.

What if you want to know whether MB has ever been in some specific city and you try to find that out by using divination magic to remote view the city records? Sorry that fails too.

What if you are a extraplanar being and you want to use divination magic to judge if MB is worthy of your help when MB just cast contact other plane to ask you a question? Sorry that fails too.

In fact the entire present, past and future of MB and every encounter MB has or is having or will have or interact with is protected from divination magic while the Mind Blank is in effect. Even the fact that Mind Blank is in effect is unknowable through divination spells.

What *should* a more realistic set of limitations be for mind blank?

mjmeans wrote:

Perhaps it might be better to focus on a specific subset. My group is most interested in me running a high level seeker scenario. High level scenarios already have a huge commitment to understanding the way each NPC should be run. The two scenarios being considered are : "#9-25 Betrayal in the Bones (12-15)", or "10-09 The Rasping Rebirth (12–15)". So can anyone tell me what specific sources are needed to be able to resolve every class, archetype, feat, item or any other ability or rule to run each of these scenarios?

Every product Paizo put out that features a class, trait, feat, piece of equipment, etc. that is PFS legal. You as a GM do not get to limit what sources a player in PFS gets to use.

If I got to limit players to what I owned, there would be no kineticsts, no occultists, no vigilantes, no shifters, no Horror, No Occult, and whatever else I personally don't like. Then I'd figure out a way to ban gunpowder.

At that point I would not be running a PFS session, but a homebrew session that could not be remotely close to a PFS session.

UNLESS I just ran a Core game. Since I run a lot of sessions online, I wouldn't be running anything as few players would play with those restrictions.

I didn't say or imply anywhere that I would limit what the PC players use. This thread is about my own limit for what I'm willing to GM. The PC players will use whatever rules they have and I will just have assume that they are correct if they have any unchained, mythic, psionic or occult or any other abilities or items that I don't know about. All these players are long time experienced players and I think they have all GMed PFS before. However, without any of these books I won't be able to help them if they have some questions about their PCs. But in principle it's really not my responsibility to police the PC players. I need to know that I am running everything I'm responsible for as GM in a legitimate way. If I happen to notice something a player does that seems wrong I will ask them for clarification; though with this group I don't expect any such occurrence.

Again, thanks to all who replied here and for all the help with this issue. It really helps alleviate some anxiety I have about running a PFS scenario.

Thank you everyone for your input. I'm now 99% sure I'll go with 9-25 since I already own CR, APG UE, and UC and I can refer to B1-5 from AON if there is something that isn't clear about the monsters that are anticipated to be provided in an appendix of the scenario. Again, thanks to everyone for their assistance. It's a big load of my shoulders.

Perhaps it might be better to focus on a specific subset. My group is most interested in me running a high level seeker scenario. High level scenarios already have a huge commitment to understanding the way each NPC should be run. The two scenarios being considered are : "#9-25 Betrayal in the Bones (12-15)", or "10-09 The Rasping Rebirth (12–15)". So can anyone tell me what specific sources are needed to be able to resolve every class, archetype, feat, item or any other ability or rule to run each of these scenarios?

mjmeans wrote:

Okay, so there is a literal gray area, but it can be inferred that GM's can make due with only the books they have. But what does that mean with a scenario uses a class that is published in a book the GM doesn't have, like Unchained Rogue. I don't own any unchains stuff. And I don't even want to own them and have no interest in learning the mechanics of how to play an unchained rogue. Am I allowed, as a GM, to just run the NPC as a regular rogue?

wait... please take a moment to examine what you are saying...

in your first post in this thread you say "...I am a stickler for the rules... "
In the post above you say you ...

"...have no interest in learning the mechanics of how to play an unchained rogue..."

???

I am having difficulty understanding this.

Hi Muse. You're right to point that out. But what you missed was that I don't wand to buy any additional books. And while AON is a good resource and the consensus here is that THAT IS what is permitted for a GM to prepare, it doesn't solve my problem.

Additionally, the archives of nethys site doesn’t include all the rules from all the Paizo sources. It's mostly complete, but there are missing bits. So there is a risk that some scenario references a feat or ability that isn't on AON. And consensus is that GM's are not allowed to run a scenario other than the way it is written. The consequence of those two facts is that a GM that can't find a feat or rule not adequately described in the scenario and not on AON and doesn't buy the source book has no possibility of running the scenario as written; and the GM is then breaking the rules.

And as I restate, I don't want to learn classes from unchained or occult or mythic.

The above thread reveals only one solution and that is that I need to know in advance what books are needed as reference to properly prepare for any scenarios so that I can decide whether I want to buy it. After I buy the scenario it's too late since they can't be returned.

While playing as a player I frequently have to review the rules for the mid to high level character I'm playing between turns in a combat and it sometimes delays my actions. And this is for characters that I am very familiar with. As a GM, if I have to spend that much time deciding what each NPC does and make sure they use all the feats and ability as they should to be fair to the NPCs I'm worried that this will mean that I'm taking too long and the game will proceed like slogging through mud. On the other hand, if I remember something wrong, or forget some ability, then I haven't actually run the scenario as written. When I forget to use some ability of my character when I'm playing IN a scenario, it's my fault and my character pays the price. But if I make a mistake as a GM it affects the whole table. I have seen a TPK when a GM made a mistake. I don't want to be that guy.

It's already going to be a challenge for me to run classes in the core rulebook that I never played before but at least most of them I've seen being played before. To this date, I've only seen one unchained class being run by another player and I haven't seen any occult or mythic or psionic characters. For me this is a huge uphill climb so I want to, if at all possible, GM scenarios that only use classes that I am either familiar with or at least have seen being played.

Perhaps it might be better to focus on a specific subset. My group is most interested in my running a high level seeker scenario and that already has a huge commitment to understanding the way each NPC should be run. The two scenarios being considered are : "#9-25 Betrayal in the Bones (12-15)", or "10-09 The Rasping Rebirth (12–15)". So can anyone tell me what specific sources are required to run each of these scenarios?

Okay, so there is a literal gray area, but it can be inferred that GM's can make due with only the books they have. But what does that mean with a scenario uses a class that is published in a book the GM doesn't have, like Unchained Rogue. I don't own any unchains stuff. And I don't even want to own them and have no interest in learning the mechanics of how to play an unchained rogue. Am I allowed, as a GM, to just run the NPC as a regular rogue?

It is legal for GMs to use Archives of Nethys to reference things in scenarios from books they do not own or can borrow.

Archives of Nethys

or for easier finding what your looking for

Legacy PRD legacy.aonprd.com for the old Paizo PRD

Can you show me where this is stated officially by Paizo? Because, technically anyone who is GMing is playing the game, and the RGG says that any player is supposed to have all referenced books. Logically this includes GMs who are technically also playing the game.

Hi all,

I usually only play. I have ever only purchased one scenario (Silent Tide) several years ago and used a friend's bestiary for reference. Back then there were not so many different books. Since I'm mostly a player, I mostly only buy the books I need to use for playing my own PFS. I don't own any of the recent Bestiary books, any unchained book (I don't need them) or many others. I actually only own about three dozen PFS books, mostly PDFs.

Beyond that I have run a home group through most of the Curse of the Crimson Throne hardcover edition. And since it's a home game, the AP doesn't have to be followed 100%, so I make some minor adjustments when it refers to an ability that is from a books I don't own.

I am a stickler for the rules and that's the root of my problem. My local group has asked me to run a season 9 or 10 high level PFS scenario. I would have to purchase the scenario, of course. Not a problem there. But what happens if the scenario happens to refer to some ability or item that doesn't exist in any of the books I own? I don't want to have to buy any other PFS books in order to be legal to run the game. I don't see a list of which books are required for each season 9 and 10 scenario so that I can choose a scenario that only uses the books I already own. And I don't see any official rule that would allow me to run a PFS sanctioned scenario with any modifications (rebuild NPC's) to account for abilities or items that aren't in any of the pathfinder books I already own. And, obviously, I can't return a PDF purchased scenario if it turns out that I would have to buy additional things I'm not will to buy.

Particularly of concern to me is that there are many recent PF RPG books I don't own, including all the unchained ones, occult and mythic. And my assumption that many of the season 9 and 10 scenarios will require these books.

To summarize, I want to run a scenario and be 100% legal. I don't want to buy any additional book that I don't need for playing PFS and will never need again. I don't want to rely on what any of the players may or may not own (and therefore can't expect to use to prepare for the session). Is there an official solution to this dilemma?

Mark

From RGG "A character’s Fame score determines the maximum gp value of any items she can purchase from the Pathfinder Society or her faction, as detailed in the table on page 20. The character must still actually spend the gold to receive the desired item."

I don't see any rule that says a character can ONLY purchase items from the society or a faction.

So item availability during a scenario would follow the regular settlement size and item availability rules since all of CR is legal. Also purchasing items specifically available during play of a scenario or module would also be available. But in either of these cases would not be limited by the fame max item cost, since NPCs in settlements in a scenario or module typically have no knowledge of the PC's fame score. At least that's how it reads.

I just played a scenario that had an auction in it and some items could be won in the auction for far less than the book value. It seems that if the PC bids on the items with their own money, and wins the auction, then they have actually bought it at a reduced price in the scenario because it was not purchased "from the Pathfinder Society or her faction". If that's not the intent, then someone should fix that.

So reading the rule forward says -1 to hit and +2 to damage. This damage is halved for off-hand. At BAB 4 intervals -1 additional to hit and +2 additional damage.

Interpretation 1: Literally interpreting this like a math word problem. Only the initial +2 damage bonus is halved because "this bonus" is specifically referring to the previous statements defining a bonus and it is this specific part is halved. So for off-hand damage at BAB 1 it is +1 (from "this bonus" of +2 being halved). For BAB 4 it is +3 (+1 (from "this bonus" of +2 being halved) plus +2 (for BAB 4 increase)).

I countered with interpretation 2: In the 2nd paragraph the words "the bonus" being "increased" means the single bonus from this feat is increased, and modified the first sentence. The total with any BAB increases are what is "this bonus" that needs to be halved for off-hand. So for off-hand damage at BAB 1 it is the same as interpretation 1. But for BAB 4 it is +2 (+2 initially, +2 more at BAB 4 = +4 which is "the bonus" that is the same as "this bonus" that has to be halved).

They countered with: The first interpretation is correct, because if the editors had intended the total off-hand bonus (after factoring in BAB increases) to be halved the sentence for halving the damage for off-hand weapons would have been placed after the sentence about the BAB increases. Changing the order of the sentences would have removed all doubt as to the intent.

My counter is: No it wouldn't because then someone might read it to mean that only the BAB increases get halved.

Comments?

...

So we have one opinion in favor of the second interpretation. I hope others will chime in so that ultimately there can be can be at least a consensus if not an official response. If there is an official ruling for the second view point, then that means the PCGen program is doing it wrong and has been doing it wrong for many years.

Hi,

So I have a disagreement with another GM about skill rank bonuses that is exemplified by the following example. The character starts with INT 10, Ranger 1. So he has 7 skill ranks to allocate. He chooses Druid as his favored class so he gets no favored class bonus. Upon reaching second level he chooses Druid and gains 5 more skill ranks to allocate and chooses to allocate them so that 5 skills are not rank 2 and two other skills remain at rank 1. This is a total of 12 skill ranks.

We all know that at no time can a character have more ranks in any skill than their number of Hit Dice. That's a standard rule.

However, we have disagreement on where an additional skill rank can be applied due to using a favored class bonus.

One view is that the additional skill rank must be applied to a different skill than the original 7 chosen skills since all skills are now already at their maximum possible score due to levelling up. And the level advancement rules and the mechanics of the order in which level advancement happens has implications on where this additional rank can be applied. So the end result in this case is that it is only *possible" to have 5 skills at rank 2, and 3 skills at rank 1.

The other view is that the additional rank can be applied to any skill so long as it is not already at the maximum number of ranks by Hit Dice. So the end result is that the character can have 6 skills at rank 2, and 1 skill at rank 1.

The PCGen program uses the former interpretation. I don't know which interpretation Hero Lab uses. Nor could I find any FAQ about this.

You are allowed to share your own maps and creations. Most folks post on the GM thread in the forum or start one in the appropriate adventure path forum.

This uses their maps. Reduced in resolution. Merged together into a multi-layer image. Edited to black out interior rooms, add missing roofs on the correct layers, and recolored the proper glass roof section. This makes it a derivative work. Paizo owns the copyright, and the source images are not OGL content, so I can't share it publicly without their express permission. I would love to share it, because I think it will help players understand the exterior layout better than the "environs" map.

Hi All, I was a little confused about the placement of all the levels and such and exactly what areas were visible from above. I.e. tower tops and turrets mostly didn't have a map page that showed roofs. The perspective cinematic picture of heroes walking across causeway with the castle in the background makes it clear that all towers have roofs. The maps also show a typical brown colored roof over B36 and it should be something else according to the description. So I've created a 6 layer graphic of the castle with every internal area blacked out, and with roofs over everything that should have roofs (on the appropriate image layer), and with a recolored roof over B36. The images are low res (439x563) but are suitable for players who are doing flying reconnaissance to see an overview of the entire castle, where landing sites are, and where arrow slits or windows all around the castle and towers are. I would like to share this with the community here on the forum but I need Paizo permission to do so.

So, Paizo, is it permitted to share this as a play aid? Should I send it to someone at Paizo first so someone can review it?

To all. If there is no incentive for players to retire their PFS 1E characters in favor of PFS 2E characters, then you have to accept that there will be a non-trivial number of 1E GM's and players who will stick with 1E. This represents a portion of the buying public that will stop or reduce purchases of 1E content.

There is sufficient 1E content (scenarios, modules and APs) to keep PFS 1E players happy for a very long time, at least another 10 years. And many GMs who have subscriptions to scenarios have already paid for all of them anyway, so if those GMs don't switch to 2E content, the market is diminished. And GMs who don't have enough players willing to switch to 2E won't, for the most part, buy any 2E material; thus reducing sales. It is inevitable. If you think the market loss is too small compared to the new players joining for 2E, then it may still be a good business decision to not provide some incentive to switch, but time will tell. I'm not an expert in the business of the game industry.

For me there would have to be some tangible reason for me to switch. Simply because it's new would not. A similarly enjoyable game would not be a reason. A substantially more enjoyable game would be a good reason, but I'm not willing to pay money just to find out. Free product (even $1 for $1 exchange of 1E books for 2E books) would not, unless I already knew I wanted it. A manufacturer imposed reduced opportunity to play a game I enjoy, PFS 1E, in favor of something else that is not substantially better, PFS 2E, would piss me off.

Thanks for the quotes.

My group has just started Chapter 5, Scarwall. It has taken 18 months to play 4 chapters. We usually play about 3 hours a week (starting at 6:30 and ending at whatever is conveinent between 9 and 10) for 3 or 4 weeks a month. At that rate they will possibly finish CH 6 around the end of the year.

I have been playing PFS since about season 2. Recently I played a PFS scenario that I had already played. I didn't realize it at the time we were playing. I had completely forgot the 4th season scenario. It was only at the end, when the chronicle sheet was revealed, that I recognized it because of the very special boon on it (no spoilers). I mentioned to the GM that I can't get credit for this because my very first PFS character had already played the scenario. He told me that since I was running Curse of the Crimson Throne home game that I can register those and get GM replay credit so that I can apply it. I told him that the home game is using regular Pathfinder rules, not PFS rules. He said that didn't matter as long as the other players have PFS numbers. Only one does. He said get PFS numbers for the other players to register them to be able to register the home game.

So here's some much needed context:

I have never GMed a PFS session. Last year, about 18 months ago, I started a home game running the Curse of the Crimson Throne AP. One player had played PFS many times and has a few PFS characters, but this home game would not be using the PFS character, it would be using a brand new non -PFS character. The 4 players were completely new to Pathfinder, having only had played AD&D 2nd Edition or some other older RPG. And 1 player was completely new to RPG's!

So since most of them were new to Pathfinder, I limited most of them to the Core Rules, APG, Ultimate Equipment, ISWG, Animal Archive (for those who had familiars/companions). As time progressed I allowed a few other books as the need arose. I am using ONLY Pathfinder rules, no 3pp rules. I wanted to keep the rules set small enough so the new players would not be overwhelmed. Since 5 of the 6 players were completely new to Pathfinder, I also decided to use Hero Points so they could mulligan a bad situation and so we don't have needless death. We are also using the full crafting rules.

The first chapter was the old conversion AP of CotCT. In the middle of the second chapter I switched to the expanded and revised hardcover edition (as soon as I noticed it was available). I highly recommend the hardcover version (in PDF form) if you use a virtual game map using a -projector (like I do).

So, I went to the Organized Play event registration page and it specifically says "Organized Play" events, and it seems to me that because the game is not being run with PFS rules that it isn't Organized Play. I read somewhere else (I can't remember where) that playing a home game AP without PFS characters is like players playing pregens; as long as the players experience the entire AP, it can still apply. The implication is that players can't use THOSE characters in actual PFS games because they are not PFS characters; but the players and the GM can get credits that can be aplied to actual PFS characters. But I think this post was not on a Paizo forum and thus couldn't be official.

I couldn't find anything "official" on this topic and I want to make sure this is right. So I need some official clarification since the web site registration page seems to be very specific and is in contradiction to what I have been told/read elsewhere.

I want to make sure I'm doing this right. In this situation, is it legal to register the home game Adventure path using non-PFS characters to gain GM replay credit and to also grant chronicles to the players should they ever decide to start playing PFS? If so, where is the OFFICIAL rule that says it's legal? I'm not willing to simply take someone's word for it (unless that person is Michael Brock or someone actually in a position of authority).

How about eliminating the concept of "faction membership" for all but the highest levels of characters. When you play scenarios and accomplish things that help the Pathfinder Society you gain fame in the society in a general sense. It is the society itself that provides rescue or raise dead services, and most prestige awards. Faction fame by itself becomes a reputation within a certain socio-political group within the society, gaining (or sometimes even losing) reputation with that faction. Each scenario/module can have one or more ways to earn or lose reputation with one faction or another, but will have no effect on the overall society fame. Your reputation within a certain faction can be spent on unlock certain faction specific boons. While this means that certain types of characters may excel at gaining reputation with the factions that tend to match the character type, it is by no means a certainty.

Scenarios should be crafted so that no boon is restricted in a way that bars the boon because you dont happent o belong to that faction at that time. Instead, if you want faction specific boons, they would be boons that are "unlocked" like prestige awards, requiring a minimum reputation in the faction to purchase. The character can then purchase that boon at any time later in his career after he has sufficient reputation.

Care should be taken to craft PFS2 scenarios in a way that there are several opportunities to gain or lose reputation in one or more factions and so that players are never if ever in a position of not having a character of the appropriate level to participate in a scenario designed "for Silver Crusade", or whatever.

@Pirate Bob: I like this idea too. The only suggestion I would make is that the chronicle sheet could have a +/- factor from the standard to account for some difference from scenario to scenario. Like a scenario lists "standard reward for your level +25 gp/level". Sone scenarios might reward one level more or less and + or - gp/level offset from that.

Without some variation, joining a PFS team becomes jsut a job. i.e. The Pathfinder Society is hiring your 1st level character at the standard flat fee of 500 gp to recover an ancient treasure. You're going into bone keep. You might die, and you don't get to keep any of the booty no matter how much you recover.

@Jane "The Knife": Because Paizo is a company and PFS is an organized play system. Keeping the players currently participating in PFS is as equally important as enticing new players.

@Philippe Lam: Yes, a faster transition is better. But you won't have that with many players unless they are provided a reason to stop playing their PFS 1E characters. And that reason has to not be done in a way that doesn't make the player think they are being forced into change. Forcing someone to change will alienate players who go to some cother completely different RPG and will never look back. My propposal attempts to provide a reason for change that will not be over powered and cause new players who never played 1E to be resentful. Perhaps my proposal falls short and needs work. I think the goal to find new players in the current RPG environment is necessary for Paizo, but to also to retain nearly 100% and possibly even bring back previous PFS 1E players who have ostensibly abandoned it is desirable.

@Bob Jonquet: Yes. My proposal would still require you to level up a new PFS 2E character from level 0 in order to have an option to exchange. Like "try before you buy".

It seems there is fair bit of consensus against retiring old 1E characters in favor of 2E characters. I, for one, am curious about 2E but not at all interested in discarding my 1E characters, or learning a new game system and having to keep track of two different sets of RPG rules. I have a total of six PFS 1E characters and that is enough for me to keep track of. The mere fact that there is (or will be) a 2E version of Pathfinder is interresting, but not enough for me to even want to play it, even once. I'm happy with 1E. So, for me, as long as there is no overriding reason to learn a new game system I will just stay at 1E, even if that means playing fewer games. As it is now, I play PFS 1E an average of once a month and I have plenty of other non RPG games to occupy my time, including my current favorite: a Steam game called Stellaris.

In short, I currently have no desire to learn a new RPG game system and see no benefit for me in doing so. I stayed with AD&D 2.x until 2 years after Pathfinder came out, completely ignoring decades of D&D 3.x. I have also subsequently ignored D&D 4 and 5, and Starfinder, and every other RPG system. Unless there is a reason to change, I'm happy sticking with PFS 1E as long as there are still PFS games to play. -- Just my 2 cents.

It has been suggested before and I believe Paizo said they do not plan to have any character conversion rules.

This idea is not a "conversion". The old 1e charcter is retired to allow the player to begin a new character at a higher level than 1st. Reread it carefully.

I don't know if this has been suggested before as this forum is TLDR. But my to help PFS 1e players that can't "convert" their PFS 1e characters to PFS 2e is:

You can "retire early" a PFS 1e character to create a new PFS 2e character that will start at the same level. The retired PFS 1e character must be at least 2nd level. You must already have a PFS 2e character of at least the level of the PFS 1e character being retired. This ensures that you have played up to at least this level in PFS 2e and are familiar with game play at this level and aren't just jumping in with both feet. The new PFS 2e character isn't required to be the same race, class, etc. The retired PFS 1e character is marked as retired on Paizo.com and is no longer valid for play in PFS 1e.

This is roughly equivalent to being "reincarnated" into a new world! Things change!

GOLD: The new PFS 2e character will start with gold according to some table similar to the "character wealth by level" table for Pathfinder 1 gamemastering section, but tweaked for PFS 2e play.

BOONS: The new PFS 2e character will start with a number of boons from chronicles of any other PFS 2e characters the player possesses. The number of boons that can be chosen is 1 per XP for the new PFS 2e character. You can choose from any boon on any PFS 2e chronicle sheet you have earned as long it was appropriate for the tier or subtier, even if the original PFS 2e character didn't qualify for it (i.e. didn't satisfy the game play conditions to grant the boon). Any given boon can only be chosen once and can only be applied to one new PFS 2e character, so if you have some particularly awesome boon, you only get to apply it to a single new PFS 2e character created from the PFS 1e retirement process.

Additionally you could allow some amount of the XP that would otherwise be spent on a choice of boons to instead be spent to gain a single "prize table boon" according to the blog post (I don't remember the link).

ANALYSIS:
- This will incentivize PFS 1e players to the transition to PFS 2e after a few games, and incentivize them to ultimately retire all remaining PFS 1e characters. But doing so in a way that doesn't make you feel like all that time spent on the PFS 1e character is completely wasted. And it does so in a way that I believe isn't unbalancing to new PFS 2e players.
- The new PFS 2e characters created through this process will have fewer boons than a typical PFS 2e character, but it will have cherry picked them.
- This will also help players be able to fill a table slot when they appear without a character of a specific level. Early on, there will be many players that only have a few characters and perhaps doesn't have a character in a specific suptier. Using this method, if a session will be running at subtier 3-4 and the player doesn't have a character of that level, they can choose to retire one of their PFS 1e characters in the 3-7 range to create a new PFS 2e character.
- It is an outside concern, but I do see players that would rather not play pre-gens as they have no emotional resonance to them. And they would also rather not play down to a lower subtier. I have seen a few times, a player leave a game session because they didn't have a characer of the appriopriate subtier and didn't want to play a pregen. This option could mitigate, to sone extent, those outside concerns.

...so one would divide the player-base five ways rather than four, then?

PFS1, PFS1C, SF, PF2, PF2A?

How does that bring a community together? How does it prevent a breakdown via elitistism/entitlement?

Neat ideas, but how does one make them work without further fracturing the already tenuous playing conditions that are going to be in force for at least a couple of years?

A-TEAM game mode is not to resolve fracturing. It's to entice GM's with OP boons and an iron-man mode of play where everything is harder.

Another idea to mitigate the GM boon OP animosity (whether deserved or not).... Take inspiration from screen writers: "hang a lantern on it". Have some GM boons that are clearly OP and are labeled "A-TEAM" or something. Have a new mode of play for A-TEAM characters, like a hard max 4 characters per table limit and the GM must always run the scenario as if it were a heavy table.

Could even have an occcasional special scenario just for A-TEAMs. To even be able to play it, you have to have GMed enough to get one of these boons.

People complain about everything. Boons that separate GMs from Non-GM's. GMing is a learned skill and good GMs deserve to be rewarded. But not at the expense of an OP character. To that end I have some ideas:

I've always wanted to play a ninja, all dressed in white, with a white chef's hat. That throws shurikens glamered as muffins! Yes, the muffin man. But the cost of glamered ammnution (or anything really) is too expensive. Since glamered items will rarely have any in-game effect, how about a GM award that allows the PC to add glamered at no cost to any items the character has for the life of the character.

Another idea is a free one-shot item like a magical tattoo that can be cast once as both quickened and silenced spell, or the magical tattoo can have a contingency activation. At any time in the characters life (between scenarios) he/she can choose to use the boon to recieve the magical tattoo. The total cost of the magical spell tattoo should be scaled to the character's level at the time they decide to apply the tattoo, so something like no more expensive than 1/2 the maximum item cost according to the characters current fame score.

Additional resources shows this:

Curse of the Crimson Throne Player's Guide
Equipment: all equipment on pages 12–13 (except hide shirt); Feats: Acadamae Graduate, Crossbow Mastery
Pathfinder Adventure Path #9: Escape from Old Korvosa
Equipment: all equipment on page 83

The hardcover book has NO equipment on pages 12-13 or page 83. And the feats Acadamae Graduate and Crossbow Mastery don't exist anywhere in the book that I have found. Appendix 5 lists equipment, but that's on pages 432-437, not 12-13 or 83. Appendix 6 lists new character options, "new feats, spells or techniques" (their words, not mine), none of which are called Acadamae Graduate or Crossbow Mastery.

As far as I can tell, since none of the new book is specifically listed as additional resources, then NONE OF IT IS.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderSociety/rpg/additional doesn't list any pages in the hard cover book that are legal. Is this an oversight? Or is it officially not-legal? If it is an oversight, how do I know what equipment and feats are legal and whether the new versions are any different than the old versions? Am I expected to buy copies of the obsolete 35e version?

It could be an horrible curse effect when failing a craft item check that include teleport in the prerequisites.

I think the way I'm going to rule in my games is that since the "objects" sentence comes first in the teleport spell description, that it takes precedence. Anything the caster wears or carries are objects, even if they are other creatures, and they come along automaticaly as long as the total weight doesn't exceed the character's carrying capacity. Ruling that even carried creatures are obects is much the same as considering that a square is also quadrilateral, but a quandrilaterial is not necessarily a square. So creatures are obects for the purposes of teleport carrying capacity. This nicely resolves all ambiguities. This will alsl means that a character with green slime on his head cannot just teleport out from under it, or use teleport to rid himself of an infestation. I will rule that "additional creatures" referrs to other, non-carried creatures that the the caster chooses, by willfully touching them, to include, along with anything they wear or carry. It also means that an animal companion hostelling in the armor special ability would also not count against the creature limit, which I think is correct in any interpretation.

I realize that this opens the door for a party, all of which have muleback chords and such, to potentially allow many more 'creatures' to be teleported; but I think that is okay.

In game terms, they are an infestation, not creatures. Unless you can tell me what is the CR of a single flea.

Even if it was a swarm, it would still count as a single creature for many purposes, just with the swarm subtype.

So are you implying that if you happend to have a familiar that is "CR -", i.e. no CR. Then it doesn't count as a creature?

My point is that PF doesn't have a definition of what is a creature and what is not. So standard English definition rules. Anything living is a creature. At least everything that has a brain.

However, as the last part of my post indicated, that all was a devolvement of a more important question. Does a tiny familiar (like a bird or rat) on the shoulder of it's master count as an additional creature for the purposes of teleport? Both of thought it didn't, but couldn't cite any rule that specifically says that.

I was having a philosophical conversation with a Venture Captain about the uses of the teleport spell. By RAW it says that any additional creature, medium or smaller creature or its equivalent, counts against your limit of creatures teleported. Fleas and lice are creatures and there is the wording "or smaller" to consider.

1) If the caster cannot choose leave the fleas behind then each flea, louse, skin mite, or any other external parasite counts as a "medium or smaller" creature that is touching the caster. The consequence would be that infesting a spellcaster would guarantee that he can never use teleport as they would not have enough "creatures" capacity.

2) However, if the caster can choose to not take the fleas, etc. with him, it makes the teleport spell a 100% successful dis-infesting spell, and since nearly every adventurer has at least one form of beneficial parasite (skin mites) it means that teleporting would leave a faint outline of all the infesting creatures. I suppose that what the spellcaft check is for, noticing that faint outline if vermin would mean it was a teleport spell, not and invisibility spell. :)

Now the term "or equivalent" may also apply. The standard rule of 2:1 being 1 large creature counts as 2 medium, if applied to diminutive and fine creature sizes would mean that each group of up to 16 fleas or lice, would count as 1 medium creature in the teleport limit.

This was actually a devolvement of a discussion about teleporting with a tiny familiar. While neither of us could find the rule, we both though that a tiny familiar carried by a wizard would not count against the teleport limits. But that couldn't be resolved with the wordging in the teleport spell.

Hmm. The whole paragraph form PRD is:

Creatures with a fly speed treat the Fly skill as a class skill. A creature with a natural fly speed receives a bonus (or penalty) on Fly skill checks depending on its maneuverability: Clumsy –8, Poor –4, Average +0, Good +4, Perfect +8. Creatures without a listed maneuverability rating are assumed to have average maneuverability.

So if the fly spell granting the ability to fly is synonymous with having a fly speed, then the consequence is that the Fly skill should also be considered a class skill as well. And a single skill point spent on Fly skill would raise the skill total by an additional +4. That would bring her Fly skill, with 1 skill points spent on it, up to +14 (with armor) or +16 (without).

Clearly she should not have any skill points spent in Fly. But at +10 it is too low for the published stat block, and with a single skill point spent, it becomes too high for the published stat block.

I think at this point I will accept +10 and assume that they just forgot to add the -2 ACP when publishing a +12.

The spell states that you can "fly at a speed of 60 feet", it doesn't say that you gain a "fly speed".

From PRD "A creature with a natural fly speed receives a bonus (or penalty) on Fly skill checks depending on its maneuverability: Clumsy –8, Poor –4, Average +0, Good +4, Perfect +8." The fly spell doesn't give you a "natural" fly speed so the maneuverability bonus doesn't apply. So all that is left is:

+3 1/2 caster level (from spell)
+5 from current Dex
-2 from armor check penalty
===========================
+6 total

So it's even worse. To get to 12 on the stat block you need 6 skill points.

The bonus to fly for fly spell is 1/2 caster level. Cinnabar is CL 7 so that bonus is only 3. Fly still needs 5 ranks to get to 9 without the fly spell. So still not solved. She needs 5 more skill ranks than she has in order to solve the skills totals, 1 rank in Fly and 4 ranks in Sense Motive.

Thanks! I think that solves it. Now I can take away the buffs when she is surprised in her bed!

I brought up the "official" Hero Labs version of Cinnabar (so I paid for the package) and here we go:

- This makes her original stats 14, 15, 13, 10, 8, 14, which makes her a 15-point build if you choose Strength as her bonus ability score, which is what Hero labs did.

14,13,13,10,8,14 is 14-points but the extra point could be resolved by choosing 9 WIS at the start which would be no effect until middle age.

So next rebuild: 15-point buy: 14,13,13,10,9,14 +2 dex (human) +2 dex/+1 con +4 (spells) = 18,21,18,10,9,14. Good. Build with 4 rogue first, then 2 ranger, then 7 RMA. HP base = 8,4,5,4,6,5,5,4,5,4,5,4,5 = 64 +26 (con base) +4 (favored class) +13 (toughness) +26 (bear's endurance) = 133. Good. [Note NPCs without racial HD get full HP on 1st lvl and avg (round down) for other lvls]. 13 ranks in acrobatics, bluff, disguise, intimidate, perception, stealth, and survival making those exactly match the stat block and leaving only 8 ranks to resolve fly (5 ranks needed) and sense motive (8 ranks needed) to resolve. So it's 5 ranks short and the 8 ranks are distributed in 2 ranks each in the 4 rogue levels; so only 4 can be put in each skill since you can't apply two skill ranks in the same skill in the same class level. How did Hero Lab resolve the skill points?

So I tried again. The best I can figure is that the spells in the "Before Combat" section are already applied and the starting base stats are lower. So starting with a 20 point buy (instead of rolled) 14,15,14,10,8,14. +2 dex (human) +1 str/dex/con (levels) +4 str/con/dex (spells) = 18,24,18,10,8,14. Anomalies: 1) Skills come out exactly except there is 1 unspent skill point. 2) fort, cmd and init are +2 higher than in the stat block. [ Could it be that transferring the NPC to the publication that someone misread a written numeral 4 for a 1? ]

Next issue: Weapon damage seems wrong. +4 (str) +2 (weapon spec) +2 (greater weapon spec) +1 (magic) = 9. Stat block shows +11. Could it be automatically applying +2 (favored enemy) even though it's unlikey that all enemies are human? Or what am I missing?

In PZO1021 pg 240 Cinnabar's.... I've tried to build this NPC from scratch. I think the skill total are wrong. I've tried both with and without applying the three spells indicated in the "Before Combat" section, and both with and without applying the Armor Check penalty from her armor. No combination ads up correctly.

If applying both the Armor Check penalty and the three spells, then we need 2 more skill points to get the published totals in the stat block. But I don't think the spells should apply because that makes her hit point total wrong. Without the CON boost her hit point total is correct, so I would see this as evidence that the three prep spells should not be already factored into the stat block as it is published.

However, if not applying the Armor Check penalty or the three spells, we need 3 more skill points to get the totals shown in the stat block.

And if only applying the Armor Check penalty, then to get those totals for skills then 9 more skill points are needed.

I was under the impression that a stat block should already include standard armor and weapons, but not any effects specified in in the "Before Combat" section ules it specificaly says "(already factored in the stat block)" or soethng like that.

So if Cinnabar is caught by surprise, just woke up with no time to put on armor of cast prep spells, what should her skills be? And do the ranks add up correctly?

I agree with Grik 100% that is the way I would rule it

If Krik is correct, then...

Round 1:
Init 10: caster casts spell with duration 3.

Round 2:
Init 10: caster delays (1st round expires when caster come out of delay or when caster wraps around missing the next action).

Round 3:
Init 11: caster comes out of delay 1 init before missing opportunity to act on the delay, 1st round expires. init advances to 11.

Round 4:
Init 11: caster delays.

Round 5:
Init 12: caster comes out of delay, 2nd round expires.

Round 6:
Init 12: caster delays.

Round 7:
Init 13: caster comes out of delay, 3rd round expires.

So if Krik is correct, any spell or effect can get essentially double duration if the target controlling the duration is willing to do maximal delays at every opportunity.

This doesn't sound right to me.

I saw an official post in another thread that mostly cleared it up. It said the missing Wayfinder in v8 was an editing omission. It didn't say that it was an omission in error, and that is should still be considered legal, but I think that was the intent of the post. It did say that a future version will have it restored.