PSA: GM Star Replays Do Not Renew (and if you think they do, you probably have the wrong version of the Guide)
Y'know, whatever. I'm so sick of arguing about it. If this many people need that much handholding, maybe that's just the only option.
Even without the refreshing of star replays, I went ahead and used my first at a local shop. I went back and forth on it for the longest time but decided "what the hell?" and used a replay. On City of Strangers Pt 1, of all things. It was a fun scenario and a good time with the table, so I chalk that up as a win.
An excellent choice.
PSA: GM Star Replays Do Not Renew (and if you think they do, you probably have the wrong version of the Guide)
Folks, over in this thread it has become very apparent that people are confused about GM Star replays and whether or not they renew.
Here is the text from the Guide, page 20, with relevant text bolded:
Alternatively, campaign GMs who are recognized for their efforts by receiving GM stars (see page 37), may receive additional player or GM credit for a number of non-Tier 1 scenarios or sanctioned modules per GM star they have earned. For example, a three-star GM may select any three scenarios or sanctioned modules that she can then play or GM for credit one additional time each. For each of these adventures, she can thus earn a total of three Chronicle sheets, rather than the two normally allowed. When replaying a scenario with GM-star credit, the GM completing the Chronicle sheet will annotate the Notes section of the Chronicle sheet and add “GM Star Replay Credit × Star” to annotate the use of star credit replay. The GM Star Replay Credits are a once per star, lifetime benefit.
The confusion stems from the fact that the "Beta" version of the Guide 5.0, which was released before GenCon 2013, said that they would renew every season. However, from the time the Guide went live, the policy has been "lifetime"; this is not a mid-season shift.
If you have a version of the Guide that says otherwise, you need to download the new version of the Guide!
Now, it is possible that this will change in the future, but time will tell.
Finally, I want to note something here: I am concerned that this is going to be blamed on the fact that the Guide sees a beta release at all. While I definitely absolutely agree with the general sentiment that the next beta release should be clearly marked as such--not least because at least a few of the people who expressed confusion in that other thread are Venture Officers--I think it's worth noting that the confusion was internal as well as external (note not just the linked message but the one it was replying to, please). I don't think the policy of releasing the Guide early, for feedback, is to blame; it was in fact that same early release that caught this error. While the process of release obviously needs some refinement, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
you can't use two-weapon fighting with two greatswords.
Why can't one expend resources (in this case, two discoveries) to achieve that? Rules have exceptions, and there's precedent in this game of being able to spend character-build resources (feats, class features, whatever) to be able to achieve exceptions to the standard rules.
... and a rule that's unwritten is, by definition, not "rules as written." So how is an unwritten rule relevant for PFS?
the chronicle wrote:
If you possess a class feature which permits you to take an animal companion or a mount that progresses as an animal companion, you may add the axe beak to your list of legal and available companions.
Since there's no limitation, it will apply to all of the classes on that character, and therefore stack.
If the stirge is delivering a 0HP attack and DR somehow reduces that to zero (... which I'm still not clear on) and thus negates the attack, anyone with any DR is immune to stirges unless it's DR/piercing. In fact a zero-level spell--Haunted Fey Aspect--can shut down a single stirge FOREVER.
Using this approach, mites are immune to stirges.
Come on, folks. The game only works if we respect the fact that there are going to be the occasional oddity. The stirge attack doesn't deal damage. It doesn't even invoke damage the damage rules. There's no damage because there's no attack roll. There's no grapple check, either. A stirge would have a CMB in the negatives.
The stirge's attack roll is "surviving the AOO it provokes as it moves into your square," which is why its attach/drain is automatic after that. Can we really not let this pathetic little 5hp creature do its only thing?
Given that (in PFS) you can't throw in wandering monsters to hurry up PCs taking 20 for hours on end, how do you handle it in PFS games?
I count on them being horribly impatient. "If you take 20 it will take you hours to get up this mountain pass." Many PFS players (in my experience, IMO, etc etc) are so impatient they're impatient on behalf of their characters, too.
Failing that, I try to discuss the practical effects. "If you take 20 searching every square, you will be on this mountain for months. How many helpings of trail rations do you have? What is the time limit on your mission?"
Failing that, I throw up my hands and give it to them, because if they're determined to avoid any hint of challenge, it's best to get it over with quickly and avoid those players in the future.
This seems like a relatively minor rules dispute - it affects your character outside of the adventure for the most part.
I agree. It's certainly not something I would've cared about as a player.
I would suggest in the future that for issues like this, it's best to just agree to disagree and play under that GM for the adventure.
i disagree. Every player is free to prioritize aspects of their experience, and I am actively delighted to see someone standing up for his (or her) priorities by simply saying, "I'll pass, then." If everyone acted like that kind of adult, 90% of the conflict on these boards would exist only in theory.
Would you care to comment on the disparity between your initial post and the report by the player in question? This thread seemed like it was going to be fun, but if the followup is accurate, you've made us all complicit in your attempt to mock someone for doing the right thing, which I find distasteful.
In the words of a dude I used to work with, "That didn't go over your head--that went over your house."
At various points over the weekend I was getting the traditional "no store" message, which ends with "Thank you for your patience."
I think we can all agree that I lack that particular virtue, as do many of the other posters here. I feel, therefore, that this error message misrepresents both me and those same other posters.
Accordingly, I propose that the message be changed from "Thank you for your patience" to "Suck it up, nerds."
There's no explicit distinction made in RAW between genders. It's implied, but it's not RAW!
The section describing the "dead" condition doesn't say that dead people can't take any actions. It's implied, but it's not RAW!
C'mon, man. This isn't about RAW vs RAI. Either the damn things have hair or they don't. In this case, they don't.
what would a subtle clown look like? or a subtle pimp? they would be terrible. some characters need to be larger than life to work.
I know a guy who runs a witch. He's described as an old wrinkled elf with a collar just like Shakespeare's, whose nose is swollen and red from years of alcoholism, whose shoes seem way too big for him ... it's not until he "cackles" that you realize you're playing next to a clown. It's absolutely brilliant.
Joe M. wrote:
Oh, that's disappointing. I hadn't realized that they updated the guides mid-season. I figured version 5 would be set for all of season 5. :-/
I must admit I was a little confused by the initial post. I was pretty sure that star replays reset every season (because it says so on page 20 of the PFS guide as noted by Joe M here). If they really won't reset yearly any more then I'll probably never use them. Just as I have never spent a single point of prestige yet. I've just been saving them all for an emergency.
It wasn't a mid-season change. The Guide that said "Stars reset every season" was released in beta about a week before S5 started. The one released at the start of S5, the official release of 5.0, in other words, said that they're per lifetime.
If it's any consolation, it's not just you guys--there's been some serious confusion about this. I'm inclined to think the beta preview next year should be handled differently (like released with an extra header on every page that says "BETA -- NOT FOR ACTUAL USE" or something similar).
On the other hand, seeing the way people react to this information after having used some of their stars is useful information as well.
Saint Caleth wrote:
So if what I just described is NG, then how do you oppose institutional injustice and oppressive laws in a lawful fashion?
You work within the system. Sounds lame? It is. That's the trouble with taking an oath to uphold law.
What does a paladin of Sarenrae do about the laws in Taldor that oppress others of their faith?
If there are paladins of Sarenrae in Taldor, the GM isn't paying attention.
What about the laws in Rahadoum which oppress people of any faith?
I would expect paladins to not live in Rahadoum, and while they are visiting, I would expect them to comply with the legal instructions given to them by the whitecloaks or whatever their names are: Keep their holy symbols covered, and don't use divine magic openly.
What about the laws in Cheliax which are explicitly stated to be used to attack those who the government does not like?
You want the lot of a Chelish paladin to be easy?
In cases like Geb it is far more straightforward and the paladin can just go on crusade to kill the undead citizens. Probably likewise with the nobles of Nidal and the orcs in the Hold of Belkzen.
Oh my God, you'd let a paladin walk into a land where intelligent creatures rule in relative peace and just slaughter them? Are you kidding me with this?
Not being able to effectively oppose unjust and oppressive laws beyond the equivalent of a letter to their congressman sounds very un-paladin like to me
Paladining is a martyr's field. It's not supposed to be easy. If you want to play a noble knight who hits things and has no fear of consequences, there are a half-dozen other classes that can easily set that up for you. If you want to play a paladin, expect the universe to try to shaft you.
You know the best example of how a paladin should be played? The guy from Pool of Twilight--what, Miltiadis? Something like that. He was a celebrated servant of his god, and then in his final fight, it was two armies against each other, and to keep his men from throwing their lives away pointlessly, he snuck into his opponents' camp and slew him in his sleep, saving hundreds of lives and ending a war, and he was cursed with undeath because he was a friggin' paladin.
They are deliberately held to lofty, and yes, problematic, ideals. That's the whole point!
David Bowles wrote:
If you came to my table and made that argument, I would give you two options:
1. You're wrong. Would you like to participate in the organized campaign with the other players now, or would you prefer to leave?
I don't ...
... no. Just no.
Only supporting laws that you feel are "good" is neutral good.
David Bowles wrote:
It can be argued, but if a deity makes it clear that in their pantheon, slavery IS evil, the gloves come off. No mercy, to quote Delenn.
And then you need an atonement, because you violated your code of honor by failing to "respect legitimate authority." A paladin does not get to pick and choose. That luxury is left to others--like the priests of Gods who declare slavery inherently evil under any circumstances.
If you want to play a righteous crusader who ignores the laws of the land, play a warpriest. Brand new class, does exactly what you describe. A paladin has to balance "good" and "law," which is why they have a code of conduct on top of an alignment restriction.
Edit: As written, a Paladin is the servant of two masters: His alignment, the aspects of which can occasionally come into conflict, and his code of conduct, which can occasionally cause that conflict. In PFS, it's exacerbated by the necessity of pledging oneself to just one god, which imposes a separate set of conditions which, in turn, can conflict with the others.
Lou Diamond wrote:
It seems to me the DEVS have said that there is to no PC's of Evil alignment. Practicing necromancy is an evil act, all spells that deal with controlling and raising/creating undead have an evil descriptor and if you continually cast them it will shift your alignment to one of the evil alignment types and render your character non playable in PFS. Necromancers do not qualify for atonement as they are willingly committing evil acts when they cast their spells.
In Pathfinder Society, casting spells with the "evil" descriptor does not affect your alignment.
DM Beckett wrote:
Bolding mine, because it illustrates my question:
Why privilege the people who deliberately play an intolerant character (in a neutral-tending-toward-evil organization, mind) over the tolerant character whose tactics are very much in alignment (NPI) with that same neutral-tending-toward-evil organization?
DM Beckett wrote:
Either the Paladin code is unwaveringly strict, or it isn't.
If that's interpreted as "suffer not a zombie to lurch," then that means you also can't break the law to acquire an artifact for the Society. Hell, just entering Irrisen is a crime for a Pathfinder.
If, however, we want to see some flexibility--"I don't think Baba Yaga is a legitimate authority, and I'm serving the greater good by retrieving this artifact"--then I don't see how "I'll let this zombie punch things on my behalf until it is no longer under my direct supervision, at which point I will see it put down" is problematic.
DM Beckett wrote:
In my opinion, you should also be considering the character Animating Undead to be committing PvP for putting other characters into that sort of position
The day I see this in the wild is the day that, no matter what character I wind up playing, I watch the Paladin like a hawk and demand an atonement for every single illegal action. If you want to shut down a legal option because some other class has a problem with it, that class had damn sure better live up to the requirements it's setting out.
At the end of Dark Menagerie, assuming you free Melabdara, you get one of two boons. One gives you 375gp; the other does this:
Millennial Lore: In return for her freedom, Melabdara promised you a future service. When you would fail to earn a Prestige Point at the end of a scenario, you may call upon Melabdara to provide you with long-lost information that might prove just as enticing to your faction as your assigned mission, and that earns you 1 Prestige Point as though you had completed the faction mission. This boon may only be used for faction missions, and may not apply to a scenario’s success conditions. When you use this boon, cross it off the Chronicle sheet.
Since there are no more faction missions, this boon as written does nothing. I see four possible outcomes:1. People who chose this boon and didn't use it before S5 started can use it on a secondary success condition, but not a primary success condition. It remains available on new Chronicles.
2. People who chose this boon and didn't use it before S5 started can use it on a secondary success condition, but not a primary success condition. It is no longer available, and should be crossed off new Chronicles by the GM so that people who receive the sheet now automatically get the extra 375gp.
3. People who chose this boon and didn't use it before S5 started can go back and switch to the other boon, adding 375 gold onto their next chronicle. The other boon is no longer available, and should be crossed off new Chronicles by the GM so that people who receive the sheet now automatically get the extra 375gp.
4. People who chose this boon and didn't use it before S5 started get nothing. It is no longer available, and should be crossed off new Chronicles by the GM so that people who receive the sheet now automatically get the extra 375gp.
Would campaign leadership please let us know which we should implement? I just ran this for several people, and I don't know which to tell them.
Mark Seifter wrote:
The player with the shard might easily bully the other players out of character with "If you ever mention that we have a job from the Venture Captain or are members of the Society in-character to me, it nerfs my character, so that's PvP and being a jerk. You better never say it."
If someone said that to me, every single statement out of my mouth would start with "Well, for the greater glory of the Pathfinder Society and the continuance of our assigned mission, I think we should ..."
Seth Gipson wrote:
1) A game in which the party consisted of a level 4 goblin gunslinger, a level 4 goblin alchemist, and three level 1 'other', playing down into subtier 1-2.
Interesting. The OP neglected to mention the level disparity. L4s outshining L1s in low tier is not going to be solved with an initiative cap.
Im not trying to say its the Sorcerers fault that she didnt get to go in the combats, but when everyone but one person invests in making sure they go as close to first as possible, the one lone person who doesnt is gonna get left behind.
Or you can get a messageboard clarification and staple it to the GM's forehead.
... or maybe that's just me.
The Fox wrote:
Ah. So you want a FAQ to confirm the fairly obvious answer. I can get behind that.
Kyle Baird wrote:
I think the happy medium here isn't to fix the chronicle, but rather to correct it: Draw a line through the 0XP, then type in "2XP (see Guide)" next to it (or in the margins, or with an asterisk pointing to a note at the bottom, or whatever). That way it's obvious that there's been a correction, rather than just modifying the sheet.
That could work for typos, too--a GM might not want to accept an Azlant Ridge sheet with the "I" corrected to "II," but (hopefully) nobody's going to mind if the "I" is crossed out and "II" is written in next to it. It creates transparency of process.
See, I could tell from the way you asked that you were playing some form of "gotcha" here. I admit to being sad that I didn't see it, though.
The followup question is: Would you seriously disallow a player from playing at your table as a result?
Personally, no, because I'd never notice. But if I did, I'd tell the player they should probably get a new one, because there are insane people who would disallow it. And if I received it as a player--and noticed, which as we have established, is pretty unlikely--I would ask for a new one, again, in preemptive defense against insane people.
Edit: Just in case this is actually somehow confusing, I'm not calling "declaring do-it-yourself Chronicle sheets invalid" insane, I'm calling "refusing to seat a player because one of their GMs once fixed a typo in a scenario title" insane.
Edit edit: To put it another way, "The leadership of this organized play community assumes that you will use common sense in your interpretation of the rules."
OH YES AND IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'S A TRACK RECORD OF TAKING AWAY ITEMS THAT CORRESPOND TO THAT FIRST LEVEL SPELL OR ANYTHING
i want my bracers back :(