Any word on potential inclusion of Paths of the Righteous content?

[Lune]

Additional resources still has a note saying:
"Several options in this book are being withheld to appear on Chronicle sheets."

Is that still the plan? With PFS likely soon becoming a closed system I'm wondering if there are any plans to legalize content from that book outside of Chronicle sheets. Also, perhaps I'm unaware, but has that plan come to fruition? Have options from that book made it to Chronicle sheets?

I tried to find another example of this happening with content from another book but to date Paths of the Righteous is the only one to include such wording in the additional resources that I could find any information on.

[Lune]

Bump.

Anyone have any information on this?

[RealAlchemy]

If there was, it would be considered chronicle sheet spoilers and spreading it would be frowned upon to preven cherry-picking chronicles.

[Ferious Thune]

I think he’s asking if they might be opened up through the Additional Resources now, given that there are probably not enough scenarios left in PF1 to do so with very many of them through chronicles.

EDIT: His other questions are more general. Has it happened at all? Not where to get a specific prestige class. I think whether it has happened at all is fine to answer, as long as specific scenarios or prestige classes aren’t mentioned.

[RocMeAsmodeus]

It has happened at least once. I totally didn't predict it happening, and people can't read my post history to prove it or anything. *wink wink nudge nudge*

[Blake's Tiger]

It has happened once with this content, at least once with an archetype, and I believe once with a wizard class option.

Paths of the Righteous is the only one with that wording in the AR and, given that Chronicles can overrule AR, it is meanngless and should probably be removed.

[Mimo Tomblebur]

Well, it wasn't "meaningless". It was obviously there to discourage people from actively petitioning for elements that had not been approved.

[Mimo Tomblebur]

The fact that the "Prestigious Spellcaster" feat has been locked behind that nebulous wall with no chance for debate has been a bit of a cruel tease.

[Belafon]

Mimo Tomblebur wrote:

Well, it wasn't "meaningless". It was obviously there to discourage people from actively petitioning for elements that had not been approved.

Mimo Tomblebur wrote:

The fact that the "Prestigious Spellcaster" feat has been locked behind that nebulous wall with no chance for debate has been a bit of a cruel tease.

If quote A is true, quote B proves it was a success!