|
Thanks guys! I have a home group playing PFS2, and we are about to finish Fall of Plaguestone. If Age of Ashes is not yet sanctioned, can you recommend any other modules/adventure paths that I can download that work with Pathfinder Society (2nd editon)?
Age of Ashes is the next thing that is going to be sanctioned, and the only thing outside of scenarios/quests and Fall of Plaguestone that will be at this stage. If you want something that is PF2 and sanctioned, your best bet is to play that and by the time you've finished part of it, that part will hopefully be sanctioned.
|
|
I'm pretty sure one of the official organized play folks posted a comment a while back that they don't like us assuming retroactive credit will be offered.
(I know I'd be sad if they don't offer it for AoA, but I do think we need to be careful about how we represent that past practice to people.)
I tried to go back through all of Linda's, Tonya's, and Micheal's posts since I think those are the three whose posts reflect rulings and couldn't find it, so maybe I'm mis-remembering...
|
I'm pretty sure one of the official organized play folks posted a comment a while back that they don't like us assuming retroactive credit will be offered.
(I know I'd be sad if they don't offer it for AoA, but I do think we need to be careful about how we represent that past practice to people.)
I tried to go back through all of Linda's, Tonya's, and Micheal's posts since I think those are the three whose posts reflect rulings and couldn't find it, so maybe I'm mis-remembering...
I think that it would be an amazingly stupid thing for them to NOT allow retroactive sanctioning.
First, it would seriously piss off players who were expecting it to be sanctioned at some point.
Second, it would delay at least some purchases of Adventure Paths going forward since at least some people would delay buying and running the Path until it was sanctioned.
Third, it would be an absolutely unenforceable decision on their part, a decision that would outright encourage people to actively cheat (people are far more likely to break a rule they see as unfair and arbitrary than one that they largely agree with). Paizo can't possibly differentiate between people who are only now playing the Adventure Path as opposed to people who played it a few months ago and are only now reporting it.
What possible rationale for NOT allowing retroactive reporting could Paizo have?
Edit: I can see possible reasons why Paizo would not choose to sanction an Adventure Path at all (I think that would be an error on their part but I can see some justification). But I really can see NO reason why, once they sanctioned it, they wouldn't allow retroactive sanctioning.
