Season 4 Pathfinder Society (Second Edition) Guide to Organized Play is currently live.

[Online Guide Team Lead - JTT]

Just in time for Gen Con, we have the latest edition of the PFS2 guide available.

Most of the changes are minor clarifications (No, you can't start a harmful emanation and then walk over to your fellow PCs unless you get their consent first. No, you can't leave the table "early" after playing a scenario for 12 hours and get 12 XP from a 4 XP scenario.)

The new Season of Shattered Sanctuary backgrounds have been added under Legacy Backgrounds

The Promotional Boons have been updated on the Player Rewards page. While Vestments and Campaign Service Coin are largely unchanged, (Vestments now covers a much wider array of apparel, but the effect is unchanged) Accessories has now been expanded into 3 different categories (Worn Accessory, Rules Reference, Other Item) and has (correspondingly) 3 new effects.

I hope everyone has a happy Gen Con!

Full Changelog

[Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion]

Posting this as personal opinion, cause it is:

Everyone should check out the Player Rewards page! The new promo boons are amazing. I will definitely be bringing my Pathfinder Lanyard and Skittermander plush to games in future!

[Sebastian Hirsch]

I appreciate the changelog ^^ well done guide team ^^

[Belafon]

Anybody else reading the changelog and thinking "it's kinda silly that they actually had to put that in writing; it would be funnier if they had put in some names?"

Quote:

No, Steve, you can't deliberately drag a scenario out all day and then leave right before the end to get 12 XP from a 4 XP scenario. Come on.

Quote:

You can't start an emanation that does damage, then walk over to put your party members in it whether they want to be there or not. That's PVP and we really shouldn't have needed to say so, Trina.

Spoiler:

Obviously we aren't going to call out people by real names. It just occurred to me that *someone* had to try to fracture the rules in the first place and the idea of putting them on blast tickled my funnybone.

[Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion]

I am 50% sure that the updated No PVP rule was result of the Additional Resources team's excellent Theory Crafters.

I know that the XP thing was pointed out to us by a VO as a potential problem.

So neither one was *actually* ever fractured.

But I admit I did intentionally phrase them to imply that for humor sake. So I am glad people appreciated the humor.

[Pirate Rob]

Belafon wrote:

No, Steve, you can't deliberately drag a scenario out all day and then leave right before the end to get 12 XP from a 4 XP scenario. Come on.

That was me. I noticed the side effect and brought up the problem. I don't think it's the kind of thing that ever actually happened, but why not fix issues like that when we find them?

[LeftHandShake]

I'm not sure this is the place for it, but I just noticed something that needs PFS clarification, and probably eventually errata for several ancestries (or the CRB). CRB p535 says:

Quote:

It’s assumed that items are meant to be worn by humanoids; any item that can or must be worn by a different type of creature either states this in its description or has the companion trait.

The following ancestries (at least) don't have the humanoid trait: automaton, leshy, conrasu, poppet, skeleton, and sprite. No (or few) items are listed as being for undead, constructs, fey, plants, or aeons. By the plain English meaning of that sentence, worn items cannot be used by these ancestries; that's a problem.

This is a "rule [that] seems to have wording with problematic repercussions" (CRB p444), so maybe it's meant to be papered over by table GMs. But can we get an official ruling or clarification to fix this?

[Blake's Tiger]

Quote:

By the plain English meaning of that sentence, worn items cannot be used by these ancestries; that's a problem.

I'd say it is fine in plain English: humanoid = a being resembling a human in shape.

That there is a rules element called "creature type" with a defined variable called "humanoid" creates the potential for confusion.

I will note an observation that the above sentence says "different types of creatures" but when the rules reference "creature type," it says "creature type." I would expect it to say, "different creature types" if they meant the rules element. So I believe it was written in casual language no referencing "creature type."

However, there now exists--but not yet sanctioned--a non-humanoid Nagaji ancestry in that it has no legs or feet.

[Donald]

CBR pg 633

Quote:

humanoid (trait) Humanoid creatures reason and act much like humans. They typically stand upright and have two arms and two legs.

"worn by humanoids" does not say 'with the Humanoid trait', the pg 633 definition should be enough to cover the item definition.

[Here4daFreeSwag]

Good to have some free downloadable 2e PFS guide stuff out there in the wilds for PF2e's organized play system, Online Guide Team Lead - JTT. ;)

[LeftHandShake]

Creature type traits aren't usually capitalized in the rules; see, e.g. Vengeful Hatred (https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=6). Likewise, creature types are not always referred to explicitly as having that trait; see e.g. Favored Enemy (https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=503). That refers simply to "an enemy that belongs to the chosen category". Do you think there is any reasonable interpretation of "belong[ing] to the chosen category" that is *not* "has the corresponding trait"?

Saying there's a difference between "creature type" and "type of creature"-- when the rule explicitly refers to one of the creature types-- is quite a stretch.

Once Impossible Lands is sanctioned, can I (as a PFS GM) rule that sacred nagaji cannot wear equipment with "worn footwear" as its usage entry, even though they have the humanoid trait? Can I rule that conrasu can't wear footwear because they definitely don't have feet, nor do they have the humanoid trait, in no way resemble a humanoid, and don't even reason like humans?

And you can't refer to the humanoid trait rules to label something as humanoid that doesn't have the humanoid trait.

This is a rules problem with an easy fix. Why shouldn't it be fixed?

[Blake's Tiger]

I don't think anyone's saying it shouldn't be fixed.

I'm only saying that the Held or Worn item rules do not obviously reference the creature type rules element because "humanoid" is also a common word to describe a body shape.

EDIT: Where do you get that conrasu definitely don't have feet?

Conrasu wrote:

Conrasus themselves are called to a path and, once they find it, shape frames to create a suitable form, leading to a wide variety of appearances.

[LeftHandShake]

In two of the three images of them in the book show them without feet, but instead a trunk that extends to the ground; the third is not bipedal. I should have said they "likely" or "usually" don't have feet. The sourcebook only provides those three examples, so it's what we have to go on.

[Donald]

LeftHandShake wrote:

Creature type traits aren't usually capitalized in the rules; see, e.g. Vengeful Hatred (https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=6). Likewise, creature types are not always referred to explicitly as having that trait; see e.g. Favored Enemy (https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=503). That refers simply to "an enemy that belongs to the chosen category". Do you think there is any reasonable interpretation of "belong[ing] to the chosen category" that is *not* "has the corresponding trait"?

Both examples you give have the Trait of the feat in the top material, i.e. Dwarf & Ranger. So if that is what matters for use...

A quick look through doesn't show any worn magic item with the Humanoid trait. So, if you need the Trait to use the item, Humanoids can't use magic items at all.

LeftHandShake wrote:

Saying there's a difference between "creature type" and "type of creature"-- when the rule explicitly refers to one of the creature types-- is quite a stretch.

A search of the CRB comes up with zero hits for "creature type" and "type of creature". Just traits.

LeftHandShake wrote:

And you can't refer to the humanoid trait rules to label something as humanoid that doesn't have the humanoid trait.

Then why is it even in the book?

A simple solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

[Pirate Rob]

Fleshwarps have the humanoid trait and has no requirement to have any arms or legs etc or be bipedal etc.

Fleshwarp wrote:

The only commonality among fleshwarps is their mismatched nature. Let your imagination run wild when creating a fleshwarp character!

Quote:

[Blake's Tiger]

Donald wrote:

LeftHandShake wrote:

Saying there's a difference between "creature type" and "type of creature"-- when the rule explicitly refers to one of the creature types-- is quite a stretch.

A search of the CRB comes up with zero hits for "creature type" and "type of creature". Just traits.

Then your search program has failed you because this discussion literally stems from a line in the CRB that contains the exact string of words: "type of creature."

However, you sre correct in part. The rules term is actually "Monster Type."