Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
Aren't they the exact same weapon? Both are 1d6 bludgeoning martial clubs with L bulk, 1 hand, shove, thrown 30ft, and the grippli/tripkee trait? Why change it anyway?
By default, there's no rules for "just changing one weapon to another".
However, if you're still level 1, you can sell back equipment at the original price, and then buy the new weapon, effectively losing nothing.
If your first chronicle sheet was received before... November 15th last year I think, you have one use of the remaster rebuild for the character. As part of that rebuild, you may sell back equipment at full price, and then purchase a new weapon, effectively switching it out for free.
Both of those options do require that you have some sort of character rebuild available, though - either lvl 1 or remaster rebuild. Outside of those, there's no special rule allowing switching weapons (other than transfering runes at that 10% gp price), although in this case as the weapons are literally identical, I doubt anyone will mind if you just call your rungu a Cruuk instead. Technically speaking though, they are two different weapons because they have different names.
Aren't they the exact same weapon? Both are 1d6 bludgeoning martial clubs with L bulk, 1 hand, shove, thrown 30ft, and the grippli/tripkee trait? Why change it anyway?
I think that the cruuk is intended to replace the rungu in order to avoid the issues of cultural insensitivity/appropriation raised in this thread.
The Ancestry Guide wasn't likely to get a reprint, but it seems obvious to me that the remaster, with the conversion of Grippli to Tripkee, provided Paizo with an ideal opportunity to remove the problematic real-world reference.
Since the two items are mechanically identical, I suspect that Outl wants to switch to the cruuk so as not to engage in such cultural insensitivity/appropriation.
It seems to me that that's a choice that PFS might want to encourage by making the switch from a rungu to a cruuk be a free option for all players.
|
If a character uses the remaster rebuild and undergoes some radical changes, can they request their faction reputation be adjusted?You can already freely change what faction you are gaining reputation with on an adventure by adventure basis.
I think that Squark meant change what you've already earned because your new character would be a better fit with a different Faction.
|
Venture-Captain, New Zealand—Christchurch
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aren't they the exact same weapon? Both are 1d6 bludgeoning martial clubs with L bulk, 1 hand, shove, thrown 30ft, and the grippli/tripkee trait? Why change it anyway?I think that the cruuk is intended to replace the rungu in order to avoid the issues of cultural insensitivity/appropriation raised in this thread.
...
Since the two items are mechanically identical, I suspect that Outl wants to switch to the cruuk so as not to engage in such cultural insensitivity/appropriation.
It seems to me that that's a choice that PFS might want to encourage by making the switch from a rungu to a cruuk be a free option for all players.
Even for me, this degree of hand-holding is a bit much. You don't need an official PFS ruling for this, IMHO. Just switch it, nobody will notice or care.
|
|
1) With the Guns and Gears remaster released, we are expected to use the remastered version of feats and features with the same name. This is problematic for some multiclass inventors who may no longer meet the prerequisites for inventor dedication, as it now requires an Intelligence attribute of +3 or greater (unless that was an accident in need of errata). What should agfected players do?
2) Do existing Gunslingers need to use a rebuild to replace Singular Expertise with Slinger's Precision? Because that... kind of sucks.
3) Will Nahlmika and Droven receive pregens? Can Fumbus finally go on adventures with his hero?
Organized Play Coordinator
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) With the Guns and Gears remaster released, we are expected to use the remastered version of feats and features with the same name. This is problematic for some multiclass inventors who may no longer meet the prerequisites for inventor dedication, as it now requires an Intelligence attribute of +3 or greater (unless that was an accident in need of errata). What should agfected players do?
2) Do existing Gunslingers need to use a rebuild to replace Singular Expertise with Slinger's Precision? Because that... kind of sucks.
1) This is covered in the Errata Rebuilds section of the Guide to Organized Play. Specifically I will quote the following:
Class Features and Archetype Abilities: If an errata or FAQ changes an attribute modifier-dependent feature of a class or archetype, you can rebuild your character to its current XP. You can keep the same equipment or choose to resell any equipment that augments the altered ability score at full price.
2) No. Gunslingers explicitly replace Singular Expertise with Slinger's Precision, which is called out explicitly on the updated Character Options page.
I wish I knew sooner that there was an official thread to post such questions in. Anyway...
Players and GMs are supposed to use the remaster rules where possible. Does this include remastered monster stat blocks?
There's a great thread here on this topic with a bunch of very experienced GMs and VOs weighing in on the issue that you might want to look at.I wish I knew sooner that there was an official thread to post such questions in. Anyway...
Players and GMs are supposed to use the remaster rules where possible. Does this include remastered monster stat blocks?
Those were Venture Officers? Is that what "Venture-Agent" and "Venture-Lieutenant" refer to under their usernames?
|
Organized Play Coordinator
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Players and GMs are supposed to use the remaster rules where possible. Does this include remastered monster stat blocks?
Thanks for bringing up this question! When we wrote the Remaster guidelines, we were focused on the player-facing updates to character options, and not so much on the eventual updates to characters that would come.
After discussions with the team, our official guidance is this: GMs are strongly encouraged to use the statblocks as printed in the scenarios rather than swapping for Remastered versions. I want to specifically note that the Remaster guidance *does* provide GMs with tools for specific abilities or features (such as strikes with alignment-related traits) that no longer function as intended, and this does not override that.
In most cases, changing out a statblock for a remastered version is not going to make a significant difference, and we're not going to scold any GM who does so if we overhear them at a convention. However, in some cases it will significantly affect encounter tactics. As we have written the adventures assuming the monsters we include will work the way we wrote them, we'd prefer GMs stick to that where possible.
Thank you for the clarification.
What should we do for monsters that rely on spell schools but also haven't been remastered yet?
The Roiling Incant comes to mind. It is immune to and absorbs evocation magic.
|
Venture-Captain, New Zealand—Christchurch
|
Quick little question...
Would it be within the realm of possibility to update non-remastered ancestries' ancestral lore feats to be in line with the remastered versions (granting the Lore skill as a feat rather than the skill itself)?
Sprites, fetchlings, androids, etc are all running around with Lore skills instead of feats and it's slightly sad.
|
|
Could we get some guidelines for the Remastered Runelord's Anathema? Some of them are rather vague.
E.G. Runelords of wrath are forbiddwn from using magic to create or protect. What constitutes creation? A lot of ex-Evocation spells technically create things very briefly. Does creating a short lived area of destructive magic (E.G. Freezing Rain, Rust Cloud) count? Using the sin spells as guidance doesn't help because those explicitly can do something technically forbidden wothout violating the anathema.
I know a lot of this comes down to asking GMs and players to both operate in good faith, but there's still enough ambiguity in the language for two people to have different opinions on a spell. Some basic guidance would be appreciated.
Venture-Agent, California—Silicon Valley
|
Could we get some guidelines for the Remastered Runelord's Anathema? Some of them are rather vague.
E.G. Runelords of wrath are forbiddwn from using magic to create or protect. What constitutes creation? A lot of ex-Evocation spells technically create things very briefly. Does creating a short lived area of destructive magic (E.G. Freezing Rain, Rust Cloud) count? Using the sin spells as guidance doesn't help because those explicitly can do something technically forbidden wothout violating the anathema.
I know a lot of this comes down to asking GMs and players to both operate in good faith, but there's still enough ambiguity in the language for two people to have different opinions on a spell. Some basic guidance would be appreciated.
I agree that the anathema is very vague, and we could use some guidance here. On top of that, there's no guidance on warning players that they are about to break their anathema, so a player could cast a spell they believe to be well within their limits, and end up breaking their anathema due to the GM seeing it otherwise, leading to a very expensive Atone ritual to regain their class features.
Speaking of atoning, I also believe being forced to pay for an Atone just because you cast one spell wrong is a huge penalty, and well outside the norm for similar features, like overwhelming your curse for oracles. For example, a level 2 PC would have to pay 90g to Atone, and sacrifice 30 days of downtime since the PFS rule doesn't specify that those 30 days are only needed for regaining cleric/champion class features.
|
So, now that the Remastered Runelord is out, how should Legacy Runelords be treated going forward?
It uses the Core Rulebook Wizard chassis, which doesn't get a remaster rebuild since we are now outside of that window. But it also utilitizes "a character option other than the entire class" which should therefore be treated as errata and auto updated.
I have not yet tried to figure out if the new Class Archetype mechanically functions on the Legacy chassis, but I suspect it will be odd.
Can I just continue to play it using the Legacy version? Or must I update it to the Remaster version, and if I do so, must I also update to Remaster Wizard? (Or *can* I update it to Remaster Runelord & Remaster Wizard if I decided I wanted to?)
None of these options would upset me (although, like I said, I expect weirdness if the answer is Remaster Runelord on Legacy Wizard) -- just want to make sure I'm doing it right.
(This character was built from a Charity boon I won in a raffle, which also gave it a unique background allowing Runelord access, so it might be a real corner case in a lot of ways.)
|
|
So, now that the Remastered Runelord is out, how should Legacy Runelords be treated going forward?
It uses the Core Rulebook Wizard chassis, which doesn't get a remaster rebuild since we are now outside of that window. But it also utilitizes "a character option other than the entire class" which should therefore be treated as errata and auto updated.
I have not yet tried to figure out if the new Class Archetype mechanically functions on the Legacy chassis, but I suspect it will be odd.
Can I just continue to play it using the Legacy version? Or must I update it to the Remaster version, and if I do so, must I also update to Remaster Wizard? (Or *can* I update it to Remaster Runelord & Remaster Wizard if I decided I wanted to?)
None of these options would upset me (although, like I said, I expect weirdness if the answer is Remaster Runelord on Legacy Wizard) -- just want to make sure I'm doing it right.
(This character was built from a Charity boon I won in a raffle, which also gave it a unique background allowing Runelord access, so it might be a real corner case in a lot of ways.)
Repeating this question now that the Remastered Runelord is live.
In the absence of other guidance, my VC is going with "Existing Wizards were grandfathered in, so you can continue to use Premaster Runelord," so if the intent is something different, please let me know.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, now that the Remastered Runelord is out, how should Legacy Runelords be treated going forward?
It uses the Core Rulebook Wizard chassis, which doesn't get a remaster rebuild since we are now outside of that window. But it also utilitizes "a character option other than the entire class" which should therefore be treated as errata and auto updated.
I have not yet tried to figure out if the new Class Archetype mechanically functions on the Legacy chassis, but I suspect it will be odd.
Can I just continue to play it using the Legacy version? Or must I update it to the Remaster version, and if I do so, must I also update to Remaster Wizard? (Or *can* I update it to Remaster Runelord & Remaster Wizard if I decided I wanted to?)
None of these options would upset me (although, like I said, I expect weirdness if the answer is Remaster Runelord on Legacy Wizard) -- just want to make sure I'm doing it right.
(This character was built from a Charity boon I won in a raffle, which also gave it a unique background allowing Runelord access, so it might be a real corner case in a lot of ways.)
Repeating this question now that the Remastered Runelord is live.
In the absence of other guidance, my VC is going with "Existing Wizards were grandfathered in, so you can continue to use Premaster Runelord," so if the intent is something different, please let me know.
March update / character options page
Previously existing characters with the Runelord class archetype as printed in Secrets of Magic may continue using it alongside the legacy wizard class as printed in the Core Rulebook. New boons for this version may not be purchased.
New characters or characters which have rebuilt to use the remastered wizard class in the Player Core must use the Runelord class archtype as printed in Lost Omens: Rival Academies.
As a general rule, the OP team does not provide guidance on edicts or anathema, as they are inherently subjective. Runelord anathema should evaluated in the context of their former spell schools and common sense for the game. A temporary fireball is not considered creating something and attacking an enemy would not violate an anathema against protecting others or changing a physical thing.