Director of Brand Strategy
|
Nothing in Wayfinder is legal for play in PFS. It's a fan-made publication and thus falls into the same category as all other non-Paizo sourcebooks.
The armored kilt did appear in the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting, but has always been excluded from PFS play since day 1. Now nothing in that book is legal except items grandfathered in on existing characters.
|
Nothing in Wayfinder is legal for play in PFS. It's a fan-made publication and thus falls into the same category as all other non-Paizo sourcebooks.
The armored kilt did appear in the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting, but has always been excluded from PFS play since day 1. Now nothing in that book is legal except items grandfathered in on existing characters.
Huh? I thought they were legal because of The Armory. Also this thread seems to at least imply that they are legal in PFS
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderS ociety/general/armouredKiltAndOrganizedPlay&page=1&source=search#0
Something is missing on the address as I can't get there.
Huh? I thought they were legal because of The Armory. Also this thread seems to at least imply that they are legal in PFShttp://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderS ociety/general/armouredKiltAndOrganizedPlay&page=1&source=search#0
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderS ociety/general/armouredKiltAndOrganizedPlay&page=1&source=search#0
Take out the space between the S and the o in "society"
|
Here is the link.
Actually, if you read to the end of the thread, it points out that the kilt is only listed in the AA as an update of the Campaign Setting (3.5) version. So the AA does not give cost, bonuses, penalties, etc. As all of that information is in the Campaign Setting, the item is not available for PFSOP.
|
|
Here is the link.
Thanks Niel, I think I didn't see that thread past yoda8myhead so i had always assumed it was legal.
|
Thanks Niel, I think I didn't see that thread past yoda8myhead so i had always assumed it was legal.Here is the link.
If memory serves, Yoda and Mark are the same person.
|
|
Things like this confuse me, which is why I asked for the clarification in the first place.
Joshua Frost posted in the linked thread on how to treat the armored kilt in PFS.
Mark Moreland posts in this thread that they have never been legal.
*My poor head explodes*
At least what to do about armored kilts seems pretty clear (sell them back for full price since they aren't a legal purchase).
Just to make sure I understand what's going on here: basically, Frost made a mistake when explaining how the Kilt worked in PFS, instead his answer should have been: They are not legal.
Disclaimer: My PFS characters own a combined total of 0 Armored Kilts
|
|
Disclaimer: My PFS characters own a combined total of 0 Armored KiltsSure you don't. . . I think you just don't want to be audited at your next game night. :-)
Oh noes, now they'll be sure to audit me and find my arbalest wielding, hide shirt/armored kilt non companion Anti-Paladin/Old HellKnight elephant (with magical knack)
|
With the update in the adventurer armory stating that it is bringing the armored kilt and a few others from the campaign setting along with it. That is a pretty easy way to say items have been brought from 3.5 to pathfinder with no necessary changes. The item is listed in the AA, the additional resources page says EVERYTHING in the AA is legal with "2" exceptions, and armored kilt was not one of those exceptions.
On the aforementioned thread I see where developers and well known gamers are all commenting on its proper use. It is referred to as legal for play no where am I seeing it as illegal except for people on this thread one of which is MARK MORELAND whose comment was made before the release of the AA see his comment posted on 4/29/11 came before the AA released on 7/21/11.
And since there has been NO further word on the armored kilts legality since the nearly COMPLETE inclusion of the adventurer armory we can all enjoy it as a perfectly legal society item. If anyone has a more recent ruling I would LOVE to see it.
