|
So... a player came to my table with an Expert character. I looked it up, nothing in the additional resources except that everything in the Core Rulebook is permitted, with specific exceptions. So with no apparent reason to disallow it, I let him play that character.
Did I miss something that would ban NPC class characters from PFS? At least they are not overpowered, and they are capable enough that if well optimized, they would still certainly wipe the floor with a badly optimized PC class character.
As for the question "why", I can only say: "because we can". (Or can we?)
|
Yes, they are legal for play. EDIT: Only in that they are not removed from play in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play (PFRPG) PDF.
Optimisers will say they are gimping their character.
Many people will argue that they are hurting the other players at the table by not being able to "pull their weight" in an adventure.
Taking a level of an NPC class may do either of these things, or neither depending on how the rest of the character is built.
Personaly, I think all of the effects you can get from playing an NPC class you can get from a well written background, and the use of traits/feats to get the class skills you want.
To each their own, if everyone had fun then play on!
|
Back in December 2009, Josh Frost wrote:
Standard character generation rules apply. NPC classes are for NPCs.
It was discussed further here, and the consensus was that NPC classes aren't legal.
|
|
Many people will argue that they are hurting the other players at the table by not being able to "pull their weight" in an adventure.
Some characters pull their weight better than others, it's just a fact of life. If characters are not legal for performance reasons, underoptimized PCs should be also banned (Fighter with 12 Str? Banned!). Not to mention Bards.
That said, if it's been stated by a source with authority that they aren't legal, fair enough.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Added to the FAQ. 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will confirm that these still aren't legal.
One thing I would look at is his choice of class skills -- do they happen to be covered by an existing class that gets 6+Int mod or more skill points? If so, you may want to steer the player towards that class. If not, let him go for it.
One point though -- more than one level of Expert is not needed, since the skills he picks as class skills will remain class skills no matter what class he advances in, so he should want to advance in a different class at level 2+.
One thing I would look at is his choice of class skills -- do they happen to be covered by an existing class that gets 6+Int mod or more skill points? If so, you may want to steer the player towards that class. If not, let him go for it.
One point though -- more than one level of Expert is not needed, since the skills he picks as class skills will remain class skills no matter what class he advances in, so he should want to advance in a different class at level 2+.
This thread is about NPC classes and Pathfinder Society, where use of the NPC classes by PCs, even a single level, is illegal for use.
|
Well if a player showed up with a character level dipped in Expert, you still can't deny him from playing it. Or at least, if he insisted you couldn't, he'd be right.
Even though Mike clarified that it is illegal, until it's in the Additional Resources it's not Gospel. It's a post in a thread, and those aren't required reading for PFS members.
Though to be honest, I don't see why it's such a big deal that they haven't updated the Gospel, especially since Mike says it's been this way for some time.
|
Well if a player showed up with a character level dipped in Expert, you still can't deny him from playing it. Or at least, if he insisted you couldn't, he'd be right.
Even though Mike clarified that it is illegal, until it's in the Additional Resources it's not Gospel. It's a post in a thread, and those aren't required reading for PFS members.
Though to be honest, I don't see why it's such a big deal that they haven't updated the Gospel, especially since Mike says it's been this way for some time.
Yeah!!! Something to Make Bob's head explode!
;)
|
There are a lot of things on these boards that never made it onto the FAQ / Additional Resources that will be at some point. But just because they are not on there does not make them any less illegal. Sure, a player can spend some time rules lawyering this on a technicality, but that isn't going to stop me from telling them their character is illegal and they will not play PFS with NPC class levels. Its pretty clear it is illegal (common sense should tell us this alone), and now we have a reiteration of this fact from Mike.
I, for one, think that this is one of those things that does not require an FAQ / Additional Resource update. NPC classes already state who they are geared towards, NPCs. When you sit down at a table, you are a PC, not an NPC. But that's just my take on it.
/I'm sure someone will disagree.
|
|
There are a lot of things on these boards that never made it onto the FAQ / Additional Resources that will be at some point. But just because they are not on there does not make them any less illegal.
Actually, it makes all the difference. Forum thread posts are specifically called out as NOT being PFS-approved.
*shrug*
Not trying to say that experts SHOULD be played, just that saying someone can't play one is no different than saying the player can't play, say, a paladin. It's on the list of approved classes. You can argue that Mike Brock is the PFS organizer and his intention is that they can't be played.. whether you and Mike are both right is irrelevant to the player, especially one who doesn't read every post in every thread.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will confirm that these still aren't legal.
It would be entirely inappropriate to ban these classes. They represent roles which fit entirely within Golarion's flavor (you don't think Andoran is run by Witches, do you?), and the precedent set by the refusal to ban the Synthesist is more than enough to justify keeping these classes as player options for the campaign.
If it is the campaign management's belief that the Expert or the Adept suffer from balance issues, then they should be handled at the source, not with a band aid in organized play. It is not Pathfinder Society's job to correct errors in other products.
It would be entirely irrational to ban these classes and yet give no consideration to banning other, more-disruptive classes. These classes have established to not only be widely represented in Golarion canon, but they have proven time and time again to not be overpowered. I will not use this juncture to argue the flavor of, oh, I don't know, the Synthesist, because whether a particular class's flavor is appropriate for the campaign is in the eye of the Beholder(TM).
So, for the integrity of the campaign, I implore you... save the Commoner!
-Matt
Seeing as how these classes are in a chapter called NPC Classes, they are not legal for a PC to take. There is not even an optional rule in the chapter that would allow PCs to take levels in an NPC class. There does not have to be a separate PFS rule banning them because they are not legal without a GM making a house rule allowing them.
|
|
There are a lot of things on these boards that never made it onto the FAQ / Additional Resources that will be at some point. But just because they are not on there does not make them any less illegal.Actually, it makes all the difference. Forum thread posts are specifically called out as NOT being PFS-approved.
*shrug*
Not trying to say that experts SHOULD be played, just that saying someone can't play one is no different than saying the player can't play, say, a paladin. It's on the list of approved classes. You can argue that Mike Brock is the PFS organizer and his intention is that they can't be played.. whether you and Mike are both right is irrelevant to the player, especially one who doesn't read every post in every thread.
Actually, that’s a very disingenuous statement to make.
Back last fall, when Mark was going nuts between Hyrum and Mike, Mark posted that message board posts were not considered official.
But you can’t just read that statement alone, taking out of context from the rest of the thread, and say that GM’s have no power to use message board posts at their table.
I specifically asked that if as a GM I was aware (or not aware) of some non-official post, that I basically had the right to decide whether it was official for my table or not.
It was specifically answered that the GM had final word as to whether non-official message board posts would be official at their table.
So seeing as the NPC class is listed as not legal in a message board post, a GM has the right to declare them not legal (or legal) at his table until such a time as there is an official ruling.
There have been no posts from campaign staff indicating Paladins are illegal, so your statement is spurious at best.
|
|
This is how I see it... It is an NPC class, we all know that, and we all know we are not playing NPC, to have to FAQ that is being ridicules...
And on that note...on FAQing the freaking obvious... or people not wanting to read what is there.
We can't FAQ every single possible rule. In the case of both of these, nothing is changing, and the rules have always said what James has simply rephrased in a way that makes sense to the people who were confused. If someone doesn't understand how a wizard prepares his spells, we aren't going to FAQ that, and if that means that a GM who doesn't understand the rule as written gets it wrong in a game and frustrates a wizard player, that's just the way it goes.
|
|
But you can’t just read that statement alone, taking out of context from the rest of the thread, and say that GM’s have no power to use message board posts at their table.
That's not exactly what I meant to say.
What I was saying is that if a player WERE to 'rules laywer' and point out that the PFS-approved list does NOT disallow experts, he's not wrong. And he's got a leg to stand on to argue with you if you say 'Well Mike SAID in the forums that it's not legal..'. Not just 'a leg', but a stronger one than the one you're standing on.
You both can be 'right' and still at be odds. Those arguments will never end well and are better served avoiding them.
My point: Unless/until Mike or Mark or whoever DOES make the 'Gospel' say experts are excluded, is it worth arguing semantics with a player about his (probably) beloved character? Just let it go man, pick your fights. That one isn't worth it.
|
|
My point: Unless/until Mike or Mark or whoever DOES make the 'Gospel' say experts are excluded, is it worth arguing semantics with a player about his (probably) beloved character? Just let it go man, pick your fights. That one isn't worth it.
Our point is that they don't have to...
We are talking about Non-Player Character Clases...
Look at that again.. Non-Player
We play Player Character Clases.
To have to say you can't make a Non-Player Character Clases because someone does not know what Non-Player means is not how normally the FAQ works for PFS and what they are trying to avoid the FAQ becoming.
Edit: I do not speak for Mike are Mark.
|
|
My point: Unless/until Mike or Mark or whoever DOES make the 'Gospel' say experts are excluded, is it worth arguing semantics with a player about his (probably) beloved character? Just let it go man, pick your fights. That one isn't worth it.Our point is that they don't have to...
We are talking about Non-Player Character Clases...
Look at that again.. Non-Player
We play Player Character Clases.
To have to say you can't make a Non-Player Character Clases because someone does not know what Non-Player means is not how normally the FAQ works for PFS and what they are trying to avoid the FAQ becoming.
Oh, I got where you're coming from. And again I'm not saying your view is invalid. I'm just repeating that the opposite view is ALSO valid.
Just because a class is categorized as 'non-player', where does it say that a player may not play it? Why is it wrong to say that 'non-player' means the class is TYPICALLY reserved for GM-controlled characters? Why does it have to mean ALWAYS?
|
|
If there is a rule somewhere that says a player can't play a NPC.
Remember what the initials 'NPC' stand for. There's only one person who plays NPCs at a PFS game table, and it's the GM.
If people want something concrete, note which classes are listed on table 2-2 on page 7 of the Guide, and which are not.
Also, this text from p448 of the Core Rulebook (first page of the 'Creating NPCs' chapter), which immediately precedes the descriptions of the NPC classes:
Aside from the players, every other person encountered in the game world is a nonplayer character (NPC). These characters are designed and controlled by the GM to fill every role from noble king to simple baker.
Emphasis mine.
Allowing these to be played as PCs would be a variant rule. No such variant rule exists in PFS.
Nonplayer Character (NPC): These are characters controlled by the GM.Asking for FAQs to include things like this is the reason we can't have nice things.
Can we also get clarification that you can't, in fact, take actions while dead?
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even though Mike clarified that it is illegal, until it's in the Additional Resources it's not Gospel. It's a post in a thread, and those aren't required reading for PFS members.
Though to be honest, I don't see why it's such a big deal that they haven't updated the Gospel, especially since Mike says it's been this way for some time.
My point: Unless/until Mike or Mark or whoever DOES make the 'Gospel' say experts are excluded, is it worth arguing semantics with a player about his (probably) beloved character? Just let it go man, pick your fights. That one isn't worth it.
Ok. All taken care of. It is now in the PFS FAQ and "officially" not a legal choice. End of argument. Let's please move on to more productive discussions. Did I mention, I hate rules lawyers?
|
|
Next time I am a player at a table of yours, once that fact comes out, I will have to interrupt the game and have a 15 minute talk about why I am right about the Rules and you of course are not!
;)
Not unless you have a Chronicle sheet with a boon that allows you to interrupt boxed text or the flow of the game. When you do have that boon, you are welcome to interrupt the game ;-)
|
|
Ok. All taken care of. It is now in the PFS FAQ and "officially" not a legal choice. End of argument. Let's please move on to more productive discussions. Did I mention, I hate rules lawyers?
Wasn't so hard, was it?
And if you hate rules laywers (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean you hate rules DISCUSSIONS that focus on minutae) then no offence Mike, but you're in the wrong job.
This ^ It tends to drive new players away from the forums more than it helps out.
assume you mean you hate rules DISCUSSIONS that focus on minutae
... on the other hand, there have been a number of minutae-oriented discussions/arguments that have been rather useful to me. Not that it's FUN, wading through long threads, and often the INTENSITY that seems to be inevitable IS off-putting... but if not here, then where?
Mind you, I'm mostly in agreement about the (general) non-usefulness, but I do continue to learn things, even from the ridiculous debates.
|
|
I actually know where this all started.
Last Tuesday I was running Black Waters and during a break we began talking about something ... maybe improvised weapons and figured how they could be used. Chairs are common improvised weapons, but soon we began to think of rakes, brooms, buckets, shovels etc., and remembered there is this nice little equipment trait called Rough and Ready, which allows using tools of the trade as weapons without penalty (actually, with a bonus!).
This lead to an idea of a gardener character. Specifically, the player decided said character was the janitor of Absalom's Grand Lodge, and when low on work the character would stick with the pathfinders in question. The pathfinder group often holds so many races and classes no one will ever suspect one of them being a mere janitor.
Because of the character's ... NPC-ish background the player picked a level of Expert for it. Let's face it, the expert is not a bad class. I'd dare say it has the best skill versatility of all classes. Needless to say, the character was made tongue-in-cheek.
I do, however, object about the notion of "you could pick a normal class level". You can't substitute an expert. A commoner you could, an aristocrat you could, a warrior you could. Adepts and experts are exceptional and unique in their own ways.
As I further think about this, I'd imagine some players new to the whole system would likely prefer to play a character with the least special abilities. I certainly wouldn't place a new player in the boots of a dwarven ranger/wizard...