|
To give a bit of background, I've read a bit about the rulings regarding the other banned archetypes, and can understand why they were all banned. They all have pretty straight forward reasons why they aren't allowed in organized play. Gravewalker Witch and Undead Lord Cleric aren't because of their focus on undead, and how their powers deal with creating and controlling them. Synthesist and Master Summoner both aren't allowed because they're too powerful and bog down the game with extra combatants or with ambiguous rules regarding their eidolons (I've played a Synthesist before in a home game, so I know how much of a pain it can be). Finally, Vivesectionist isn't allowed because of flavor text?
It seems to be the case due to the text reading "A vivisectionist studies bodies to better understand their function. Unlike a chirurgeon, a vivisectionist’s goals are not related to healing, but rather to experimentation and knowledge that most people would consider evil." Emphasis on 'experimentation and knowledge that most people would consider evil'. The archetype doesn't list an alignment requirement of "Always Evil" or "Any Evil", so it can't be due to aspect. The original flavor might not fit PFS; but the mechanics don't bog down combat, it isn't overpowered from a rules standpoint (doesn't seem to be, at least), and it while the flavor deals with dissection, it isn't inherently evil. Mainly since many early doctors used medical knowledge about the inside of the human body through the only way they could. Can't know what's inside there if you don't take a look, after all. In regards to the sneak attack gained, the knowledge of the body's weak spots is hardly evil, and if exploiting them is, then one wonders why rogues are an allowed class for PFS play.
Since rogues are a perfectly fine option for organized play, Vivesecionist not being allowed for flavor reasons is a bit far-fetched don't you think? I realize that the archetype is a bit squicky, but I only see Torturous Transformation as a potential reason why this archetype isn't allowed. Other archetypes have had parts replaced to make them fit, with some classes even having feats replaced for organized play. So why not the Vivesectionist?
I'm asking mainly since there are many players that would play alchemists but wouldn't due to the bomb class feature not being what they would want to base a character around, but they'd have it as an alchemist regardless and would have to use it in early levels to pick up the slack since they have no alternative. Since the Tortuous Transformation feature is pretty far into the class it could be substituted for, say, the Extra Talent feat since Vivesectionists get the opportunity to select the Bleeding Attack rogue Talent in the place of a discovery, so they would qualify for it anyway. They are already rogue-like to begin with, so why not? I understand the view of "why not play a rogue then?", but being a rogue doesn't have the same feel to it. Much like why some people choose to play rangers, while others play inquisitors. They both focus on hunting down chosen targets, but the flavor is different.
At any rate, those are my thoughts on the matter. A bit of a whine, but I found no one else raise the question for Vivesectionists that has been raised for the other archetypes. From the Asmodeus's advocate perspective, what's the worst that could happen if it was allowed? Would like an official opinion on the matter to put the issue to bed for myself and others who have expressed interest in the archetype.
I'm asking mainly since there are many players that would play alchemists but wouldn't due to the bomb class feature not being what they would want to base a character around, but they'd have it as an alchemist regardless and would have to use it in early levels to pick up the slack since they have no alternative.
I think I'll add to this a bit if you don't mind. The locals in my area don't like having bombs chucked at them. Several games have a bomb throwing alchemist reduced to not throwing bombs at the risk of doing a bit of damage to the surrounding players. Understandable, but that does kill a good chunk of the alchemist day, and precise bomb won't guarantee you won't hit allies, especially not at level 1. Vivisectionist starts looking appealing if you can't use your bombs. The class only removes bombs, and I could still see the appeal even if every archetype feature after the sneak attack where removed.
|
The following reasons come from someone who played a vivisectionist up until it was removed from Organized Play. First of all, the Gravewalker and Undead Lord weren't removed because they were involved with the undead. Note that regular clerics are fine to create undead, and the oracle of bones is still a legal archetype.
The vivisectionist was definitely on the evil side. I grew claws and a bite attack and then began to dissect my foe alive. This was for monsters, humanoids, anything I could flank really. That's going to squick people out. The archetype is also guilty of stealing the rogue's shtick. Don't do that. They don't have much left.
If you don't want to be a bomb-throwing alchemist, focus on high strength and mutagens. Grab Breath Weapon Bomb later on and enjoy your splash damage without having to make any ranged attacks.
|
As having come from a time where Vivisectionists were not banned, I can probably guess that there were multiple reasons they were banned.
1. Flavor. Vivisection is a pretty gruesome endeavor and not exactly in the PG-13 flavor of the campaign. I know this is more of a problem with only certain players, but it's there and it's a problem other classes and archetypes do not have.
2. Taking away sneak attack. PFS has precedent on saving very iconic class features for the classes that are based on it. For example, guns are almost exclusively saved for Gunslingers in PFS, with ALL the gun-wielding archetypes being banned. Guns are special, and they want to save them for the Gunslinger players. The same can be said for Sneak Attack, the primary defining quality of a Rogue (an a ninja, but ninja is alternate class of rogue). Taking sneak attack away from rogues falls into the same category as taking away guns from gunslingers.
3. Power level. Here is where a few select players may have ruined it for everyone. Vivisectionists have a certain way to be built where they demolish opponents. I mean really, close-to-synthesist bad. This is always a factor when deciding what is healthy for the campaign.
There you have it.
Just so you are aware, there is little to no precedent for the campaign leadership to come out and give their reasoning on why a class/archetype/item etc... has been banned. So if you are waiting for an official reason on why from Mike, Mark or John, I would not be holding my breath. I suggest you find other ways for yourself to put the issue to bed.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
The vivesectionist takes the most defining aspect of the rogue class in such a way you're able to make a vivisesctionist a better rogue than the rogue class itself.
I actually had a vivesectionist myself and I was glad they banned it. That way I could make both an alchemist and a ninja. One character to uses splashweapons and extracts and one to use sneak attacks instead of one character that uses both.
One of the reasons was that they were stepping on the toes of the rogue too much. And it's true. There's little reason to play a rogue when you could play a Vivisectionist, if it was the sneak attack you were going after.
Or Precise Bombs.
The vivesectionist takes the most defining aspect of the rogue class in such a way you're able to make a vivisesctionist a better rogue than the rogue class itself.
That's a problem with the rogue class itself isn't it? Vivisectionist are actually on the weak side of things itself!
I grew claws and a bite attack and then began to dissect my foe alive.
So does every rogue? And barbarian? And guy with a sword? I mean some of those guys don't use claws mind you, but are you seriously freaked out that you hit someone with sharp things and they die in dnd?
Or Precise Bombs.
Doesn't work if you miss though, and target bomb admixture is rounds per level and gets rid of the splash you do want!
One of the reasons was that they were stepping on the toes of the rogue too much. And it's true. There's little reason to play a rogue when you could play a Vivisectionist, if it was the sneak attack you were going after.
Why so little reason? Rogues still are a different class with different class features. What's the problem with being someone else, particularly if it means meeting your character concept better? If its about the rogue being weak isn't that a problem with the rogue class itself?
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
The vivesectionist takes the most defining aspect of the rogue class in such a way you're able to make a vivisesctionist a better rogue than the rogue class itself.That's a problem with the rogue class itself isn't it? Vivisectionist are actually on the weak side of things itself!
I grew claws and a bite attack and then began to dissect my foe alive.So does every rogue? And barbarian? And guy with a sword? I mean some of those guys don't use claws mind you, but are you seriously freaked out that you hit someone with sharp things and they die in dnd?
There's a difference between hitting somebody to take them down and slicing them up while they're still alive to gain more power. One is self-defense, the other is torture.
There's a difference between hitting somebody to take them down and slicing them up while they're still alive to gain more power. One is self-defense, the other is torture.
The situation described was combat though. The vivisectionist doesn't actually have to vivisect people to gain power. There isn't a class feature that says its powered by a forsaken child or chopping up living people.
Ask Mike Brock that. That's one of the reasons he gave!
|
|
I don't think vivisectionist is on the weak side at all.
Int based spell caster (so lots of skills) with 4 skill points per level (even more skills)
Mutagen class ability to allow for an easy boost to str or dex depending on your build. This ability itself is powerful enough that I have seen multiple builds dip into alchemist just for this.
Did I mention that they get spells? Alchemist extracts rock. Their like a bard who can expand their spell list.
Finally throwing sneak attack in creates a flanking monster that is amazing.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The vivisectionist doesn't actually have to vivisect
But that is the default assumption of the archetype. Which means that regardless of how one individual named MrSin might roleplay it, the archetype (if legal) would be allowing people (and expecting by default) to play characters who DO vivisect people.
|
One of the reasons was that they were stepping on the toes of the rogue too much. And it's true. There's little reason to play a rogue when you could play a Vivisectionist, if it was the sneak attack you were going after.
Cheapy, since you were not involved in the internal conversation on why Vivisectionists were banned, can I ask where/how you can make such a definitive statement?
Ask Mike Brock that. That's one of the reasons he gave!
Which reason in particular?
I don't think vivisectionist is on the weak side at all.
Relatively. Its weak compared to the other martials in combat, especially pre buffing. Sneak attack is a situational bonus, and alchemist still have a lower to hit. Extracts and mutagen do help and I'll never complain about intellect based and extra skills!
The vivisectionist doesn't actually have to vivisectBut that is the default assumption of the archetype. Which means that regardless of how one individual named MrSin might roleplay it, the archetype (if legal) would be allowing people (and expecting by default) to play characters who DO vivisect people.
We can't be evil anyway though. Removing a class for another class being weak, or for its flavor text just seems wrong to me. The flavor text isn't a class feature, nor a mandate.
|
|
I always thought that it was due to the unusual long term rituals that they can use with anthropomorphic animal and so forth was the reason it was disallowed. The odd mechanic of having extremely long ritual casting times for certain unusual abilities. Awaken a banned spell I'm pretty sure to top it off.
Now why it doesn't just have a little line like other classes have in their allowed entry saying replace X ability with Y I've got no idea.
|
|
We can't be evil anyway though. Removing a class for another class being weak, or for its flavor text just seems wrong to me. The flavor text isn't a class feature, nor a mandate.
The Aspis Agent PrC also doesn't require you to be evil, yet is is banned because it does not fit in the campaign. This is not news.
The point here is that not everyone will NOT roleplay them as evil vivisectionists. I know someone can do that with a vanilla barbarian that viciously murders people, but that is what we have alignment infractions for. Having a class that DOES something evil just opens up the license for those people to eviscerate NPCs and then say "it's what my class would do!"
|
Look at all the later class abilities the vivisectionist gets.
Ask yourself if those abilities are good for organized play?
And ask yourself if everyone would make the choice to not use them?
If you answer those honestly, you'll find your answer as to why the class was banned.
And as it is PFS policy to not make wholesale changes to rules nuggets, this class would require almost every class ability to be modified to fit within organized play.
It ceases to become the vivisectionist and is just a Rogue with the Alchemist name.
Removing a class for another class being weak just seems wrong to me.It's removing an archetype for outshining an entire class on its prime ability. Even if you concider that class weak it's still a no-go.
That's horrible logic. If anything its proof that the rogue needs a buff. They both do the same task in different ways too, so its not exactly stealing the same role.
What is its prime ability we're talking about here? They both scale sneak attack equivalently, the rogue gets more skill points and rogue talents with a focus on skills and improving sneak attack, and the rogue still snags trapfinding for himself(Though other classes can outshine him at that, but those guys aren't banned!)
|
The vivisectionist doesn't actually have to vivisectBut that is the default assumption of the archetype. Which means that regardless of how one individual named MrSin might roleplay it, the archetype (if legal) would be allowing people (and expecting by default) to play characters who DO vivisect people.
But banning the archetype does not stop someone from playing a character that vivisects people. I could play a rogue with ranks in heal and explain my sneak attack as using my knowledge of anatomy to slice open opponents in critical areas. The game Mechanic is the same and the fluff is near the same. One is legal and the other is not.
|
|
But banning the archetype does not stop someone from playing a character that vivisects people. I could play a rogue with ranks in heal and explain my sneak attack as using my knowledge of anatomy to slice open opponents in critical areas. The game Mechanic is the same and the fluff is near the same. One is legal and the other is not.
Right. But if you are a rogue doing that, GMs are in their right to give you an alignment infraction. If you were a vivisectionist, the player may claim that it's just what their class does.
Regardless, I doubt that vivisectionist was banned for that reason only.
|
|
Look at all the later class abilities the vivisectionist gets.
Ask yourself if those abilities are good for organized play?
And ask yourself if everyone would make the choice to not use them?
If you answer those honestly, you'll find your answer as to why the class was banned.
What abilities are you referring too?
All I see are Two still legal Rogue Talents and some still legal spells?
Look at all the later class abilities the vivisectionist gets.
Ask yourself if those abilities are good for organized play?
And ask yourself if everyone would make the choice to not use them?
If you answer those honestly, you'll find your answer as to why the class was banned.
And as it is PFS policy to not make wholesale changes to rules nuggets, this class would require almost every class ability to be modified to fit within organized play.
It ceases to become the vivisectionist and is just a Rogue with the Alchemist name.
I'm worried you have a habit of looking at people in the worst possible ways sometimes. I don't think anything would pass this test to be honest. Seriously, barbarians grow claws that can rip people apart, you can cast spells that send people straight to hell, and rogues vivisect people just as much as the vivisectionist really. I can worship Jezelda, or Zon-Kuthon, or Urgothoa, or Groetus and those deities aren't exactly nice guys you would introduce your parents to. I can even represent them with a cleric. Outside of those guys, the society itself does some pretty appalling things, as do some of the faction missions, and the scenarios. There's even an idea that being good is supposed to be hard and some missions outright reward being evil. How much would all of that pass your test? I mean, don't get me wrong, in a perfect world no one is going to break that, but as is the people who are going to be evil are going to do it whether you ban the class or not.(Your argument is very Kantian btw, in that is has a test that fails itself.)
It wouldn't require every class ability to be changed. I don't know where you get that from. Looking at the class there's only one ability that doesn't fit and it could be removed without killing the archetype. The torturous transformation is awful, but the death watch, knowledge nature(int), and sneak attack aren't disruptive at all. Can you tell me where you get the idea those abilities would need to be replaced?
|
|
Right. But if you are a rogue doing that, GMs are in their right to give you an alignment infraction. If you were a vivisectionist, the player may claim that it's just what their class does.
Regardless, I doubt that vivisectionist was banned for that reason only.
A GM is within his right to give an alignment infraction for using Sneak Attack in combat? Please explain.
|
|
A GM is within his right to give an alignment infraction for using Sneak Attack in combat? Please explain.
That is not what I meant. If you say you are using your knowledge in Heal as fluff for your sneak attacks that is fine. I meant if a character had, for example, knocked out a NPC and then said they were using their ranks in Heal to vivisect them, that is pretty evil.
Fun note, there is a bad guy in a certain module that actually has an eviscerate attack and likes to vivisect people. Guess his alignment.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
But banning the archetype does not stop someone from playing a character that vivisects people. I could play a rogue with ranks in heal and explain my sneak attack as using my knowledge of anatomy to slice open opponents in critical areas. The game Mechanic is the same and the fluff is near the same. One is legal and the other is not.The vivisectionist doesn't actually have to vivisectBut that is the default assumption of the archetype. Which means that regardless of how one individual named MrSin might roleplay it, the archetype (if legal) would be allowing people (and expecting by default) to play characters who DO vivisect people.
There's a difference between:
"A player would have to ditch the default flavor and invent a way to make the character vile and creepy"and
"A player would have to ditch the default flavor and invent a way to NOT make the character vile and creepy".
It's one thing to allow a bunch of classes that are fine by default and just deal with any individuals who might try to make them bad. It's a very different thing to allow something that naturally goes against campaign rules but then insist that players invent non-default flavors in order to play it at all.
A GM is within his right to give an alignment infraction for using Sneak Attack in combat? Please explain.That is not what I meant. If you say you are using your knowledge in Heal as fluff for your sneak attacks that is fine. I meant if a character had, for example, knocked out a NPC and then said they were using their ranks in Heal to vivisect them, that is pretty evil.
Fun note, there is a bad guy in a certain module that actually has an eviscerate attack and likes to vivisect people. Guess his alignment.
Okay, but if anyone did that, vivisectionist or not, they would probably be disruptive and have an alignment infraction. The vivisectionist actually doesn't get anything out of doing himself, so there's no reason for someone playing the class to stop the party and cut someone open, especially not alive!(Though there were faction missions, if I remember correctly.)
|
|
I was doing the same Auke :)
Thread linkified for convenience
Quote from the archetype:
A vivisectionist studies bodies to better understand their function. Unlike a chirurgeon, a vivisectionist’s goals are not related to healing, but rather to experimentation and knowledge that most people would consider evil.
There are a few other threads as well.
|
|
"A player would have to ditch the default flavor and invent a way to NOT make the character vile and creepy".
Well I would refer you to MrSin's list above or I could just mention Cheliax. You may have noticed that there is plenty of vile and creepy in the entirety of the setting. Have you played much attention to the Decemvirate? There is plenty of evil within the society.
What line does one cross that the others have not?
Having the knowledge to vivisect is not evil. Every surgeon in the world has the knowledge.
|
Relatively. Its weak compared to the other martials in combat, especially pre buffing. Sneak attack is a situational bonus, and alchemist still have a lower to hit. Extracts and mutagen do help and I'll never complain about intellect based and extra skills!
I can agree that it is relatively weak in comparison pre-buffed. But post buffed?
A barkskinned, bear's/bull's/cat'ed, energy resisted, freedom of movemented, hasted, heroismed, shielded, stoneskinned alchemist with a grand mutagen popped, monstrous physiqued into a four-armed gargoyle while greater invised with full sneak attack will work most other melees over but good.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Well I would refer you to MrSin's list above or I could just mention Cheliax. You may have noticed that there is plenty of vile and creepy in the entirety of the setting.
"A player would have to ditch the default flavor and invent a way to NOT make the character vile and creepy".
And as you may have noticed, all those creep-tastic faction missions have come to an end.
|
|
Torturous Transformation: At 7th level, a vivisectionist adds anthropomorphic animal to his formula book as a 2nd-level extract. When he uses this extract, he injects it into an animal as part of a 2-hour surgical procedure. By using multiple doses of this extract as part of the surgery, he multiplies the duration by the number of extracts used.
At 9th level, a vivisectionist adds awaken and baleful polymorph to his formula book as 3rd-level extracts. When he uses the awaken or baleful polymorph extract, he injects it into the target (not a plant) as part of a 24-hour surgical procedure. He can make anthropomorphic animal permanent on a creature by spending 7,500 gp.
This power specifically is not appropriate for organized play that does not accept evil.
The ability to make an anthropomorphic animal permanent is not allowed in PFS (as permanency is not allowed).
Rather than modify the ability to fit organized play, it is best just to ban the archetype altogether.
Relatively. Its weak compared to the other martials in combat, especially pre buffing. Sneak attack is a situational bonus, and alchemist still have a lower to hit. Extracts and mutagen do help and I'll never complain about intellect based and extra skills!I can agree that it is relatively weak in comparison pre-buffed. But post buffed?
A barkskinned, bear's/bull's/cat'ed, energy resisted, freedom of movemented, hasted, heroismed, shielded, stoneskinned alchemist with a grand mutagen popped, monstrous physiqued into a four-armed gargoyle while greater invised with full sneak attack will work most other melees over but good.
In which case he burned a ton of his mutagens or had a lot of help from outside classes, those spells aren't ranger person. He'd also burn a lot of turns trying to buff, possibly enough a few of those spells might be half ready to fall off.
I won't argue against that being a horrific monster though. One can only stare in awe as six sneak attacks against flat footed per round tear things to pieces and those few who try to hit him only watch as he deftly dodges attacks and those few that hit bounce off his stoneskin. I feel like a geek running the numbers and imagining the table... how about you?
And as you may have noticed, all those creep-tastic faction missions have come to an end.
Aye, but only after several years of existing, no?
Rather than modify the ability to fit organized play, it is best just to ban the archetype altogether.
Another alternative is to just to remove the class feature. You also haven't told me how sneak attack or death watch or knowledge nature for heal are disruptive yet.
We have an entire FACTION of people summoning in devils and trying to expand the evil empire.
We still have a group that appears to be some sort of mafia(Scarzini) too! Btw, Is the paracountess supposed to be PG? The list of less than goodly or PG things in PFS could probably go on for a while... Anyone want cookies?
|
|
I didn't say they were disruptive.
I quoted the specific ability that was inappropriate for organized play (specifically PFS), since you didn't take my hint and actually honestly look at the abilities a vivisectionist has.
And no, you don't just ban a single ability of an archetype. That doesn't solve anything.
Either the entire archetype is legal, or it is not.
There are already too many exceptions within PFS play, that we don't need to start making exceptions and line-item bans for every archetype or class out there.
|
|
In which case he burned a ton of his mutagens or had a lot of help from outside classes, those spells aren't ranger person. He'd also burn a lot of turns trying to buff, possibly enough a few of those spells might be half ready to fall off.
I won't argue against that being a horrific monster though. One can only stare in awe as six sneak attacks against flat footed per round tear things to pieces and those few who try to hit him only watch as he deftly dodges attacks and those few that hit bounce off his stoneskin. I feel like a geek running the numbers and imagining the table... how about you?
I respectfully disagree. I think that is what the mutagen is for, so using it to that end is fully it's purpose. Also, every single one of those spells I listed are on the alchemist extract list - he would need no help whatsoever to pull it off. Let's also quickly examine their durations:
All of barskin, energy resistances, freedom of movement, heroism, stoneskin, and the grand mutagen last 10 mins/level. So at that level we are talking 2 hours and 40 mins.
All of bear's, bull's, cat's, shield, and monstrous physique last a minute 1 min/level, and are very easily renewed for someone whom this is their focus. Also realistically, at level 16, you'll have at least a +6 strength belt.
So pre-combat, all you need is greater invis. Haste is nice but unnecessary. So you'll give up one round to initiate horrible carnage.
Any number of those can also be extend to twice those durations if the alchemist selected that discovery.
In short, durations are not a problem. They are pretty well constantly one greater invis away from pain in the context that PFS games are played in.
I didn't say they were disruptive.
And as it is PFS policy to not make wholesale changes to rules nuggets, this class would require almost every class ability to be modified to fit within organized play.
You kinda' did just then. You said they would all have to be changed because they don't fit within society play.
And no, you don't just ban a single ability of an archetype. That doesn't solve anything.
Would keep people from using the ability you just complained about wouldn't it? You keep using this 'all or nothing!" logic. Could you imagine if we applied that logic to everything? There's a happy moderation I'm sure.
since you didn't take my hint and actually honestly look at the abilities a vivisectionist has..
Watch your tone, mister. That's just rude. I even double checked the archetype to list of the abilities that I didn't think were disruptive and the ones that were. Like I said, you have a habit of thinking the worst. That's not healthy thinking and I don't appreciate the way your speaking to me. How do you think people take it when you talk to them like that? I mean, its totally off-topic from vivisectionist, but that really strikes me as mean and unneeded.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I didn't say they were disruptive.And as it is PFS policy to not make wholesale changes to rules nuggets, this class would require almost every class ability to be modified to fit within organized play.You kinda' did just then. You said they would all have to be changed because they don't fit within society play.
Saying something wouldn't fit within PFS is not the same as saying it would be disruptive.
Saying something wouldn't fit within PFS is not the same as saying it would be disruptive.
No, its not. I would like to know how those wouldn't fit however. Deathwatch and knowledge nature don't seem particularly off to me.
In short, durations are not a problem. They are pretty well constantly one greater invis away from pain in the context that PFS games are played in.
Its pretty late game though, and PFS doesn't go to 16. At that same level wizards are ripping reality open and doing all sorts of crazy things, CAGM barbarians came online a while ago, and all sorts of other madness goes on. At lower levels its definitely more tame.
|
|
I didn't say they were disruptive.And as it is PFS policy to not make wholesale changes to rules nuggets, this class would require almost every class ability to be modified to fit within organized play.You kinda' did just then. You said they would all have to be changed because they don't fit within society play.
And no, you don't just ban a single ability of an archetype. That doesn't solve anything.Would keep people from using the ability you just complained about wouldn't it? You keep using this 'all or nothing!" logic. Could you imagine if we applied that logic to everything? There's a happy moderation I'm sure.
since you didn't take my hint and actually honestly look at the abilities a vivisectionist has..Watch your tone, mister. That's just rude. I even double checked the archetype to list of the abilities that I didn't think were disruptive and the ones that were. Like I said, you have a habit of thinking the worst. That's not healthy thinking and I don't appreciate the way your speaking to me. How do you think people take it when you talk to them like that? I mean, its totally off-topic from vivisectionist, but that really strikes me as mean and unneeded.
I was spitballing based off my memory of a conversation that took place well over a year ago. Obviously my memory wasn't perfect.
Which is why I quoted the specific ability that there is issue with.
Furthermore, campaign leadership made their choice. You can disagree with it. But the choice has been made.
I've tried to tell you why. If you don't want to accept it, that's your choice.
Furthermore, campaign leadership made their choice. You can disagree with it. But the choice has been made.
I've tried to tell you why. If you don't want to accept it, that's your choice.
Well, yeah, I'm free to disagree and state my opinion. That's what I'm doing now. How else is there supposed to be change or note discontent, eh? Are you saying I shouldn't?
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Mr Sin. Last time this came up, I explained where the vivisectionist got his power, and your immediate reaction was something along the lines of "Thats sick! I would never have a character that did that. I just want his abilities, without having to do what the class says to earn them. There aren't any mechanics that say I can't do that."
In other words, what you want is not to make the vivisectionist legal for play, what you want is to be allowed to reskin classes, because you feel a reskinned vivsectionist would be fine.
But PFS doesn't allow reskins. They are pretty much across the board banned, even on far more minor things.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@MrSin:
Here's what he was talking about:
Look at all the later class abilities the vivisectionist gets.
Ask yourself if those abilities are good for organized play?
So he asks about "later" abilities, and you bring up deathwatch and Knowledge (nature).
He asks if things are "good for organized play", and you tell him he said they were disruptive.You tell him that he made claims he didn't make about things he wasn't talking about, and then you tell him he's out of line for suggesting that you didn't read.
What you're experiencing in this thread, you're doing to yourself.