Michael Brock's stated reasoning behind banning the Buccaneer is:
Michael Brock wrote:
"Buccaneer is a great archetype but there are too many siege bonus feats that would have to be changed. If I just declared them outright banned and no replacements for the archetype, people would become even more upset."
The siege bonus feats in question are Skilled Driver, Expert Driver, Siege Engineer, Siege Gunner, and Master Siege Engineer. All of these feats have been banned in PFS play. The other feats the Buccaneer receives, "Sword and Pistol" and "Sea Legs" are both allowed. If, as I presume and as is implied above, these siege feats are the only (or at least the primary) reason the Buccaneer was banned, I argue there is no reason the archetype should not be allowed.
Archetype and Playstyle
I am not going to go into great depth defending that the Buccaneer in general does not detract from the PFS campaign setting except where the siege feats are involved. Their inclusion in the archetype fairly obviously labels the Buccaneer as intended to be a sailor/pirate style character, which is consistent with the other abilities granted and to be expected from the name. The existence of the Exchange, the Inner Sea setting, and the inclusion of the Swashbuckler, Buccaneer, and Sea Singer Bard archetypes, as well as to a lesser extent the Swashbuckler hybrid class, suggest to me that this is consistent with the setting and encouraged playstyles of the campaign, and should not warrant a ban on the archetype. This role is still supported through the deeds granted.
Siege Feats
As for siege feat replacements, I don't see that they are needed. All that has been done in removing them is preventing the Buccaneer from taking feats that detract from the campaign setting and would in most cases not be relevant. At every level changed by the Buccaneer a class feature is gained in exchange for a class feature lost - in general, each ability gained is less versatile but of comparable or slightly greater power. No bonus feats are made unavailable by the archetype, so removing the extra bonus feats simply reverts this feature to that of the Gunslinger, leaving the archetype perfectly intact for its intended playstyle.
Other Problems
The other reason I have seen cited, though not by PFS officials, is that the Grog pool mechanic is unwieldy and not thematically consistent. This I will grant has some merit, but in practice it is a combination of the grit and nimble abilities. Smart bookkeeping, e.g. a grog tally close enough to a character's AC that the dodge bonus can be easily included, largely removes the problem in game, and since the points last one hour they can relatively easily be used out of combat, thus not hindering gameplay at all. It could be said that it is a disadvantage of the archetype that the Grog pool becomes unusable when the character has no access to strong drink, but that becomes the responsibility of the player involved. If the archer runs out of arrows it is their own fault, not a problem with the system.
The only remaining reason I can think of that the Buccaneer should be disallowed is that it could create confusion with the Bard archetype of the same name, but this is hardly unique and does not seem to cause problems in other cases.
The main problem with the Buccaneer is that it could slow down gameplay, potentially introduce canon issues, and generally go against the desired theme of the campaign through the inclusion of siege feats. Since these are not allowed, and the archetype can stand relatively unchanged and unhindered without them, I would contend and request that the Buccaneer should be allowed in PFS play.
I invite further discussion and response.
