Matthew Morris RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(Decided to start a new thread to avoid the clogging of the updates thread as was suggested)
Long rant incoming…
I’m very disappointed by the latest updates from the Additional Resources. Many things were banned, apparently with no rhyme or reason I can see. I’m going to go over the ones that I read and stuck out in my mind.
Races of the Inner Sea:
(Positive, glad to see the nipped ‘obsessed with success vs day job argument in the bud)
(Aside, might want to add ‘blood of X’ to the phrasing “The racial heritages section from page 236–254 is a legal resource when qualifying to play a character of a different race, much as if the player owned a copy of the corresponding Bestiary or Advanced Race Guide.”)
Blood of the moon
Dirty Tactics Toolbox
Heroes of the Streets
Aside: I’m sad to see we still can’t use the fixed version of the scorpion whip. And that blood transcription is still illegal.
To sum up, I’m very disappointed in the lack of rhyme or reason seeming in these decisions. Some things were banned that were flavorful (Tribalistic, Illustrious Urbanite) Campaign setting friendly (Wasp Familiar) or just plain useful (ears of the city). I do think the ban hammer was used too liberally on these recent additions, and needs to be revisited.
Farrindor |
I will just comment on your last line... it is much, MUCH easier to open a thing than it is to take it away. Also, the updates just posted were being vetted during the period that our Campaign Coordinator slot was unfilled - a number of items likely were given an initial 'not legal' tag for future consideration once we had a single campaign head again. It may not be immediate, as Tonya has a whole buffet load (bigger than her plate!) to both catch up on AND new things both. But I wouldn't rule out some of this getting a nod /later/ once the vision of the campaign going forward is more visible to us.
I wouldn't rule any of this out permanently, even if it isn't available to us immediately.
(Edit to note: This is not intended to imply a rebuke for commenting on your disappointment - that's a very valid point to make - just noting that these choices are likely less permanent than most of our updates have been in the past.)
Matthew Morris RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 |
graywulfe |
............
Elven Arrogance: I could see this in the ‘disruptive table’ attitude, but really the character will be so hosed if they don’t spend a skill point on linguistics and take Taldane that I don’t worry much about it.
.................
So the problem I see with this one is that the Current society rules grant Common to every character that does not already have it, so Elven Arrogance has "no" cost. It becomes an always take option because you are granted Common anyway.
UndeadMitch |
Here's the mystery for me from DTT:
Quote:the Kitsune Tricks and Kitsune's Vengeance feats are not style featsThat line mystified me last night. I have no concept of what the rationale for this was other than MoMS wildcarding. That is some really weird campaign houseruling, IMO.
Well, based on pretty much all of the other styles, typically only the first feat in the line of styles is actually a "style feat." Check out UC, Crane Style is a style feat, whereas Crane Wing and Riposte are not. So, that made sense to me.
Edit: I looked at some player companions that also have style chains, and that does not actually appear to be a consistent thing, which is somewhat annoying.
Partizanski Venture-Captain, Texas—Austin |
...
Yeh I agree with this one. In general, only the first feat in the chain should have the style descriptor, since things like the unarmed fighter get 1 free style feat with ignoring pre-reqs.
Also, I am very sad to see that coin shot didn't make it in. It was great flavor and not terribly powerful either.
Matthew Morris RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 |
Andrew L Klein |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only one I cared about was coin shot, I love the idea and was really hoping it'd get in. That being said, I'm not surprised. It's not only possibly having to track your players' individual coin loss during the game, but requires tracking what kind of coins they carry. That's probably more than they wanted to bother the GM with.
Of course, I'd gladly start splitting my money evenly between all four coin types if Coin Shot ever gets legalized.
cartmanbeck RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16 |
Partizanski Venture-Captain, Texas—Austin |
Matthew Morris RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 |
John Compton Developer |
7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I won't begrudge anyone a good rant, especially since there was a fair amount in Heroes of the Streets that was initially tagged as not legal.
That said, when it comes to changing the content of the Additional Resources page, the team tends to make changes based on a reasoned argument made in good faith. A little later today I might be able to discuss the team's reasoning for some of these options.
Aaron C. Malone |
I'm curious as to why purchasable exotic animals are still allowed such as a tiger. My thought is that you can only have a combat animal if it's 1) used as a mount or 2) a class feature.
Being able to just outright buy a tiger at level 5, to me, ruins the specialty of classes that get an animal companion.
Daigotsu |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious as to why purchasable exotic animals are still allowed such as a tiger. My thought is that you can only have a combat animal if it's 1) used as a mount or 2) a class feature.
Being able to just outright buy a tiger at level 5, to me, ruins the specialty of classes that get an animal companion.
Animal companion classes still get to handle animal as a free action or push as a move... Any bought pet does not have that advantage, does not get any class-related bonuses, and can never progress just being that static statblock of a pet. Most characters without animal companions also typically have to struggle to raise their handle animal.
I honestly feel the new change of pet CR = character level - 1 is absolutely spot on.
Serisan |
Serisan wrote:Here's the mystery for me from DTT:
Quote:the Kitsune Tricks and Kitsune's Vengeance feats are not style featsThat line mystified me last night. I have no concept of what the rationale for this was other than MoMS wildcarding. That is some really weird campaign houseruling, IMO.Well, based on pretty much all of the other styles, typically only the first feat in the line of styles is actually a "style feat." Check out UC, Crane Style is a style feat, whereas Crane Wing and Riposte are not. So, that made sense to me.
Edit: I looked at some player companions that also have style chains, and that does not actually appear to be a consistent thing, which is somewhat annoying.
Ahh, so that's fixing an editing error more than a houserule. Got it.
Matthew Morris RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 |
shadowhntr7 |
I noticed myself that a lot of these choices were rather odd.. the only one I particurarly wanted was Wasp Familiar, and I really don't understand how that one got banned. Sure, it might only take one feat to get a familiar instead of two or three, but it's restricted to a single choice and flavor.
Maybe they plan to put it on a chronicle?..
WalterGM RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8 |
Fromper |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Putting Wasp Familiar on a Chronicle Sheet seems silly since its already so restricted the odd of you playing it with the proper character are astronomical unless its done as it unlocks it for all characters like a few other the rare boons do.
It wouldn't have to be on an adventure chronicle. It could be a convention boon, like the race boons, that could be applied to a new PC.
Really, I'm surprised they haven't done stuff like improved familiars that aren't usually available or intelligent items as convention boons. They've been on the occasional adventure, but putting them on a convention boon would be more popular than the non-race boons they give out at conventions now.
John Compton Developer |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had the opportunity the morning to discuss design philosophies, the organized play campaign, and several specific character options currently not allowed through the Additional Resources. I there are some of these that the Pathfinder Society team might revisit in the near future following some clarifications on how certain features work.
Matthew Morris RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 |
John Compton Developer |
BigNorseWolf |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, I pledge to work on drafting a compelling good-faith argument for the Constable, but it probably won't be posted tonight. Any particular features I should focus on?
Definitely hard to come up with an argument for why something should be included when you don't know why it got hit with the ban hammer.
Andrew Christian |
Eric Ives wrote:OK, I pledge to work on drafting a compelling good-faith argument for the Constable, but it probably won't be posted tonight. Any particular features I should focus on?Definitely hard to come up with an argument for why something should be included when you don't know why it got hit with the ban hammer.
Try to think like campaign leadership and judge the archetype on power, interaction with other abilities and feats, how it interacts with campaign specific rules (e.g. evil, crafting, leadership, etc.)
If you can't think of a single reason after legitimately playing devil's advocate with yourself, then use that as your argument. But list the various reasons you think it might be illegal and explain why that reason doesn't apply.
Mimo Tomblebur |
BigNorseWolf wrote:Eric Ives wrote:OK, I pledge to work on drafting a compelling good-faith argument for the Constable, but it probably won't be posted tonight. Any particular features I should focus on?Definitely hard to come up with an argument for why something should be included when you don't know why it got hit with the ban hammer.Try to think like campaign leadership and judge the archetype on power, interaction with other abilities and feats, how it interacts with campaign specific rules (e.g. evil, crafting, leadership, etc.)
If you can't think of a single reason after legitimately playing devil's advocate with yourself, then use that as your argument. But list the various reasons you think it might be illegal and explain why that reason doesn't apply.
Thanks. The question was intended for John.
I used to make my living arguing with a certain government agency that doesn't always articulate its rejections well, so I'm in familiar territory.
Mahtobedis |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reasons for Wasp familiar being banned.
Imp stat line mauler familiar that can use manufactured weapons, enough said.
Honestly if that were legal every one of my spell casters with familiars would worship Calistra(the goddess of super easy to follow). Why? Because it is a superior improved familiar that doesn't piss off paladins. I could seriously go on for hours about the ill thought the mechanics of this feat were for game balance. Thank you for banning it.
kinevon |
Andrew Christian wrote:BigNorseWolf wrote:Eric Ives wrote:OK, I pledge to work on drafting a compelling good-faith argument for the Constable, but it probably won't be posted tonight. Any particular features I should focus on?Definitely hard to come up with an argument for why something should be included when you don't know why it got hit with the ban hammer.Try to think like campaign leadership and judge the archetype on power, interaction with other abilities and feats, how it interacts with campaign specific rules (e.g. evil, crafting, leadership, etc.)
If you can't think of a single reason after legitimately playing devil's advocate with yourself, then use that as your argument. But list the various reasons you think it might be illegal and explain why that reason doesn't apply.
Thanks. The question was intended for John.
I used to make my living arguing with a certain government agency that doesn't always articulate its rejections well, so I'm in familiar territory.
Eric, one suggestion: Look for the thread on Magical Knack that got it unbanned, and you will see one of the best formats and concepts to follow for this kind of request. Post was in the thread named Balance by Jiggy, around post 16.
shadowhntr7 |
Mahtobedis: It has the statistics of an imp, not it's form. So no manufactured weapons. They also won't be proficient in them, so you'd have to spend a feat on it- which I don't think you can. Granted, I've yet to play a character with a familiar, so I'm not sure about the PFS rulings on that particular part.
Also, your familiar wouldn't gain the at-will invisibility or the ability to speak/use UMD which makes imps so good.
SCPRedMage |
They also won't be proficient in them, so you'd have to spend a feat on it- which I don't think you can.
The eldritch guardian's familiar shares the master's combat feats that its form is compatible with; if they're physically capable of wielding weapons, then that would include weapon proficiencies.
Gamerskum |
shadowhntr7 wrote:They also won't be proficient in them, so you'd have to spend a feat on it- which I don't think you can.The eldritch guardian's familiar shares the master's combat feats that its form is compatible with; if they're physically capable of wielding weapons, then that would include weapon proficiencies.
And a Wasp isn't physically capable.
LazarX |
Tribalistic: Umm, I don’t see any reason for this to be banned, unless a) someone worried about an all Kellid party or b) someone worried about a group of Tribalistic humans, Isolated Oreads and Arrogant elves walking into a scenario (hey, makes for a quick 0xp 0gp 0pp sheet for me as GM)
It might be hard to imagine a truly tribal person submitting to the Absalom Boot Camp all Pathfinders go through, or remaining tribal after those years of training.
Mimo Tomblebur |
Public Apology to John.
It was no way my intention to imply that John was in any way similar to a government agency of questionable skill at articulating issues. I fully understand that John has very good reasons for not discussing some of the logic behind the decisions. I have great respect for John and obviously he has excellent communication skills. I merely meant that I have had experience in advocating for something when the issues had not been clearly articulated to me, and I was looking forward to the challenge. I'm very sorry that what I wrote could be read as disrespectful and am very sorry for any negative feelings I may have caused.
Serisan |
Matthew Morris wrote:It might be hard to imagine a truly tribal person submitting to the Absalom Boot Camp all Pathfinders go through, or remaining tribal after those years of training.
Tribalistic: Umm, I don’t see any reason for this to be banned, unless a) someone worried about an all Kellid party or b) someone worried about a group of Tribalistic humans, Isolated Oreads and Arrogant elves walking into a scenario (hey, makes for a quick 0xp 0gp 0pp sheet for me as GM)
This falls under the "you give up Common as a language" ban. It is one of the most justifiable RP bans the Society has.
Ascalaphus Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden |
I was shocked about Cunning Caster.
Being discreet seems like a thing that a Pathfinder might actually want to do, from time to time.
I am just scratching my head, trying to figure out why it is no something wanted in PFS.
If you look closely you'll see that the other feats that make spellcasting and magic item activation inconspicuous were also banned. Maybe it has something to do with the ongoing dispute about how visible spellcasting is in itself?
It is an inconsistent policy however with allowing Secret Signs, which does something similar.
Mahtobedis |
Mahtobedis: It has the statistics of an imp, not it's form. So no manufactured weapons. They also won't be proficient in them, so you'd have to spend a feat on it- which I don't think you can. Granted, I've yet to play a character with a familiar, so I'm not sure about the PFS rulings on that particular part.
Also, your familiar wouldn't gain the at-will invisibility or the ability to speak/use UMD which makes imps so good.
By the RAW, which in this case is silly, the familiar gains the statistics of an imp(two levels early I might add) except for some spell like abilities that change. It does not mention a different body type so the wasp also gets the body type of an imp including the ability to use manufactured weapons.
Was that intended? I certainly hope not, but it is the RAW for that feat.
Kalindlara Contributor |
I think you have Illustrious Urbanite mixed up with Industrious Urbanite (understandably). The one that got banned is the elf's virtually free Spell Focus, not the dwarf's Craft bonus. ^_^
I'd like a Wasp Familiar too, but I understand why they might have had concerns - one feat for an even better greensting scorpion may have been a bit much for campaign leadership. The free Improved Initiative is like the cherry on top.
I have an elf conjurer that would really like to start with Augment Summoning, so I hope Illustrious Urbanite becomes legal. Not exactly holding my breath though.
Also, I'm curious what it was about Constable that got it banned - that's another one that I wouldn't mind giving a whirl sometime.
Alex Mack |
I have to second those who are arguing that Wasp Familiar is too good. Familiars are a somewhat unbalanced mess and with the right archetype can equate to something like 3 feats in power level.
I am also in the camp of those not going d'accor with the banning of Constable. My reasoning being that I've been trying to break it since the book came out and I couldn't come up with a build that overachieves compared to other Cavalier Archetypes or the Samurai. Now maybe the campaign leadership (in contrast to 99% of players) is of the opinion that the Cavalier is actually a really strong class then I might understand but just by looking at the Archetype I don't see anything that is overpowered only one ability that is very poorly worded and might lead to some confusion.
Also from a business perspective the outright banning of the Eldritch Archer seems a poor decision. It's one of those things very many people have been wanting for years and I suppose one of the motivations for a lot of folks to buy the book. However from a mechanical perspective is not well executed (i.e. too good) and is subsequently banned for understandable balance concerns. However this decision leaves those eager to play it and who shelled out dollars to do so somewhat disappointed and questioning whether they should make this sort of investment in the future.
BigNorseWolf |
. However this decision leaves those eager to play it and who shelled out dollars to do so somewhat disappointed and questioning whether they should make this sort of investment in the future.
Its triage. Its not a good solution but its a better solution than having people get roflcoptered and walk away from the game.