|
And then you read what's under that heading and realize it doesn't modify anything at all and just gives you a bonus if you pick a specific type of eidolon and you're back to square one? `Bingo.Hmmm... I don't see the shaitan modifying the eidolon's base form.I didn't until i looked it up and the stat bonus is written under a big old heading of "base form"
Not sure how adding something doesn't equal modify.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bingo.Hmmm... I don't see the shaitan modifying the eidolon's base form.I didn't until i looked it up and the stat bonus is written under a big old heading of "base form"
It does say "if", though: "if a shaitan binder’s eidolon has the biped base form, it gains a +2 bonus to one ability score. The shaitan binder must make this choice at 1st level. If at any time the shaitan binder’s eidolon has another base form, it loses this bonus until it returns to biped form."
So is it legal to make a Shaitan Binder who doesn't choose the biped as the base form?
Contributor
|
Eh, I think it's a bit much to say the writer of "one of the most flavorful" archetypes didn't know how to write them, when the chief complaint is about how a book three years into the future would affect it in organized play.
Yeah, sorry; hence the "rant" label. And I can't delete now, so it's too late.
I'm just really upset.
I ran Captive in Crystal, and the perfect thing to do with the race boon would be to build an oread shaitan binder. But now, I'll never be able to. People who did so before an arbitrary deadline get to do whatever they want, but those of us who play now will never be able to. It's the aasimar/tiefling thing all over again, except that a couple hundred dollars will maybe get me a boon that will let me build one character, and there's not even that chance here. Players, now and forever, are just permanently screwed over because of a little quirk of poorly written language between two books.
|
|
I'm not sure it's a quirk or poorly written. And not sure how the date was arbitrary since it actually coincides with the date of a book being sanctioned.
Nobody is out to get anybody. I understand that you were excited for this build. But campaign management made decisions with the best intentions for the campaign. The ruling in which archetypes can be used by the unchained summoner and the date it happened are decisions I full heartedly agree with.
There was never intent to make the unchained summoner backward compatible, or it would have a sidebar similar to the Rogue or barbarian. This was a conscious choice, not poor writing or attention to detail.
|
And then you read what's under that heading and realize it doesn't modify anything at all and just gives you a bonus if you pick a specific type of eidolon and you're back to square one? `
No.
The plus 2 alters the base form. Its just like the archetype outright saying "this modifies X ability". Even if its a small change, or a compatible change, or an easy to deal with change its still a change.
|
|
Expecting players to magically know a blog post exists is so absurd I can't even believe you are suggesting that is what players are expected to do.
First, the guide says that any posts made by the leadership are binding rules. So a new player having read that should know that some rules will be in some random post.
Yes they might assume that older rulings would be published in a more findable location, but that's not an excuse for thinking that a post couldn't contain a rule that changes things.And as I said previously, the expectations is they come with their character or talk about their character with someone who knows the rules and are told about what the rule is.
And this case is the same for urban barbarian and UBarb. Nothing but that same posts says that the UBarb can't take the urban archetype. So why aren't you complaining about that one too?
|
|
And then you read what's under that heading and realize it doesn't modify anything at all and just gives you a bonus if you pick a specific type of eidolon and you're back to square one? `No.
The plus 2 alters the base form. Its just like the archetype outright saying "this modifies X ability". Even if its a small change, or a compatible change, or an easy to deal with change its still a change.
Like adding a class skill. It doesn't change any of the existing class skills, why does it count as modifying? Because adding something to it counts as modifying.
|
|
Yeah, sorry; hence the "rant" label. And I can't delete now, so it's too late.
I'm just really upset. *** spoilers ***
So I can't make you un-upset and I do understand that it can be upsetting for others to have options that you do not. I'm also personally not sure if the Shaitin Binder is intended to not be legal as I do see the reasoning for both sides.
But, the fact that options were grandfathered is not screwing players over. The campaign staff had options that they needed to remove for the health of the campaign. The grandfathering was done so that the players that already had those options didn't have to abandon the characters that were legal when they chose those options.
The campaign tries to do everything possible to avoid screwing players over when changes need to be made, and sometimes that means that people have grandfathered options or some option are only unlocked via boons to help limit the impact on the campaign.
Now just because Shaitian Binder seems illegal now doesn't mean it's too late.
My suggestion would be to start a new thread about the Shaitian Binder and why you think it should be made legal for use by Unchained Summoners. John, Linda, and Tonya are all great level headed reasonable people who are receptive to listening to persuasive discussion on why things should be opened up. This has worked in the past before.
If you want a sense of a good way to lay out the argument so that it comes off in the best light check out Jiggy's Argument to Unban Magical Knack from many years ago as an example.
I'm sorry you feel that the campaign is trying to screw you over, but please know that's not the campaigns goal and that the campaign always tries to do what's best for the community as a whole.
|
Contributor
|
For those trying to help, thank you. I should clarify that when I said "screwed over", I meant more by circumstances than by any intent to make things better or worse for certain players - sorry about the poor phrasing. (Lack of grandfathering for summoners would arguably have been far worse, in fact.)
@Jeffrey Fox: I thought about starting such a thread (and I may yet)... I was just afraid of the people who would show up to shout me down. This forum routinely makes me question whether I should be in PFS when its ire is not directed at me, let alone when it is.
|
...Legal archetypes:
Counter-Summoner, unwavering conduit - doesn't touch the eidolon at all.
Pyroclast - debatable, as adding fire resistance is tampering with the eidolon. Table variation; based on this thread, I might not allow one at my table.
The completely literal crowd would argue the header does not say "Base Form" so it is legal. Those who think of the rules as actual objects/mechanics more like a computer program might argue that the fire resistance counts as the Energy Resistance evolution or is "close enough." The ability also starts with the "Eidolon begins with" clause, noting that the eidolon gets it out of the box (and it's not even a bonus like the +2 stat for Shaitan Binder, but an actual modification of the creature). So Pyroclast modifies the innate properties of the Eidolon and Shaitan Binder provides a conditional untyped buff. The former is an internal source; it becomes an inherent property of the eidolon. The latter is an external source, applied to the eidolon under a condition; the inherent properties of the eidolon do not change.
Another thing, pyroclast eventually gets the fire subtype which I think disqualifies it. I think type and subtype are both considered part of the creature's "type." Modifying either is probably going to make the archetype illegal per the same blog post. (Yay more ambiguity? lol)
Further, Paizo is not consistent when it comes to whether they favor the literal wording of something or the mechanics behind them. In some cases they argue the name of an ability does not matter as much as the precise mechanics behind it, such as the Oracle's "Channel" vs. the Cleric's "Channel Energy." Feat pre-reqs will cite "Channel Energy" but it has been publicly stated that if X does the same thing as Y, X qualifies for thing Z with pre-requisite Y. Sean K. Reynolds made a lengthy post about this. And to clarify, he was a Paizo employee at the time of that post.
Alternatively, the "Draconic Bloodline" for Sorcerers and Bloodragers has different effects. Yet a bloodrager with the Draconic Bloodline can still enter Dragon Disciple and have their bloodline powers progressed. This is a case of name trumping mechanics. They don't do quite the same thing, yet the name/thematics of the bloodline is qualifying the Bloodrager. I agree with this ruling, I am just saying that there's a lot of inconsistency and it's hard to predict which way Paizo will rule on the matter. Source
Things designed to work with the original summoner are legal for original summoners only.
Not true. That's never stated anywhere, and that's not how the unchained classes interact with options/effects. The blog post does not ban unchained summoners from all old archetypes, it incidentally bans them from most via the stated restrictions. Old archetypes interact with unchained classes exactly as they interact with the original versions. The problem arises when the unchained variant cannot give up or modify a feature it does not have, which is a rule that predates Pathfinder Unchained. An Unchained Summoner is just a "Summoner." Outside of the blog post and anything in the AR, that is the only thing preventing any unchained class from taking archetypes, feats, et cetera that the original class could also take.
|
|
If you're doing a request to make something legal the only thing to shout about is that it's clearly something they wont make legal. With this being quite easy to change to allow for unchained summoners to take it I don't think you'll get much if any backlash for posting a request to change the rules.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Expecting players to magically know a blog post exists is so absurd I can't even believe you are suggesting that is what players are expected to do.First, the guide says that any posts made by the leadership are binding rules. So a new player having read that should know that some rules will be in some random post.
Yes they might assume that older rulings would be published in a more findable location, but that's not an excuse for thinking that a post couldn't contain a rule that changes things.
And as I said previously, the expectations is they come with their character or talk about their character with someone who knows the rules and are told about what the rule is.And this case is the same for urban barbarian and UBarb. Nothing but that same posts says that the UBarb can't take the urban archetype. So why aren't you complaining about that one too?
I have no particular horse in the Shaitan Summoner race (and it wouldn't get the +2 stat bonus if I did...) but the Paizo blog architecture is terrible and nobody should have any reasonable expectation of anybody finding blog posts they don't already know about.
I've been around for a couple of years now and I'm still caught off-guard occasionally by weird intersections of the rules that have been clarified in blog posts or forum posts that I never saw because they happened in 2010 or 2012. Our local PFS group here has some experienced players but they're not the type of folks who are massive rules dorks so they don't intrinsically keep track of this stuff. They all rely on Additional Resources just like the rest of us mortals do. Anytime you sit down and do due diligence on a build and dig through Nethys and double check the AR, the idea that even after all that, it's fair or fun or expected that everything you built could be invalidated by something that's for all intents and purposes invisible to you is downright Chelaxian. If I spend five hours on a build and thirty hours playing a character only to find out a feat or class ability or archetype was mentioned as banned or somehow limited in a blog post from 2009 I'm gonna be ticked.
Anyway, I think the biggest problem is that the whole "random blog post" deal is fundamentally unfair if those blog posts aren't, later, correlated and organized into the AR. It's changing the rules in a way that it only affects people who are 1. new enough to PF that they didn't see the blog/clarification/whatever, and 2. committed to the choice that has just been broken/ruled illegal/etc. It's a recipe for disappointing players we don't want to be disappointing. Pathfinder should be about fun! The risks should be of a character dying, not of a character being ruled illegal for obscure reasons.
And on the bright side, this happens incredibly infrequently in my experience, but that also means that the one time this gets someone, they're prone to feel picked on because it doesn't happen to most other people. And that's not a good impression to give.
Anyway, I just feel like "you should know the rug can be pulled out from under you at any time!" a weak argument, especially when the foundational assumption can lead to upset players and hurts player retention. We hope to be more welcoming than that! Hopefully the campaign leaderships' ongoing work with the clarifications document will reduce the likelihood of things like this coming up, and Shaitan Binder can be resolved. (Or explicitly called out as legal, which would be fun!)
And maybe for the inevitable-yet-distant Pathfinder 2, Paizo will adopt one-name, one-concept and some more comprehensive template language and we'll see fewer of these sorts of problems.
|
|
Well, as long as nobody knows it illegal because of some post it's legal. Says so right in the guide that you only need to follow post clarifications if you are made aware of them. So if you don't know and no one at your lodge knows then it's legal until you find out otherwise, in which case you get to rebuild it to a legal version.
That's why I say the way a new player will find out about this rule is that someone who knows it tells them about it. And since it's a post rule, it might as well have been a new rule made the day they find out about it because the result would be the same.
|
|
And maybe for the inevitable-yet-distant Pathfinder 2, Paizo will adopt one-name, one-concept and some more comprehensive template language and we'll see fewer of these sorts of problems.
I would die and go to heaven if they had a much more robust style guide and naming conventions to cut down on the murk for "Pathfinder 2". Then you could all be rid of me. ;)
|
Hmmm... I don't see the shaitan modifying the eidolon's base form.I didn't until i looked it up and the stat bonus is written under a big old heading of "base form"
OK, I can get behind that. :)
However, it only moves it into the 'ambigious wording' category for me. Going off the summoner & unchained summoner 'Base Form heading' it says "Each eidolon has one of three base forms that determines its starting..." and that a summoner "must choose." This opens the biped only argument others have made (not choosing one side or the other, just acknowledging the argument). However, this big old heading of "base form" also says the eidolon does "not gain the share spells ability" which has nothing to do with what base form is chosen. Those two points (along with the bonus* point made earlier) suggest ambiguity at least to the say base form (the heading) isn't specifically base form (the creature feature).
Pathfinder Society Lead Developer
|
| 20 people marked this as a favorite. |
The team has discussed this archetype and its place in the organized play campaign.
I can see where you’re seeing ambiguity, and I agree that the intersection of the archetype’s word choice and how that meshes (or doesn’t mesh) with the language in the Society Unchained blog isn’t perfect. It would seem from the name of the shaitan binder’s “Base Form” archetype ability that it’s altering how the eidolon’s base form operates. However, what it does is establish a conditional situation that grants an ability score bonus but actually replaces the share spells ability. Can I also see arguments that an ability score bonus applied to a certain base form is, in fact, the modification of a base form? Yes. Would I intend any ruling I make that claims otherwise to be used as a precedent for arguing the interpretation of other rules content? Please no—I’m just trying to address this particular issue in an equitable way.
Honestly, the bigger issue to me appears to be the basic/minor/major/ultimate magic evolutions, none of which are evolutions listed for the unchained summoner. At face value, that could be reason enough to dismiss the archetype’s compatibility. As I interpret it, that would be the technically accurate decision, although I don’t feel that it would be the right decision—at least not from the perspective of someone who both co-manages the content of the campaign and has the capacity to police and adapt that content as best serves the campaign’s needs. Just as I would consider a sorcerer bloodline that opens access to a spell banned primarily for flavor (e.g. a hypothetical radiation bloodline that gained irradiate from Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Technology Guide as a bloodline spell), I can also see these bonus evolutions granted by the shaitan binder archetype as otherwise inaccessible content granted only by this one option.
With those taken into consideration, I am amenable to exploring how the shaitan binder archetype might function with the unchained summoner.
Does the addition of otherwise banned evolutions disrupt the campaign?
By our assessment, these particular evolutions have a relatively low impact. They do not pack the persist and decisive punch of something like pounce, reach, or fast healing, and their saving throw DCs and caster levels are likely to remain pretty low.
Does the base form conditional ability disqualify this archetype because it modifies the base form?
As noted, I can see arguments for both sides.
Is it to the campaign’s benefit to have at least one of the oread-only archetypes be legal for all versions (i.e. original and unchained) of a class?
Yeah, that’s a good thing—especially considering the increased distribution of boons that enable someone to build such a character.
Since the unchained summoner relies more heavily on outsider subtypes that the original summoner, does the flavor of the archetype still fit?
I think it mostly fits. Were it published today, I imagine one of two things would happen. Either there would be a new genie eidolon subtype, or the archetype would present some subtype limitation to match the flavor of the class. Looking at the current eidolon subtypes, that seems like it would focus on elemental eidolons of the earth variety.
—————
Current Inclination: We are inclined to allow the shaitan binder archetype for unchained summoners with the caveat that the eidolon must have the elemental (earth) subtype. Should a new genie eidolon subtype show up in a future publication, we would revisit this and likely incorporate it. If this is the direction we settle on, such information would appear in the next (i.e. April) update to the Additional Resources page. If you would like to weigh in on this stance, please do so sooner rather than later.
Loosely Related: It would appear that the Pathfinder Unchained entry would benefit from a brief note about how the unchained classes operate with archetypes that don’t directly cite them. I have already sent up the Additional Resources update and don’t want to delay its release for this, but this is something I can investigate for April. If you would like to weigh in further on where information appears in organized play campaign documentation, please do so in a new thread.
|
|
Thanks for the reply, John! I'm ecstatic to hear this is being looked at. I was so happy to get my Oread boon. But when I saw that Shaitan binder was very likely not a legal option I was a bit crestfallen. I had never played a Summoner before and I thought this might be a good time to try one. My Oread boon will be kept somewhere safe in the meantime while this all shakes out. :)
Thanks again!
|
|
Just to clarify - John's suggestion implies that in the current state of the rules for PFS, it is illegal to be an Unchained Summoner with this archetype, but this was going to be changed (tentatively) in the April update of the Additional Resources. I'm not seeing any changes, so presuming it's currently illegal? I figure it's just become a lot more relevant. :)
|
|
Huzzah! (Link!)
Oreads: all alternate racial traits, favored class options, racial archetypes, racial equipment, feats, magic items, and spells are legal for play. The shaitan binder archetype can be applied to an unchained summoner; however, the summoner must select elemental (earth) for his eidolon's subtype.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huzzah! (Link!)
Oreads: all alternate racial traits, favored class options, racial archetypes, racial equipment, feats, magic items, and spells are legal for play. The shaitan binder archetype can be applied to an unchained summoner; however, the summoner must select elemental (earth) for his eidolon's subtype.
The Unchained Summoner's evolution list doesn't include some of the abilities given to a Shaitan Binder (basic magic, minor magic, major magic).
This leads to (at least) two questions:1. does this open these abilities for additional purchase beyond the bonus given by the archtype
2. Is an Unchained Shaitan Binder able to spend the evolution points at the appropriate level to increase the number of times per day those abilities may be used by the Eidolon, per the description given in the APG Evolutions description of those abilities? .
