Request to Officially Declare the Shaitan Binder a Legal Unchained Summoner Archetype


Pathfinder Society

4/5 5/5 * Contributor

12 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 11 people marked this as a favorite.

A friend of mine is hitting a lot of unnecessary hostility about whether or not the shaitian binder archetype for oread summoners should be a legal option for unchained summoners. I’ve made it pretty clear that I think that rules are made to be debated and altered given good evidence, so I’m going to try to prove that the shaitian binder archetype should be PFS legal. Jiggy-style.

Premise:
An option is only banned if it conflicts with the nature or goals of the PFS, or with the overall balance of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.

Assertion:
The shaitian binder does not conflict with the normal rules for selecting archetypes, nor does it conflict with the nature or goals of the PFS.

Conclusion:
Oread unchained summoners should be able to select the shaitian binder archetype.

Evidence #1:
The ruling on archetype legality for the unchained summoner was clearly made to prevent a situation where archetypes that A) clashed with the summoner’s new theme of summoning actual outsiders rather than “two-butts, nine-tentacles” monsters and B) archetypes that were too powerful for the APG summoner were not reintroduced to the campaign via the unchained summoner. Generally speaking, the campaign leans towards content inclusion over exclusion whenever possible.

Evidence #2:
With Evidence #1 in mind, is the shaitan binder overpowered? It does not disrupt the game’s action economy, like the broodmaster or master summoner, nor does it does not create a neigh unkiller engine of death, like the synthesis summoner does. Clearly, these are the archetypes that are the “problem children,” that PFS wants to avoid bringing back into the game. In the original blog that announced the sanctioning of the unchained classes, it was noted that the unchained summoner qualifies for all existing summoner archetypes, save those that modify the eidolon’s type or base form. Exactly what this means is extremely unclear because it doesn’t appear to reference actual rules text, as I will now demonstrate.

If we are to assume that “save those that modify the eidolon’s type or base form,” literally means “archetypes that include [This ability alters/replaces the eidolon’s type],” then technically the morphic savant archetype, from the Monster Summoner’s Handbook, should be illegal because it “alters eidolon.” However, that archetype was specifically made for the unchained summoner and isn’t excluded from the Monster Summoner Handbook entry on the Additional Resources page. This inconsistency brings me to my next point.

Evidence #3:
This one is perhaps the most important: an unchained shaitan binder is not overpowered, nor does it clash with any existing flavor in the Pathfinder Society’s lore. The one trade that everyone talks about is the extra +2 Strength to the eidolon, but this 2-evolution point equivalent ability comes at the cost of share spells, one of the summoner’s most potent tools for doing his job: buffing his eidolon to kick butt. This small bonus also only applies if your eidolon has a bipedal form, which means no pounce and no mount, two of the most common summoner strategies. One point that I will concede is that the archetype gives the eidolon access to evolutions that aren’t included in the unchained eidolon, none of those evolutions were barred when summoner classic was legal, and all of them revolve around the expenditure of a lot of extra evolution points for what could be best described as a utilitarian benefit.

Finally, although shaitan binder implies that you have a genie, nothing in the archetype alters or even enforces what your eidolon looks like. Changing the subtype of an eidolon shouldn’t be a problem either; tons of templates already allow you to have things like a fey agathion or a half-fiend psychopomp; none of that goes against the Pathfinder Society’s lore or heritage. And honestly, if flavor is the only real issue here, the simplest thing that could be done is a simple addition to the Pathfinder Society-specific clarifications sheet that says, “oread unchained summoners that choose the shaitan binder archetype can only select the elemental subtype for their eidolon, and they must choose earth as the eidodlon’s element.

Evidence #4:
Nothing from the Unchained Society blog post was reprinted in the Additional Resources page, and the blog itself isn’t listed among the list of sanction Paizo blogs. And why should it be? The original summoner class was removed from the list of available legal sources, so any legalities listed on the Additional Resources page would, by default, have to refer to the unchained summoner. Technically, nothing needs to be done. The broken archetypes are still illegal because they were illegal for the APG summoner. All that needs to be done is to have John or Linda pop into this thread and say, “Yup. Oread summoners rejoice,” and this whole thing will be over. (That said, you guys might want to check the Unchained Society blog and port any restrictions you still want over. Though letting the unchained barbarian and rogue pick classic talents is probably the better option, honestly.)

Conclusion:
An option is only banned if it conflicts with the nature or goals of the PFS, or with the overall balance of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.
— PFS leans towards inclusion over exclusion when it can be helped.
— The current status of whether this archetype is compatible with the unchained summoner is unclear.
— The shaitan binder does not clash with the Pathfinder Society’s lore.
— The shaitan binder does not significantly increase the power of the summoner.
— The shaitan binder was not illegal for the classic summoner.
— No legal resource claims that an unchained summoner cannot take the shaitan binder archetype.
— If the ability to give shaitan abilities to any eidolon seems immersion-breaking or off-theme, it would be simple to make a slight alteration to the archetype for the purpose of the campaign using a medium that already exists for such clarifications.

Thanks for your time, everyone, and remember: OREADS FOREVER!

4/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I support this proposal whole-heartedly.

Silver Crusade 1/5 Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Same here, obviously. ^_^

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

There are a few other Archetypes that fit this as well that are currently not allowed with Unchained, to include Story summoner.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Steven Lau wrote:
There are a few other Archetypes that fit this as well that are currently not allowed with Unchained, to include Story summoner.

The story summoner, especially, I would like to see made PFS legal. The edit it makes to the base form is the ability to change it every level, in conjunction with the flavor of summoning different storykin. This is limited with Unchained to those forms within one alignment step of the summoner and has no other changes or requirements to the eidolon's base form.

Silver Crusade 1/5 Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Story Summoner:
It would have to be limited to those base forms allowed by the outsider type. So proteans and devils wouldn't have any use for it, while agathions would be limited to biped and quadruped.

Still, I think there's a case to be made for the story summoner. I recommend making it its own thread, though, since there are different factors to be discussed there.

5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

*pawprint* I'm for it, unless it can't plug and play with the unchained summoner in some way a drug addled first glance doesnt see.

The hostility is for arguing is rather than should. -It really really should be one way- and -it really really is- are two completely different things.

*i have altered this post. Pray i do not alter it further*

Paizo Employee 4/5 Pathfinder Society Lead Developer

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, this is awkward. I didn't see this thread before writing up my response in a related thread.

4/5 5/55/55/55/5 ****

Your Evidence 4 is flat out wrong.

The Guide sanctions ALL rulings in Blog posts. The AR page links to a few(4 iirc) for ease of use.

~

Your Evidence 2 is also wrong.

The blog grants allowance for Content created after Unchained to be allowed.

Since your 'disproof' IS Content created after unchained, there is no conflict.

Also, you require us to not simply use "save those that modify the eidolon’s type or base form" to literally mean "save those that modify the eidolon’s type or base form".

~

I'm not opposed to a review of the pre-Unchained content and a listing of Allowed/Banned for the Unchained classes.

I'm not opposed to opening up this specific archetype for on Unchained Summoner, but you should really make solid arguments, not arguments riddled with flaws and fallacies.

If you want, I could probably tear apart all of your points for failing to be valid Logical Constructs, but I will only do that if asked.

~

We should just wait to see what the Campaign Leadership decides.

1/5 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Compared to many of the discussions on these forums, that's actually reasonably put together, somewhat concise, and covers some bases.

After all, not everyone has a law degree or a background in language/logic arts.

4/5 5/55/55/55/5 ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

But the arguments are primarily Straw Man...

And all the 'Evidence' requires you except his premise.

Just going with one of the two I called out...

Evidence 2 requires you to ignore what is written and except his reword, which he then attacks. This is the definition of a Straw Man fallacy.

4/5 *

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Tempest_Knight wrote:

But the arguments are primarily Straw Man...

And all the 'Evidence' requires you except his premise.

Just going with one of the two I called out...

Evidence 2 requires you to ignore what is written and except his reword, which he then attacks. This is the definition of a Straw Man fallacy.

It's clear you are really against this being allowed for some reason, but I can't help but read a hostile tone in the way you are expressing your point of view. I'm not sure if it's intended, but it gets in the way of your argument being considered "reasonable". Please dial it back in all the threads you're attaching this on.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha

John Compton wrote:
Well, this is awkward. I didn't see this thread before writing up my response in a related thread.

Thanks, John!

4/5 5/55/55/55/5 ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am neither for, nor against, the option being unbanned.

I am against baseless arguments/reasoning/evidence being used to change the rules.

If you would like a breakdown of the failings, I can audit the OP.


GM Lamplighter wrote:
Tempest_Knight wrote:

But the arguments are primarily Straw Man...

And all the 'Evidence' requires you except his premise.

Just going with one of the two I called out...

Evidence 2 requires you to ignore what is written and except his reword, which he then attacks. This is the definition of a Straw Man fallacy.

It's clear you are really against this being allowed for some reason, but I can't help but read a hostile tone in the way you are expressing your point of view. I'm not sure if it's intended, but it gets in the way of your argument being considered "reasonable". Please dial it back in all the threads you're attaching this on.

I think that because you think, "it's clear" that he is against it, that you are reading hostility that isn't there. Demanding rigor in logic is good for your side as well because you should be aware of flaws in your own arguments.

1/5 5/5

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Will this happen with every thread that someone puts in a Request?

Step 1: Flawed or not, petitioner puts up a construct for their request.

Step 2: Campaign Developer says "We're looking at it, we'll get back to you, thank you for your insight and time."

Step 3: Nit-pickers show up to question the petitioner's original construct?

I do *not* have any horses in this race nor dogs in this fight.

However, when a developer says "We're looking at it." my personal opinion is *give them time to look at it*.

-Not attempt to argue that the reasoning is flawed and therefore should not work. Original petitioner did put in that they were *attempting*.

Please give benefit of doubt and stop being pedantic, let the developers look at it.

I'm certain they have *plenty* of people at Paizo that can audit the above without the input of folks on the forums *just fine*.

4/5 *

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Tempest_Knight wrote:

I am neither for, nor against, the option being unbanned.

I am against baseless arguments/reasoning/evidence being used to change the rules.

If you would like a breakdown of the failings, I can audit the OP.

Actually, that's exactly what isn't needed here. Much of the OP's reasoning is sound; that some of it isn't doesn't undermine the validity of the material that is. John has posted saying the team is looking at it; this thread was posted *before* John stated that in another thread, where the posts were equally as hostile.

Quote:
If you want, I could probably tear apart all of your points...

If this doesn't seem hostile to anyone else, then I apologize for misreading tone. I do suggest, however, that a holier-than-thou I-know-everything tone doesn't work for conveying friendliness.

4/5 5/5 * Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tempest_Knight wrote:
If you would like a breakdown of the failings, I can audit the OP.

So, I'm not sure why you're taking this tone in my thread, or why you feel like you have to tear down my request. (Note: I didn't use the word petition anywhere in my post; that's your word. I find the word petition to be demeaning, like we can't get anything accomplished through civil conversation so we have to riot about it.)

I'll admit that Evidence #4 isn't logical if you've memorized the Guide to Organized Play. But for someone like my friend who is casually scrolling the Additional Resources page (which presents itself as the foremost resource on available player options), the disconnect is real. Perhaps that wasn't conveyed well, and I'm sorry you felt so passionately about attacking a request that you yourself have stated you have no real vested interest in that you felt the need to flounder around this thread, arguing for no real reason.

Obviously, I disagree with your assessment. An argument doesn't need to be perfectly logical to be valid, arguments based on how things feel are equally valid, because ultimately we're playing a game, and things that don't feel fun should be removed. (And considering I'm the OP, I contest the point that I was ever arguing with anyone to begin with).

So please, if you must rip my "arguments" apart, by all means come at me. But the developers have already seen this thread, so regardless of whether or not my thread was meaningful it served its purpose. Have fun tearing down a tower of blocks that have already served their purpose. Alone.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Truth in text!

I'm the one that used 'petitioner' initially.

It was not meant in the derogatory fashion, but in the formal fashion of request.

Please forgive any insult, for none was intended, and accept my apologies.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

I think what Tempest Knight is saying is that the original evidences or premises his argument is based on are misleading. Intentionally or not.

In PFS play, the Summoner had been a pretty big problem from the start, based on he original design of the class, and it was made a great deal worse by all of the extra options like archetypes thrown in.

"Evidence #1:
The ruling on archetype legality for the unchained summoner was clearly made to prevent a situation where archetypes that
" forgets to include the argument that the ruling on the Unchained Summoner was also put in place to mitigate a lot of the issues that came up with the normal Summoner, (particularly how overpowered it was, due to it's build as you want nature it was often used and played incorrectly, and in a lot of ways grew out of control very fast), and that Paizo intentionally made the Unchained Summoner incompatible with much of the previous material. This was done on purpose, though it was done in a very general way. However, the expressed intent was to balance the class out as it always should have been by removing a lot of the options that allowed it to get so out of hand.

For example, you could literally use all of these arguments to apply to the Undead Lord Cleric Archetype. It also does not conflict with the setting lore, is not overpowered, is a fun addition to the game (being really the only option for a Cleric to have a pet, and like so many folks love to remind everyone, the PFS is not a Good organization, anything goes that gets the job done), and doesn't do anything that is not already otherwise allowed. It too, would be exceedingly easy to alter the Additional Resources to correct if made legal. However, it's not illegal because of any of those reasons, but rather because it is a metagame issue. That is because it could cause trouble with paladin players at the table and the like, (EVEN THOUGH a normal Necromancer/dark Cleric/Undead Controller class is perfectly legal) and would do the same thing. <Not arguing to make Undead Lord legal, just pointing it out as an example>

"Evidence #2:
With Evidence #1 in mind, is the shaitan binder overpowered? It does not disrupt the game’s action economy, like the broodmaster or master summoner, nor does it does not create a neigh unkiller engine of death, like the synthesis summoner does. Clearly, these are the archetypes that are the “problem children,” that PFS wants to avoid bringing back into the game. In the original blog that announced the sanctioning of the unchained classes, it was noted that the unchained summoner qualifies for all existing summoner archetypes, save those that modify the eidolon’s type or base form. Exactly what this means is extremely unclear because it doesn’t appear to reference actual rules text. . .
" It's arguably true that the Shaitan Binder is not as broken as other examples, (which is partially matter of opinion), but it is also something that can easily open the door to reintroduce all of the issues with the original Summoner that PFS and PF in general tried to get rid of with the ruling and the Unchained Summoner.

"Evidence #3:
This one is perhaps the most important: an unchained shaitan binder is not overpowered, nor does it clash with any existing flavor in the Pathfinder Society’s lore.
" This premise kind of goes back to #1, misrepresenting/misleading with the idea that these are the only reasons something is banned in PFS. However, that's not true. Something can also be banned because it is too complex, to open to abuse with other options, because it falls into a banned category of things, because they (PFS) wants to keep it reserved for a special reward later, or because it causes other metagame related issues, but is not actually clash with PFS flavor or themes.

"Evidence #4:
Nothing from the Unchained Society blog post was reprinted in the Additional Resources page, and the blog itself isn’t listed among the list of sanction Paizo blogs. And why should it be? The original summoner class was removed from the list of available legal sources, so any legalities listed on the Additional Resources page would, by default, have to refer to the unchained summoner. Technically, nothing needs to be done. The broken archetypes are still illegal because they were illegal for the APG summoner.
" This really doesn't seem to be an argument, evidence, or a premise at all, as much as a bribe perhaps, suggesting it would be easy to fix things to allow this one option, but not others.

All of these lead to a Conclusion that is either wrong (worst case) or arguable based on opinion and preference (at best).

Now, that being said, while I personally disagree with some of Alex's premises (evidences), in the specific case of the Shaitan Binder, I'd throw in my support for it to be legal for play. Nothing really seems to be to questionable until like level 10+, and in PFS, that's not really too much of a concern, or realistically even that unbalanced. Now, on the other hand, the one thing I would be most concerned about is the risk of opening the door to the original Summoner problem, or even opening the door to other things, like for example the Undead Lord Archetype. <again, not arguing for it, just making a point>

Dark Archive 3/5 5/5

Possibly off topic interjection: in terms of opening doors, the Eidolon subtypes for Unchained Summoners do a bit of that. I have a halfling that rides around on a capitol-D Demon as a baselines class feature, evil alignment and all.

Granted, playing him in scenarios with Paladin PCs has lead to some of the most mutually enjoyable roleplay I've ever had within organized play.

Back on topic: Based on the blog rules and wording, I can see why the archetype is still banned. Perhaps it could find new legality as a granted boon that's moderately easy to get? Make it an Archetype Boon, maybe even one that allows you to ignore the racial requirement. That way you can include any must-have additional wording to handle the inclusion of APG evolutions on an Unchained class chasis.

4/5 5/55/55/55/5 ****

My nephew played an Undead Lord, way back when they were legal... it died in its first scenario...

[sidetrack]The Undead Lord ended up playing up (sub-tier 4-5) in its first scenario, it died about 2 hour in to the scenario... followed about an hour later by the FIRST combat of the scenario... a couple of weeks or so later, new AR that banned the Undead Lord...[/sidetrack]

~

DM Beckett has done a very good job disproving all 4 points.

4/5 5/5 * Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I want to start by thanking you for taking a much better tone in the conversation, DM Beckett. I'd like to offer a few counterpoints for the sake of any PFS eyes who may (or may not) be watching.

DM Beckett wrote:

"Evidence #1:

The ruling on archetype legality for the unchained summoner was clearly made to prevent a situation where archetypes that" forgets to include the argument that the ruling on the Unchained Summoner was also put in place to mitigate a lot of the issues that came up with the normal Summoner, (particularly how overpowered it was, due to it's build as you want nature it was often used and played incorrectly, and in a lot of ways grew out of control very fast), and that Paizo intentionally made the Unchained Summoner incompatible with much of the previous material. This was done on purpose, though it was done in a very general way. However, the expressed intent was to balance the class out as it always should have been by removing a lot of the options that allowed it to get so out of hand.

For example, you could literally use all of these arguments to apply to the Undead Lord Cleric Archetype. It also does not conflict with the setting lore, is not overpowered, is a fun addition to the game (being really the only option for a Cleric to have a pet, and like so many folks love to remind everyone, the PFS is not a Good organization, anything goes that gets the job done), and doesn't do anything that is not already otherwise allowed. It too, would be exceedingly easy to alter the Additional Resources to correct if made legal. However, it's not illegal because of any of those reasons, but rather because it is a metagame issue. That is because it could cause trouble with paladin players at the table and the like, (EVEN THOUGH a normal Necromancer/dark Cleric/Undead Controller class is perfectly legal) and would do the same thing. <Not arguing to make Undead Lord legal, just pointing it out as an example>

All of the archetypes that were super powerful are still listed as being banned on the document. Ultimate Magic still says that the broodmaster and synthesis summoner is banned, for instance. Advanced Race Guide still says that the shaitan binder is legal (which is where the disconnect my friend experienced came from). In building the unchained summoner, none of the existing options for the class were invalidated; the two classes have the same class features and names; most of what changed happened to the eidolon's ability progression (specifically the introduction of subtypes and the reduction of evolution points per level) and in the spell list composition of the summoner's spell list. The Pathfinder Design Team never intended to make the unchained summoner incompatible with any of the existing archetypes; although we have no direct comment from them, we can infer this to be true because the following line of text appears on page 8 in Pathfinder Unchained: "Finally, with the exception of the monk, these classes should work with any of the archetypes in previous books so long as the classes have the appropriate class features to replace."

The restrictions were placed on by the PFS Leadership, not the Pathfinder Design Team, and the point of the thread is to try and prove that changing the restrictions for the purpose of the shaitan binder archetype would not hurt Organized Play. It was not, "one of those options that destabilized Organized Play."

As for the undead lord, then we can add to the pile that the shaitan binder doesn't disrupt the flow of table play like the undead lord does. It doesn't create any scenarios where it forces the summoner into a position where it conflicts with the alignment identities of any other class currently in the game. Because the undead lord does that (and arguably creates the same problem as the broodmaster summoner in that it borks action economy for the class in question), it isn't a particularly good counter point.

Quote:

"Evidence #2:

With Evidence #1 in mind, is the shaitan binder overpowered? It does not disrupt the game’s action economy, like the broodmaster or master summoner, nor does it does not create a neigh unkiller engine of death, like the synthesis summoner does. Clearly, these are the archetypes that are the “problem children,” that PFS wants to avoid bringing back into the game. In the original blog that announced the sanctioning of the unchained classes, it was noted that the unchained summoner qualifies for all existing summoner archetypes, save those that modify the eidolon’s type or base form. Exactly what this means is extremely unclear because it doesn’t appear to reference actual rules text. . ." It's arguably true that the Shaitan Binder is not as broken as other examples, (which is partially matter of opinion), but it is also something that can easily open the door to reintroduce all of the issues with the original Summoner that PFS and PF in general tried to get rid of with the ruling and the Unchained Summoner.

In terms of "broken is a matter of opinion," there are plenty of ways to build every class so that it is broken. I've had entire, relatively tough scenarios die to a guy with the Spirited Charge feat. Hitting things for 90+ damage before rolling your weapon damage dice seems broken to me. But its still allowed in the interest of fun. Most of the issues with the original summoner can't be reintroduced "through the back door" of allowing this one archetype because those problems were inherent in the spell list, the evolution progression, and the number of evolution points per level, all of which cannot be adjusted back by any archetype. As I mentioned, the Additional Resources page still illegalizes all of the archetypes that were broken specifically by name, so this one change isn't going to build a case for those archetypes. Furthermore, most of the really crazy ones, the synthesis summoners, the broodmasters, the master summoners, they all have playtested experience on why those are bonkers and shouldn't be brought back. The only thing holding the shaitan binder back is the fear that allowing it will open the door to bring back those other, broken options, which simply isn't true.

Quote:

"Evidence #3:

This one is perhaps the most important: an unchained shaitan binder is not overpowered, nor does it clash with any existing flavor in the Pathfinder Society’s lore." This premise kind of goes back to #1, misrepresenting/misleading with the idea that these are the only reasons something is banned in PFS. However, that's not true. Something can also be banned because it is too complex, to open to abuse with other options, because it falls into a banned category of things, because they (PFS) wants to keep it reserved for a special reward later, or because it causes other metagame related issues, but is not actually clash with PFS flavor or themes.

I agree with you that flavor and power aren't the only reasons to keep something banned. In addressing your other notes too: 1) the shaitan binder is not a complex archetype. It makes minor alterations to the eidolon, 2) the shaitan binder was scarcely played, let alone abused, prior to Pathfinder Unchained, 3) playing "take backsies" with an archetype that was already legal and never made illegal to put it on a chronicle later is pretty lame, and 4) metagame issues basically goes back to overpowered-ness, which the archetype is not.

Sorry. There wasn't really anything else I could do for this one other than dissect the reasons you noted.

Quote:

"Evidence #4:

Nothing from the Unchained Society blog post was reprinted in the Additional Resources page, and the blog itself isn’t listed among the list of sanction Paizo blogs. And why should it be? The original summoner class was removed from the list of available legal sources, so any legalities listed on the Additional Resources page would, by default, have to refer to the unchained summoner. Technically, nothing needs to be done. The broken archetypes are still illegal because they were illegal for the APG summoner." This really doesn't seem to be an argument, evidence, or a premise at all, as much as a bribe perhaps, suggesting it would be easy to fix things to allow this one option, but not others.

Yeah, I didn't do a good job writing this one initially. My apologizes. My point was that the language isn't very clear, because despite what Tempest Knight said I couldn't find any note that, "All blog posts that the PFS Team does are automatically legalized for PFS play," anywhere in the Guide. (If you know it, a page number would be appreciated. That tiny book packs in a crazy amount of rules content, and I find stuff in there that I didn't know about all the time.)

Quote:
All of these lead to a Conclusion that is either wrong (worst case) or arguable based on opinion and preference (at best).

One of the dirty secrets of Game Design is that when you get right down to it, everything is an opinion. There is no mathematical way to determine if an option is broken or underpowered or not without actual trial experience. Game Design is more like Rocket Science and less like Math. All the numbers could be right for what you predict will happen, but when you actually go out and "do the thing," something happens that you never expected, and now you need to redo everything.

Jason Bulmahn has said the lore warden fighter archetype is overpowered because of the mathematical trades it makes. Mathematically and philosophy-wise, he's probably right. But no one would talk about removing an archetype like the lore warden from the game because in the grand context of things, the fighter is only as powerful as his feats, and the things that make the lore warden mathematically overpowered (the massive maneuver mastery bonus) tend to not be THAT overpowered in play because they more or less compensate for the fact that normally, combat maneuvers hardly ever go off at high levels.

To avoid rambling anymore than I already have, the point is that when you're making a case for anything Game Design wise, arguments are always going to be based upon opinion. What's overpowered in my game in my lodge might not be overpowered for you at your lodge, and vice versa. PFS needs to adopt as close of a middle line as it can, and my points are that if this archetype crosses into overpowered territory, it doesn't do it in a significant way. From a designer's perspective, it makes fair, sometimes poor, trades for what amount to character utility. I think this archetype would be fine in PFS play, and that's all I was trying to prove.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gamerskum wrote:
Did people skip johns post?

It appears as if it was completely missed by an individual or two, which then resulted in back-and-forth action.

Truth in Print, I was part of it for a while.

I remember back in my LARPing days as a Storyteller if a player came to me for a decision on how a mechanic worked, and then someone else attempted to boiler-plate and dismiss the decision I would have politely asked them to save it for after the game, then if player the second persisted I'd have them escorted from the premises, as they were being disruptive to play.

It's a *lot* different on forums when there is no game 'in-play' to disrupt.

In PFS we should strive to follow effectively Wheaton's Law. However, sometimes what crosses the line is different for each person, and one person offering to critique the original post thinking they're being a help could be another person's troll.

This also prompts individuals to 'defend' their points on either side of the discussion, which should have paused after the Developer comment, imo.

There was no call for the thread to be locked that I'm aware of from my limited perspective (which has happened a couple of times for 'cooling down' purposes in other threads), so there may be a mistaken belief that by providing ex post facto discussion after the Developers have said they are considering a thing that such a decision could be influenced by lobbying efforts for OR against a given topic.

Whether or not this is actually the case is unknown. Some hyperbole was tossed, some extra boiler-plate was added on either side.

One can hope that the discussion cools down after the weekend, as this issue is on the way to some sort of resolution already.

4/5 5/55/55/55/5 ****

Actually, Rocket Science is ALL about Math.

When you 'get all the math right' and then the 'unexpected' happens, it is not because of magic, it is math. You have just failed to account for all variables.

~
Back to the Topic
~

If we want to get into this...

When building a framework to 'prove' a position, each Point(Evidence) is a SINGLE argument.

The arguments MUST not be built on Logical Fallacies.

Include any needed Citation/References that are used in the argument, a link included in the text is fine.

~
1>
Your first Point is two disparate arguments. Also, they would better represent Assumptions used to 'validate' your arguments.

2>
Your second Point is a matter of subjective opinion, It would have been better argued that it is not as powerful as other options, then to state that it is not overpowered. Then provide actual evidence to support that argument, instead of just repeating your assertion.

3>
Your third Point is a matter of False Association and also requires we share your personal opinion. You assert again that it is not overpowered, and that the only other reason to ban is opposing flavor. Thus if it is not overpowered, nor opposing the flavor of PFS it must be made legal.

This ignores the full list of reasons that Campaign Leadership has provided in the past for reasons some options are not generally available, and adds a false associative property to your reasoning. (if it is not overpowered, nor opposing the flavor of PFS it must be legal)

4>
Your fourth Point is just plain wrong. I will have to dig around for the Citation... It might be in one of the sticky posts or an FAQ... like I said, I'll have to dig for it...

~

Your 'Evidence' is nothing but a collection of Assertions with no proof. You could have shown evidence that the Archetype is not on the same power curve as the others, you didn't.

Your 'Evidence' requires us to first agree with your position, then just restates your position ad nauseam.

Your 'Evidence' is nothing most then a collection of Assertions providing no Proof or Citation.

This is not an Argument/Proposal/Proof, it is a politely worded Rant.

~

That said, as I said in my first post in this thread, lets wait to see what the Campaign Leadership decides.

4/5 5/55/55/55/5 ****

Wei Ji, we might go about it differently, from what I have seen at least, but we both try to elevate the reasoning and debate skills of the player base.

I will admit that you tend more to the Velveteen Glove, and I to the Bludgeon...

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

TK:

Life is a learning experience, and if we're not learning something new every day, what are we actually doing with our lives?

That being said, I'm far from perfect, though I've *lived* through scores if not hundreds of similar discussions in the past in different settings as well as in-person.

It can get old after a while.

I prefer to help people develop and build their own conclusions and hopefully maybe share some enlightenment, without worrying as much about the 'nuts and bolts' anymore.

The previous organization I was with would have done the thing you did above, and I would have been right there, also pointing out that even the discussion point should be invalidated as the topic had already been addressed with previous iterations.

However, after fifteen years of going through that, I need some stress-less relaxation.

So yes, your Velvet Glove analogy may be closer to Silk, covering a worn hand not made of Steel, but of worn sinew and tired joints.

Dark Archive 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Two things to keep in mind for this thread.

The Fallacy Fallacy

and

There are two kinds of people in this world. Those who can not draw conclusions from incomplete data sets.

That being said, I think the Shaitan Binder looks like it could be made Unchained Legal without too many repercussions. I'd be in favor of it being made legal.

Community Manager

Removed some posts and their responses. Dial back the hostility, please, and keep this on topic.
Edit: Since there are two threads on this topic, I'm locking this one—go here for further discussion on Shaitan Binders in PFS.

Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Request to Officially Declare the Shaitan Binder a Legal Unchained Summoner Archetype All Messageboards