Suggestion for Adoption of Rule Changes


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
4/5 *** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston

@Finlanderboy: I've heard similar things about silently changing characters, though I always try to play my characters strictly within the rules, so I have a hard time when someone tells me to "quietly change and not say anything." I certainly understand why people do it, and I think it's perfectly *fair*, I just have a hard time when it comes to actually doing it myself.

I'd agree with where the fault lies here, though I should say, I don't think it's stubbornness, or any attempt to put a burden on the players. Pathfinder/PFS has been pretty good about expanding rebuilds for rule changes, but we've been hit with a *lot* over the last year (thanks to a poorly balanced ACG mostly it would seem...), and it's hard to cover everything. Yes, the impetus is still on them, but I think it's more them just being a bit slow to adapt to rather than stubbornness.

4/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Tampere

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't find it fair to say the team should never ban anything after it's been legal. To say they're not diligent enough at their jobs to go over every single book and realize every possible context in which material could be abused is demanding far too much of a small team of mere human beings. This system now has 40 legal classes, not to mention hundreds of archetypes, and the infinite possibilities of multiclassing. A mass of people will contain the individuals who are capable of constructing anything and everything effective out of that. The PFS team is a much smaller selection of people, with a limited amount of hours in their days.

There is tremendous pressure on the PFS team to legalize book content as soon as possible after the material is released: the main comment every single book gets after publication seems to be "when will this be PFS legal?". And Pathfinder gets new books pretty much every month. The game-breaking potential of something is not always easily noticed, even by the most rules-savvy people out there. Sure, players will eventually develop those game-breaking builds centered around just one thing, then share them to one another, and the snowball starts rolling. The more a system is abused, the more wary those running it are bound to get.

4/5 *** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston

Rei wrote:

I don't find it fair to say the team should never ban anything after it's been legal. To say they're not diligent enough at their jobs to go over every single book and realize every possible context in which material could be abused is demanding far too much of a small team of mere human beings. This system now has 40 legal classes, not to mention hundreds of archetypes, and the infinite possibilities of multiclassing. A mass of people will contain the individuals who are capable of constructing anything and everything effective out of that. The PFS team is a much smaller selection of people, with a limited amount of hours in their days.

...

So I don't want to derail this conversation completely, and I'd agree in a general sense that Paizo normally is as diligent as they can be about new material coming out. That being said, the problems with the ACG (in particular) were, IMO, pretty clearly them dropping the ball. It wasn't an issue of odd rules interactions, it was pretty basic things like not properly considering TWF, or not considering a single archetype/ability without any other context (Flamboyant Arcana, Daring Champion).

That said, these things will happen. Mistakes/oversights will be made, though in general, Paizo has been good with this given all the material they have. Paizo should have the ability to fix these. It'd just be nice if this can be done in a way that doesn't significantly impact existing characters.

4/5 *** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston

@GM Lamplighter: I know I also previously responded, but wanted to apologize for the tone on my initial response. You were right I was a bit frustrated.

The main point, however, is I'd agree it's a useful discussion to look at how any change can be abused within the rules and try to prevent this, but discussing ways people can cheat and then abuse PFS rules I just don't see as relevant.

The fact is that while we do things like online reporting and wealth tracker sheets, the PFS system is largely a trust-based system. There are lots of potential ways to cheat if someone really wants to, and when these crop up, the way to deal with this is to do our best to catch them and either report them to Paizo, or ban the individual players from games locally (we've had to do this...). I don't think Paizo wants to move to a PFS system where everything is completely verifiable, nor do I think it's desirable. And even if it is, it's not within the scope of this discussion.

3/5

tivadar27 wrote:

@GM Lamplighter: I know I also previously responded, but wanted to apologize for the tone on my initial response. You were right I was a bit frustrated.

The main point, however, is I'd agree it's a useful discussion to look at how any change can be abused within the rules and try to prevent this, but discussing ways people can cheat and then abuse PFS rules I just don't see as relevant.

The fact is that while we do things like online reporting and wealth tracker sheets, the PFS system is largely a trust-based system. There are lots of potential ways to cheat if someone really wants to, and when these crop up, the way to deal with this is to do our best to catch them and either report them to Paizo, or ban the individual players from games locally (we've had to do this...). I don't think Paizo wants to move to a PFS system where everything is completely verifiable, nor do I think it's desirable. And even if it is, it's not within the scope of this discussion.

I am not arguing to cheat. I am saying people PFS has chosen to help run this agree the current rule system is incorrect and should be cheated to rectify. I was more offering a solution.

Now this is not perfect and could use retooling the exact wording of it, but is a rule change alters your character a rebuild option may be able to gotten from a VO. Now I have heard a VO say they are too busy for that(and my answert then is do not be a VO venture agent is up your alley), but there are enough of them if one is busy I am sure another one would help. I know my local officers and they are great people and would enjoy talking to me about such things. Heck I have spent hours talking with them about character builds.

3/5

Kurald Galain wrote:
We had at least one guy who played about a dozen level-1 scenarios last minute so he could stockpile Aasimar and Tiefling characters, in what he would proudly explain was a clear abuse but nevertheless technically legal.

One thing nobody has ever been able to explain is what harm he was actually doing. He has a few Aasimar and Teiflings stockpiled: So what?

EDIT: On the actual subject of the thread, I would have no problem with the OP's suggestion as long as has been refined in this thread.

_
glass.

Grand Lodge 4/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
glass wrote:
One thing nobody has ever been able to explain is what harm he was actually doing. He has a few Aasimar and Teiflings stockpiled: So what?

Establishing precedence for ignoring the requests of the campaign staff. Thus, requests will no longer be made.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
glass wrote:
One thing nobody has ever been able to explain is what harm he was actually doing. He has a few Aasimar and Teiflings stocpiled: So what?

The harm is twofold.

Firstly, we were given notice of retirement as a courtesy, but explicitly requested to not abuse it. Stockpiling dozens of copies of the race, with the intention of rebuilding them into whatever they want later, violates that request. It sends a message to the PFS leadership that we can't be trusted to honor anything that's not a hard and fast rule.

Given the entire cluster that the native outsiders' retirement has caused, I'd honestly be surprised if we're given any kind of warning before the next batch of race retirements goes into effect.

Second, it's a giant middle finger to new players. I'm going to make an assumption, and say that the player (we'll call them X) who's stockpiled dozens of aasimars/tieflings, isn't doing so because they have that many character concepts which require the race. X is most likely doing so because those two options are explicitly more powerful than any other currently playable race.

So, any time a new player sits at a table with X, they're treated to the spectacle of X playing a PC who is explicitly more powerful than theirs; a type of PC they can never get, because they weren't around to abuse the system. Effectively, X gets permanent access to aasimar and tiefling, even though that privilege is denied to everyone else. Which sends an awful message.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
glass wrote:
One thing nobody has ever been able to explain is what harm he was actually doing. He has a few Aasimar and Teiflings stockpiled: So what?
Establishing precedence for ignoring the requests of the campaign staff. Thus, requests will no longer be made.

As I remember, the announcement explicitly mentioned the stockpiling, in a "it's okay to stockpile a couple" kind of way. But of course a couple isn't the same as dozens. Still, it's a door that was pushed open by leadership, so let's keep that in mind when complaining that people stepped through it.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

"Give them an inch, they'll take a mile"?

4/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Tampere

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
"Give them an inch, they'll take a mile"?

Or like we say here in Finland, "I gave them the pinky and they took the whole hand".

5/5 5/55/55/5

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
"Give them an inch, they'll ...

Sharpen it into a point, use it to shiv the guard, gnaw off the guards legs, sharpen the femur into a point , use that to stab the other guard and take his weapon, poison that with his offal, kill the warden, free the prisoners, and use the prison as a base of operations to begin the extermination of the entire goblinoid race.

3/5

I was going to respond, but I don't want to drag this thread further off topic. Sorry OP!

_
glass.

3/5

Apparently it's re-hash bitter divisive arguments in PFS day.
Do we really want to go through this again? ... because if so, I've a feeling that we'll be cruising for a thread-lock.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
glass wrote:
One thing nobody has ever been able to explain is what harm he was actually doing. He has a few Aasimar and Teiflings stockpiled: So what?
Establishing precedence for ignoring the requests of the campaign staff. Thus, requests will no longer be made.

I really don't get this. It was establish up front that it was ok, and ENCOURAGED to stockpile a few of these, with around 10 being the "ok" mark.

Blog Post wrote:
Does this mean you can create several new characters, play a scenario with each, and have several native outsiders waiting for when you need them? Well, we debated long and hard whether to require 4 XP per character, as at that point one is past the free rebuilding stage. However, we also recognized this as unnecessarily punitive to casual players who may only be able to play once or twice in the next month. To answer your question, yes, you can make 10 aasimars and play The Confirmation an equal number of times, but we're trusting you'll exercise some good taste and respect a decision made with the larger community in mind.

I have lost the links, but there where two others around that time where Mike Brock had said something along the lines of "sure, we want people to b able to be able to save five to ten for a rainy day, and I don't even expect most players to be able to play all ten of them if they do, so it's completely intentional".

The harm was really two fold. One is because some DM's just hated Aasimar, thinking they where overpowered (they are really not), hated the "cantina affect" (too many non-humanoids), and just wanted them out. The other side is that someone found out that the easiest way to do what was suggested about was to instead run the Master of the Fallen Fortress module, and bragged about doing so enough that the group had gotten so adapt at playing it they managed to finish it in 15 minutes. Had nothing to do with Aasimar, but rather that they where perceived as bragging about running 10 games within a few hours, (getting full GM credit, and basically ignoring the story/plot) to grind through it as fast as possible.

Grand Lodge 4/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DM Beckett wrote:
I really don't get this. It was establish up front that it was ok, and ENCOURAGED to stockpile a few of these, with around 10 being the "ok" mark.

"... we're trusting you'll exercise some good taste and respect a decision made with the larger community in mind."

Good taste was not exercised.

The Exchange 5/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
I really don't get this. It was establish up front that it was ok, and ENCOURAGED to stockpile a few of these, with around 10 being the "ok" mark.

"... we're trusting you'll exercise some good taste and respect a decision made with the larger community in mind."

Good taste was not exercised.

Oh, I don't know. For the most part I think it was.

I'd say more than 9 out of 10 times, perhaps as many as 98%.

At least from what I've seen...

Grand Lodge 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm not going to argue perceptions.

Grand Lodge

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
I really don't get this. It was establish up front that it was ok, and ENCOURAGED to stockpile a few of these, with around 10 being the "ok" mark.

"... we're trusting you'll exercise some good taste and respect a decision made with the larger community in mind."

Good taste was not exercised.

In the Bay Area as far as I know I was involved in the most productive "Outsider grind." At least that was advertised as such. We made...2-3? And one of the characters I made was human. From everything I've gathered from the boards and heard in real life, there wasn't a widespread problem, but a few specific groups ruining it for the rest of the world. And it has changed policy going forward so drastically. Personally I'd like to see some numbers on the abuse, because I've only heard of the specific group previously mentioned as a large abuse case. I'd really like some more perspective on why campaign leadership felt that instance was so horribly abused, as that was not our experience.

I think that there is still a discussion to be had on warning lights. I remember buying a book for Pageant of the Peacock(most of Dragonslayer's is fairly irrelevant to PFS), and getting whacked with the ban hammer very unceremoniously. Some advance warning on these things might invite discussion and soften the blow of removing or altering problematic options.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kurthnaga wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
I really don't get this. It was establish up front that it was ok, and ENCOURAGED to stockpile a few of these, with around 10 being the "ok" mark.

"... we're trusting you'll exercise some good taste and respect a decision made with the larger community in mind."

Good taste was not exercised.

In the Bay Area as far as I know I was involved in the most productive "Outsider grind." At least that was advertised as such. We made...2-3? And one of the characters I made was human. From everything I've gathered from the boards and heard in real life, there wasn't a widespread problem, but a few specific groups ruining it for the rest of the world. And it has changed policy going forward so drastically. Personally I'd like to see some numbers on the abuse, because I've only heard of the specific group previously mentioned as a large abuse case. I'd really like some more perspective on why campaign leadership felt that instance was so horribly abused, as that was not our experience.

I think that there is still a discussion to be had on warning lights. I remember buying a book for Pageant of the Peacock(most of Dragonslayer's is fairly irrelevant to PFS), and getting whacked with the ban hammer very unceremoniously. Some advance warning on these things might invite discussion and soften the blow of removing or altering problematic options.

Pageant of the Peacock was very heavily discussed on the boards before it was banned. That's part of the reason it was banned.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Kurthnaga wrote:


I think that there is still a discussion to be had on warning lights. I remember buying a book for Pageant of the Peacock(most of Dragonslayer's is fairly irrelevant to PFS), and getting whacked with the ban hammer very unceremoniously. Some advance warning on these things might invite discussion and soften the blow of removing or altering problematic options.

i think that one got sped up because there was ambiguity about how it was supposed to work for a while, the author said it used the insane interpretation of versatile performance on...whatever steroids take when they want to up their game , so it needed to go.

Grand Lodge

James McTeague wrote:
Kurthnaga wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
I really don't get this. It was establish up front that it was ok, and ENCOURAGED to stockpile a few of these, with around 10 being the "ok" mark.

"... we're trusting you'll exercise some good taste and respect a decision made with the larger community in mind."

Good taste was not exercised.

In the Bay Area as far as I know I was involved in the most productive "Outsider grind." At least that was advertised as such. We made...2-3? And one of the characters I made was human. From everything I've gathered from the boards and heard in real life, there wasn't a widespread problem, but a few specific groups ruining it for the rest of the world. And it has changed policy going forward so drastically. Personally I'd like to see some numbers on the abuse, because I've only heard of the specific group previously mentioned as a large abuse case. I'd really like some more perspective on why campaign leadership felt that instance was so horribly abused, as that was not our experience.

I think that there is still a discussion to be had on warning lights. I remember buying a book for Pageant of the Peacock(most of Dragonslayer's is fairly irrelevant to PFS), and getting whacked with the ban hammer very unceremoniously. Some advance warning on these things might invite discussion and soften the blow of removing or altering problematic options.

Pageant of the Peacock was very heavily discussed on the boards before it was banned. That's part of the reason it was banned.

Other options have been discussed frequently as well. Until campaign staff says they're looking in to things towards the crowd I assume I'm okay to go ahead with anything available in additional resources.

Quote:
i think that one got sped up because there was ambiguity about how it was supposed to work for a while, the author said it used the insane interpretation of versatile performance on...whatever steroids take when they want to up their game , so it needed to go.

I don't think it was an insane interpretation in terms of RAW, in my mind it's clearly what the masterpiece did. Was it too powerful? Likely, although I err on the side that something that simply gives people information is rarely too powerful, and I liked the idea if not the execution completely. With how lightly the splat books are curated, I'm in favor of some measure of increased certainty that what is allowed will remain allowed, whether it's putting books on probationary periods(allowing people notice that maybe it's not a good idea to build a character around this thing), increasing time it takes to allow new additional resources, maybe even letting some seasoned venture agents or store owners look over prospective new options and allowing their input on if it's good for the campaign.

But neither of those things change that transparency is rarely a bad thing, particularly on this subject of banning available options. While I don't know what to expect, I'm not sure how much of a line Campaign leadership has on in the pipe errata, I feel like the community has not abused leadership's trust from my point of view. I'd at least like some conversation about why things are the way they are now, was the Aasimar case truly so abusive that it's worth the on/off system we have now?

For the record I'm not disputing that campaign obviously have the right to ban whatever they think is problematic towards campaign health, but I think that more conversation and input about the direction of balance and where we're headed will mostly show good things.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Kurthnaga wrote:
I don't think it was an insane interpretation in terms of RAW, in my mind it's clearly what the masterpiece did. Was it too powerful? Likely, although I err on the side that something that simply gives people information is rarely too powerful, and I liked the idea if not the execution completely.

One skill gave you FOURTEEN other skills. maxed out.

Knowledge skills are powerful in pfs. They're often the key to the mission, the secondary success condition, and what weird type of alchemical metal you need to stab something with. in another less skill centric campaign that might not be a nuclear option but for PFS 14 skill points for 1 is obscene.

There was no doubt once that interpretation came down that its goose was cooked.

Grand Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Kurthnaga wrote:
I don't think it was an insane interpretation in terms of RAW, in my mind it's clearly what the masterpiece did. Was it too powerful? Likely, although I err on the side that something that simply gives people information is rarely too powerful, and I liked the idea if not the execution completely.

One skill gave you FOURTEEN other skills. maxed out.

Knowledge skills are powerful in pfs. They're often the key to the mission, the secondary success condition, and what weird type of alchemical metal you need to stab something with. in another less skill centric campaign that might not be a nuclear option but for PFS 14 skill points for 1 is obscene.

There was no doubt once that interpretation came down that its goose was cooked.

In exchange for a standard action in combat frequently, a few rounds of bardic performance, and a second level spell known. It was a serious drop in your combat effectiveness for the first few levels you had it. I invested other feats to make myself better at it too. I agree it was too extreme one way, but I consider feats like skill focus and the dual skill options far too weak mechanically in comparison to combat oriented options. No skill feat is as powerful as quicken spell, power attack, spirited charge, manyshot, or any of the other powerful combat options present in the Core line products. While Pageant was a bit egregious in my opinion it's closer to in line with those feats than skill focus is.

PFS may have more skill reliance than it used to, but it's still a primarily combat dominated campaign. That our ability to be powerful in skill checks is so weak in comparison is silly. And I've maxed skill checks on plenty of my characters. You basically only get 1-2 skills at a powerful level before it infringes heavily on your combat ability, and in a lot of scenarios that can and will get you killed.

But this is a tangent. This is not about Pageant, or it's not supposed to be. I'd like to see a forum dedicated to this kind of discussion on available options away from GD, we need a place to civilly and rationally discuss what options are good for the campaign away from the eyes of those who are not interested.

5/5 5/55/55/5

They do that sort of thing over on the secret candy boards.

Grand Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
They do that sort of thing over on the secret candy boards.

I surmised as much, it's reasonable to me, although I'd personally enjoy one open to the public, and I do think that a place outside of GD for "Ban this!" threads would be good.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Kurthnaga wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
They do that sort of thing over on the secret candy boards.
I surmised as much, it's reasonable to me, although I'd personally enjoy one open to the public, and I do think that a place outside of GD for "Ban this!" threads would be good.

signal to noise ratio is a little too low

3/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Good taste was not exercised.

True. The VO's choice to use their private access boards to get their pet peeve races banned seriously eroded player faith in PF leadership, which continues to this day. This is especially true when VOs make comments about not being able to trust the player base due to the actions of a tiny minority. Somewhat like the delusion it's somehow easier to dummy up a photocopy than put a watermark on a .pdf - the entire player base is penalized due to the actions of a minority so small they are statistically insignificant. Thus the nigh-endless "ban this" threads - because PF leadership has shown that if you complain about something loud enough, you'll probably get your way, even if it does more harm than good.

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
I'm not going to argue perceptions.

Except that you obviously are. Or is that a statement of future intent?

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

Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Aside from the discussion at hand, I would like to bring to attention that the guide now has language in it that allows for an "implementation delay" of new rule changes. It allows GMs to allow players to play characters correctly built under previous rules and to mark an implementation delay on the chronicle sheet. It specifically calls out conventions that occur soon after errata occur such as Gen Con 2015, when the ACG and ARG errata came down within a week of the show starting). Of course, this is at GM discretion, but it does seem to answer some of the concerns brought up earlier.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TimD wrote:
Except that you obviously are. Or is that a statement of future intent?

Correct.

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
I'm not going to argue perceptions.

Maybe you should.

Most of the PFS organisational rules are based on trust - they're very difficult to enforce, and if enforced to the letter, would result in players - in the words of Mike Brock - "finding a different hobby".

The more punitive and inconvenient rules are perceived to be, the more justified a player might be to ignore them.

The people at our tables aren't our employees or our students. If the rule doesn't pass the common sense test or doesn't seem fair, it degrades the community's respect for the leadership.

Once this is lost, people are more likely to abuse loopholes or flat out ignore rulings.

Maintaining a perception of balance and fairness is paramount.

Community Manager

Removed some unhelpful posts. Please be civil, thank you!

The Exchange 5/5

nosig wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
I really don't get this. It was establish up front that it was ok, and ENCOURAGED to stockpile a few of these, with around 10 being the "ok" mark.

"... we're trusting you'll exercise some good taste and respect a decision made with the larger community in mind."

Good taste was not exercised.

Oh, I don't know. For the most part I think it was.

I'd say more than 9 out of 10 times, perhaps as many as 98%.

At least from what I've seen...

you know, this has been on my mind for the last few days, and it's causing me to wonder.

I've been asking around to the people I know in the hobby - even those not in my local/state. And I haven't found anyone who knows anyone who created more than 4 PCs during this period. Several people have said something to the effect, "Well, I heard on the boards..." or "When I was at XXX Con last year, this guy at our table told us about some guys he knows...".

SO... anyone out there actually create more than 4 Tiefling/Aasimar PCs during the grace period? Personally?

Let's make this a contest - who created the most? and How many were created?

In the interest of full disclosure - I created 3 myself (though I did have several others, more than one created with the old Race Boons).

(edit: I checked, and had to correct my number created. I only created 3 in that period, not 4.)

4/5

One here, but he's also an APG summoner.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

One extra of each for me.

Dark Archive 5/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Captain, Germany—Rhein Main South

3 for me. But it did not help that I played at a convention with only replayables offered during this grace period.

The Exchange 5/5

so, 9 PCs created in the grace period for 4 persons responding so far...

so an average of slightly over 2 per Player.

I notice that there were 16 total GM stars in those 4 players... not sure if that indicates anything...

Shadow Lodge 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:
I notice that there were 16 total GM stars in those 4 players... not sure if that indicates anything...

That we run a lot of games? And are more likely to be posting to the forums where such a question was asked?

The Exchange 3/5

I made one of each. The tiefling was made into a human later though. So one total?

Grand Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic

0 in the Grace period.

But already had 2 Tieflings (1 with a boon) and 1 Aasimar (out of +/- 20 characters) and compared to the actual Golarion population that's too high of a percentage already. ;-)

Lantern Lodge 5/5

None for me, but that was more a reaction to the already-prevalent outsider bloat that was sweeping Omaha at the time. (I had to weigh the mechanical superiority against the fact that I'd been pretty outspoken about them already, and decided to abstain from the rush. I played alongside plenty of new level 1s).

One Teifling was plenty, and he was level 9 at the time of The Cull.

The Exchange 5/5

TOZ wrote:
nosig wrote:
I notice that there were 16 total GM stars in those 4 players... not sure if that indicates anything...
That we run a lot of games? And are more likely to be posting to the forums where such a question was asked?

yeah - that. makes sense. ;)

Grand Lodge 2/5

I already had one of each. I "banked" a single tiefling during the grace period.

Dark Archive 1/5

I wasn't part of PFS during the grace period. In fact, I had only just recently started messing around with the Aasimar race when I joined PFS, and didn't actually have any of the books the race is included in. I bought Blood of Angels on recommendation of the regional coordinator upon learning the convention I was going to GM at would grant me an aasimar race boon.

Grand Lodge

Jeff Hazuka wrote:

None for me, but that was more a reaction to the already-prevalent outsider bloat that was sweeping Omaha at the time. (I had to weigh the mechanical superiority against the fact that I'd been pretty outspoken about them already, and decided to abstain from the rush. I played alongside plenty of new level 1s).

One Teifling was plenty, and he was level 9 at the time of The Cull.

IMO humans are actually still better than Tieflings & Aasimar's for most characters, particularly for playing all the way through as early the extra feat and skills are so valuable to a character.

Anyway, I made one during the grace period, was playing with people who made 3 but I'd decided at the time that only one of them really fit into concept for me as an outsider. I think I have 3 of Aasimar/Tiefling total, mostly because I bought BoA/BoD splat books and wanted to use the cool options.

Grand Lodge 4/5

One tiefling. I still don't have an aasimar.

4/5 ****

There was definitely abuse. I am not at liberty to discuss the details unfortunately.

Somewhere around 25 if you need a data point.

51 to 100 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Suggestion for Adoption of Rule Changes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.