|
My best guess, it's banned because stalker exists.
Many people felt there was no reason to play a rogue when ninja was released. It was the rogue class, but better because of ki pool.
Teisatsu is the stalker but given a ki pool as a mandatory talent and then allowed to choose from the "better" talents of monk ki pool and ninja tricks, so not giving up anything be delayed access of your first talent.
basically, can you justify choosing to play a normal stalker when the teisatsu was an option for you to play?
To me it seems that the PFS material counsel decided no, and thus to preserve the stalker choice as valid they banned the material that was "seen as better, a must choose".
Another thing to consider is that it is vastly superior to the ninja. While personally I think the Ninja badly needed an upgrade in order to be able to stand up to the unchained Rogue I guess campaign leadership didn't.
|
I'm familiar with the archetype. I still don't see why it's banned.
While you are familiar as the person asking the question, many of us are not. It is generally a good policy to leave a link to the rule/archetype you are asking about, in this case I believe Nefreet was taking care of that for you.
That said, while some people may be able to give you there opinion on why it was banned, it is unlikely to be definitively answered. The traditional reasons for banning something include:
1) Flavor reasons - i.e. it's evil, linked to some non-Pathfinder organization, linked to some rare weird thing, it doesn't fit the flavor of PFS (in Golarion)
2)Crunch i.e. it's overpowered, there's an odd rule interaction that is either highly exploitable or commonly interpreted differently to what was intended, it's linked to something that was already banned so as to prevent a backdoor into a banned option,
3)Other i.e. Being saved for a potential boon, being saved for an upcoming enemy/story arc
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yup, thus martial are doomed to be bad. If a martial was to get anything good it is taken away because now it's too OP for that niche.
Rogue is awful, ban every archetype that tries to fix issue and make rogue better because it is better than base rogue and thus is OP for it's niche.
I don't like niche protection. If the ninja isn't desirable compared to other options that's the ninja's problem. I'm not excited about losing cool stuff because we need to keep the ninja's employed. People play un-archetype core monks and core rogues even now, so it's not like just because there's a better option everyone wont pick the other.
|
My best guess, it's banned because stalker exists.
Many people felt there was no reason to play a rogue when ninja was released. It was the rogue class, but better because of ki pool.
Teisatsu is the stalker but given a ki pool as a mandatory talent and then allowed to choose from the "better" talents of monk ki pool and ninja tricks, so not giving up anything be delayed access of your first talent.basically, can you justify choosing to play a normal stalker when the teisatsu was an option for you to play?
To me it seems that the PFS material counsel decided no, and thus to preserve the stalker choice as valid they banned the material that was "seen as better, a must choose".
I'm not buying it. By that reasoning, unchained rogue and ninja should be banned. Half the archetypes in pfs should be banned. It is slightly better than a standard stalker, but still not as good as an unchained rogue or ninja.
|
|
The issue is the stuff you're bringing up is already locked in. I'm saying that the current trend I've seen in banning is banning stuff that is "better" than other options, aka niche protection.
I feel that if they could do a repass on various archetypes they would probably ban them for being better.
I don't advocate that it should be this way. Just that it's the main reason my thread was able to come up with when I asked this question 6 months ago.
The recent influx of FAQrata/Campaign Clarifications for options like the Invulnerable Rager, which was widely regarded as superior to the base Barb, gives further credit to Chess Pwn's argument.
|
|
Isn't the whole point of archetypes to customize your character without having to multiclass or take a bunch of extra feats? This banning things that are not op for niche protection is pure bs. I do think a lot of it has to do with martials not being allowed to have nice things. If I want to do x cool thing as a martial I have to take several classes and certain archetypes and several feats to do it poorly or I can play a caster and cast a 3rd level spell. Throw the martials a bone.
|
|
So it's not certain that's WHY it was banned.
If it was just this archetype then maybe held for boon.
But with it and a a slew of other recent options that are banned and my only guess as to why is niche protection.
They aren't obviously evil or evil tones.
They aren't OP, broken, nor apt for table variance.
Nor do I expect all these options to be held for boons.