Guide 4.2 and Changes to Pathfinder Society Organized Play

Pfffft, that's only Thea. I'm too tall to be a gnome.

Too much Growth HorGnome, methinks. ;-)

I wanted to thank everyone in the PFS community. . .

And thank you for livening up the mood of the thread a bit.

:)

:) I try! If I have to troll someone on a forum, I can at least serve it up with rainbows and sunshine!

Hey all,

I wanted to thank everyone in the PFS community, especially those who have put your trust and support into the decisions of the campaign. I hope you understand that it's really not some sort of bizarre mind washing conspiracy that goes on behind closed doors. The VOs all have different opinions, just like you. Some of us are min-maxers, some of us are lore junkies, some of us are rules lawyers, and some of us are happy carebears. We run the gamut of alignments and classes and backgrounds. But the thing we have in common is a great love of PFS. We don't live in bubbles. We have characters that we play and love. We have home games, and game days, and cons. We GM and spend long hours poring over the latest books and we do crazy stuff for the love of the game and the community. And to reflect what some posters said above, we do it because we love you*.

Thank you to everyone who has given constructive feedback on this thread. I really believe these changes will make the maximum amount of players have the best play experience. I know some people will disagree, and that's ok. I think, however, that from the support from this thread, I'm not alone :)

*I'm a girl so it's not creepy when I say it, NYAH!

*quietly drags the ambient mood of the thread back to "dismal"*

Considering that the dust from Gen Con has settled and granting an odd grace during that period of time...I was hoping for a more organized response but I'll take what I can get.

While I appreciate that you're posting in an attempt to humanize the discussion a bit more, what you're saying is, at best, still anecdotal and does little to address the actual dissent (which is, for the sake of reiteration, the criteria used in judging the recently banned archetypes). And, as with Walter Sheppard's most recent contribution (to which Mr. Shepphard appears to be expecting protection from accountability because he's a "volunteer") and Daniel Luckett's posts (in which he refuses to accept the same simply by virtue of being defeatist), attempting to redirect the issue does not solve nor address it.

*sigh*

I guess I'll use a simple comparison since I'm starting to become weary of these repeated attempts at creating empathy with the Venture-Captains (by the Venture-Captains). If a public ordinance in your local area (state, district, etc.) were to say that "using cars is now illegal," the locals inhabiting the local area should ask "why?" and challenge local representatives and legislature to provide studies and other materials that are conducive to making the use of cars illegal in the local area. In much the same way, Pathfinder Society is attempting to make illegal what material used to be legal (in this case, the material in contention are the recently banned archetypes - of whom personal opinions may vary) and expecting not to need to provide either supportive evidence or any explanations (as seen by the actions of a certain Campaign Coordinator).

Hi Baka!

I think the reason you're getting some negative feedback is that you keep asking the same question when many points have been previously addressed. I shall make my best attempt at giving you a satisfactory answer.

Why are these classes banned? For a lot of reasons. Some of these reasons are because they do not fit into the world of Golarion from a lore standpoint, are not suitable for a game that is meant to be PG-13, cause problems at the table because they are difficult to manage in an efficient manner, are easy to abuse and break, employ difficult mechanics, or simply don't work for Pathfinder Society.

Why these classes and not X? Again, it's complicated. We listened to the community. We debated a lot of classes, abilities, equipment, etc. We gave M&M our opinions, which all differed wildly, since we are flawed human beings. They made a final decision based off their BEST judgement, and feedback from you, the community.

We are not saying that their decision was perfect. M&M are human beings. VOs are human beings. Sometimes stuff makes it into PFS and we find that after months of playing a given archetype/ability/whatever that the campaign would be better without it. Unfortunately, this means that the brave and wonderful souls who essentially play tested it will have to give it up. We salute their sacrifice, and give them the ability to make a new build. The alternative to this process of campaign revision is that we ban everything by default, keeping the player base stagnating for fear of change. I don't think that anyone would benefit from that.

I am not giving character references for the VOs in order to elicit your sympathy for our lot in life. I am attempting to convey that we are in the same boat as you. And I am attempting to convey that we are not in fact operating in a black box, but are instead listening and drawing the communities responses.

I'm sorry that I don't have a black and white answer to give you, because frankly there isn't one. There was no hard foolproof reason for keeping one thing and not the other. Lots of people disagree. But at some point, the line has to be drawn somewhere.

You are looking for an organized response when there isn't one. We are just silly little people making a futile stab in the dark. We are hoping if we make enough stabs in the right direction, then we will set this seething, wonderful mass of players on the right path. You want to know why the path was carved in a particular direction, like the hand of God parting the veil. What I'm trying to tell you is that we are more like the crooked path of ants, sending out scouts in wayward directions, hoping to draw the colony towards a better place of plentiful dropped sandwich crumbs (ooh! This crumb has Ultimate Equiptment on it!)

Walter and Dan were doing their best to answer your questions. Attacking their character is a logical fallacy that does not contribute to the persuasiveness of your argument. Please, let me know if my current line of argument is more satisfactory than my attempt at optimistic lightheartedness.

Nani Pratt for president! Very well said!

Hi Baka!

How rude of me not to include this in my original version. D:

Salutations, Nani Pratt!

I think the reason you're getting some negative feedback is that you keep asking the same question when many points have been previously addressed. I shall make my best attempt at giving you a satisfactory answer.

From my vantage point, non-answers are not explanations. But opinions may vary on this (and I wouldn't be surprised). However, for the sake of specificity, citing the NDA (or the existence of it) is not an explanation and neither is blithely stating "we discussed it" (as was done in the past and what I've been trying to work around even now).

Why are these classes banned? For a lot of reasons. Some of these reasons are because they do not fit into the world of Golarion from a lore standpoint, are not suitable for a game that is meant to be PG-13, cause problems at the table because they are difficult to manage in an efficient manner, are easy to abuse and break, employ difficult mechanics, or simply don't work for Pathfinder Society.

Second sentence on is a bit too contradictory to me (as it clashes with the other material present in PFS). If possible, could you please re-frame this point?

Why these classes and not X? Again, it's complicated. We listened to the community. We debated a lot of classes, abilities, equipment, etc. We gave M&M our opinions, which all differed wildly, since we are flawed human beings. They made a final decision based off their BEST judgement, and feedback from you, the community.

I know I can't put this kindly...but I'll try, I really will.

Were the opinions not specifically vocalized on the Paizo forums considered? Were the dissections of different mechanics looked at and studied? When all of this aggregated information was presented to Paizo's staff, did they look at the meta that exists beyond Paizo's forum?

Without presenting any information regarding the criteria used to assess the mechanics (in this case, the archetypes), none of these sample questions are answered and no one can find fault with them (as the opportunity does not exist).

I know I haven't argued this in this thread but, just because the majority believes one thing does not necessarily mean they are right (of course, neither are the minority at times, but, in this case, it's difficult to find something wrong with asking for the criteria used - ignoring the possibility of irking the staff).

We are not saying that their decision was perfect. M&M are human beings. VOs are human beings. Sometimes stuff makes it into PFS and we find that after months of playing a given archetype/ability/whatever that the campaign would be better without it. Unfortunately, this means that the brave and wonderful souls who essentially play tested it will have to give it up. We salute their sacrifice, and give them the ability to make a new build. The alternative to this process of campaign revision is that we ban everything by default, keeping the player base stagnating for fear of change. I don't think that anyone would benefit from that.

And that's not true now? Any material not accepted in Pathfinder Society is considered "banned" as is any material not currently released to the public. If one were to deconstruct it, all material released by Paizo is banned from Pathfinder Society play until Paizo's staff explicitly says otherwise (hence the Additional Materials section and the restrictions presented in the list). As an example, it's not as though the alternative Aasimar or Tiefling variant abilities were publicly tested before the material was not allowed (that is, as far as I can remember, I've never seen discussions of sacrificing the spell-like abilities for an additional +2 to an ability score).

But, in either case, presenting a strict dichotomy of choices doesn't work because there are other options available. Publicly declaring that certain material is being "audited" and creating the understanding that it is a "public play test" of the material reduces the need for a discussion such as this (but does not entirely mitigate it as expectations towards answers may increase). Similarly, using purposefully destructive play-testing in order to test the upper limits of the mechanics (while keeping in mind whatever the mechanic may be modifying) without moving to a public play-test may be deemed "acceptable" (though, an explanation may still be necessary as the chances are only reduced due to the public having never considered the legality of the material).

I am not giving character references for the VOs in order to elicit your sympathy for our lot in life. I am attempting to convey that we are in the same boat as you. And I am attempting to convey that we are not in fact operating in a black box, but are instead listening and drawing the communities responses.

And while I understand that everyone is bound to the "real world" (definitions may vary, so quotations were included), it does not change the actual situation nor the analysis of it. Though, it seems your definition of a "black box" differs from mine. As I, personally, am unaware of any definition that states "a block box is no longer a black box by virtue of listening to opinions but never actually expressing the interior machinations."

I'm sorry that I don't have a black and white answer to give you, because frankly there isn't one. There was no hard foolproof reason...

I'll reiterate a previous point I've made, I'm not here to strangle either Paizo's staff or the Venture-Captains for a "perfect, foolproof reason;" rather, I am here "pulling teeth" in order to get either of the aforementioned parties to explain and present their criteria in a meaningful and productive manner (so far, this has not been met).

As to my comments on Mr. Luckett or Mr. Sheppard,

I do not appreciate non-answers disguised as answers (and I've made this point several times ever since I first posted in this thread) and neither do I appreciate people who attempt to shift responsibility from themselves to others (especially when claiming to represent the greater majority). If they had wished to explain why they can't answer something while taking a neutral stance, then it's simple, state that "due to the presence of the NDA, "I" (in this case, either Mr. Luckett or Mr. Sheppard) am unable to specify any of the criteria used in our discussion." It is not necessary for the reply to include any of the extra material I've pointed out in the past.

[Edit]
On this note, I'll be favoriting your post as it's the first attempt to a back-and-forth discussion by a representative of either the Venture-Captains or Paizo's staff (and not simply a commentary - though I may be disproved in the future).

--- Specificity

[Edit the Edit]
Since I just realized your request now. Being as optimistic as you like is fine - I'm just prone to disliking insincere answers (or ones that are subjectively noted as such, since that may vary as well); though, my comment on "dragging down the ambient mood" was a direct reference to Beckett's response.

[Edit the Edit the Edit]
Grammar...grammar...grammar...

So...I guess my answer is not satisfactory? :)

I guess that I just won't be able to come up with an answer that is satisfactory to you, and for that I apologize. I am very poor at these kinds of line by line arguments. I simply cannot articulate myself in a meaningful and productive manner. I apologize, since I am very tired after having volunteered four days nonstop at Gencon, which is of course a specious argument. As you kindly pointed out, being a regional coordinator, having run over a hundred sessions, and having a general sense of love and peace and hippie emotions for this game affords me no additional weight whatsoever. And I absolutely agree. There are indeed VOs who hide behind these artificial constructs and make rather incompetent statements and judgements.

Since you are so clearly passionate about this game, and are in possession of a keen Intellect with an aptitude for critical analysis, as well as some spare time to read the messageboards, might I make a humble suggestion? Perhaps you should volunteer your powers in service as an organizer and as a Venture-Officer. We are in need of passionate volunteers to help us make critical decisions, and we welcome opposing viewpoints to our own in order to make the best choices. We are very interested in your expertise in the meta that exists outside of Paizo's forums. Then, you will be a part of the administrative process, and you can hold us accountable for our process.

That is why most of us applied as VOs. We saw a desire in ourselves to make PFS better, and a need for those who have something to contribute.

Edit: I am never insincere.

And, as with Walter Sheppard's most recent contribution (to which Mr. Shepphard appears to be expecting protection from accountability because he's a "volunteer") and Daniel Luckett's posts (in which he refuses to accept the same simply by virtue of being defeatist), attempting to redirect the issue does not solve nor address it.

Greetings Baka - In this respect, you may be correct. What is the issue here, though?

That the decision making process is unfair, or that it had the potential to be deliberated upon by those with slanted views? That the evidence provided for the bans might have been falsified, or not fully investigated? This is what I imagine to be at the heart of your concern, if I am following your train of thought more or less.

Unfortunately, such decisions will never be a public matter. The decision making process for things like this has always been far from the public eye, although more people are getting involved as more apply for VO positions. Perhaps you hope that only the pieces of evidence for and against argued topics be provided to the public, so that you're sure it wasn't the will of just one person, and the rest of us are covering for him/her (Nani!)? If this is the case I would suggest a solution. I suggest this because I sincerely doubt you will receive anything more than a similar response from Paizo staff.

Rather than continue to rally for it to be provided, we could investigate the topics on our own. Perform a "double-blind university study" of sorts. For every ban or restriction that feels fishy, ask the question "Why?" and start populating a list of pros and cons for keeping or cutting it. People on these forums are very passionate about fairness, rules, and this game in general and you're sure to have more input than you know what to do with. I predict that after a few hundred posts, you will reach similar, if not identical decisions that were reached behind the scenes.

Regarding the statements directed about shielding myself from perdition with my title or my status as a volunteer (which is what 99% of the PFS public is, btw): I don't believe that I hide behind my title, as it is still fairly shiny and new. I believe that I understand my NDA and my role as a VL. Myself and other VOs take the time to post on these threads to try and help concerned PFSers understand why decisions are made. We affirmed the original claim made in this thread -- that such decisions were made with sound, calculated reasoning -- and even if you passionately believe such action on our part to be a fool's errand, or even insulting, our intentions are noble indeed. Kindly, do not mistake it.

I do not appreciate non-answers disguised as answers (and I've made this point several times ever since I first posted in this thread) and neither do I appreciate people who attempt to shift responsibility from themselves to others (especially when claiming to represent the greater majority). If they had wished to explain why they can't answer something while taking a neutral stance, then it's simple, state that "due to the presence of the NDA, "I" (in this case, either Mr. Luckett or Mr. Sheppard) am unable to specify any of the criteria used in our discussion." It is not necessary for the reply to include any of the extra material I've pointed out in the past.

My posts were intended to explain why there would be no satisfactory response to your questions from a VO, and for that I apologize that my responses haven't helped you alleviate your concerns.

From my vantage point, non-answers are not explanations. But opinions may vary on this (and I wouldn't be surprised). However, for the sake of specificity, citing the NDA (or the existence of it) is not an explanation and neither is blithely stating "we discussed it" (as was done in the past and what I've been trying to work around even now).

I can't speak for Paizo but I would imagine that if they provided detailed reasons for why the archetypes were banned then every reason would be challenged and someone somewhere would ask for the archetype to be reinstated. I've spent long enough on these boards to know that people disagree on just about everything, so there will never be a consensus. Taking their current approach, whilst not exactly sating my curiosity, does at least keep this thread from spiralling out of control.

I would have preferred it if Paizo had identified the problem archetypes when they first came out and banned them from the beginning, as most of the issues get flagged up within the first week. The biggest problem with banning things after they've been out for a year or so is how much people have invested in the character - and the longer the archetype is in play the bigger the emotional attachment, so this sort of thing will hopefully remain rare.

I would have preferred it if Paizo had identified the problem archetypes when they first came out and banned them from the beginning, as most of the issues get flagged up within the first week.

So do a lot of things that eventually get adjudged to be non-issues. But until Paizo have investigated these, discussed them with whoever they choose to discuss them with, and come to a decision, nobody can predict with 100% accuracy which will be banned, which will be modified, and which will be left unchanged.

The current process may not be perfect, but I can't think of one which will do any better.

The current process may not be perfect, but I can't think of one which will do any better.

Just do whatever Painlord and the CatBunnyGnome say. One will kill you with cookies. The other will choke ya to death with magical dust.

Sometimes, there are archetypes that got banned after being "legal" for a few days/weeks- the Wild Rager Barbarian archetype being the one that comes to mind for me.

The Synthesist Summoner archetype- as I recall, that one had some out of game issues that came up not too long ago in that some folks had such a distaste for the class archetype that they would literally resort to creating private, non-public PFS games with the implicitly "understood but unspoken ground-rule" that those who played in those very games would not play/create a synthesist summoner, even though it was technically legal to play in PFS at the time.

Of course, it was ultimately ruled as being permissable- the final reasoning being that in a private game (usually of the type to be held at a non-public locale, such as a home), the "host"/"inviter" of such a locale had a wide latitude of who got "invited" to said locale in the first place, a right that all private property holders possess.

The undead friendly stuff, I would imagine that it might've caused friction, not just with Paladins (several of their archetypes... let's just say not the most friendly to the undead) but also with any worshippers (not limited to just clerics or inquisitors, mind you) of a major ingame deity, Pharasma- the Golarion Goddess of Birth, Death, and Fate.

Apologies for the delayed response. I tried responding to one person and subsequently developed a wall of text.

So...I guess my answer is not satisfactory? :)

Unfortunately, it failed to cover the specific criteria used. However, like I said, I appreciate the fact that you've attempted to discuss this rather than simply providing a statement.

I guess that I just won't be able to come up with an answer that is satisfactory to you, and for that I apologize. I am very poor at these kinds of line by line arguments.

Simply put, it's just the easiest way to respond to others over a forum since normal interjections aren't possible (and the flow of a conversation is effectively "stunted" because of that).

I simply cannot articulate myself in a meaningful and productive manner.I apologize, since I am very tired after having volunteered four days nonstop at Gencon, which is of course a specious argument.

The last part is actually a very good reason to "delay the discussion" (though it would be difficult not to agree that it doesn't add much to the topic being discussed). And this most likely ties in poorly to my being in a timezone that is terribly not favorable towards interactions with people on the U.S. mainland.

Since you are so clearly passionate about this game, and are in possession of a keen Intellect with an aptitude for critical analysis, as well as some spare time to read the messageboards, might I make a humble suggestion? Perhaps you should volunteer your powers in service as an organizer and as a Venture-Officer. We are in need of passionate volunteers to help us make critical decisions, and we welcome opposing viewpoints to our own in order to make the best choices. We are very interested in your expertise in the meta that exists outside of Paizo's forums.

While such a recommendation is unexpected (as well as praise I don't deserve), I am hardly equipped to act on behalf of Pathfinder Society (especially as a representative) - as seen by my lack of handbooks, analysis threads, and other such achievements. If anything, Streamofthesky or Treantmonk would be far better at serving such a position than me - especially when they both have far greater experience than I in the high-end of optimization (and they are the only ones I actively notice posting here).

Then, you will be a part of the administrative process, and you can hold us accountable for our process. That is why most of us applied as VOs. We saw a desire in ourselves to make PFS better, and a need for those who have something to contribute.

I've heard this comment a lot across a variety of forums but I've never understood the argument. Why doesn't it make sense for a normal member to hold the staff (in this case Paizo's staff and the Venture-Captains) accountable for their decisions and requesting the criteria they referenced? I understand that there's the NDA (to which I categorize as a non-answer) but I hardly see how adding myself to the problem (lack of transparency) decreases it (creating more transparency). Perhaps it is because I take a number of things too literally but I can't comprehend it.

Edit: I am never insincere.

It may not be wise of me (as I've found many a knife in my back) but I'll take your word.

WOOT!
Commander Sheppard responded!

Greetings Baka - In this respect, you may be correct. What is the issue here, though?

I'm numbering this because I'm a fair bit lazy...so I'm ignoring some formal conventions. I apologize in advance if this format seems a bit dismissive.

1. I'm not concerned with the response of the vocal members of the Paizo forum. Simply because of this basis, even if people are "content" doesn't make it right. As a tangential example (that I don't feel like expounding upon more), Monks.
   
2. I don't care if the process is unfair, what I care about is the argumentation, how strongly it is reflective of the reality of the situation (meta), and what the specific criteria used are. Of course, one could argue, "the more inline the arguments and points are with my naive outlook, the more likely the decision-making team would be balanced" (but, then again, GameFaqs, so that might not work).
   
3. I already realize that this wasn't the decision of a singular individual (hence why I constantly and consistently never specify an individual unless referring to their actions in this thread). Further, I also realize that the chances of any of the material covered being made public is slim to none. But that's why I'm here. I am here to act as the contrarian who cares to voice concern (and support those other voices who fell silent). It's somewhat akin to my previous comparison to making the use of cars illegal in a local area.
   
4. A variant of this has been performed before either in the form of unofficial erratas or Tier lists. The latter for specifying the likelihood of one class outperforming another when considering the same degree of optimization and the former addressing issues that are still prevalent in the game to date (though, it may be more difficult to find a collection of Pathfinder home rules since the community specializing in that prefers 3.5). Ignoring those previous examples, if we were to try that, I would, most likely, wind up listing issues found in the base classes themselves rather than the archetypes (as I am of the opinion that two of the five are nerfs, one is a positive trade-off, and that banning the last two doesn't resolve the problem created by the base class).
   
5. Like I said in my spoilered response a while back, being informed about decisions and why such decisions were made is the best choice one can make when changes take place (or for decisions made in the past) as a member of the general public (in this case, of the Pathfinder Society forum).

To Stormfriend,
Hahahaha, I suppose? xD
I already know that people tend to guess as to why the archetypes of non-Gunslinger or non-Alchemist classes that gain access to firearms or bombs were banned (with the oft-stated "Well, it's a good idea for Paizo to ban archetypes that would nerf a Wizard so badly, at least players can't fall for that decision") but it's never truly been resolved or ruminated upon as to why the decision was made (since speculation is just speculation).

As to the former portion, wouldn't this be disproved by the presence of optimization boards? There are a number of things that people tend to disagree on (oddly, one of them being efficacy, but, whatever) yet, many of them tend to agree on key points or criteria that must be met in order for a class to be considered viable in particular settings or degrees of optimization.

To CyrusC2010,
Which would be the fault of the Paladin oath then, correct? Does this mean that Bard, Clerics, Sorcerers, Summoners, or Wizards should be banned because there's a Paladin who dislikes fiends? Or for a Sorcerer to be banned because the Paladin thinks that those with the blood of dragons should die? Similarly, what of a Ranger who has Favored Enemy (whateverraceyouhappentobeplaying)? Should every playable race be banned simply because the Ranger developed such a distaste for a particular race that he or she decided to specialize in killing it?

I know this is a fallacy, but at which point does the party member whose actively forcing his or her views onto other party members become intolerable?

Too late to edit,

Oh, wow, ouch, that archetype is horrible, Cyrus. That's probably even more infuriating than the Ragechemist.

@Baka Nikujaga:

First, I'm not a Venture Officer. And if you poke around a bit, I'm sure it won't be hard for you to confirm that I'm willing to call them out when they happen to be full of it from time to time. With that in mind (and also noting that I didn't read all of your posts - a bit lengthy to catch up on), I'd like to address the following in particular:

Were the opinions not specifically vocalized on the Paizo forums considered? Were the dissections of different mechanics looked at and studied? When all of this aggregated information was presented to Paizo's staff, did they look at the meta that exists beyond Paizo's forum?

Yes, yes and yes. I have, many times, been involved in a discussion where a viewpoint seemed widely-held, and then Mike Brock comes in and points out to people advocating [whatever] that the messageboards are a vocal minority, and that he has feedback indicating that the other umpteen-thousand players/GMs feel differently.

Mechanics are looked at closely. Mike recently addressed (in another thread) the issues surrounding gunslinger damage output, referencing a several-hundred-post discussion on the VO board. He even took pages of math, references and comparative analysis straight from that discussion and posted it for public viewing. The research has been done.

And to the third question, well, see the first. :)

I think the powers that be did the best they could with regards to this topic. The master summoner and synthesist are clearly problematic for PFS play and had to be dealt with.

There are other problematic builds, but builds can not be addressed in the same manner as archetypes. So they just do the best they can. And I hope I don't have to sit with anymore fighter archers. :)

As to the former portion, wouldn't this be disproved by the presence of optimization boards? There are a number of things that people tend to disagree on (oddly, one of them being efficacy, but, whatever) yet, many of them tend to agree on key points or criteria that must be met in order for a class to be considered viable in particular settings or degrees of optimization.

No, I don't think so, the CharOps boards are a small self-selecting group playing a game within a game. The rules they agree on are essential to compare builds and if people submit 40 point buys then they're essentially cheating - like bringing a Synthesist :-)

As PFS is rapidly becoming the only swords and sorcery organised game in town there are few places for those with different views to go, so we get the full melting pot. I just hope Paizo don't try and accomodate everyone with one dish and end up with something rather bland as a result. The Gravewalker Witch and Undead Lord were really interesting archetypes, even if the Silver Crusade's agents on these boards wanted to brand everything they did as evil...

This probably belongs on its own thread, (or already is), but is it cost effective for Paizo to create PDF's (not hardcovers) of the various books edited to include/exclude the rules specific to Society Play?

Personally, i would buy them, but im wondering at its feasibility.

Last couple of pages worth of comments.

I think what frustrates me about you Baka is that even when given the best answer you're going to get and repeatedly told that is the best answer you're going to get you keep pushing. You're pushing so hard on it, that I've taken to the opinion that you don't actually care (ie you don't even play) and are only here to troll the leadership.

Further, beyond wanting us to do something you know we legally cannot do, no matter if I wanted to or not. You don't seem to be asking anything new at all. Despite your claims to such. Just using a circular logic that comes back once again to you asking us to do what we cannot.

My recommendation is to drop the subject instead of coming up with the same question again, simply reworded again. We cannot answer it. It's not going to happen. If you feel I'm being too hard nosed with you, I'm sorry.

Now that has been answered to a level I can answer, are there any other questions I can address?

Baka Nikujaga wrote:

Last couple of pages worth of comments.

I think what frustrates me about you Baka is that even when given the best answer you're going to get and repeatedly told that is the best answer you're going to get you keep pushing. You're pushing so hard on it, that I've taken to the opinion that you don't actually care (ie you don't even play) and are only here to troll the leadership.

He doesn't play in PFS. That is the thing that I really find irritating. He is arguing for something he himself stated he does not participate in. To add to it, when Nani suggested he apply for a VO position to help change things or to at least understand the reasoning behind it he basically stated that doing that would not solve the problems he has with PFS play. When I read that I took it as he is trolling and not worth responding to because no matter what we say nothing is going to be good enough for him.

That's perfectly valid, as there are a lot of DM's that use PFS rules for their own home game's balance, and there is also the risk that Paizo may want to avoid publishing something for the core game if they feel it will simply be banned in PFS, (meaning non-PFS players may not get to utilize it either).

It may also be a barrier keeping him/her from getting into PFS?

@DA

I've pointed out in the past that there I feel thered are things that are banned in PFS because the scenarios don't go so much into aspects as the home game does.

The 'Roger Bochs' style Synthesist is a detriment to PFS (IMHO) because you can't write scenarios that specifically call out "Your eildion doesn't function here, thbbbptttt!" as that hoses the entire class. In the home game, an adventure that shuts down the eildion for a bit *does* work because the home game is more flexible. Things can be tailored for the PCs at the table, not for any PC that comes in.

To use a movie example, Tony Stark can lose his armor/have his armor trying to kill him in Iron Man II because it's a movie about Tony Stark. To have a subplot where technology no longer works in the middle of the Avengers is nothing but annoying, and hoses Natasha, Hawkeye and the Son of Coul as collateral damage.

Likewise with the recently banned shirt of cheesecloth (giving a free move) a home GM can reprices it (I eyeball it at 2000 GP with the 24 hour attunement time) or ban it if he feels it is too powerful. In PFS there's nothing (short of banning) to do if the pounce/rage barbarian brings a laundry basket full. The GM at the table can't ban it, they can't make it more expensive.

I understand Dan's frustration with the topic. Really it comes down to, if you don't like it, don't play it.

@DA
The only one I can address directly since the rest is speculative is the Paizo content one. Having spoken to several of the developers, and paid attention to what's been said on the boards here. I have no inkling that they limit what they do based on what happens in PFS. We are just a piece of the pie. Yes, a vocal, loyal, dedicated, and did I mention vocal...group of players, but still just a piece of the overall pie that Paizo pays attention to.

Mike's job in a very small and broad glance is to say what part of what the designers write is valid, and if something seems really wonky point it out for a developer to glance at when he gets a chance. In my experience, that second developer glance can take months...years in some cases (I'm looking at you Season 0 scenarios).

@ Matt and Daniel,

I think your confussing what I wrote as an arguement for or against something. I was simply giving examples of why a non-PFS player might be interested in PFS rulings, and asserting that they might have a valid reason, even if they do not play PFS themselves. I personally wouldn't mind them banning the entire Summoner class, personally (or the Gunslinger), and the only real issue i personally have was with the Undead Lord. The Witch I can mostly understand as fairly common sense, as well as the Summoner. But that's not the point, I was just saying that there could be reasons, even we don't see them right off the bat, or don't apply to us.

I was responding to these remarks, specifically:

You're pushing so hard on it, that I've taken to the opinion that you don't actually care (ie you don't even play) and are only here to troll the leadership.

He doesn't play in PFS. That is the thing that I really find irritating.

Side note, and I'm not saying this is what you just did, just a huge pet peeve of mine on these boards. . .

Accusing people of "trolling" generally means that you have no defense against their arguement or point, and are trying to appeal to the crowd and shift the light off of that fact, in my mind. :) It's a nasty word, and really should be reservd for the few rare cases, (which you can generally tell by the poster saying they are trolling).

I don't know what else to say to someone who has repeatedly been given the answer and continues to press for a different one. Why continue to push an issue to the point of aggravation if it does nothing but aggravate those individuals? That's trolling in my book, "Doing something with the sole goal to aggravate someone", and that's all Baka is doing at this point: Aggravating the leadership.

I can understand a desire for more information, but we have already said that will not be provided. Once you have your answer despite being unsatisfactory in his opinion the "non-troll" would drop the issue.

Well with a name like Devil's Advocate, how are we to assume you're *not* arguing against something. :-)

I believe Daniel is getting frustrated, and it's leaking into his writing. I can sympathize.

I do feel that the answers have been sufficient. I'm willing to take Mike and the VC's statements that it has been discussed, debated and analyzed. If you're looking to organized play for advice for a home game, once it's been explained that the reasoning is not going to be elaborated on, a) asking again and again isn't going to change that and b) you'll have to make a decision about your home game yourself.

If I were to ask why chickens were opened up for anyone but Dhampir weren't, I might get a reply, depending on what the congress wanted to share. If they said "We discussed it in depth, raising many of the questions you had, and in the end this was the decision." I can accept it or ignore it (and thus leave PFS, or at least not play Dhampir) If I kept asking 'why' over and over again, then I'd expect people to get annoyed.

*shrugs* Just saying I can sympathize with those who are getting annoyed.

I actually took the name specifically for cases where I do not necisarily agree with an arguement, but can understand it, and more of a mediator. If I saw a valid point from your side that I don't think the other side was getting, I'd point that out as well.

No offense, but I think there are probably more people annoyed at the lack of information, for longer, and they are likely not having any sympathy thrown their way by ayone who isn't in the same boat, than those who are annoyed with the quetions being asked repeatedly, (and not really answered, likewise repeatedly). The Guide and Additional Resources are both officially out, so the NDA should be voide anyway, by now, but whatever. :)

Saying that "if you don't like it, don't come and play" probably isn't the message that any of us, but particularly the VC and "leadership" aught to be saying. We should all take a minute to think about that, because that's basically the between the lines answer, and what can be done to change that.

Just for the record. I'm not aggravated with DA. He is asking questions to which I have not answered yet. :P

Just for the record. I'm not aggravated with DA. He is asking questions to which I have not answered yet. :P

Glad for that, brother. :)

My understanding is that the NDA is for the content of the VO board, not for what's in the Guide and Additional Resources.

Just for the record. I'm not aggravated with DA. He is asking questions to which I have not answered yet. :P

I knew that, I meant your aggravation with Baka.

You'd think for someone who communicates for a living, I'd be better at it.

The Guide and Additional Resources are both officially out, so the NDA should be voide anyway, by now, but whatever. :)

I just wanted to clarify from another voice so that people understand what we're talking about with the NDA. The fact that the archetypes were banned is not under the NDA, as that is public knowledge. The reason behind the ban, the analysis, discussion back and forth, etc. are not currently public knowledge, so that stays behind the veil of the NDA.

As much as it can annoy someone that we're answering with a "non-answer" about this, I rather like being a Venture-Captain. As such I'd rather not violate my NDA and lose the position :) Until the time that the reasoning behind the banning becomes public knowledge, then we really can't explicitly say what was said.

Pointed out NDA policy

What he said. :)

Hey Folks,

Whew, getting a bit toasty isn't it? Let's try and keep the discussion civil, and avoid personal attacks :) I think Baka is bringing up legitimate concerns that others in the PFS community share about changes in the campaign that we all are a part of. While I may not neccesarily agree, and may be aggrieved by an inability to reach a consensus of opinion with him, I stand by my earlier statement. Attacking character does not contribute to the persuasiveness of your argument :)

Now let's all go get ice cream! And continue to discuss the Guide!

In the words of my 3 year old, . . . [doe-eyed look]"I WANT ICE CREAM" [/doe-eyed look]

;_;
It seems the post I made yesterday was devoured by the internet.

I think what frustrates me about you Baka is that even when given the best answer you're going to get and repeatedly told that is the best answer you're going to get you keep pushing. You're pushing so hard on it, that I've taken to the opinion that you don't actually care (ie you don't even play) and are only here to troll the leadership.

Actually, I *used* to play and would, most likely, still play if I had the funds necessary to do so. It's a bit like why I quit playing MTG, I ran out of money. :|

[Edit the Edit]
I should answer more of your post, rather than only that portion. If your best answer is either "NDA" or "We've discussed it," then it leaves a hole to which needs to be filled (something by which one can use to explain the arguments behind the changes made - the criteria). I am asking for you (or, rather, either of Paizo's staff who post here) to fill this hole.

[Edit]
As to my not wanting to be a Venture-Captain or possess any such position, I essentially stated that "I do not possess the necessary mechanical prowess, accreditation, or any such record that would make lending my 'talent' (as is) a positive net benefit to the [greater] community."

In the words of my 3 year old, . . . [doe-eyed look]"I WANT ICE CREAM" [/doe-eyed look]

Hahaha, yes, and I want it bad. :P

;_;

As to my not wanting to be a Venture-Captain or possess any such position, I essentially stated that "I do not possess the necessary mechanical prowess, accreditation, or any such record that would make lending my 'talent' (as is) a positive net benefit to the [greater] community."

There is no requirement for mechanical prowess with PFRPG to be a VC. There is no accreditation. There is minimal record requirement.

Go, look at the recruiting page again. Travel to one of the big cons once a year, judge a table once a month, keep track of the game stores in the area and represent Paizo locally, and participate in the governance forum (the NDA forum) and forum monitoring. (and maybe a couple of things I'm forgetting off the top of my head, but i think that covers most of the duties).

Nothing in there that's got a high threshold on anything but your ability to interact well with players and a desire to grow the hobby. Those two things, you need in spades. If those're what you don't want to exercise the heck out of, that's fine, but don't hide behind skill reasons.

I had combination of "KNOWING how much time it could suck" and "my easy mode is harder than many people like", making me good as the high-tier-running troll in the corner, and not so good as the face of the campaign in the area, so chose not to throw a resume at Mike for the local VO team.

Actually, I *used* to play and would, most likely, still play if I had the funds necessary to do so. It's a bit like why I quit playing MTG, I ran out of money. :|

This is something more personal than I would normally address. Is it like a transportation problem, you live out in the boonies and $50 in gas to drive the 50 miles to the nearest PFS hotspot is too much, or some similar issue? The reason I ask is aside from the CRB, dice, paper, and a pencil I don't see where PFS is a high costly endeavor (It was the one hobby I was able to keep when unemployed for 9 months).

I should answer more of your post, rather than only that portion. If your best answer is either "NDA" or "We've discussed it," then it leaves a hole to which needs to be filled (something by which one can use to explain the arguments behind the changes made - the criteria). I am asking for you (or, rather, either of Paizo's staff who post here) to fill this hole.

This is my personal criteria that I evaluate anything I look at with, regardless if it's up for discussion to be changed, in the VO Boards, or out here under discussion. Also, this list is probably not exhaustive, just what I remember specifically looking at during the process:

A) Does it add or detract from the campaign?
B) Does it invalidate a core class/race to the point where I would never play the core class/race in favor of X?
C) Does it take too much of the spotlight?
D) Does it fit the established flavor and direction of Golarion?
E) Does it mechanically outshine a core version of something in an unacceptable way? (Fighter/Ranger archer vs gunslinger for example)
F) Does it break into the "R-Rated" territory (Would I want my son dealing with this at =<13?)
G) When looking at something, I would reread all of the old threads on it, and then present a parsed summary of what the consensus was, explain both sides of the argument, and would personally invalidate what I thought was misinformation. (ex. of misinformation: There are endless #'s of 1st level gunslingers dual wielding double barreled pistols)
H) If something is removed, what is the projected effect on the campaign outside of the specific example that we're intending to correct?
I) What is my personal opinion about X?
K) Does it cause unneccesary drama?

Frankthedm wrote:

Good Call on the no changing ability scores! Folks rigged their scores to take advantage of the system with a obviously OP class. They got caught and now they get to keep their scores :D

Absolutely not! Whenever I play a character I go out of my way to ensure there is at least one really low score and one really high score and it has NOTHING to do with min/max'ing and everything to do with character flavor. Every person in the world, everyone of them, has strengths and weaknesses. Plus when we know we are good at something it normal to love something in that strength, so we choose our livelihoods and pasttimes accordingly. Small geeks don't play in the NFL. I want that reflected in my characters...and yes I decide to put my best stats in my class focus. I can't think of anyone who thinks to themselves, "Gee, I have randomly determined that my best stat is Wisdom. Now...What will I play?"

This is something more personal than I would normally address. Is it like a transportation problem, you live out in the boonies and $50 in gas to drive the 50 miles to the nearest PFS hotspot is too much, or some similar issue? The reason I ask is aside from the CRB, dice, paper, and a pencil I don't see where PFS is a high costly endeavor (It was the one hobby I was able to keep when unemployed for 9 months).

Nothing so fanciful, I'm just a perpetually broke student. I think it comes with the territory...and it will stay that way until I can secure a job (in which case I'll lose all of my free time). :x

As for a PFS hub though...there isn't one (my table tried to establish one but eventually time conflicts broke the group apart). This isn't to be confused with PF tables, as those are run across sparingly, just not many individuals interested in PFS.

This is my personal criteria that I evaluate anything I look at with, regardless if it's up for discussion to be changed, in the VO Boards, or out here under discussion. Also, this list is probably not exhaustive, just what I remember specifically looking at during the process:

A) Does it add or detract from the campaign?
B) Does it invalidate a core class/race to the point where I would never play the core class/race in favor of X?
C) Does it take too much of the spotlight?
D) Does it fit the established flavor and direction of Golarion?
E) Does it mechanically outshine a core version of something in an unacceptable way? (Fighter/Ranger archer vs gunslinger for example)
F) Does it break into the "R-Rated" territory (Would I want my son dealing with this at =<13?)
G) When looking at something, I would reread all of the old threads on it, and then present a parsed summary of what the consensus was, explain both sides of the argument, and would personally invalidate what I thought was misinformation....

Woo! ^o.o^

1. For comparisons (in "b" and "e") is this referring to by Tier or rough equivalency? As an example, Tier 1 classes are expected to regularly be capable of horribly breaking the game while Tier 2, not quite as much so. Similarly, does this reference to Core mean that a majority of the base classes have been compared to Tier 4 classes (or, "characters capable of excelling at a single task or multiple tasks)" against "characters who can only excel at a single task")?
   
2. Second, what do you mean by "spotlight?" As in, "I'm able to solve all the problems?" or "by always being capable to contribute I'm able to participate in everything?" And does this point ("c") take into consideration variances in optimization?
   
3. This might be a bit too personal, but what forums (outside of Paizo) do you tend to visit (in regards to performing research)?

Points "a" and "d" heavily lean towards World-Building and while I have my own personal thoughts on how to construct settings, those are subjective and not conducive towards a discussion. Similarly, I cannot particularly comment on "f" since I do not believe I've seen anything that runs against this (aside from challenging established determinations and beliefs on the bounds of Good and Evil).

Point "h" and "k" are too speculative for me to comment on.

------

To TetsujinOni,
While most of the other requirements aren't particularly an issue (just completely stunted by my lack of liquid funds), I find that I often expect those with a leadership position to possess a high level of system mastery since that would lead to an informed decision (something I believe I cannot properly perform).

[Side Note]
I doubt that I'll ever be able to afford going to a convention while still attending school. Current airfare prices are somewhere around 1,500 dollars?

Something I can comment on.

For comparisons (in "b" and "e") is this referring to by Tier or rough equivalency? As an example, Tier 1 classes are expected to regularly be capable of horribly breaking the game while Tier 2, not quite as much so. Similarly, does this reference to Core mean that a majority of the base classes have been compared to Tier 4 classes (or, "characters capable of excelling at a single task or multiple tasks)" against "characters who can only excel at a single task")?
Second, what do you mean by "spotlight?" As in, "I'm able to solve all the problems?" or "by always being capable to contribute I'm able to participate in everything?" And does this point ("c") take into consideration variances in optimization?
This might be a bit too personal, but what forums (outside of Paizo) do you tend to visit (in regards to performing research)?
Points "a" and "d" heavily lean towards World-Building and while I have my own personal thoughts on how to construct settings, those are subjective and not conducive towards a discussion. Similarly, I cannot particularly comment on "f" since I do not believe I've seen anything that runs against this (aside from challenging established determinations and beliefs on the bounds of Good and Evil).

Point "h" and "k" are too speculative for me to comment on

Disclaimer: This is all my opinion, what I say here is only reflective of my own personal point of view, and will only give you the tiniest glimmer of insight into the machine that is PFS because I am a single voice, not the chorus.

Actually, looking at what I wrote (B&E) are actually the same question. *rolls eyes at self* I looked at it more this way. Each CRB class is the accepted "norm" of Pathfinder in my opinion. Assuming that, then does any archetype, class, or combo there of make another unsuitably worthless? To use a hypothetical/fake example: IF the Samurai could do everything the fighter could do but better. Why would I play the fighter. That would make the Samurai unsuitable for PFS IMO, and something I'd point out to the designers.

The "spotlight" is the GM's attention in my head. If I have to spend all my time dealing with X character, and that character type is always demanding an excessive amount of time regardless of who's playing it and how efficient we're being, then that character type needs review. In example if it takes 4 hours for you to take your turn every time. Probably not all that great for PFS or Pathfinder in general. lol

Forums I frequent in order of what I look at first thing in the morning...PFS boards, VO Boards, MichiganPFS.org boards, PFRPG boards, Carrion Crown boards. I don't tend to wander too far from that list. Not enough time in the day to read that much, prep sessions, work, and all the other things that suck up my life. Most days I don't get past the first 3.

Disclaimer: This is all my opinion, what I say here is only reflective of my own personal point of view, and will only give you the tiniest glimmer of insight into the machine that is PFS because I am a single voice, not the chorus.

As subjective a personal opinion is...insight is insight and I can't especially complain about that (other things, sure, but not that).

Each CRB class is the accepted "norm" of Pathfinder in my opinion. Assuming that, then does any archetype, class, or combo there of make another unsuitably worthless?

Like this?

Example of Generic Caster Comparison:

• Wizard vs. Witch
  
• Sorcerer vs. Oracle
  
• Sorcerer vs. Summoner

Or is it more specific such as:

Example of Ever Slightly More Specific Caster Comparisons

• Sylvan Sorcerer vs. Summoner
  
• Wildshaper Druid vs. Synthesist Summoner

Forums I frequent in order of what I look at first thing in the morning...PFS boards, VO Boards, MichiganPFS.org boards, PFRPG boards, Carrion Crown boards. I don't tend to wander too far from that list. Not enough time in the day to read that much, prep sessions, work, and all the other things that suck up my life. Most days I don't get past the first 3.

So...setting aside MichiganPFS.org, just the Paizo forums, then?

Sometimes, there are archetypes that got banned after being "legal" for a few days/weeks- the Wild Rager Barbarian archetype being the one that comes to mind for me.

No one who follows the boards should be surprised that the Wild Rager was banned. I was advocating its banning the moment the book was released having seen it cause problems in prior organized play campaigns. I was far from the only one who was expressing concern.

In regards to comparisons, I'll leave it as this, "Yes."

In regards to forums, yes. I know there are other forums out there, but once again I just don't have the time to go through everything. Which is why there are multiple of us to bear the load of gathering information, who gather it from all of you, who gather it from everywhere else.

This is something more personal than I would normally address. Is it like a transportation problem, you live out in the boonies and $50 in gas to drive the 50 miles to the nearest PFS hotspot is too much, or some similar issue? The reason I ask is aside from the CRB, dice, paper, and a pencil I don't see where PFS is a high costly endeavor (It was the one hobby I was able to keep when unemployed for 9 months).
....

Yes, though 'aside' from the CRB throws me a little. Prior to GMWalter the nearest game was 175 miles away. Every attempt to start one in my town failed (FLGS went 4E, Hastings no space for games). Some venues charge (especially in a college town), at the very least I feel obligated to buy snacks. All of my group invested heavily in 3.5. None of us could afford to spend $50 on another book. Sure PDFs are a lot cheaper, except they require a laptop (which is much more than $50 :) Let alone the time commitment I could never afford.

But hey students just arrived, and with the teiflings, aasimars, tengu available and more importantly 1st level rebuilds I am confident the third (fourth?) time is the charm.

I hate to ask, but are bastard swords considered always available equipment?

I was told exotic equipment is not considered always available. Is that true? What about whips and nets?

I have a wizard who took a bastard sword as his bonded item, is he legal?

Mundane equipment that appears on the additional resources is always available.

To finish up what Tesujin started

I was told exotic equipment is not considered always available. Is that true? Exotic weapons are always available, certain other non-magical items (see firearms), are not.

I have a wizard who took a bastard sword as his bonded item, is he legal? Yea, presuming he's not a yeti wizard, or built with a 50 point buy, or something else like that :P

@ the discussion at hand: I'm still following, just being my quiet, observant self.

@ Curaigh: When you have a moment we should talk about getting that Safari Pearl thing rolling. I know Abel and a few others (like yourself) would appreciate the secondary location :D

In regards to comparisons, I'll leave it as this, "Yes."

If you'll end the discussion at that, I understand, but thank you for being willing to express the criteria you personally use (and I hope others will be willing to share their references as well).

In regards to forums, yes. I know there are other forums out there, but once again I just don't have the time to go through everything. Which is why there are multiple of us to bear the load of gathering information, who gather it from all of you, who gather it from everywhere else.

It wasn't a matter of saying that it's "wrong" or "incorrect" to not frequent non-Paizo forums. I was asking because my question had been written as "what forums (outside of Paizo) do you tend to visit," so I was attempting to clarify whether you were using broader, generalized terms or referring, specifically, to the boards here.

[Edit Notes]
>8V GRAMMAR FAIL!