New Options

Really, of all the options the campaign leadership could have chosen, I guess I don't understand why the latest clarification is at all a problem.

Sarcasm isn't helpful, so I've cut it out. :-)

See my post above for some reasons why "of all the options the campaign leadership could have chosen," this might seem to some folks like it wasn't the best one.

In every other way, level 1 credit is shapeable. Why change that? And it doesn't seem like the change from the default will make *that* much of a difference. So it just seems like it would have been easier to stick with the default.

Plus, even though I think it's great that we're moving A/T out of always available, this particular ruling seems to lean in the direction of "badwrongfun" shaming, which is never good.

Of course, there are plenty of qualifications. And this is hardly a serious problem. But I hope you can at least see how, "of all the options the campaign leadership could have chosen" this option could be, for some folks (especially those with level-1 credit but limited opportunities to play before August 14th—which is not my case—), at least a small (and so "at all a") problem.

Really, of all the options the campaign leadership could have chosen, I guess I don't understand why the latest clarification is at all a problem.

Let me give you a quick list:

--It's complicated. Mark spent an entire post on it and there was still a request for clarification.
--It makes organizing harder for the next month. I had to convert a 5-9 last week to a 1-5 because too many people wanted to play level 1s. It's going to get worse now because the people who thought they couild just rebuild an existing character will now need to play level 1s as well.
--It's unenforceable. The whole point of organized play is to be able to walk up to a table and slot in. Everything you need is self contained, you don't need anyone to vouch for you. How do we verify that a character was played as an Aasimar or Tiefling at level 1 if we haven't seen that played? Enforcement is impossible without information beyond what a player brings to the table.
--It encourages players to lie. Because it's unenforceable, why not simply say that character I played 6 months ago was a Tiefling? I certainly don't know the race of every character who has ever played at my table, much less at other tables. So why not just say that it was a Tiefling? That's a bad incentive.
--It tells GMs to break a cardinal rule. Never change anything on a signed chronicle sheet. Unless you want to play an Aasimar some time in the future.
--It creates an adversarial relationship between my players and me. I have to tell my players no. I do this a lot, but every time in the past I could explain the reason why. I was able to do so with the original removal of the races, but this change to limit what characters can be grandfathered is completely arbitrary.
--It appears to be a heckler's veto. The original blog post said that they intentionally chose 1xp because they didn't want to be "unnecessarily punitive to casual players who may only be able to play once or twice in the next month." This ruling only affects players who were not going to be creating a lot of new characters, but had pregen credit or a level 1 that they could rebuild in to. There was a large uproar over people banking large numbers of planestouched, and then this ruling showed up. Only, this ruling has absolutely no impact on people creating tons of new characters. It does, though, make it harder for people who don't get to play a lot to get a native outsider before the deadline.
--It's poorly targeted. If you were to make a rule clarification, and the two possible outcomes are a.) Jiggy's wife has to change what she's doing, and b.) the guys who are running back to back sessions of The Confirmation would have to change what they're doing, which would you pick? Which do you think was exploiting the system?

I think the simplest possible ruling should have been made. And as far as I can tell, "Characters with a chronicle sheet dated before August 14, 2014, can be created using the races available at that time," is the simplest way to do that. Enforcement is simple, nothing outside of standard information is needed, and people who don't play often are minimally affected.

So, in your proposed solution "...dated before August 14, 2014" does that means the chronicle sheet must have a DATE prior to then, or that it has to be completed before then? What does "..dated before..." mean?

If I play on the August 15, but put the date "August 13" would that qualify? Afte rall, it's dated before August 14. Doesn't that encourage people to lie, too?

Mark Stratton wrote:

Really, of all the options the campaign leadership could have chosen, I guess I don't understand why the latest clarification is at all a problem.

Let me give you a quick list:

--It's complicated. Mark spent an entire post on it and there was still a request for clarification.
--It makes organizing harder for the next month. I had to convert a 5-9 last week to a 1-5 because too many people wanted to play level 1s. It's going to get worse now because the people who thought they couild just rebuild an existing character will now need to play level 1s as well.
--It's unenforceable. The whole point of organized play is to be able to walk up to a table and slot in. Everything you need is self contained, you don't need anyone to vouch for you. How do we verify that a character was played as an Aasimar or Tiefling at level 1 if we haven't seen that played? Enforcement is impossible without information beyond what a player brings to the table.
--It encourages players to lie. Because it's unenforceable, why not simply say that character I played 6 months ago was a Tiefling? I certainly don't know the race of every character who has ever played at my table, much less at other tables. So why not just say that it was a Tiefling? That's a bad incentive.
--It tells GMs to break a cardinal rule. Never change anything on a signed chronicle sheet. Unless you want to play an Aasimar some time in the future.
--It creates an adversarial relationship between my players and me. I have to tell my players no. I do this a lot, but every time in the past I could explain the reason why. I was able to do so with the original removal of the races, but this change to limit what characters can be grandfathered is completely arbitrary.
--It appears to be a heckler's veto. The original blog post said that they intentionally chose 1xp because they didn't want to be "unnecessarily punitive to casual players who may only be able to play once or twice...

I agree with all of this. Very much.

Honestly I think people wanting strict rules are trying to be unnecessarily adversarial.

People that abuse the rules, will most likely just cheat as well.

--It appears to be a heckler's veto. The original blog post said that they intentionally chose 1xp because they didn't want to be "unnecessarily punitive to casual players who may only be able to play once or twice in the next month." This ruling only affects players who were not going to be creating a lot of new characters, but had pregen credit or a level 1 that they could rebuild in to. There was a large uproar over people banking large numbers of planestouched, and then this ruling showed up. Only, this ruling has absolutely no impact on people creating tons of new characters. It does, though, make it harder for people who don't get to play a lot to get a native outsider before the deadline.

+1 to this especially. The restriction won't have a bit of impact on those committed to stockpiling. Whip up a lvl 1 Aasimar and a lvl 1 Tiefling, run the Confirmation as many times as you please.

But it makes life more difficult for casual or busy players who want to play A/T and want to follow the rules.

Seems fairly clear. If you have the option to rebuild after the deadline it can only be to rebuild out of aasimar/tiefling into something else, but not vice versa. That would include retraining any blood heritages.

Remember folks, we shouldn't have to rule every single possible corner-case. Stick to the spirit of the expectation and you'll be fine.

Under normal circumstances I would agree with you but I don't see this as normal circumstances. We have two opposing schools of thought. The first wants to make as many Planetouched in the next few weeks as they believe are are appropriate. The other school wants to enforce a limit on everyone they believe is appropriate. Both schools see the spirit of the ruling differently.

With this in mind we need things spelled out very clearly for the next few weeks. So on the Racial Heritage rebuild. RAI I am inclined to say rebuilding in to different Racial Heritages would count as rebuilding in to a prohibited race. RAW I would say a racial heritage is different thing than a race and it allowed.

In the absence of a clarification I will let people interpret however they want as it pertains to their characters. I see that as the spirit of the ruling.

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Seems fairly clear. If you have the option to rebuild after the deadline it can only be to rebuild out of aasimar/tiefling into something else, but not vice versa. That would include retraining any blood heritages.

Remember folks, we shouldn't have to rule every single possible corner-case. Stick to the spirit of the expectation and you'll be fine.

Under normal circumstances I would agree with you but I don't see this as normal circumstances. We have two opposing schools of thought. The first wants to make as many Planetouched in the next few weeks as they believe are are appropriate. The other school wants to enforce a limit on everyone they believe is appropriate. Both schools see the spirit of the ruling differently.

With this in mind we need things spelled out very clearly for the next few weeks. So on the Racial Heritage rebuild. RAI I am inclined to say rebuilding in to different Racial Heritages would count as rebuilding in to a prohibited race. RAW I would say a racial heritage is different thing than a race and it allowed.

In the absence of a clarification I will let people interpret however they want as it pertains to their characters. I see that as the spirit of the ruling.

John clarified yesterday. It is linked up thread.

To be fair, I really haven't had any asperations to play an Aasimar and haven't even thought of trying to grandfather one in. There is a human that I can make into an Aasimar if I really wanted (GM Cred baby), but I believe her being human is a better choice.

I have a question. If a play-by-post scenario was started August 14, 2014 but ended after it, would the players who were using aasimar or tiefling characters during it have to change the race during the scenario or after it, or would they be fine?

Bart W. Bailey wrote:

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Seems fairly clear. If you have the option to rebuild after the deadline it can only be to rebuild out of aasimar/tiefling into something else, but not vice versa. That would include retraining any blood heritages.

Remember folks, we shouldn't have to rule every single possible corner-case. Stick to the spirit of the expectation and you'll be fine.

Under normal circumstances I would agree with you but I don't see this as normal circumstances. We have two opposing schools of thought. The first wants to make as many Planetouched in the next few weeks as they believe are are appropriate. The other school wants to enforce a limit on everyone they believe is appropriate. Both schools see the spirit of the ruling differently.

With this in mind we need things spelled out very clearly for the next few weeks. So on the Racial Heritage rebuild. RAI I am inclined to say rebuilding in to different Racial Heritages would count as rebuilding in to a prohibited race. RAW I would say a racial heritage is different thing than a race and it allowed.

In the absence of a clarification I will let people interpret however they want as it pertains to their characters. I see that as the spirit of the ruling.

John clarified yesterday. It is linked up thread.

Thanks Sniggevert

I read john's post. It does not actually speak to whether or not changing racial heritage would count as a race change or not. I think it does not count as a race change. My primary concern is that I may tell a player "yeah thats fine" and then have someone else declare his character illegal and refuse her a seat at a future table.

...adn on a side note, an end of Season Chronicle could have featured a "You may roll a fresh Aasi/Tiefling boon" for players who had obtained at least one chronicle sheet for the season, much like the Season 4 boon had bennies for those that played at all during that time.

It would save a lot of wasted sessions where people are having games just to bank things and perhaps moderated the response.

Yeah it gives everyone who was active this season a free race boon, but hey it still gives the casuals a way forward too.

Just a thought.

I have a question. If a play-by-post scenario was started August 14, 2014 but ended after it, would the players who were using aasimar or tiefling characters during it have to change the race during the scenario or after it, or would they be fine?

My opinion is that they should be fine. Due to con and work business, a PbP I started is already behind schedule and won't finish before GenCon. PC had the new aasimar before the post was made. Why punish the player for that? However, I will mark on the chronicle that the PC was created before the cutoff date and was being played before August 14th despite the fact that the chronicle date is afterwards.

Other solution would be to end the scenario prematurely after that PC hits 3 encounters for the 1XP if the answer is no. That's the worst case scenario, since that seems like an unnecessary action that is being forced against the positive intent of allowing people a final chance to create a final aasimar/tiefling.

My thoughts; this is how I'm calling it unless Mike/John correct me.

As the character was actually played as a Tiefling/Aasimar before August 14th, and hasn't been rebuilt since, I'd certainly view it as a valid candidate for grandfathering.

So, in your proposed solution "...dated before August 14, 2014" does that means the chronicle sheet must have a DATE prior to then, or that it has to be completed before then? What does "..dated before..." mean?

If I play on the August 15, but put the date "August 13" would that qualify? Afte rall, it's dated before August 14. Doesn't that encourage people to lie, too?

So, the worst case scenario for simply setting a cutoff date shares 1 of 7 downsides of the current ruling?

That still weighs heavily in favor of simply setting a date cutoff.

Moreover, I would say that, no, it's not encouraging people to lie in the same way. We currently trust chronicle sheets for everything, and there's always the opportunity to forge them.

However, requiring people to play as an Aasimar or Tiefling in order to grandfather the character in requires something outside the normal recording method. Since chronicle sheets and reporting online don't track what class or race a character is, the GM has to ask a player if they played the character as a planetouched originally instead of rebuilding into the class later. This is a spur of the moment thing with no way to corroborate the answer but an entire character riding on what the player says. There's a lot of incentive to simply say "yes," heck, there's a lot of incentive for the GM to simply not ask. After all, answering "no" irrevocably destroys the character: It's not like using an additional resource that you don't own but can buy, the character has to be completely rebuilt.

That's the difference. It's not just about people gaming the system. There's an incentive to lie or simply ignore the rule, even from an empathetic GM's perspective, if it's the result of an honest misunderstanding.

Where's the countervailing benefit to limiting grandfathered characters?

I have a question. If a play-by-post scenario was started August 14, 2014 but ended after it, would the players who were using aasimar or tiefling characters during it have to change the race during the scenario or after it, or would they be fine?

I think this was addressed up-thread. Technically they would have to change (after the scenario) if the PbP is the first chronicle for the character. The chronicle will be dated when the scenario finishes (after the 14th). A number of my PbP chronicles have the start and the finish dates and that might work in most cases.

Honestly disappointed that they're removing Aasimar and Tiefling as legal options for new players.

Me, too.

To be honest, this sort of arbitrary thing is part of why I have been hesitant to get invested in PFS play. Having to earn the right to maybe get to play a particular class or race doesn't sit well with me, nor does having options suddenly disappear.

As a PFS player dazzled with the wonder and possibilities of the The
Advanced race guide I hope to be able eventually to play all of the races.
Not to make broken charters but to experience the strength and weakness
each race presents. If you feel the role playing is being side tracked
so no one wants to play a humans give human's a boon for being the dominate race in the Inner sea. Bonus to social interaction.
Conversely penalties for social for Tiefling as demon spawn a
who were viewed as a bad omen. The races that are weird to the humans may
have to work at hiding their identities. I look forward to try my hand as a Kitsune. I know they can be silly but I hope some day to play a Pixy Faerie Be tiny but fly.

Just getting caught up.

I heard about the ruling from the local VL.

My thing is, since I'm unemployed (again) I'll be able to make gaming tomorrow. I was planning to play a couple high tier scenarios, but now will likely be playing Accursed halls and shades of ice, with brand new level 1's to get a couple 'planetouched credits' under my belt for future concepts that might come up. As opposed to going for that half orc slayer. She can wait until after the 14th.

As to the new races, no concepts come to mind for me yet. Well except for the musket master kitsune. Think Rocket Raccoon as a fox.

John Compton wrote:

It's apparent from reading the messageboard and a few messages I've received that it's not clear what qualifies as "grandfathering." Let me clear that up.

I have to ask: What are we gaining from this decision?

John and Mike get people to stop complaining. Especially when they are busy preparing for Gencon.

Mike and John told people, "Hey, we expect you guys to be grown ups, please be responsible. If people make us regret this, we will have to come up with a rule, which wont make any of us happy."

They got deluged with "But people are going to abuse it!!!!" and "But you are taking our toys away!!!"

So they made a ruling, which didn't make anyone happy.

People are still complaining, but now Mike and John can say "Hey they asked for guidelines, they got guidelines." and can go back to the important things. Which right now is making Gencon happen.

(In case it is not clear, I totally respect and support what they did here.)

For those vehemently opposed to this secondary ruling: I'm personally ecstatic about dropping A's and T's. I'm also personally totally fine with people stockpiling them for the next few weeks. But a firm ruling was needed, and was needed now, not in three weeks. So that's what we have. And I'm fine with that too.

The only reason a "firm ruling was needed" was because of those who insisted on making a mountain out of a molehill. A change was announced, a grandfathering period included, and some people got themselves all butthurt out of what SOMEONE ELSE MIGHT be doing instead of minding their own play. Who really cares if someone was going to the extreme trouble of arranging 20 confirmation runs over the next couple of weeks. It's not like they are actually going to get to PLAY all those characters beyond level 3 with the limited amount of scenarios available. But because those vocal buttinskis had to build a 700 plus post thread to build up this non existent issue, that ruling "needed" to be made.

Not at all happy about the change. If you are seriously trying to improve the game, how about banning gunslingers and the other classes that wreck modules? I have seen far more classes take the enjoyment out of my games than I have seen classes.

Flite: hmmm?

MOST people weren't complaining. They were questioning. It wasn't clear from the original post whether any 1 point of xp would do, if it had to be played as a tiefling, or if DM credit would work. That could get a character declared illegal after being in play for years at some point down the road, so it was necessary to clear that up.

I don't really see the balance issue with the two races that are being excluded. As others have mentioned, there are other classes and archetypes that pose much bigger balance issues than these two races. Sadly, I only get to play PFS once every month or two due to work and family obligations. I was really looking forward to creating an Aasimar character, but now won't get the chance. I would at least liked to have had the option. As an old school AD&D player from the early '80s, one thing that has drawn me to Pathfinder is the versatility and vast amount of player character options. For what it's worth, I simply wish you wouldn't be removing these races as options for PFS play. I'm glad other races are being added, and like/support the other changes.

So make a Kitsune, Nagaji or Wayang instead. It was past time to introduce more options, and also past time to let the planetouched fade back into the background where they belong.

To be honest, this sort of arbitrary thing is part of why I have been hesitant to get invested in PFS play. Having to earn the right to maybe get to play a particular class or race doesn't sit well with me, nor does having options suddenly disappear.

Hey there, friend. I hope you do indeed get involved in PFS.

There are boon-dependent race options. There always have been; I'm not sure what to say, if you don't like that. (For example, when the Beginner Box came out, the campaign leadership wanted PFS players to experience it, and so for the first month or so, there was a boon available: GM all four intro-level adventures and you can play a Dhampir.) Can you explain why you object to that?

There are not boon-dependent class options, except for very, very rare boons offered as prizes in charity auctions. Again, could you explain why you don't like that.

The "current season" of PFS campaign play has shifted from an assault on the demon-infused Worldwound, led by the angel-allied Silver Crusade, towards a new direction focused on Numeria and Tian-Xia. The campaign leadership wanted to shift the PC races away from Aasimar and Tieflings, towards the unusual races native to Tian-Xia.

How do you see that as arbitrary? You say that this is "the kind of thing" that has kept you from joining PFS. What other examples of these arbitrary rulings could you point to?

Mike and John reassured us that every current Aasimar or Tiefling PC is grandfathered in, and gave us a month's notice if we wanted to build a new PC.

How do you see that as "options suddenly disappear[ing]"?

Do you like the idea that the campaign sometimes shifts from one focus to another? If so, how would you have made the changes, if you ere in Mike's shoes? How would you have made the change less sudden?

To be honest, this sort of arbitrary thing is part of why I have been hesitant to get invested in PFS play. Having to earn the right to maybe get to play a particular class or race doesn't sit well with me, nor does having options suddenly disappear.

In 6 years of PFS, character options have been taken away by campaign leadership exactly twice.

The first time, they banned 4 or 5 class archetypes, with no grandfathering option for existing characters, but it was pretty obvious why they did it. One or two were severely overpowered, one was a table hog due to excessive summoned pets, and at least one didn't fit the tone of the campaign because it was just plain evil. I'd say that allowing those options into the campaign in the first place was a mistake, but they were new things in new books, and the PFS management team erred on the side of over-inclusiveness when the books first came out.

Removing these two races is the second of those times, and they did give us three new races to replace them, plus more than a month's warning for people to make new characters and get them grandfathered in. So these races may be restricted, but they're not banned. Nobody has to rebuild an existing character to a different race.

Aasimar and tiefling characters are clearly the 2nd and 3rd most common PC races behind humans, and that's obviously driven by power gaming. I don't buy the "story" reason of this change. But I do understand the reason behind it, and accept that this will help shift the focus back to Core races, plus the three new races that some of us were previously able to play by race boons, but are now available to everyone.

My point is that the PFS team at Paizo doesn't just randomly ban things. Taking away character options isn't something that happens very often, and when it does, there's usually an obvious reason for it. It's not something that should prevent anyone from getting invested in PFS. There are tons of good options you can use to make your characters, and even more options get added about a thousand times as often as things are taken away.

There are boon-dependent race options. There always have been; I'm not sure what to say, if you don't like that.

I do have a problem with that, which is why I have decided not to get involved (after locating the local games, talking to the folks that run it, buying the books, etc.).

I'm not saying that Paizo is doing anything inherently wrong, but I don't like the fact that I can't play any of the official races that I choose, especially if some disappear at times.

The whole metagaming aspect of "boons" isn't appealing to me. I just want to play the regular game. I was looking for a way to get involved in playing without having to join a weekly group, since I don't currently have the ability to commit to going to a game at the same time every week (due to work), and the PFS sounded like a great way to do that. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like it will work out well for me.

Apparently a lot of people get excited by the metagaming aspects, and that's great for them. It was my fault that I didn't dig a lot deeper into the limitations of PFS before buying books and such.

I'm an old-school gamer (started with the early D&D box sets in the 70s), so I don't really get this modern obsession with "balance" between classes and races. I'm not a min-maxer, and have deliberately played relatively weak characters for the roleplaying challenge of it. The idea that every combination of race and class at every level of experience needs to balance out against all the others is just not something I care about at all (as a player or a DM/GM).

It looks like this decision is fairly popular with current PFS folks, though, so more power to them.

I just want to play the regular game. I was looking for a way to get involved in playing without having to join a weekly group, since I don't currently have the ability to commit to going to a game at the same time every week (due to work), and the PFS sounded like a great way to do that. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like it will work out well for me.

It sounds like PFS would be perfect for you. I think you're getting too caught up in the internet discussion. As I joked earlier, these forums aren't for PFS players, they're for people who like arguing on the internet.

If you "Just want to play the regular game", then pick a race from the Core Rulebook and play. Those races will never go anywhere. They're supposed to be the standards.

For the first 4 years of Society play, the Core races were the only races that were legal for most players, unless someone happened to luck into a boon at a convention. Other races were opened up to everyone later, and now they're changing what some of the available non-Core races are.

Like I said, these types of changes don't happen very often. This is only the second major change of this type in 6 years of Society play. It's a stable and rapidly growing campaign, with lots of new character options from new books being opened up all the time. They just want to limit non-Core races a little to try and keep those Core races as the standards.

But for a newbie to Society play, just pick a Core race, make a character, show up, and play. Many of the adventures published for PFS are truly fantastic. Others are merely passable. Very few are even remotely bad. Either you'll enjoy playing with the people in your local community, or you won't. Don't worry about the secondary nonsense.

I guess it may be just my luck, but every GM i have ever had for a Non-PFS game has limited what PC races I can play more stringently then PFS. In fact most have limited it to just Core Races.

PFS is the most open to other races game I have ever played.

I can't speak for pickin_grinnin, but I don't think his issue is with the recent restrictions added to aasimars and tieflings (as in "no fair, you took something away").

It sounds like his objection is more related to the "boon system" and navigating through that perhaps within the culture of his local available store(s) or cons.

I've heard some similar objections to newer players, specifically about boons -- i.e. how do you know which character to bring to which scenario for which boons? (This point always comes up when a newer player plays in Sanos Abduction, for example). Generally, we of course suggest GMing if you bump into a boon you didn't see in advance in order to obtain it, whereupon the sentiment is that this favors folks who "meta game" (and in this case I mean the truest sense of meta game -- those folks who spoil themselves on all the boons in advance).

Anyway, this thread isn't about discussing the finer points of boons and metagaming at large (I imagine there are dozens of those with some dust accumulating on them already), but just more of a chance for pickin_grinnin to say "yeah that" and not have us run down a rabbit hole discussion unrelated to the changing of the race options for the wider majority.

Ooh, I missed this news when it first came out and I really love the precedent of rotating the races available without a boon. Hopefully it continues in future seasons.

Very Exciting!

I guess it may be just my luck, but every GM i have ever had for a Non-PFS game has limited what PC races I can play more stringently then PFS. In fact most have limited it to just Core Races.

PFS is the most open to other races game I have ever played.

Either that or some other houserules which prevent powercreep and bring most of the races/classes/combos in a line.

Sigh...all these new races and I still can't make an intelligent raccoon gunslinger.

Sigh...all these new races and I still can't make an intelligent raccoon gunslinger.

You could make a Kitsune and dye his hair in stripes.

Sigh...all these new races and I still can't make an intelligent raccoon gunslinger.

Or a treefolk invulnerable rager?

How about an elf Treesinger druid with a sapling treant companion, who spends all day wildshaped into a raccoon? Plus a dip into gunslinger.

trollbill wrote:

Sigh...all these new races and I still can't make an intelligent raccoon gunslinger.

Or a treefolk invulnerable rager?

I am groot!

I guess it may be just my luck, but every GM i have ever had for a Non-PFS game has limited what PC races I can play more stringently then PFS. In fact most have limited it to just Core Races.

PFS is the most open to other races game I have ever played.

Me too. And I'm like that when I GM non PFS as well

Dragnmoon wrote:

I guess it may be just my luck, but every GM i have ever had for a Non-PFS game has limited what PC races I can play more stringently then PFS. In fact most have limited it to just Core Races.

PFS is the most open to other races game I have ever played.

Me too. And I'm like that when I GM non PFS as well

Heh. I am starting up a home game, for RotRL, and I am trying to gently hint that my players should stay within Core for races.

Sigh. Subtlety isn't working. Now, I get to try and fiugure out if I really want to deal with a Peri-blooded Aasimar, and a catfolk. Meh.

Then again, on the positive side, at least I have heard back fromn these two as to what they want to play...

Catfolk? Who needs catfolk? I am herding cats...

Heh. I am starting up a home game, for RotRL, and I am trying to gently hint that my players should stay within Core for races.

Sigh. Subtlety isn't working. Now, I get to try and fiugure out if I really want to deal with a Peri-blooded Aasimar, and a catfolk. Meh.

Then again, on the positive side, at least I have heard back fromn these two as to what they want to play...

Catfolk? Who needs catfolk? I am herding cats...

I just started RotRL for my group, and I limited them to the races in the CRB. 4 players. They decided to be a party of all dwarves (paladin, rogue, undead specialist wizard, and a druid.) We'll see how this shakes out.

No complaints about limiting the races from my group.

June Soler wrote:

Dragnmoon wrote:

I guess it may be just my luck, but every GM i have ever had for a Non-PFS game has limited what PC races I can play more stringently then PFS. In fact most have limited it to just Core Races.

PFS is the most open to other races game I have ever played.

Me too. And I'm like that when I GM non PFS as well

Heh. I am starting up a home game, for RotRL, and I am trying to gently hint that my players should stay within Core for races.

Sigh. Subtlety isn't working. Now, I get to try and fiugure out if I really want to deal with a Peri-blooded Aasimar, and a catfolk. Meh.

Then again, on the positive side, at least I have heard back fromn these two as to what they want to play...

Catfolk? Who needs catfolk? I am herding cats...

Our RotRL group has a catfolk ninja, an oread fighter, a half-svirfneblin arcanist, an elven rogue, and an aasimar oracle/barbarian. How times have changed....

Mike and I have discussed better approaches, and we're going with something in-between.

Moderate: If a GM intends to use a character made of GM credit to build an aasimar or tiefling, simply write something to the effect of "This character will be an aasimar when I play it" on the most recent Chronicle sheet that grants XP.

Given the lack of qualification, my understanding is that this includes 'held credit' from a higher-level scenario.

Ideally, that higher-level credit could be applied to a 1st-level PC but this is not clearly legal.

How about an elf Treesinger druid with a sapling treant companion, who spends all day wildshaped into a raccoon? Plus a dip into gunslinger.

You do know Groot is the brains of the duo? He's royalty too, so the coon should be the one doing the whole companioning. Groot's a bro though, so he doesn't demand special treatment.

Ghoran/Wyrwood boon plz Paizo!

I do have a problem with that, which is why I have decided not to get involved (after locating the local games, talking to the folks that run it, buying the books, etc.).

I just want to play the regular game. I was looking for a way to get involved in playing without having to join a weekly group, since I don't currently have the ability to commit to going to a game at the same time every week (due to work), and the PFS sounded like a great way to do that. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like it will work out well for me.

Im sorry if this comes off abrasively, as I dont intend it to. Im just confused.

So your current options for gaming are:
1. Not play at all, because of your work schedule.
2. Play PFS periodically, a campaign where the vast majority of things published by Paizo are legal and there are millions of potential character combinations.

And you choose the first? Im sorry, I just dont understand how someone who has been into this scene for 40ish years would rather not play at all instead of playing in a campaign where your options are nearly limitless.

--It makes organizing harder for the next month.I had to convert a 5-9 last week to a 1-5because too many people wanted to play level 1s. It's going to get worse now because the people who thought they couild just rebuild an existing character will now need to play level 1s as well.

Do you mean you planned to run a 5-9 and instead had to do a 1-5? Cause otherwise Im confused on what this could mean, sticking within the PFS rules.

Akerlof wrote:

--It makes organizing harder for the next month.I had to convert a 5-9 last week to a 1-5because too many people wanted to play level 1s. It's going to get worse now because the people who thought they couild just rebuild an existing character will now need to play level 1s as well.

Do you mean you planned to run a 5-9 and instead had to do a 1-5? Cause otherwise Im confused on what this could mean, sticking within the PFS rules.

I had a 5-9 scheduled, listed up on the Meetup site that we do our organization on. We've always got 1-2 "low" tables (running at 1-2) and a "high" table. We'd been graduating from the high table being a 3-7 to running it at 5-9 because our highest PCs are in the 6, 7, 8 range.

But these past two weeks, I haven't had enough signups of level 5+ characters to fill out a table and an excess of people signing up for 1-2s. This is getting really frustrating for people who have higher level PCs since they aren't getting to play them.

So, a day or two before the Meetup I bowed to the inevitable and rescheduled the 5-9 to a 1-5, wasting the time I'd spent prepping the higher level scenario, forcing me to prep the lower scenario at the last minute, and not giving my players a chance to play their higher level characters.

It's a temporary nuisance, but it's a definite nuisance.

Hindsight is twenty-twenty, but it seems it may have been better to just ban the races in the new guide and not worry about the transition period.

People ask, "Why ban them at all?" For the same reason we banned the synthesist summoner and most other "banned" items in the last round - aasimar and teiflings are mechanically better than EVERY other option. Better ability scores, free SLAs and resistances, a prehensile tail feat that breaks many multiple-attack ranged builds, and an extra sourcebook that turned each race into six separate races, allowing customization of the better ability score to match any possible class choice. Frankly, they probably shouldn't have been allowed in to begin with, but I expect the shear number of related products had something to do with that. Also, people do like new races. But how many tengu have you seen compared to aasmiars?

Now, there are those who play planetouched for the flavour aspects and who aren't min-maxed out the wazoo. But as usual, those who see their character as nothing more than a set of numbers with which to beat other peoples' numbers have created the problem.

How many people who want to play planetouched characters would be just as happy with a straight +2 to any one skill and some free resistances, or a 25-point build? If your answer is yes, then please don't complain about how unfair it is to have your options taken away.

GM Lamplighter,

I think that would greatly detract from peoples enjoyment of the game moreso than the minor disruption caused by the aasimars presence. They are better than other races but its not really a game breaking difference.

The month's warning and grandfathering period may be a slight nuisance, while people play their new level 1 characters for the first time to lock in the race, but I certainly don't consider it a mistake to allow it. As Akerlof said, it may definitely be a nuisance, but at least it's just a temporary nuisance.

Campaign leadership would have taken far more flack from the outraged rants of people who missed out if they hadn't given us a month's warning.

Personally, I bought Blood of Fiends a week before the announcement, planning to make my first tiefling character. At the time, I wasn't sure when I would play him for the first time, so I'm not sure if I would have made a point of playing him before the deadline. If there hadn't been warning about the race becoming illegal, and I'd missed out because I didn't play him when I had the chance, I would have been pissed.

People ask, "Why ban them at all?" For the same reason we banned the synthesist summoner and most other "banned" items in the last round - aasimar and teiflings are mechanically better than EVERY other option.

Thing is, they really are not. People keep thinking they are even after it was disproven, or try to use the Race Building Guidelines without realizing how inaccurate they are. Aasimar and Tiefling, (and it seems that few can agree on which one is the bigger culprit) are a bit stronger at level 1, but that doesn't last long at all, and tend to actually be weaker by level 3 onwards. Now, that said, I think everyone can agree that the Blood of book options, particularly the alternate heritages is too good, but only because it allows for the tailoring of specific ability score combos. But really, most of the spell-like abilities and resistances just are not that great.

But, like you said, I would be fine with a single +2, or even a +2/+2/-2. And even dropping the Resistances and Spell-Like Ability. I'd also be fine with only banning the extra heritages, which honestly seems like the best option. I think I've played 4 Aasimar in PFS, and I honestly can't think more than a handful of times Daylight/Darkness has really even been used outside of just flavor. Too many players go for Wayfinders, Darkvision, Low-Light Vision, or a 0 level Light spell most of the time, and Darkness tends to hurt the party much more than most enemies. I do have an Aasimar that 1/scenario grants another player a single personalized EBT, but big wow, and even that is more for flavor, as in PFS it's a bit of a grey area if you can legally purchase one that it's a default torch. And a 75gp Ioun Torch is infinitely better anyway which anyone can get at level 1 after a 1st scenario.

Flavor wise, of the idea is to return to Tien Xia in a major way, and with the total break from Cheliax with the Darkive, it also just makes no sense. Seems like plenty of Tieflings wanting to escape oppression from Cheliax (or the Worldwound) would find a welcome home in the PFS, and well, there is a major nation in Tien Xia of Aasimar. Sorry, to me, this really just smacks of a few DMs with the leaderships ear that complained (squeaky wheel style), and ruined it for everyone else. Might be wrong, but that's, to me, how the announcement sort of sounds.