talbanus's page

System bloat.

1-24, Decline of Glory, Tier 3-4. Thanks to Charlie Bell for running this for my group back in the day.

I'm going to step back on this now... some of the responses I'm seeing are not uncommon from men in suggestions like this. I'd be interested to see what the women think.

This. I think the overall goal of increasing the amount of diverse participation in the hobby is a good one. However, I think that maybe those in the minority (women and persons of color) that ARE already involved should be the ones to get together and determine what encouraged them/would encourage them to participate more.

Paul Jackson wrote:

I FAQ'ed the post above (technically speaking there IS an issue) but the answer is absolutely 100% obvious and clear. We all KNOW that they're just going to tell us to use the Bestiary.

The issue is that by playing/running PFS you agree to using and enforcing the Rules as laid out in the various Campaign rules documents and sourcebooks.

Given that, we don't "KNOW", we just know what makes sense to us.

Using the Season 7 Core Campaign language we KNEW that the Bestiary Animal Companions were legal. The Rules said so. We got a ruling saying they were not intended to legal and that the Season 8 Guide would have a revision of the specific language.

~

Now we have the new language and are looking to fix the issues created by the new language. As well as fix other issue with the language for the Core Campaign.

What looks more authoritarian than deep lawful neutral? I think we now have our answer ... FOLLOW TEH RULES OR THERE WILL BE CHAOS!

Abadari wrote:

It's call the Core Campaign

In Phoenix, Core is where the hardcore gamers go to play more, and build excessively powerful builds in order to survive without the wider variety of abilities that make Normal easier.

Or really use teamwork and strategy to bring the big baddies down. :-)

Mortimer Raven. Nicely detailed!

Larry,

I'll be in the Sea-Tac area this weekend and was hoping to maybe sit in on a table of PFS. Can you let me know what's being run? I registered on NWPFS on Tues (6/2) but haven't been cleared to view all the boards yet. You can reply to me via the mail server on this site or at wbabbitt253@gmail.com. Thanks in advance.

William B.

Is there such a thing? Away from home and my books today ...

Quote:

Core mode play, as far as I can tell, largely appeals to: 1) new consumers afraid of the weight of system mastery, 2) consumers who find system bloat unappealing, and 3) consumers who just want to replay for credit for whatever reasons they deem valid.

Right... All of which 5e arguably does better (mainly the first two. But 5e does open up new scenarios for people to play).

But again, my opinions are just being dismissed as "well that's just not your style of play."

Quote:

That other game is different, for different reasons. (regarding the comparison of 5e to Core)

Yes, and this other system solves the solutions Core set out to solve better.

Quote:

I think a lot of the "difficulty" reported on this thread is just people cherry-picking the scenarios that were close calls due to circumstances or bad luck.

And also because a lot of simple solutions to things are more difficult in Core. For example, Air Crystals are amazing and cheap. Or a spell like Monkey Fish (which lets you swim/climb) as a level 1 spell, compared to Spider Climb a second level spell. It's just easier to bypass certain parts of the scenario and make them a heck of a lot easier. But overall I agree with you, I don't think Core is vastly more difficult than Norm, but I've mostly played Season 0 in Core.

A couple of things that aren't being addressed in this discussion are:

1.) CORE is just an off-shoot of an existing organized play campaign. A more valid comparison would be to compare it to the 5E organized play campaign. Which takes me to my second point ...

2.) Setting. For me, Golarion >> Faerun. That's my personal preference, as I like the medium magic flavor (which CORE enhances) versus the high magic feel I've always gotten from any Faerun campaign.

I played Silent Tide with a six man team, all brand new PCs. In the final battle we ended up with the sorcerer and cleric in the negatives and weren't sure we were going to make it. Naturally, the effect of having no cure light wounds wands contributed to our troubles as well.

Well, your GM was obviously cheating, running it wrong, and, in addition, a terrible personTM. ;^) Seriously, though, my dice were fairly hot in that last combat. That made it much rougher than it would have been. Some 'interesting' tactics by the sorcerer also contributed to some horizontal behavior.

Dwarf cleric.

Imbicatus wrote:

You can still buy admanatine, silver, & cold iron arrows. It's expensive, but it's better than nothing. Combined with a holy bow, you are overcoming most DR. You still don't have blunt arrows, which hurts.

And no durable arrows so every miss with an adamantine arrow causes you to wince - and buying mundane arrows in lots of 20 might make you wince as well.

And yet full attacking most rounds while your melee support is closing? As the commercial series says, "Priceless." XD

Sometimes it's worth slowing down the game. There is no PFS police that are going to haul you away for slowing the game down. More to the point, you'll never learn any non-core material just running CORE. If you think a PC build is dubious, make them explain to you for 5 min. 5 min that can save 30 min is time well spent.

If ONLY it only took 5 minutes and didn't totally derail the flow/momentum of the game.

You see, what I've found is that not only are certain type of players very good at pouring through the various available sources to find synergistic combinations that can be extremely powerful, a good portion of the same group often has different interpretations of how some of the feats/class abilities/etc work.

I found after the Ultimate series was published, I'd encounter issues with players' rules interpretations, where I, as table GM, ended up saying, "Well, I know that is how you would LIKE it to work, but that's not my interpretation. You can appeal to the gameday coordinator/convention coordinator or we can just go on with my interpretation, since I'm GMing this particular table."

As time went on, I resorted to this 'solution' less and less. I just hated the way it ground table momentum to an absolute standstill.

Anyway, with even more materials becoming available, my knowledge has lagged further behind all the possible combinations of what might require rules interpretation -- so the amount of times I would just hand wave and tell the player, "Whatever you say" increased. I hate doing this, but I'd rather just go that direction than bring the game to a grinding halt while we have a discussion that often ends up with a disagreement of the interpretation of the rules. My point is that this has increasingly led me to feel that I'm doing a 'bad job' at GMing (I know, I know, it's all relative).

My current 'solution' is to limit my GMing to low tier (1-5, occasionally 3 to 7) tables. While this satisfied my desire to GM, it just meant others increasingly shoulder the burden of GMing high tier scenarios.

I think *maybe* with the institution of the core campaign, I can now run higher tier tables where the players can be satisfied that I'm spending enough time sorting through rules with them and I can feel like the flow of the story I'm trying to tell isn't shot through the head and rolled into a roadside ditch.

I can't speak for everyone, but I know the VOs in Arizona are absolutely committed to responding to player demand. We'll schedule what people say they want -- both directly and via sign-ups. In other words, my personal affinity for Core as a GM or player has no bearing on my actions as a coordinator.

If I had to venture a guess, I'd say Core will likely remain secondary to Normal when it comes to scheduling, but time will tell.

I can't speak for everyone, but I know all the VOs in the Phoenix area, and they all SHOULD BE committed! ;-)

redward wrote:

Core Mode drastically reduces the number of rules a GM needs to deal with.

I'm just going to have to disagree. There are a limited number of options. You can claim more options on a character requires more reading but the truth is once they sit down at the table there are only X rules at the table. It's hard to come up with more rules than a druid/cleric/wizard compared to other classes.

redward wrote:

I don't think players are entitled to a GM. I do think a GM should be allowed to run a game he wants to play.

Why are GM's entitled to this mode existing? If it didn't exist there would be no conflict.

redward wrote:

Responsible organizers will be sure to advertise which tables will be Core and which will be Normal.

When 2 people show up? How many core only tables do you think will just not make because it's Core because one of our nights the GM wants to convert to core only. Less than half the people who normally go have signed up.

redward wrote:

If there are no longer enough GMs to run Normal mode then someone else will have to step up.

Or PFS dies... which is my entire point.

redward wrote:

If the players' response is "but I don't want to GM" then they now know how that GM feels with respect to Normal mode.

Which they wouldn't feel if this didn't exist.

redward wrote:

As I said before, if between one and three people are left in the cold, that is indeed unfortunate, but they are not entitled to a table, especially if it means forcing a GM to run a table in their preferred mode.

You don't think it's unfair of 1 person to impose their will on the rest of them?

redward wrote:

A rant on player entitlement, not directed towards anyone in particular:

Just because the GM controls the enemies does not mean he is your enemy.

Many GM's I know seem to think otherwise.

redward wrote:

There is a certain pervasive player attitude I've seen on the boards here that a PFS GM is required to

...

I can't bring myself to respond to this ... not sure what to call it. All's I can say is I think you did an excellent job of reinforcing many of Redward's points. Carry on.

talbanus wrote:

If 6 people want to play normal mode and the GM doesn't want to run it, you know what? Sounds like one of the 6 needs to prep the scenario in normal mode and run it for his/her 5 friends (rather than expect someone to spend 4+ hours PLUS prep time to do something they don't enjoy).

So if they have fewer players and one can't even step up to GM because there's not enough players left collectively to run they're just SoL.

Which is the attitude the 4 and 5 star GMs seem to have toward this. "Screw the people who are hurt I've been helped!" Few of them seem to exhibit much concern about PFS.

Well, people that are 4 or 5 star GM's ... those stars SHOW they have put a lot of time into this campaign. I am pretty sure they're not just 'takers'. XD

P.S.: except TOZ. That guy is such a selfish douche! ;-)

talbanus wrote:

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Pahlok wrote:

I don't think this really stops optimization at all.

Nothing will. So this obviously isn't intended to.

Nothing will stop it, but greater system/class balance could make it less troublesome (as far as organized play, where the GM cant adjust things on the fly nearly as much). This would require greater playtesting and/or restrictions to materials, though. I call this beautiful dream, Pathfinder 2.0. /ducks

Pathfinder 2 will come at some point, for the time being Pathfinder Unchained will be a nice way to test some ideas, and obviously PF2 will need the mother of all playtest.

I hope that it receives the mother of all play-tests. That's not a panacea, but it would be nice if such happened and it helped initial release class (and other) balance. It's one of the things I thought that other product did well in their initial release of their 4th edition (that and the aggro mechanic -- didn't like too much else about it .. but I digress).

Anyhoodle, yes, I too, want us to 'all get along'. And I agree, some people are going to behave badly. However, agreeing the behavior will happen, and allowing it or lowering the behavior bar, I can't agree with. Calling them 'complicated' ... I think that's a disservice. We can't all be super social butterfly carebear ... but we should at least realize that what we're doing here is about THE GROUP having fun. It is, at MOST, 1/4th about you (you, the GM running an iconic, and 2 other players). This is a social game. You need to not behave in an anti-social fashion. If you do, you should be invited to leave. /endrant

redward wrote:

Undone wrote:

Here's the other problem no one has addressed. GM's who will refuse to GM anything but Core Only when players want Normal games.

That's not a problem.

You don't think losing 4-6 players because a new mode came out is a problem?

Quote:

Those players are always welcome to GM themselves. Of course, being new GMs they will probably ask to run Core Mode.

;-)

Why? Core mode doesn't effect GM's in any way except additional credits for already run adventures, and you don't think losing a GM would be a bad thing?

I'm going to guess Redward means it's not a problem, because players can convert themselves into GM's. If 6 people want to play normal mode and the GM doesn't want to run it, you know what? Sounds like one of the 6 needs to prep the scenario in normal mode and run it for his/her 5 friends (rather than expect someone to spend 4+ hours PLUS prep time to do something they don't enjoy).

talbanus wrote:

What? Isn't this the equivalent of someone that's accused of a crime, responding with, "Oh, you thought that was breaking the law? Let me show you what breaking the law looks like!"? Instead of getting your back up about a perceived attack on your play style, how about we encourage self-examination and self-awareness? Maybe a thought of, "Why are they reacting to what I'm doing or saying in that way?"

The "breaking the law example" doesn't work for me. It's more like having a slider between enjoying role playing a character and enjoying the tactical approach, and building effective characters. Obviously players find themselves on all parts of that spectrum.

There is a world of difference between your neighbor knocking on your door and asking you to turn down the music please, and him complain about it, making claims of higher authority and threatening you with the police

One of those results in me getting my headphones, the other one results me making an effort to annoy him (Germany has quiet hours, but outside of those the limits are rather lax, and in theory I could blast music (up to a limit) all day long except in those hours. I would take the time to rig a timer and everything to ensure maximum service). Is that an immature response, oh absolutely, but in the case of powergaming and destroying scenarios, we have an issue where players are already condemned of the act, so they might feel empowered to actually do it.

And I actually started a thread about self awareness amongst other areas
feel free to participate.

talbanus wrote:

o, you're inferring that most of the people that knowingly make extremely powerful characters and use them to steam-roll season 0 to 3 encounters are actually already practicing some form of restraint? And that if we threaten to 'take away their toys', then they go out of their way to make something even more broken?! So, we

...

Dude. How is responding in a jerky, immature way ever a reasonable response? Stop trying to justify bad behavior. Doing things with the prime motivation being either selfish ("it's about me!") or down right antagonistic ("I don't like what you said so I'm going to break this and I don't care if it annoys other people, in fact I hope it does!") is just that -- bad behavior.

Pahlok wrote:

I don't think this really stops optimization at all.

Nothing will. So this obviously isn't intended to.

Nothing will stop it, but greater system/class balance could make it less troublesome (as far as organized play, where the GM cant adjust things on the fly nearly as much). This would require greater playtesting and/or restrictions to materials, though. I call this beautiful dream, Pathfinder 2.0. /ducks

talbanus wrote:

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

I am not going to call you a purist, but please don't start complaining when people with enough system mastery still walk through those scenarios.

You seem to imply here that those of us who don't build juggernauts that inevitably dominate season 0 to 3 scenarios lack the ability to do so. Am I wrong?

EDITED for clarity

Kinda yeah, there is a clear difference between what I prefer to run, and what is most effective. I really don't like to dump Charisma to 7, and avoid a number of other things like the plague.

But in this instance where someone decides to talk negatively about the chosen play style of other players, and plenty of other posters make the assumption, that the introduction of core makes certain excesses impossible, well it isn't far fetched to say that they are asking for it.

What? Isn't this the equivalent of someone that's accused of a crime, responding with, "Oh, you thought that was breaking the law? Let me show you what breaking the law looks like!"? Instead of getting your back up about a perceived attack on your play style, how about we encourage self-examination and self-awareness? Maybe a thought of, "Why are they reacting to what I'm doing or saying in that way?"

Obviously you can make a very good summoner, gunslinger or magus, without feeling that you personally scrape the bottom or the barrel for the really cheap/nasty options, but when other players take those toys away from you, (yeah they don't but bear with me) since you can't be trusted with them. That might motivate a certain kind of player to throw all self censorship and gentlemans agreements out of the cart and design something that breaks scenarios.

I don't agree, that this is the proper way of conflict resolution, but it would be nice to end some internet arguments.

So, you're inferring that most of the people that knowingly make extremely powerful characters and use them to steam-roll season 0 to 3 encounters are actually already practicing some form of restraint? And that if we threaten to 'take away their toys', then they go out of their way to make something even more broken?! So, we should just not threaten toy restriction, because, then, they'll show us what broken really looks like? Wow. Power gamer terrorism -- apparently it's a real thing now?

Oh, and I think that the construction of CORE just keeps certain builds from being possible/good, it is unlikely to seriously weaken the best tactics (summoning, battlefield control, archery).

Build =/= tactics. Tactics are making sure you get the rogue a flank, make sure you're in the proper location to maximize the benefit of your channels, etc. However, I do agree with what I think your intended point was - that certain powerful builds will still exist in core (damage machine archers, conjurer's with enhanced summoning, etc). I encourage authors of future scenarios to more often use things that balance out such icons (windwall or gust of wind (forget which), giving baddies a way to dismiss or minimize the impact of summoned creatures, etc).

Bit of an odd question, but would there be any problem with creating a database of available items from chronicle sheets for the purposes of COP (Core Organized Play)?

I was thinking of making something where you input your 'scenarios played or GMed' in standard mode, and it generates a categorized and searchable list of everything from outside of the CRB that you can buy with any given scenario. Looking through the hard copies of my Chronicle Sheets for cool things to pick up is kind of exhausting.

If you're talking about creating your own database (in this case, often in the form of a spreadsheet) for your character, listing which not-always available items they can purchase due to access via that character's chronicle sheet, then, nope, nothing wrong with that.

If you're talking about taking all the chronicles you ever played on any character (regular or Core mode) and making a database of chronicle access items and/or boons, then using it to determine which scenarios you should play with which Core mode character, that would likely be frowned upon by most of the player base (at least in my opinion). At best, it can be thought of as meta-gaming. At worst .. down right cheating. Do people do it? They sure do. Does that make it OK? Not in my opinion.

I am not going to call you a purist, but please don't start complaining when people with enough system mastery still walk through those scenarios.

You seem to imply here that those of us who don't build juggernauts that inevitably dominate season 0 to 3 scenarios lack the ability to do so. Am I wrong?

EDITED for clarity

I am impressed. I look forward to seeing how the additional faction task and reward system plays out in-game. Just reading it has made me more interested in the factions of the characters that will be joining mine on missions.

I've played table top RPG's off and on for 30 years. I've played a particular MMO for over 8 years. Joking about 1337-speak aside, I find the 'creeping in' of the MMO gamer attitude much more annoying than the that of the lingo.

To look at it another way, let me paraphrase a tag line one of the more clever players on my first MMO 'realm' used:

"Why is there so much less drama and bad behavior in tabletop gaming than in MMO's? Because all the players are within striking distance of one another."

Batman

Finlanderboy wrote:

Because armor does not deflect the bullet. That force has to go somewhere.

So if the attack hits touch but not regular AC it should do half damage?

Why don't we also apply this to incredibly large weapons like huge greatswords? After all, the force has to go somewhere.

What would you know about incredibly large weapons, TOZ? XD

On a more serious note, I do enjoy systems (and variants of this system) where armor acts as DR.

I haven't played or read the module, and have nothing to add except this: I got a kick out the title of this thread. Well done, OP. :)

Oh, I'd be HAPPY to run you, Tom, and a few more vic .. players through it! :-D

Anyone else having this problem?

GM Lamplighter wrote:

The last time I saw data on it, I think the forums represented a few percent of the active players in PFS. Probably the longer-term and most experienced players, at that.

When I run games at conventions, I see people all the time dying in scenarios that offer "no challenge" to the optimized PC and experienced player. It is very hard to balance that audience with the folks who want to play PFS regularly. I'd suggest playing modules, actually - they offer a bit more continuity, and they are harder because they were designed for the PCs to level up in the middle, and you don't get to in PFS. Play a module with 4 PCs and you'll be challenged.

Combine this with the fact that the average Convention attendee is more dedicated and experienced than the average game-day attendee and you really start to see the problem.

P.S. um...where did all my GM Stars go?

My data from personal experience attending cons in both the Seattle and Phoenix areas is that convention attendees that play PFS are generally a bi-modal distribution of extremely veteran players and very new/casual players (people trying for the first time or people that only play once or twice a year at conventions).

Andrei Buters wrote:

The typical PFS player:

-Min-maxes their stats
-Plays a Paladin, Summoner, Witch or a Touch-Attacker
-Cherry picks the very best feats out of 10+ Player Companions
-Plays in a party of 6

Then goes onto the boards and complains about how the scenarios are too easy.

You set difficulty when you make your character. The problem is so many of our player base are unconsciously clicking 'Can I Play Daddy?' when they make their characters.

Strategy and tactics are really overrated, especially when you control only 1/6th of the party, and you almost can't act when its the monsters turn. The vast majority of difficulty is overcome with your build, not your play. Thats what power gamers are looking to set up to be hit with some crunch. They've (we've?) made their wrecking ball, and they want to see it hit a nice solid brick building.

I disagree. Strategy and tactics are only over-rated when one side of a conflict has either over-whelming technology (aka 'magic') or numbers as to make any superior tactics and/or strategy employed by the other side moot. I agree with the person who hinted that it may be time to consider rebalancing the campaign by restricting access to particular feats, magic items, spells, etc. The problem I see is whose going to pay for the person-hours it would take to perform an in-depth review of each of these items on game balance? I doubt that expense fits into Paizo's economic model, especially in a retro-active manner (not even going to talk about the P.R. nightmare that would result from trying to take the candy away after you've let the kids have it for a while).

Are you the Gamemaster?

I am the walrus?

A few answers:

The PRD is NOT a legal reference for PFS. It is there as a convenient way to get the Pathfinder rules "out there", but the Organized Play Campaign specifies what its rules are in the 50-page Guide to Organized Play.

In the Guide it discusses FAQs and clarifications. It uses the term "Campaign Leadership" - Mike Brock is the Campaign Coordinator, and John Compton does (most of?) the development for PFS. SKR worked on many of the rules books, but his word is not official for PFS (although obviously it carries weight. But in the few instances where it completes reverses a written rule, the rule stands unless Mike or John say otherwise.)

This. Some of this type of stuff came up during a 7-11 scenario I was running this weekend. I forget the particular spell or w/e it was. However, I think I allowed the use of a Pathfinder developer's board post to sway me. Not doing this anymore. It's going to be adjucated as per the book rules, FAQ's, and Mike and/or John posts. This isn't as good to me as a rapidly updated FAQ would be, but it's what I'm going to roll with. If there's a case where there's a dispute and it's not clarified in the FAQ or in a post by M. Brock or J. Compton, then I, as adjudicator (table GM) will decide.

Has any one here been in the alpha test? I just visited the PFO website and it kind of (re?) sparked my interest. How's it looking. I watched a friend demo it at last PaizoCon and it seemed a bit clunky at the time. I'm sure it's shaping up better -- just wondering what those in the alpha are experiencing.

That's what we were supposed to do when they posted the clarification about one-handed flurries.

Reread the last three words of your post, TOZ. Then NEVER type that again. XD

Food for thought - If a game has so many new rules and/or options, the purveyor of said game cannot keep an FAQ document updated, perhaps the game has too many rules and/or options?

In other words - Rules bloat, it's why we cannot have nice things.

Hey, I had to cancel my subs because I wasn't reading what I already had.

Are we gonna have to call 911 when Paizo announces Pathfinder 2.0? :-p

Anyone aware of a Paizo source that has a trait that allows a character to make disguise a class skill?

Wow, I did not catch the write-ups in Seeker of Secrets. Awesome.

newb. ;)

Except Pageant makes you right, instead of full of it.

Time for a Big Lebowski quote -

Walter Sobchek: "Am I wrong, Dude?"

The Dude: "No, Walter, you're not wrong. You're just as @sshole!"

Walter Sobchek: "Well, OK, then."

I guess it goes to show how different the game is at higher levels.

Yes. IMO, the power vs. level curve is non-linear. Not quite exponential, but the game with level 11 characters is alot more different than a game with level 7 characters, than the same level 7 group is when compared to a level 3 group. I refer to this phenomena as 'synercheese'.

ezrider23 wrote:

UndeadMitch wrote:

ezrider23 wrote:

All for One and One for All.

You mean they're bringing back the Shadow Lodge? :)

:glances over shoulder warily:

Has it actually gone anywhere?

Hail Torch.

Button pusher. XD

Michael Brock wrote:

There aren't many adventures for 12+ that could be run in the five hour time slot. One combat can last 60-90 minutes alone.

There were plenty of Living Greyhawk scenarios which supported APLs 12-16. It's certainly doable.

And as I mentioned before, such a scenario could have one combat and be an excellent 12+ scenario.

-Matt

Power creep from 3.5. SIGNIFICANT power creep since Ultimate Etc have been released. I'd estimate subtier 7-8 in PFS corresponds to APL 10 of LG (sometimes 12) and subtier 10-11 corresponds to APL 14 (sometimes 16) of LG.

MrSin wrote:

nosig wrote:

what's "... the E6/P6 route..."?

E6 is a type of gameplay/set of houserules where you stop at level six and continue to earn feats and rewards rather than more levels. Ideally it avoids issues that occur at higher level play, with casters gaining more world breaking power, more rocket tag, etc.

wow... I like this! I like it alot... got to read more on this.

THanks!

ditto!

Matthew Pittard wrote:

From a business stand point like Drogon said above, and draw it to an economic angle, it does not make financial sense to sink more resources into one percent of your market. You have X number of resources, the more you put into that 1 percent of the market, the less you have to satisfy the 99 other percent.

Until that percentage go to about 15 percent, I dont think Id pay much attention to that total.

Chevrolet doesn't make the Corvette to sell Corvettes, they make the Corvette to sell the Impala and the Silverado.

As an automotive company, GM's hey day was 40 years ago. Inferring any company should follow their business practices is misguided, at best.

90% of my Paizo purchases can likely be attributed to PFS involvment.

Drogon wrote:

MrSin wrote:

Finlanderboy wrote:

Well I honestly believe that PFS allows SOOO much people feel jaded whent he "one thing" they speciifcally want is not legal.

On the other hand, you want to allow a wide variety of people in and just not allowing something arbitrarily doesn't really serve a purpose I wouldn't think.

I going to gainsay you just a teensy bit, Mr. Sin:

If you really think that the idea of carving up babies and serving them to their mothers for breakfast is "cool" or "fun to play," then no, I actually don't want to allow you into the game.

Otherwise, yes, I want a wide variety of people in the game. But I'm pretty happy that Paizo actively works on excluding the real creepers.

I'd think saying "no carving up babies to use as a bongo drum" is a bit more than whim. Also, gross.

Ummm, then I'm not sure where you're coming from. If it's the general, "Don't ban things arbitrarily/on a whim", I don't think anything in this thread falls near that line. The O.P. made it pretty clear what s/he was referring to and Mr. Brock and Drogon pointed out why such is verboten in this organized play campaign.

There's kind of two ways to approach your Favored Enemy selection.

There's at least one more, as was aluded to earlier in the thread.

Finlanderboy wrote:

Well I honestly believe that PFS allows SOOO much people feel jaded whent he "one thing" they speciifcally want is not legal.

On the other hand, you want to allow a wide variety of people in and just not allowing something arbitrarily doesn't really serve a purpose I wouldn't think.

Bolding mine. I'm going to assume that you haven't read the rest of this thread or you wouldn't have made the preceding statement. If, indeed, you haven't, reading the OP and Mr. Brock's and Drogon's responses will catch you up right away.

Alright. I only own the Bestiary and the CRB. Can't really afford anything else. So, I challenge you to make your MOST BORKEN BUILD for PFS using only the CRB.

Why? Is this just an exercise in power building?

And, yeah, fighter archers can really crank out the damage.