|
Its pretty late game though, and PFS doesn't go to 16. At that same level wizards are ripping reality open and doing all sorts of crazy things, CAGM barbarians came online a while ago, and all sorts of other madness goes on. At lower levels its definitely more tame.
Scenarios do not support gameplay that high, but the campaign certainly does. I have a monk at level 19 and a wizard at 18 in PFS.
And this conversation originated by a comparison of vivisectionist to other melees. That is the comparison I speak to. Comparing them to full blooded casters is comparing apples to shotguns.
Mr Sin. Last time this came up, I explained where the vivisectionist got his power.
You also tried to turn me into a strawman and claim I was a power gamer who wanted power without paying for it, and that the reason vivisectionist was banned was because its evil as a balance for its power despite not being evil.
What you're experiencing in this thread, you're doing to yourself.
Not my intents, trust me, I'll be better after a good cup of coffee, which I happen to have now.
|
I didn't say they were disruptive.
I quoted the specific ability that was inappropriate for organized play (specifically PFS), since you didn't take my hint and actually honestly look at the abilities a vivisectionist has.
And no, you don't just ban a single ability of an archetype. That doesn't solve anything.
Either the entire archetype is legal, or it is not.
There are already too many exceptions within PFS play, that we don't need to start making exceptions and line-item bans for every archetype or class out there.
To be fair, I was the one that asked for the specific ability you were referring to. I have not replied simply because I am still considering your point and the ability
As to your other point, there is already precedent for altering specific abilities.
I also fear that if you feel that there are already too many exceptions within PFS play then you are in for disappointment. I imagine the list is going to continue to grow.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I had a vivisectionist for a brief bit of time. I didn't play it because it replaced the rogue. I didn't play it because I liked the "evil" feel (until that other thread discussing this I only vaguely knew what the word "vivisection" meant). I played it because it replaced the bomb feature of the alchemist, which I dislike. I am in the camp who will never play an alchemist PC simply because I don't like bombs. Love the other features of the class; just really don't want to have to rely on bombs for my damage. Boring.
I still think the class got banned because of the anthropomorphic animal.
Kinda seriously, this time: there aren't any of them in Golarion, and Paizo has quickly and vociferously put a stop to speculation on their existence in Golarion lore every time speculation crops up (that I've seen). The odd bit of rules exist for their use and/or creation, but nothing ever leaks into the campaign setting itself.
And, for my part at least, the vivisectionist's removal from the campaign is fine, whether because of Bugs Bunny or because of the flavor text. It makes no difference.
This campaign is Paizo's. They are allowed to do with it what they will.
|
|
Perhaps taking a step back from this thread for a bit .... old discussions are just that old and tired and probably left dead for the most part. Rehashing old arguments is a waste of everyone's time.
The campaign staff has deemed the archetype not legal for PFS play, there really isn't more that can be said or that needs to be said.
Perhaps taking a step back from this thread for a bit .... old discussions are just that old and tired and probably left dead for the most part. Rehashing old arguments is a waste of everyone's time.
The campaign staff has deemed the archetype not legal for PFS play, there really isn't more that can be said or that needs to be said.
Not everyone's keen on acquiescing. There's always something that can be done.
|
|
Perhaps taking a step back from this thread for a bit .... old discussions are just that old and tired and probably left dead for the most part. Rehashing old arguments is a waste of everyone's time.
The campaign staff has deemed the archetype not legal for PFS play, there really isn't more that can be said or that needs to be said.
I would tend to agree that such conversation is unlikely to cause change, but I personally don't think there is anything wrong with discussing the who's, why's, and when's as long as everyone can remain civil.
That last bit is tricksy hobbitses on the internet!
|
|
Perhaps taking a step back from this thread for a bit .... old discussions are just that old and tired and probably left dead for the most part. Rehashing old arguments is a waste of everyone's time.
The campaign staff has deemed the archetype not legal for PFS play, there really isn't more that can be said or that needs to be said.
I would tend to agree that such conversation is unlikely to cause change, but I personally don't think there is anything wrong with discussing the who's, why's, and when's as long as everyone can remain civil.
That last bit is tricksy hobbitses on the internet!
The problem is, this is an old argument ... nothing came of the discussion then and nothing is bound to come of it now... why waste "breath" on typing the same thing over and over again.
and with that.. I'm done.
|
|
Perhaps taking a step back from this thread for a bit .... old discussions are just that old and tired and probably left dead for the most part. Rehashing old arguments is a waste of everyone's time.
The campaign staff has deemed the archetype not legal for PFS play, there really isn't more that can be said or that needs to be said.
I am not certain with your attitude that the internet would exist! (Meant as a joke....well sorta, come on you know its kinda true.)
|
Maybe a better tack would be to submit a request to the designers to produce an alchemist archetype that replaces the bomb features of the class, but doesn't have the evil connotations of the vivisectionist? Then get a lot of people to show support, so the demand is known?
Repeated requests for something to be made PFS-legal that's already been denied time and time again doesn't seem very productive to me.
That last bit is tricksy hobbitses on the internet!
Oy, civility on a forum. Far easier with my coffee.
To be honest I don't expect much change, but a civil discussion is always a nice thing, especially if you have a modest philosophical and design gig with them.
Maybe a better tack would be to submit a request to the designers to produce an alchemist archetype that replaces the bomb features of the class, but doesn't have the evil connotations of the vivisectionist? Then get a lot of people to show support, so the demand is known?
I'd be cool with that! Sneak attack is pretty cool, but I'm sure there's another viable alternative. Its mostly the bombs that really get to me about the alchemist because its hard not to accidentally hit a bro with them. Bros don't like being bombed by bros ya' know.
|
|
The problem is, this is an old argument ... nothing came of the discussion then and nothing is bound to come of it now... why waste "breath" on typing the same thing over and over again.
and with that.. I'm done.
That's fair enough. I guess the way I look at it is I have no dogs in this fight, so whether it sees extensive discussion or not it's no sweat off my back one way or the other. When I get tired of seeing or hearing about something on the internet, I just ignore it. Works like a charm. ;)
|
|
Perhaps taking a step back from this thread for a bit .... old discussions are just that old and tired and probably left dead for the most part. Rehashing old arguments is a waste of everyone's time.
The campaign staff has deemed the archetype not legal for PFS play, there really isn't more that can be said or that needs to be said.
I would tend to agree that such conversation is unlikely to cause change, but I personally don't think there is anything wrong with discussing the who's, why's, and when's as long as everyone can remain civil.
That last bit is tricksy hobbitses on the internet!
The problem is, this is an old argument ... nothing came of the discussion then and nothing is bound to come of it now... why waste "breath" on typing the same thing over and over again.
and with that.. I'm done.
PFCBG, you keep coming into these threads and complaining that it's all been done before. I sympathize, but most of us haven't even around so long that we've seen the entirety of these conversations. If you want to provide links, so we can see what ideas have already been done, that's cool. But just the fact that the conversation has been had before doesn't mean we can't, or even shouldn't, have it again.
|
|
I sympathize, but most of us haven't even around so long that we've seen the entirety of these conversations. If you want to provide links, so we can see what ideas have already been done, that's cool.Voila!
That's a lot of results. Do you have links to the specific threads that are relevant to this particular aspect of the conversation? Just telling people to search "vivisectionist" isn't really going to accomplish anything.
|
Since rogues are a perfectly fine option for organized play, Vivesecionist not being allowed for flavor reasons is a bit far-fetched don't you think?
The official reason is flavor, but I don't believe it. There were some problems with Vivisectionists.
1) They were just better than rogues in almost every way.
2) Players created PCs with 1 level dips into alchemist for sneak attack, enlarge, and the mutagen. This turned out to be unbalancing in some cases.
If you're looking at an alchemist archetype that doesn't have bombs, there are a few of them now.
The campaign is definitely better without Vivisectionists. If someone wanted to play one in my AP, I would need to re-balance the archetype.
|
|
PFCBG, you keep coming into these threads and complaining that it's all been done before. I sympathize, but most of us haven't even around so long that we've seen the entirety of these conversations. If you want to provide links, so we can see what ideas have already been done, that's cool. But just the fact that the conversation has been had before doesn't mean we can't, or even shouldn't, have it again.Perhaps taking a step back from this thread for a bit .... old discussions are just that old and tired and probably left dead for the most part. Rehashing old arguments is a waste of everyone's time.
The campaign staff has deemed the archetype not legal for PFS play, there really isn't more that can be said or that needs to be said.
I would tend to agree that such conversation is unlikely to cause change, but I personally don't think there is anything wrong with discussing the who's, why's, and when's as long as everyone can remain civil.
That last bit is tricksy hobbitses on the internet!
The problem is, this is an old argument ... nothing came of the discussion then and nothing is bound to come of it now... why waste "breath" on typing the same thing over and over again.
and with that.. I'm done.
If I remember right, the links were provided up thread already.. and when the search function does work when used, I shouldn't have to provide links when people can easily search for the information before starting yet another thread on a topic.
Perhaps I am a bit jaded about threads on the forums, but really it's become a lot of the same conversation over and over again without new results.
If you're looking at an alchemist archetype that doesn't have bombs, there are a few of them now.
Which ones exactly? I can't find them. I see a few that change, but only the vivisectionist throws the whole thing out as far as I can tell.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
If you're looking at an alchemist archetype that doesn't have bombs, there are a few of them now.Which ones exactly? I can't find them. I see a few that change, but only the vivisectionist throws the whole thing out as far as I can tell.
I'm curious, too, as I recall none that get rid of bombs. Make them lower damage, yes. Make them do different things, yes. But replace the feature completely? Which ones?
You could always play an alchemist and just not use your bombs, if that is your problem. They still have a ton of other good class features.
A 3/4 BAB class without additional sources of damage and to hit has to work pretty hard to work. Rogue on its own, getting a sneak attack off on all attacks, still falls behind in the DPR Olympics if I remember correctly. That's part of the reason why the vivisectionist is so appealing, evil or no. You have to buff up your stats and possibly turn to natural attacks at a higher level to keep your damage up. Sans extracts, a bard might actually be able to out damage you, and that's probably not a good place to be.
|
|
The campaign is definitely better without Vivisectionists. If someone wanted to play one in my AP, I would need to re-balance the archetype.
I have one playing in my Shattered Star AP. He is powerful, but not entirely because of the sneak attack aspect. I just had to rein in the "extra arms with claws" hooplah.
A 3/4 BAB class without additional sources of damage and to hit has to work pretty hard to work. Rogue on its own, getting a sneak attack off on all attacks, still falls behind in the DPR Olympics if I remember correctly.
I know this is not what you meant, but using it as a general example: DPR is not the end of the line folks. There are plenty of other ways to contribute at a table.
Venture-Agent, United Kingdom—England—Sheffield
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a difference between hitting somebody to take them down and slicing them up while they're still alive to gain more power. One is self-defense, the other is torture.The situation described was combat though. The vivisectionist doesn't actually have to vivisect people to gain power. There isn't a class feature that says its powered by a forsaken child or chopping up living people.
Umm... "vivi" (alive) "section" (cut apart).
A 3/4 BAB class without additional sources of damage and to hit has to work pretty hard to work. Rogue on its own, getting a sneak attack off on all attacks, still falls behind in the DPR Olympics if I remember correctly.I know this is not what you meant, but using it as a general example: DPR is not the end of the line folks. There are plenty of other ways to contribute at a table.
I realize that, but combat is a big part of the game! I'd be fine doing a scenario without combat myself, but I have yet to find a scenario without any combat, so I'd hope a character can contribute in combat. There was a thread earlier about how useless is a skillmonkey rogue for PFS, there was a lot of commentary on that subject there if I remember right.
it is WAY OP.
Vivisectionist is OP? What is your opinion on wizards, and clerics, and druids?(oh my!)
Umm... "vivi" (alive) "section" (cut apart).There's a difference between hitting somebody to take them down and slicing them up while they're still alive to gain more power. One is self-defense, the other is torture.The situation described was combat though. The vivisectionist doesn't actually have to vivisect people to gain power. There isn't a class feature that says its powered by a forsaken child or chopping up living people.
Is the name a class feature? Not sure, but my point that a vivisectionist wouldn't actually have to be vivisection, much like a barbarian doesn't actually have to be a barbarian.
Its OP compared to other Alchemist types is what i meant, to many advantages in what they substituted. Mind you my Son thought all alchemist are OP, then i showed him witch hehe, so opinions clearly can be changed. :-)
Haha, a witch was my first class I played in PF(and PFS!) actually. There was a GM there who thought they were OP after I slumbered pretty much everything in every game. Then we fought undead...
I'm not sure if its any more powerful or not. At 8th level you get fast bomb and you can throw out a flurry of saves. They have all kinds of nasty like stink bombs and force bombs and tanglefoot bombs. Being able to hit someone is one thing, but being able to toss out four AoO save or dies in a single round is pretty crazy too! Definitely a different kind of merit. I think there was a thread some time ago about a flying alchemist nuking encounters like that.
Its not the no evil thing that bugs me. Its the that one evil thing you do is fine but the other less evil stuff you're doing is wrong" that gets me.
Care to give details? I'm curious.
|
|
Care to give details? I'm curious.
Ok
Cast evil spells (evil is right there in the []s)
Raise unholy mockeries of life from the grave and make them serve you
Rip out someone's tongue for a faction mission
Assault and kill people simply because they're in competition with you for the adventures' macguffin or have information you need
Not ok:
having a class focuses on raising unholy mockeries of life from the grave and making them serve you
have the baby eating bad guy accidentally walk into a few walls nose first until he tells you where the thing that will destroy the city is
yeah i have not been playing for long. Personally i think alchemist are fine. But i have seen the witch slumber completely end 8 scenerios now. One person bad guy kill. THAT is OP. Even though i play one Summoners are also OP, generically. Witch still rules the OP mountain in my view because most witchs i see still misfortune undead to paste with something else.
Aye, well I've been 3.x since it came out. Witches were just my first gig in pathfinder. I actually stopped playing mine because slumber was making combat a little boring for my parties, so I totally get where your coming from.
Also, not quiet slumber, but stink bomb, force bomb, tangle foot bomb, and sunlight bomb on the same location. Nauseated, prone, entangled, and blinded all on the same turn if you miraculously fail all the saving throws. Bomb alchemist can nuke encounters pretty well!
|
|
I play witches more than any other class. And yes every witch of mine takes slumber. However I very seldom use slumber. I like to keep it as my ace in the hole, oh shoot we are about to die ability. The reason for this is that I have found its reliability to be somewhat lacking.
Assume I go first in a fight. Assume that I am not fighting something that is immune to mind effecting. Assume that there is only one. Also assuming that I can easily get to with 30' and cackle (either by using a move action or the cackling blouse).
To my mind I have three options.
1) Slumber Hex, if this is a solo enemy and they fail the fight is over. However if they pass I effectively lost my turn
2) Cast a debilitating or buffing spell. This is a great situation depending on the fight. If you are fighting an enemy prone to go invisible nothing makes them sad like a glitterdust.
3) Evil Eye them. It is a guaranteed debuff which will ensure that they will perform significantly worse at something. I have noticed that if I Evil Eye AC the party will usually kill the enemy in a single round almost guaranteed because a large number of attacks that would have missed hit.
One of the reasons was that they were stepping on the toes of the rogue too much. And it's true. There's little reason to play a rogue when you could play a Vivisectionist, if it was the sneak attack you were going after.Cheapy, since you were not involved in the internal conversation on why Vivisectionists were banned, can I ask where/how you can make such a definitive statement?
Linked it above, but then I saw this post. There ya go!
lets say i have my 2nd level dc up to 20, very easy in pfs. and i have a save or whatever effect... now go save twice for that and take the lower result. nothing else in the game does that as consistently as misfortune. its very broken.
Actually, dual-cursed oracles have a revelation that forces someone to reroll as an immediate action once per person per day, no save. Also Metamagic: Persist and mythic Archmage/Hierophant both can make someone reroll spells, if I remember correctly. Save or dies might steal the show, but at least forcing a reroll can let you deal the killing blow.
|
|
Funny. I've only been GMing for a little while now, but I've yet to see this villain in a scenario.
have the baby eating bad guy accidentally walk into a few walls nose first until he tells you where the thing that will destroy the city is
There are plenty of whole wholeheartedly cruel and evil NPCs whose acts of villainy well and truly deserve whatever the pcs can think of to do to them.
|
|
There are plenty of whole wholeheartedly cruel and evil NPCs whose acts of villainy well and truly deserve whatever the pcs can think of to do to them.Funny. I've only been GMing for a little while now, but I've yet to see this villain in a scenario.
have the baby eating bad guy accidentally walk into a few walls nose first until he tells you where the thing that will destroy the city is
Was it this guy?
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
There are plenty of whole wholeheartedly cruel and evil NPCs whose acts of villainy well and truly deserve whatever the pcs can think of to do to them.Was it this guy?Funny. I've only been GMing for a little while now, but I've yet to see this villain in a scenario.
have the baby eating bad guy accidentally walk into a few walls nose first until he tells you where the thing that will destroy the city is
Ahh right - thanks David.
He's the final boss of All the doors are trapped I believe.
|
Just a couple of, hopefully, quick points:
The abilities that Andrew pointed out are not the simple quick substitutions like "Take Spell Focus instead of Scribe Scroll", but requires multiple substitutions, since Awaken is PFS illegal, and making any spell except the 4 listed in the Guide, which are permanent duration to begin with, permanent is against the PFS guidelines, as well.
However, if you want to see if you can change the campaign leaderships' minds about this archetype, you need to come up with a well-reasoned post on it, giving as many of the Pros and Cons of the archetype as you can see, or have been brought to your attention, with ways to minimize r deal with the Cons. like what should be done about campaign-illegal abilities given out.
|
|
Linked it above, but then I saw this post. There ya go!One of the reasons was that they were stepping on the toes of the rogue too much. And it's true. There's little reason to play a rogue when you could play a Vivisectionist, if it was the sneak attack you were going after.Cheapy, since you were not involved in the internal conversation on why Vivisectionists were banned, can I ask where/how you can make such a definitive statement?
I'm sure that's what the poster may have thought was said, or it may have been said, but being involved in the original discussion, I can assure you that it was far, far more detailed.
Cool! All I know is that Mike didn't correct him, which I would find implausible if he was putting incorrect words in Mike's mouth, as Mike posted right beneath it. And I said 'one of the reasons' for a reason :)
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Woohoo! We can now all stop complaining about this:
The Investigator is part of the Advanced Class Guide, and the playtest will be available for PFS use starting next week.
Very excited to break out Ol' Sal, again...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Drogon...we did stop complaining about it ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Woohoo! We can now all stop complaining about this:
The Investigator is part of the Advanced Class Guide, and the playtest will be available for PFS use starting next week.
Very excited to break out Ol' Sal, again...
But it just wont' be the same... With luck it'll be so much cooler though.
Drogon...we did stop complaining about it ;)
But now we can begin again... Bwahahaha!