Obviously, with everybody out of the office, this isn't the best time for this, but...
The Dungeoneer's Handbook introduces three "torchbearer archetypes", located on page 21, that are intended for use by "torchbearers", which are special cohorts granted by the Torchbearer feat (which is quite rightly not PFS-legal), but explicitly allowed to be taken by any character.
Dungeoneer's Handbook wrote:
The following archetypes can be taken by a character's torchbearer, as well as any other characters that qualify.
Unfortunately, since these archetypes are on page 21, they are not PFS-legal.
Additional Resources wrote:
Archetypes: all archetypes on pages 22-23 are legal for play
Now, seeing as the only ability that any of these archetypes possess that is anywhere near problematic for PFS is the Sapper archetype's Fence ability (which I'll talk about later, with suggestions), the only reason I can see as to why these archetypes are not allowed is that they may have been confused as only available to torchbearers, which themselves are (again, rightly so) not PFS-legal.
Proposal: Amend the Additional Resources entry for the Dungeoneer's Handbook to make the archetypes on page 21 legal for play, as they are not objectionable due to power (they tend towards the weak end of the spectrum, in particular the groom archetype), are fully in fitting with the Golarion setting, and do not cause any more problems within the PFS environment than other archetypes do. I would also like to see the Torch Handling feat, also on page 21, opened up for use, as well; all of the same arguments apply, and there is no logical reason to believe this feat should be Torchbearer-exclusive (I take the text prior to the feat to mean Torchbearers have to take it, but anyone can take it).
Fence:
The ability, for the record.
Sapper wrote:
Fence (Ex): At 4th level, a sapper loots a dungeon or other adventuring complex of its mundane goods and sells them to her various contacts. These mundane goods include things like brass fittings, stewpots, scrap metal, and so on. The sapper automatically loots this junk while in the dungeon, and must spend 24 uninterrupted hours selling the objects in town. She shares a portion of the proceeds with the adventurers; the amount typically equals 1d10 gp per sapper level per dungeon.
This ability replaces her 4th-level rogue talent.
Now, this is clearly something that is just hand-waved as having happened, and doesn't need to actively be dealt with during play.
The potential issue here is the money being earned; the way I see it, this can be handled three ways.
1. Simply state the ability allows the sapper to earn an extra 1d10 gp per sapper level per scenario (assuming locations that can be looted, expect table variance, but don't expect to use it if you spent the entire scenario in the woods or on boat you hired/own), which is the "typical" amount per dungeon; even at level 11, this tops out at 110gp, which is less than the street performer bard's gladhanding ability can grant (150gp, for doubling a maxed Day Job, not taking into account boons raising this maximum), and is fair more variable, giving as little as 11gp.
2. As above, but count it towards the "GP gained" for the scenario, and do not allow it to increase the total earned above the normal maximum for the scenario, by tier. Effectively this means the ability is only useful if the party misses something, at which point it can be used to reduce how much is lost.
3. Say that sappers do not gain the Fence ability (meaning they keep their fourth level rogue talent).
The first two would be most appropriate to put in the FAQ, as the ruling about gladhanding is, leaving the Additional Resources entry clean, whereas the third option adds a single sentence to Additional Resources and leaves the FAQ alone.
Personally, I'm interested in seeing this legal because I like the idea of a torch-wielding fighter, and the blazing torchbearer alchemist archetype lends itself to the idea remarkably well (makes the torch count as a magical light source, grants a spell-like ability that would qualify for Arcane Strike, for bypassing DR /magic, a 1/day ability to blind everything within 10 feet, no save, and a potentially back-firing ability to deal extra fire damage and light enemies on fire). Admittedly the damage is kinda weak (1d3 plus 1 fire, assuming medium size), but I still like the concept.
There is a legal feat in Inner Sea Gods that allows you to use a torch as a weapon, but I do agree, the Torchbearer archetypes should be PFS legal, but then so should the Squire archetypes in Knights of the Inner Sea.
There is a legal feat in Inner Sea Gods that allows you to use a torch as a weapon, but I do agree, the Torchbearer archetypes should be PFS legal, but then so should the Squire archetypes in Knights of the Inner Sea.
Hmm, if they ever make the Torchbearer archetypes legal, I'll have to pick up a copy of Inner Sea Gods just for the Torch Fighter feat, as it improves the damage and the two-weapon fighting penalties; thanks for the heads up.
As to the Squire archetypes, I don't own that book either, but unless there is something about them that would make them only available to NPCs (such as cohorts), or something about them was thematically inappropriate for Pathfinders, I agree that they should probably be legal. The legality of an archetype or feat should not be driven by whether it is meant for a "sidekick" character or not.
As to the Squire archetypes, I don't own that book either, but unless there is something about them that would make them only available to NPCs (such as cohorts), or something about them was thematically inappropriate for Pathfinders, I agree that they should probably be legal. The legality of an archetype or feat should not be driven by whether it is meant for a "sidekick" character or not.
They are worded the same way as the torchbearer archetypes,
Knights of the Inner Sea; pg 20 wrote:
The following Archetypes can be taken by a character's squire, as well as other characters that qualify.
There are a few issues with one of the Archetypes as it is unclear how you would decide whom your knight is if you are not a cohort, but other then that they have no issues with fitting in with the society or with power level (if anything they are weaker then the defaults).
Having just tracked down the Squire archetypes, I'm kinda on the fence as to them being PFS appropriate or not, as they're built on giving bonuses to a character who has spent a feat on being able to get said bonuses.
On the other hand, they're fairly minor bonuses, and having a full-blown PC dedicate themselves to the task is certainly more of an investment than a single feat, if you look at the party as a whole. I would think that allowing them, with a FAQ entry stating they choose a single PC at the beginning of each scenario to act as their "knight", would certainly be a fair decision.
I'm not sure what kind of response you're expecting.
You found some material that's not legal, you think it's kinda neat but are not sure it's appropriate for PFS.
What are you expecting to happen?
I assume he's hoping for a response from Mike or John, either saying that they'll think about it, they'll make it legal, or no, it's not going to be made legal.
You found some material that's not legal, you think it's kinda neat but are not sure it's appropriate for PFS.
I found some material that's not legal, I think it's kinda neat, and am of the opinion that it is appropriate for PFS.
I mean, what's more thematically appropriate for an ostensibly archaeologically-themed organization that a torch-bearing explorer? Beyond that, they don't pose any issue with the setting, they aren't any issue for game balance, and they aren't exciting enough to just keeping them in reserve to be able to hand out access as a boon.
Jeff Merola wrote:
I assume he's hoping for a response from Mike or John, either saying that they'll think about it, they'll make it legal, or no, it's not going to be made legal.
This; the only reasoning I can see as to these archetypes (and the feat) not being legal is that they are thematically tied to a feat that is NOT appropriate for PFS, but as they can be used completely independently of said feat, I would like to see them revisited for sanctioning.
