Just a simple question. Not meant to be some epic rant or anything to dire.
I just find it odd that the Buccaneer archetype for gunslingers, which is a human archetype, is banned. It doesn't really have any disruptive features or evil character tendencies or overpowered shenanigans built within it.
Maybe "you talk like a pirate" counts as a disruptive feature?
Guess so,your guess as good as mine.
Probably alignment fluff. Not a lot of people can imagine a pirate as anything but either evil, or one of those "special" chaotic neutral types.
Same reason the vivisectionist was banned, apparently.
Vivisectionist I can understand being banned. Its got some evil tendencies with its features like "Torturous Transformation" as the archetype fluff even states that the work and experimentation done by a Vivisectionist is considered evil.
Pirates being associated with evil tendencies is understandable. In many ways, a pirate is similar to a Viking Raider as they both do similar vile acts. Though this does treed on slippery slopes as the argument could also be made for other archetypes and classes that could be considered evil. The counterargument is that within PFS you could play a NG Rogue with the Smuggler archetype. Which is a pirate archetype taken from the player companion book "Pirates of the Inner Sea". In fact all pirate archetypes from that book and the pirate prestige class are all legal for play. This goes into the idea that not all members of a group are inherently evil however the name and reputation behind the name carries with it "sinister air". As its more about the culture and environment than the individual themselves. With PFS your more likely to see the "Thief with a heart of gold" character than the more cruel and ruthless version that is borderline evil.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it's not blatantly evil, we can only guess.
Campaign Leadership very rarely explains why any particular option gets banned. It could be a result of perceived table variation, complexity, wanting to include it as a Boon option, or a perceived power imbalance (and probably other possible reasons).
Archetypes and options involving Firearms have a couple considerations in addition to those I just mentioned: IC they're not commonplace to the campaign setting, and OOC many players simply "don't want tech in their fantasy".
That last point became glaringly evident at the start of Season 6, and spawned thousands of posts by insecure players. This dislike of technology in fantasy had always been hinted at before, and is probably one of the big reasons why Firearms were restricted more than other options from the beginning. After the preview of Season 6 we finally had some hard evidence.
|
Probably alignment fluff. Not a lot of people can imagine a pirate as anything but either evil, or one of those "special" chaotic neutral types.
Same reason the vivisectionist was banned, apparently.
In addition to the alignment stuff they also get awaken and can make anthropomorphic animals permanent at level 9 for a pure gold cost. There are a number of issues with the class for PFS play that would either need to be addressed individually or swapped, IMO.
While it is unlikely that campaign staff will ever comment on their reasons, Buccaneer suffers from the same malady. The Grog system in addition to the Grit system (which is CHA based instead of WIS), the Siege Engineer feats, a familiar, etc. Also, all archetypes that use guns tend to be highly scrutinized, this is definitely not the only banned sword and gun archetype (Picaroon swashbuckler is legal (at least last I checked), but Musketeer is not)
|
|
I am on the hoof at the moment so can't check but I am pretty sure that the gun wielding archetypes: Spellslinger, Holy Gun etc. are not PFS legal.
There are a few, such as Spellscar Drifter, but not many.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
This has actually been commented on by staff before. I know it was spelled out on a boon at the charity auction for Gencon 2013.
The problem with gunslinger archetypes and archetypes that grant guns to other classes is that guns are new. The logic being that there has barely been enough time for the base class to come into existence (in universe) and it hasn't been around long enough for the variants to split off yet, and certainly hasn't been enough time for other classes to pick up gun variants. Now it's been a few more years since then and individual variants should probably be revisisted to see if they've been "invented" yet, but that means changing the world.
Bit of brilliance - they things in newer books that are allowed, like Spellscar Drifter, are because it's been a few years (in universe) and they've developed in that time.
|
|
I assumed it was the bonus feat list of all-illegal feats. ather than give replacements for the whole list, management felt lazy that day and just disallowed the archetype.
It's not an exclusive list of feats, though. They're in addition to the standard combat and grit feats.
Let's blame Sea Legs at level 1. That's gotta be it. ;-)
Well if its just an expanded repertoire of feats that are siege/vehicle related that could be preventing it from being legal, why not change it for legalization in PFS? It wouldn't be much different than an Alchemist losing out on the Brew Potion feat and it gets replaced with the Extra Bombs feat.
Like:
In addition to combat and grit feats, a buccaneer can select from the following general feats as her bonus feats:...
|
|
Well if its just an expanded repertoire of feats that are siege/vehicle related that could be preventing it from being legal, why not change it for legalization in PFS? It wouldn't be much different than an Alchemist losing out on the Brew Potion feat and it gets replaced with the Extra Bombs feat.
Like:
In addition to combat and grit feats, a buccaneer can select from the following general feats as her bonus feats:...
It already says almost exactly that.
Bonus Feat: In addition to combat and grit feats, a buccaneer can select from the following feats as her bonus feats:
Well if its just an expanded repertoire of feats that are siege/vehicle related that could be preventing it from being legal, why not change it for legalization in PFS? It wouldn't be much different than an Alchemist losing out on the Brew Potion feat and it gets replaced with the Extra Bombs feat.
Like:
In addition to combat and grit feats, a buccaneer can select from the following general feats as her bonus feats:...
It already says almost exactly that.
Bonus Feat: In addition to combat and grit feats, a buccaneer can select from the following feats as her bonus feats:
Yep. I just added the word general to that sentence because normally you can't take general feats as bonus feats from the bonus feat class feature.
|
Noob question: Where does it list the archetypes that are banned? I didn't see it in the society guide.
Additional Resources is the final source of what is and is not legal for PFS play.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well if its just an expanded repertoire of feats that are siege/vehicle related that could be preventing it from being legal, why not change it for legalization in PFS? It wouldn't be much different than an Alchemist losing out on the Brew Potion feat and it gets replaced with the Extra Bombs feat.
Like:
In addition to combat and grit feats, a buccaneer can select from the following general feats as her bonus feats:...
Right and then they would have to go to every archetype/prestige class that someone complains about not getting to play and adding this line for each of those. This would then require re-reviewing hundreds of options and the cumbersome additional resources document and modifying all this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Buccaneer is a great archetype but there are too many siege bonus feats that would have to be changed. If I just declared them outright banned and no replacements for the archetype, people would become even more upset.
As for the suggested "fix" for Feral Child and spending 10 PP to obtain the services of a Chronicler, The Decimverate want you to report all of your adventures, not skip the first five because you are illiterate.
There are just some options out of the thousands found in Pathfinder that won't fit OP and this is two of them.
Next time, try not to be so condescending.
Well then the solution to this Buccaneer problem is just to simply replace the siege/vehicle feats with other feats when regarding PFS, no?
Also the above quote from Micheal Brock was taken from a thread that was happening around 2013 of June.
I found six feats that can act as replacement feats for the bonus feats section for the Buccaneer (human racial) archetype from the Gunslinger class. All six are also General Feats.
Black Marketeer (Legal. Fits thematically with the underhanded dealings of pirates as they are smugglers and black marketeers for the most part anyway.)
Corsair (Legal. Fits thematically and mechanically with pirates and even the swashbuckler class as it would give them +2 to initiative and +1 to damage rolls on light/one-handed weapons while on a ship.)
Telepathic Link (Legal. Fits mechanically and thematically as a familiar for a Buccaneer is going to be used as a spy/scout anyway and the archetype even states that.)
Galley Slave (Legal. Fits mechanically and thematically. Thematically as some of the best captains started from rock bottom. Mechanically as it gives bonuses for using rope, sailor checks, and first damage per combat. All while on ship of course.)
Twist Away and Swarm Dodger (Both legal. Mechanically this fits within the buccaneer archetype because of the familiar you get which gives you Evasion as long as its 30 feet near you. Similar to how other familiars give you the Alertness feat while within arm's reach which means you do have a qualifier for feats that use Alertness as a perquisite.)
The general action taken on any given item from the rulebooks for PFS are:
A) Ban it
or
B) Don't ban it.
It is very, very, VERY rare for PFS to come up with custom rules to modify a rules item to make it 'fit' into organized play. If they did start doing so, there are literally MOUNTAINS of rules items that are just as deserving of such attention. We'd end up with a PFS custom rules book larger than any Paizo publication ever made. Not going to happen.
-j
The general action taken on any given item from the rulebooks for PFS are:
A) Ban it
or
B) Don't ban it.
It is very, very, VERY rare for PFS to come up with custom rules to modify a rules item to make it 'fit' into organized play. If they did start doing so, there are literally MOUNTAINS of rules items that are just as deserving of such attention. We'd end up with a PFS custom rules book larger than any Paizo publication ever made. Not going to happen.
-j
|
|
You mean this mountain of rules items?The general action taken on any given item from the rulebooks for PFS are:
A) Ban it
or
B) Don't ban it.
It is very, very, VERY rare for PFS to come up with custom rules to modify a rules item to make it 'fit' into organized play. If they did start doing so, there are literally MOUNTAINS of rules items that are just as deserving of such attention. We'd end up with a PFS custom rules book larger than any Paizo publication ever made. Not going to happen.
-j
Actual modification section:
Classes: All ten base classes are legal for play. Some classes are modified as follows:
Arcanist: The Item Crafting bonus feat is not legal for play.
Brawler: To utilize the Martial Flexibility class feature, the player must have the source book of the combat feat she wishes to utilize.
Shaman: Fetish hex replaces Craft Wondorous Item with Spell Focus. Shamans with the Nature spirit receive animal growth as a bonus spell at 10th level instead of awaken.
Skald: Skalds receive Extra Performance at 1st level instead of Scribe Scroll.
Warpriest: To select a blessing, a warpriest must worship a deity that offers the domain of the same name.
Actual things modified:
Arcanist: Crafting feats not legal.
Shaman: Crafting feat and awaken spell replaced.
Skald: Crafting feat replaced
Warpriest: Divine caster Golarion Rules
^
There are also similar rules for classes from other books like the alchemist, witch, wizard, etc.
Also what Blind Kobold doesn't mention is that the Vehicle and Siege feats are in fact general feats. So his or her suggestion for swapping out general feats for general feats isn't a bad idea necessarily.
I don't think people would honestly be that mad or annoyed that the feats listed under bonus feats was removed from the Buccaneer list when regarding PFS play. As really any legal siege or vehicle features for classes and their archetypes are either super minor or non-existent within PFS.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The general action taken on any given item from the rulebooks for PFS are:
A) Ban it
or
B) Don't ban it.
It is very, very, VERY rare for PFS to come up with custom rules to modify a rules item to make it 'fit' into organized play. If they did start doing so, there are literally MOUNTAINS of rules items that are just as deserving of such attention. We'd end up with a PFS custom rules book larger than any Paizo publication ever made. Not going to happen.
-j
Actually, the decision process seems to be more along the lines of:
If this a class,a) Play As Is, or
b) Modify to Fit The Campaign.
If this is an Archetype,
a) Play as is, or
b) Ban it.
Basically, they'll take extra steps to keep an entire class in play (like alchemists) but not for archetypes (like Buccaneer). As a rule of thumb, it seems like PFS doesn't seem to want to add 'special rules for character X' unless absolutely necessary, which seems fairly commendable to me.
|
|
^
There are also similar rules for classes from other books like the alchemist, witch, wizard, etc.Also what Blind Kobold doesn't mention is that the Vehicle and Siege feats are in fact general feats. So his or her suggestion for swapping out general feats for general feats isn't a bad idea necessarily.
I don't think people would honestly be that mad or annoyed that the feats listed under bonus feats was removed from the Buccaneer list when regarding PFS play. As really any legal siege or vehicle features for classes and their archetypes are either super minor or non-existent within PFS.
The question becomes, "how far do we want to drill down?"
There comes a point where you have to measure cost against value.
Keeping a class available, good cost effectiveness.
Keeping a single archetype available, especially from a splat book, not so much.
Class, probable.
Archetype from one of the big books (APG, ARG, UM, UC, etc.), possible
Archetype from one of the 32 page splat books? Unlikely
Another factor: Additional Resources, when printed, keeps getting larger with necessary bloat. Necessary bloat is a list of the things it is easy to sanction, or unsanction: i.e. this is legal for PFS, or this is not legal for PFS.
Also, if you do this much work for a single archetype, where do you draw the line? And what do you give up (like a scenario a month?) in order to do all this additional work on something that will affect very few people?
I would rather lose an archetype than a scenario, especially since I, like Drogon, feel that we could do with a third scenario each month...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well its from the ARG so it makes it possible.
Its already got a lot of class features for an archetype and the way its organized its almost the Pirate alternative class at this point like the Samurai or Ninja. Which as an alternative class to the Gunslinger wouldn't be a bad thing, though technically we already got that in the form of the Swashbuckler who can be considered an alternative.
Its not impossible to recreate many parts of the archetype using a combination of feats, archetypes and classes... however the end product can be considered a weaker or stronger for it.
Scenarios come and go for they are more fleeting. The longer the game thrives, oldest scenarios from past seasons become unavailable.
Besides why can't they do a third scenario per month and a small tweak to an archetype? It doesn't have to be "one or the other" when in reality it can be both.
Simplest things to do for legalizing it is:
* Legalize it as is.
* Change the feats listed to something appropriate yet legal.
* Cross out the list of added feats from the archetype for the "Bonus Feat" feature and legalize it from there.
Either way PFS players happy it is legal and gives them something old-yet-new to play. Home Game players happy as it changes nothing to the archetype in terms of errata.
Management (and your local gaming community) always looking for more hands to help and make the burden lighter.
Which is why I am talking about a very simple Quality of Life change to a single archetype for legalizing within PFS.