I know some would be super odd should it only be applied to a few such as armor for DR, but I don't see why every single variant option should be banned, for instance word casting explicitly says that SOME spell casters learn this way and would totally be feasible if as it said not all casters cast this way. I've heard it has the potential to be broken as crap so that may not be the best example so what about variant multi classing? Seems harmless enough.
It would be a lot more rules to put into an already rules heavy system that was pretty well established before any of the variants became available. It's just too much work.
They don't want GMs to have to know extra systems in addition to all the things within the base rules. As for VMC, I believe they said they might revisit that one in the future.
As Jeff mentioned it increases the burden of the GM. It is an unfortunate fact, that sometimes GMs have to know how quite a number of class abilities work, since sometimes players aren't aware of some quite vital limitations and powers.
And of course "because the GM said so".
Some rules just tend to create a lot of unresolved questions, and adding 3 pages of special rules and ruling for every subsystem tends to get old really fast.
Of course there are exceptions, I have not fully absorbed it just jet, but VMC looks good, it might be too good in some places though.
A really important set of factors is that variant systems are...
- Woefully undertested compared to the existing rules
- Typically not supported with supplemental material in later releases
- and dramatically impactful to play since many must be applied universally.
We literally have years of play data on the core system. Adding in variant systems probably would be about as easy as turning the Titanic away from the iceberg. PFS is a big ship and a turn like that is mighty sharp.
Believe me, I'd love to see Words of Power in PFS, but it's better for the campaign that it's not legal. Ignoring some of the imbalanced or outright broken mechanics of the subsystem, just imagine being seated with the indecisive perfectionist who can't pick his target word, let alone his effects.
Isn't PFS also about uniformity? One Unchained variant that I saw was to redo skills. Imagine two characters who used different versions of them. And it's hard to say if the two 'simplifying' versions power up or power down characters. (The 'background skills' one does power them up, I think.)
Argghh... word casting? No, thanks, I have enough issues tracking metamagic. That system, like many variant systems are fairly intensive, with great potential to weigh down the game and bog down tables.
As a GM I have to be at least familiar with:
27 base classes and who knows how many archetypes and prestige classes
13 races (the 11 now legal plus aasimar and tiefling)
combat maneuvers
spell casting
monster abilities
Plus whatever the scenario writer has thrown in. Sure add in some more stuff for me to worry about. At some point all this overload will drive people away and that point isn't far off for a lot of GM's.
Jessex wrote: As a GM I have to be at least familiar with:
27 base classes and who knows how many archetypes and prestige classes
13 races (the 11 now legal plus aasimar and tiefling)
combat maneuvers
spell casting
monster abilities
Plus whatever the scenario writer has thrown in. Sure add in some more stuff for me to worry about. At some point all this overload will drive people away and that point isn't far off for a lot of GM's.
Lets see to build off this. Personal experience only, I think I've seen every base class in play (though I believe a couple were just the pregens) including unchained rogue and summoner, as well as a couple of play-tested Occult classes. Off the top of my head, 21 races (7 core, Kitsune, Wayang, Nagaji, Tengu, Oread, Undine, Sylph, Ifrit, Samsaran, Grippli, Vishkanya, and Goblin (although only the We Be Goblins versions) Aasimar and Tiefling (not to mention their alternate heritages). Ridiculous damage dealers, 3 different grapple experts, 2 different Intimidate builds, support casters of various flavors from enchanters to illusionists to bards that make people fall down laughing. Caster level check vs UMD check vs concentration check vs provoking AoO's 0,1 or 2 depending on what's being cast and how. That doesn't even get to monster types and traits. All this in under 50 tables. And I can name things I haven't seen but know exist, without even getting around to charity auction boons.
Frankly I think variant multiclassing is cool (and I hope it gets openned up for fighters - one of the outlined options). Some other options are banned because they dramatically slow down play (like the math ones for spell casting) or because they don't fit with PFS's goals. But tbh, it's one of the least restrictive settings I've been in (including home games), you can't make everyone happy all the time.
Jessex wrote: As a GM I have to be at least familiar with:
27 base classes and who knows how many archetypes and prestige classes
13 races (the 11 now legal plus aasimar and tiefling)
combat maneuvers
spell casting
monster abilities
Plus whatever the scenario writer has thrown in. Sure add in some more stuff for me to worry about. At some point all this overload will drive people away and that point isn't far off for a lot of GM's.
Or you can trust your players. Or tell them they can't do something if they can't provide you with the rules for what they're trying to do.
No one knows every spell, every feat and every class feature that's legal. And it is certainly not an expectation for GMs to know all of them.
Artoo wrote: Jessex wrote: As a GM I have to be at least familiar with:
27 base classes and who knows how many archetypes and prestige classes
13 races (the 11 now legal plus aasimar and tiefling)
combat maneuvers
spell casting
monster abilities
Plus whatever the scenario writer has thrown in. Sure add in some more stuff for me to worry about. At some point all this overload will drive people away and that point isn't far off for a lot of GM's.
Or you can trust your players. That's great, if you have players that are both trustworthy and have enough system mastery to not make mistakes. Unfortunately, not everyone has that luxury.
Artoo wrote: Or tell them they can't do something if they can't provide you with the rules for what they're trying to do. If you have time for that, great, but it can also severely disrupt the flow of gameplay if you need to stop and ask the player for rules every time something new comes up. And that's for individual feats, spells, or the like, not entire new systems.
Artoo wrote: No one knows every spell, every feat and every class feature that's legal. And it is certainly not an expectation for GMs to know all of them. It isn't, no, but that doesn't stop a lot of people from feeling that it is. That feeling is one of the reasons they made Core Mode, after all.
Artoo wrote: Jessex wrote: As a GM I have to be at least familiar with:
27 base classes and who knows how many archetypes and prestige classes
13 races (the 11 now legal plus aasimar and tiefling)
combat maneuvers
spell casting
monster abilities
Plus whatever the scenario writer has thrown in. Sure add in some more stuff for me to worry about. At some point all this overload will drive people away and that point isn't far off for a lot of GM's.
Or you can trust your players. Or tell them they can't do something if they can't provide you with the rules for what they're trying to do.
No one knows every spell, every feat and every class feature that's legal. And it is certainly not an expectation for GMs to know all of them. I just reread my post twice to be sure. Now I want you to. Where did you find the part where I wrote something about needing to know every spell, feat and class feature?
In the future read what I write not what you wish I'd wrote!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Jeff Merola wrote: That's great, if you have players that are both trustworthy and have enough system mastery to not make mistakes. Unfortunately, not everyone has that luxury. If you can't trust that everyone is there to have fun together that's a completely different issue from how many rules you need to know.
Jeff Merola wrote: If you have time for that, great, but it can also severely disrupt the flow of gameplay if you need to stop and ask the player for rules every time something new comes up. And that's for individual feats, spells, or the like, not entire new systems. This is true, it does take longer. Which is why my first suggestion was to just trust the players.
Jeff Merola wrote: It isn't, no, but that doesn't stop a lot of people from feeling that it is. That feeling is one of the reasons they made Core Mode, after all. Yes, that is a big part of why Core mode exists. So then why is it still being presented as a reason to restrict standard PFS?
Jessex wrote: I just reread my post twice to be sure. Now I want you to. Where did you find the part where I wrote something about needing to know every spell, feat and class feature?
In the future read what I write not what you wish I'd wrote!
You heavily implied that you think you need to know everything that a player might make use of. But okay, let's say you meant that you need to know exactly that list that you wrote. I can unequivocally say that you do not need to know about all of the base classes, or every possible playable race in order to GM.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Artoo wrote: Jeff Merola wrote: That's great, if you have players that are both trustworthy and have enough system mastery to not make mistakes. Unfortunately, not everyone has that luxury. If you can't trust that everyone is there to have fun together that's a completely different issue from how many rules you need to know. I know players that have a hard enough time remembering basic math, let alone all the rules even the simplest character uses.
Artoo wrote: Yes, that is a big part of why Core mode exists. So then why is it still being presented as a reason to restrict standard PFS? Okay, ignoring the fact that Core mode's existence is not a valid reason to expect them to deliberately increase the complexity of the normal mode, and ignoring that the fact that the vast majority of published material is legal, the fact of the matter is that a lot of the alternate systems are mutually exclusive, and a lot of them increase not only the complexity of play, but also the amount of time taken, especially if only one player is familiar with them. Remember, scenarios running long is an issue they already have. They're not going to do anything to deliberately make them longer.
Not to mention that many of them were written with everyone in a game using them at once, as well as a heavier than normal reliance on GM calls due to lack of support and you have a bad fit for organized play.
Artoo wrote: Jessex wrote: I just reread my post twice to be sure. Now I want you to. Where did you find the part where I wrote something about needing to know every spell, feat and class feature?
In the future read what I write not what you wish I'd wrote!
You heavily implied that you think you need to know everything that a player might make use of. But okay, let's say you meant that you need to know exactly that list that you wrote. I can unequivocally say that you do not need to know about all of the base classes, or every possible playable race in order to GM. I implied nothing! I wrote exactly what I wrote and nothing else.
Now go back and read it again! Don't add any words this time. Notice the word familiar. Do you know what the word means?
Jessex wrote: At some point all this overload will drive people away and that point isn't far off for a lot of GM's. This is one reason why I've been enjoying running "Core Sundays" in my region.
More challenges, less rules arguments, a few more deaths, less distractions, and less cookie-cutter builds relying on a few key items, spells, or one-level dips.
It's a nice break.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Jessex wrote: I implied nothing! I wrote exactly what I wrote and nothing else.
Now go back and read it again! Don't add any words this time. Notice the word familiar. Do you know what the word means?
I added no words and made no assumptions about implied meaning. Did you actually read my post? Maybe you inverted "about all" to "all about" when reading what I wrote? I don't know. But fine since you want to be pedantic and condescending. These are your exact words:
Jessex wrote: As a GM I have to be at least familiar with:
27 base classes and who knows how many archetypes and prestige classes
13 races (the 11 now legal plus aasimar and tiefling)
This is false.
Jeff Merola wrote: Okay, ignoring the fact that Core mode's existence is not a valid reason to expect them to deliberately increase the complexity of the normal mode, and ignoring that the fact that the vast majority of published material is legal, the fact of the matter is that a lot of the alternate systems are mutually exclusive, and a lot of them increase not only the complexity of play, but also the amount of time taken, especially if only one player is familiar with them. Remember, scenarios running long is an issue they already have. They're not going to do anything to deliberately make them longer.
Not to mention that many of them were written with everyone in a game using them at once, as well as a heavier than normal reliance on GM calls due to lack of support and you have a bad fit for organized play.
That all seems reasonable and I agree with what you're saying here.
Jessex wrote: Artoo wrote: Jessex wrote: I just reread my post twice to be sure. Now I want you to. Where did you find the part where I wrote something about needing to know every spell, feat and class feature?
In the future read what I write not what you wish I'd wrote!
You heavily implied that you think you need to know everything that a player might make use of. But okay, let's say you meant that you need to know exactly that list that you wrote. I can unequivocally say that you do not need to know about all of the base classes, or every possible playable race in order to GM. I implied nothing! I wrote exactly what I wrote and nothing else.
Now go back and read it again! Don't add any words this time. Notice the word familiar. Do you know what the word means? You did heavily imply that you feel the need to know all a player's options:
Jessex wrote: As a GM I have to be at least familiar with:
27 base classes and who knows how many archetypes and prestige classes
13 races (the 11 now legal plus aasimar and tiefling)
combat maneuvers
spell casting
monster abilities
Unless "familiar" means "simply aware of" to you. In which case, extra classes and options shouldn't be an issue and can let players explain it if you don't know it.
By the way, I believe a lot of folks think "familiar" means closer to "often encountered or experience" or "having good knowledge of" such as can be found over in a dictionary, such as can be found here.
Protoman wrote: Jessex wrote: Artoo wrote: Jessex wrote: I just reread my post twice to be sure. Now I want you to. Where did you find the part where I wrote something about needing to know every spell, feat and class feature?
In the future read what I write not what you wish I'd wrote!
You heavily implied that you think you need to know everything that a player might make use of. But okay, let's say you meant that you need to know exactly that list that you wrote. I can unequivocally say that you do not need to know about all of the base classes, or every possible playable race in order to GM. I implied nothing! I wrote exactly what I wrote and nothing else.
Now go back and read it again! Don't add any words this time. Notice the word familiar. Do you know what the word means? You did heavily imply that you feel the need to know all a player's options:
Jessex wrote: As a GM I have to be at least familiar with:
27 base classes and who knows how many archetypes and prestige classes
13 races (the 11 now legal plus aasimar and tiefling)
combat maneuvers
spell casting
monster abilities
Unless "familiar" means "simply aware of" to you. In which case, extra classes and options shouldn't be an issue and can let players explain it if you don't know it.
By the way, I believe a lot of folks think "familiar" means closer to "often encountered or experience" or "having good knowledge of" such as can be found over in a dictionary, such as can be found here. You put up the dictionary definition and still don't know what the word means. Amazing. I give up. You guys go ahead and make up anything you want about what someone posts. Apparently English is no longer a language where words mean things.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society
|
