|
I didnt see another thread relating to at least Death Roll...
ISR
I see why Kinslayer is banned, but why Death Roll, Eclipse Strike, and True Breed?
Eclipse Strike seems like a garbage feat at first glance.
True Breed can be duplicated other ways, I believe.
ISG
Why did they choose to allow different evil deity pantheons, but not others? Like yes to Demon Lords and Goblin-Heros, but no to Nascent Demon Lords and Orc deities?
CoC
Why not allow anything from Champions of Corruption, but allow from Faiths of Corruption, Agents of Evil, and the Books of the Damned?
BMW
Why not allow Boots of Dancing and Gauntlets of Fumbling? I can see why Scarab of Death isn't, but the others not.
ARG
Why is a dwarf's craftsman ability or halfling's practicality banned? +2 Craft/Profession is hardly earth shattering, nor is practicality since its replacing 2 racial abilities.
OA/PU
Why are psychic skill unlocks open w feat, but unchained only allowed using the Unchained Rogue?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The week when most of the staff is taking Holiday break is not the best time for omnibus questions like this.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, when submitting stuff for rules review, it's generally better to do them one at a time with a detailed and polite dissertation on why you feel the rule needs modification.
I've seen it work for three things so far. I *haven't* seen 'banned items spam' work once.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I'll answer the ones I know..
ISG
Why did they choose to allow different evil deity pantheons, but not others? Like yes to Demon Lords and Goblin-Heros, but no to Nascent Demon Lords and Orc deities?
You'll notice allowing is done on a per-pantheon basis. It seems that mostly, the logic is that any pantheons from which some members were already allowed are allowed again. Some demon lords are allowed because they were featured in Inner Sea World Guide; therefore the Demon Lords section in ISG is allowed. And so on. This explains most of the allowed deities.
The "second tier" demigods (infernal dukes, nascent demon lords, whore queens, daemon harbingers) are categorically banned. I dunno why. They almost never show up in any material though, so maybe there's a clue.
Outer Things (Cthulhu, Nyarlathotep) is kept out on purpose. What purpose? I dunno. I suspect to keep the fanboys in check?
ARG
Why is a dwarf's craftsman ability or halfling's practicality banned? +2 Craft/Profession is hardly earth shattering, nor is practicality since its replacing 2 racial abilities.
Probably because they relate to crafting, which is a no-no in PFS anyway.
OA/PU
Why are psychic skill unlocks open w feat, but unchained only allowed using the Unchained Rogue?
Psychic skill unlocks are noticeably different from unchained skill unlocks. They have a big cooldown time, but are accessible to a wide range of classes by design.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A few things:
As is often stated in many threads, there is no single overarching reason why X or Y gets banned. There are many considerations that go into such decisions. And not all bans are negative. Some material is "banned" so it can later be used as a Chronicle Boon.
Secondly, Campaign Leadership is not the only deciding force behind the banning of material. The VOs are a huge part of the process (probably the biggest), and we the community also play a part. You'll see several threads over the years created by players asking for X or Y to get banned.
Thirdly, some things that were once banned became unbanned after enough requests from the community (such as Magical Knack). Starting up a polite discussion and inquiry (and for the love of Shelyn don't be antagonistic), and having a willingness to be patient, has shown to be of great influence in reversing a ban.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nefreet has covered it. It is very unlikely you will get campaign staff to tell you "why" two dozen decisions were made, because it then opens it up for *everyone* to ask about *every* item on the list. And it's a big list.
However - many of your questions can be answered by looking at the type of campaign that PFS is. We don't allow evil PCs; we don't allow crafting; we try to keep wealth by level standard; we general play in public places and don't allow stuff that would freak out most folks in said public places; we don't allow stuff that requires the table GM to make a lot of big calls which can vary between GMs. Stuff that requires GM discretion, or is only "balanced" by stuff that the campaign doesn't model (like time), just don't work in Organized Play.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Let me try that again.
ISG
Why did they choose to allow different evil deity pantheons, but not others? Like yes to Demon Lords and Goblin-Heros, but no to Nascent Demon Lords and Orc deities?
Allowed pantheons: Core, Other, Archdevils, Demon Lords, Dwarven, Eldest, Elemental Lords, Elven Deities, Empyreal Lords, Giant, Goblin, Halfling, Horsemen
Not allowed: daemon harbingers, great old ones, infernal dukes, malebranche, nascent demon lords, orc deities, outer gods, qlippoth lords, and whore queens;It's pretty simple really. Inner Sea Gods allows all pantheons that had been opened up in previous books (Inner Sea World Guide and "[race] of Golarion" mostly), and doesn't add any new pantheons.
CoC
Why not allow anything from Champions of Corruption, but allow from Faiths of Corruption, Agents of Evil, and the Books of the Damned?
This is a little bit inconsistent. Although from those other books only a rather limited amount is allowed. Maybe nothing in CoC was found to be viable at all? I didn't bother reading it because apparently there's nothing legal in it...
BMW
Why not allow Boots of Dancing and Gauntlets of Fumbling? I can see why Scarab of Death isn't, but the others not.
They don't have a standardized price. That apparently gets too close to "custom items" which PFS avoids.
ARG
Why is a dwarf's craftsman ability or halfling's practicality banned? +2 Craft/Profession is hardly earth shattering, nor is practicality since its replacing 2 racial abilities.
Yeah, on closer inspection I can't justify these.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
33 scenarios * 150 gold (max for most but not all characters) = 4950 gold. We're a LONG way from breaking wealth by level in any meaningful way. And I'm pretending that a level 1 character can break a DC 40 day job check while still being viable for play. With slow play I guess you could get over 9000, but that invites too many bad jokes.
It can be maxed out further, but the resources necessary to do so eventually become prohibitive. Perhaps more to the point, some of the Exchange options specifically let you push your day job amounts higher, so I doubt they're overly scared of wealth by level breaks.
Especially not from a +2 racial feature.
|
It's an old, old ruling, like 4 campaign leads ago(was there someone between Hyrum and Joshua? can't recall). Speculation as to why is very much pointless at this point(hah). Why it's still ruled that way has most likely less to do with any perceived balance and more to do with legacy and the simple fact that nobody's bothered arguing for those racial alternatives. Maybe someone could?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do people concentrate skills and feats on improving their (off-camera) day jobs instead of being a better Pathfinder? It always surprises me. When you're at the table, I want you to be good at Pathfinding, not at making money at a job that won't help keep any of us alive or succeed on the mission.
I would be happy to see Day Jobs removed entirely - if the money's not significant, then we don't even need them and can get back to being full-time Pathfinders, right?
|
|
It bears repeating: we aren't just playing pathfinders, but troubleshooters. There are dozens of options that barely contribute to the kind of weapon-propelled brand of archaeology/curatory many pathfinders practice but we as troubleshooters might find use for. Sleight of Hand, Eldritch Heritage feats, etc etc. Even if you take e.g. ranks in Prof(sailor) for just the monetary benefits, those benefits will immediately contribute to your endeavours. It takes a special kind of character to hoard that tiny tiny bonus income, most would just buy gear with it, or pay for travel, expenses, etc.
Then there's Professions and Crafts like (alchemy) and (scribe) that see checks during scenarios as well from time to time. Some gm's even let you substitute. I do. Sometimes there's the odd player who tries to do everything with Prof(soldier) or (lawyer), but those are fortunately rare.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I'm talking about is the notion of spending a significant portion of your character's resources (feats, traits, etc) on increasing your Day Job roll to make money between adventures, rather than concentrating on being useful *during* adventures. To bring it back to the OP, I'm speculating that maybe this is why they're not allowing all the new +2 craft bonuses in: there are already enough ways to be an awesome grocer or seamstress, and they don't want to encourage optimization of the Day Job any more than is already possible. If that's the case, I heartily agree with the philosophy.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I bet it's just Frost shenanigans. I don't see how a feat and a trait is a lot anyhow. You still have a minimum of 5 more to spend during your pre-Seeker career.
I'd be more worried about day job related prestige awards and vanities, tbh. They can set you back a lot. I've got Ship on two of my characters and it's been horrible from time to time.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I'm talking about is the notion of spending a significant portion of your character's resources (feats, traits, etc) on increasing your Day Job roll to make money between adventures, rather than concentrating on being useful *during* adventures. To bring it back to the OP, I'm speculating that maybe this is why they're not allowing all the new +2 craft bonuses in: there are already enough ways to be an awesome grocer or seamstress, and they don't want to encourage optimization of the Day Job any more than is already possible. If that's the case, I heartily agree with the philosophy.
Highly unlikely a many more options have become legal in this regard since those options were banned.
Honestly, most likely it was banned just because crafting is illegal without the thought to day jobs, as the flavor is about crafting. It was banned ever so long ago.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do people concentrate skills and feats on improving their (off-camera) day jobs instead of being a better Pathfinder? It always surprises me. When you're at the table, I want you to be good at Pathfinding, not at making money at a job that won't help keep any of us alive or succeed on the mission.
I would be happy to see Day Jobs removed entirely - if the money's not significant, then we don't even need them and can get back to being full-time Pathfinders, right?
Being good at day jobs does not have to mean unable to contribute or survive. Not everyone thinks that every character decision must be governed by how it maximizes mechanical efficiency. I can spend resources on my day job and stil be a very competent character. Not to mention, the additional revenue is used to buy more resources that directly affect game play. Some skills like profession and craft are certainly used with less frequency than others, but they can often make a big difference when they do. These skills help define the theme and role-play significance of the character, not to mention it gets boring if all your character simply invest all their resources in maximizing the same few skills every time. Day jobs encourage players to think about their character as more than a collection of words and numbers on a page. To develop a rich personality and theme as it relates to the campaign world not just a sequence of sword-swinging, spell-slinging encounters where the only theme can become kill and loot.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I'm talking about is the notion of spending a significant portion of your character's resources (feats, traits, etc) on increasing your Day Job roll to make money between adventures, rather than concentrating on being useful *during* adventures.
Because its a roleplaying game and sometimes it can be fun to play a character who isn't a Pathfinder first and foremost.
As long as my character is at least pulling its weight then you are NOT allowed to complain about how I choose to spend my resources. Fundamentally, its none of your business.
Note that all important caveat "my character is at least pulling its weight".
My most egregious example is my artist. He can take 10 for a 50 on his Craft Painting Day Job at level 6. I've spent 2 or 3 feats, a trait, prestige and some money on being able to do that.
But he is a Witch. He more than pulls his weight in play. Sure, he could be even MORE powerful but so what? And occassionally the fact that he can paint insanely well even comes up on screen :-)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except you character is in fact a Pathfinder , that is something that is a big commitment.
I dunno. Besides travel most of it seems to take up a single day at a time...
More seriously: just because a player wants to participate in organized play does not mean they're entirely gun ho on being a pathfinder. While they do have to make a character that the society might reasonably hire/work with/buy/ there is no obligation to make pathfinder the core of a persons being, just like real world employers have to (grudgingly) accept that their employees may have interests outside of work, like spending time with their remaining limbs.
You can't police other peoples character concepts- especially when they DO work individually and are only remotely problematic in aggregate. Yes, there are too many Og Smash Door types to be representative of an archaeological society, but then again the PCs aren't representative. They're the advanced team of door smashers. There are plenty of other pathfinder teams of a more scholarly bent, we find whats left of them and scrape them off the floor when they didn't send in the door smashers.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I very much detest not knowing why things are banned.
The protocol to unban something requires me to provide logical reasons why the items should not be banned. Although since I have to guess why it was banned in the first place I am guessing why it should be unbanned. I may waste my time arguing and debating why to unban something that is saved for a chronicle(Then if they decide against it it add further frustration). Or I could present a great deal of logic to unban it, but not provide THE logical reason why. Due to my ignorance on behalf of those that banned them.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I very much detest not knowing why things are banned.
The protocol to unban something requires me to provide logical reasons why the items should not be banned. Although since I have to guess why it was banned in the first place I am guessing why it should be unbanned. I may waste my time arguing and debating why to unban something that is saved for a chronicle(Then if they decide against it it add further frustration). Or I could present a great deal of logic to unban it, but not provide THE logical reason why. Due to my ignorance on behalf of those that banned them.
I agree.
I also think that more openness about the reasons for banning might be useful feedback for writers. It must be annoying to see stuff you wrote be banned "for no reason". Making it clear if something didn't make it into PFS for being out of theme or for being OP or due to rules ambiguity would be good for authors looking to sharpen their skills.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure the assumption that freelancers pay attention to whether what they wrote made the campaign is a valid one.
The info is good for the developers, but since they work in the same office space as campaign leadership, they don't need the boards to inform them. They can just walk down the hall if curious.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo staff are already way more open than any other gaming company I've ever seen, they already revisit things and add them in after second thought when someone makes a polite, reasonable proposal - what more do we think they can realistically do? Preemptively describe why every decision was made?
Yes, it means that the onus is on a player to argue why something should be made legal - as it should be. We should have to show why something is appropriate for an Organized Play campaign, and why our opinion should trump the professional designers and developers who think otherwise. Such a proposal should not just tear down someone's reason for banning it, but should describe why the <thing> fits the PFS Organized Campaign. In my experience, these are the items that get reconsidered.
|
|
What I'm talking about is the notion of spending a significant portion of your character's resources (feats, traits, etc) on increasing your Day Job roll to make money between adventures, rather than concentrating on being useful *during* adventures. To bring it back to the OP, I'm speculating that maybe this is why they're not allowing all the new +2 craft bonuses in: there are already enough ways to be an awesome grocer or seamstress, and they don't want to encourage optimization of the Day Job any more than is already possible. If that's the case, I heartily agree with the philosophy.
My emphasis.
I agree with the others that these two are not opposing ends.My wizard adds new spells to her book every scenario. A good Day job roll can be the difference between 2nd level and a 3rd level spell (having almost all the 1st level (CRB/UM)spells by level 6. Versatility in spell choices make a wizard more useful in scenarios.
My jeweler (yes, jeweler comes before Pathfinder comes before summoner) carries signet rings as diplomacy tools & bribes. A masterwork ring is worth a better circumstance bonus (& *rolls dice* it is crafted by a master). Not to mention, teamwork feats make eidolon/summoner an effective combo & I had feats to spare.
My paladin dragon disciple has very few spells of his own, but has a good selection of 1st & 2nd level sorcerer and paladin scrolls a day job can provide.
|
|
rather than concentrating on being useful *during* adventures.
My emphasis.
I agree with the others that these two are not opposing ends.My wizard adds new spells to her book every scenario. A good Day job roll can be the difference between 2nd level and a 3rd level spell (having almost all the 1st level (CRB/UM)spells by level 6. Versatility in spell choices make a wizard more useful in scenarios.
Agreed - My ranger's Day job let him get the Holy enchantment on his weapon one scenario sooner - leaving him with enough damage to bring the rest of the parties corpses back after chasing off the demon attacking them
|
Wherever the caravan rides, fear shall follo...auugh, *spits* I can't do this stuff, boss-o. Ask one of the gnomes, they love t'put on airs. I do the practicals.
Caravan vanity: 5 pp, +1 bonus: 1 trait, taking 10 on Intimidate to get 35: priceless
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We'd just debate/argue the reasons why to death.
and is that bad? Look we are debating to death the fact that they do not tell us. We would debate to death anythign anyway. Draw conclusion correct or not and be just as frustrated for not knowing.
I would rather people have the truth and be frustrated vs feel ignored and be frustrated. But i am a very open person.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not the same. Opening the dialogue with PFS leadership would see us arguing with them. I don't mind the threads where person A sets out to out-argue person B over some silly unallowed feat or something ("it IS balanced!" "NO IT'S NOT!" etc) and they wail for 6 pages, but doing that with campaign leads won't foster a good relationship. They already have a direct line with the player base via the (SUPER SEKRET CLUB) VO boards. I think it's better to let them do their job instead.
I can agree to disagree though. I usually let the aforementioned 6-pagers be.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not the same. Opening the dialogue with PFS leadership would see us arguing with them. I don't mind the threads where person A sets out to out-argue person B over some silly unallowed feat or something ("it IS balanced!" "NO IT'S NOT!" etc) and they wail for 6 pages, but doing that with campaign leads won't foster a good relationship. They already have a direct line with the player base via the (SUPER SEKRET CLUB) VO boards. I think it's better to let them do their job instead.
I can agree to disagree though. I usually let the aforementioned 6-pagers be.
Well I appreciate Mr. Compton's thoughts on things. He does often present thoughts I did not think of yet. This alone is valuable because he can logically convince me I am wrong as well. Although if I do not find his logic sound I am willing to bet he appreciates anyone providing countering logic. Even if he disagrees with that counter logic.
I am not asking for them to debate with me on the topic, but a simple post saying why they made the decision.
For example I bought blood of the moon just to legally use motivating display. Then almost the entire book was banned after it was already legal. I feel I deserve a reason why since I ordered the book and paid them for it and feel cheated.
some are pretty obvious.. others seem to make no sense... its too bad they dont list why it is banned..when the book comes out
|
|
It's not the same. Opening the dialogue with PFS leadership would see us arguing with them. I don't mind the threads where person A sets out to out-argue person B over some silly unallowed feat or something ("it IS balanced!" "NO IT'S NOT!" etc) and they wail for 6 pages, but doing that with campaign leads won't foster a good relationship. They already have a direct line with the player base via the (SUPER SEKRET CLUB) VO boards. I think it's better to let them do their job instead.
I can agree to disagree though. I usually let the aforementioned 6-pagers be.
See that's the beauty of the internet, just ignore and don't respond to things you don't want to respond to. They have a list with some reasons why things are banned. And then can ignore all complaints unless someone comes up with a good and well thought out petition to allow it.