|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's like saying your homegame GM shouldn't make decisions on what material they allow.But this isn't a homegame, it's Pathfinder Society. Pretty much a defining example of what Pathfinder should be. It's designed to get new players interested, keep current players invested (and purchasing more products), and showcase what the Paizo devs have to offer.
It really isn't the defining example of what Pathfinder should be. I'm not a huge fan of PFS (PFS has a lot of positive points and it's still fun - I'll play it if I can't find a non-PFS game, I'll even advocate it for some purposes, but the nature of the beast means it has a few too many flaws for me to be a fan) but it does what it sets out to do and it does it well. It operates under some restrictions that pretty much any RPG just isn't designed for. Any organised play system takes what is, at it's core, designed for a group of friends playing around a table and moulds it into something that can be played anywhere in the world by anyone, interchangeably - it's a daunting task when you look at it - but it turns it into something that does not necessarily represent what Pathfinder should be.
The other thing is that Pathfinder caters to a very wide market. You don't have to spend long on the boards to find that some people love that one thing that many other people hate, that one thing someone thinks is overpowered someone else thinks is kind of 'meh' and so on... Pathfinder does not and should not only cater for PFS - there are a large number of players and GMs out there that want things that just aren't suitable for the power level/type of game PFS aims for.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well said dragonhunterq.
I'm a big fan of PFS, and at the same time I am fully aware of the fact that it's pretty far from what "Pathfinder SHOULD be"
It's a great tool for meeting other players, seeing other GMs techniques, and getting more invested in the campaign world of Golarion. At the same time it's a far cry from what I would call an "ideal" game experience
I feel a little sad for anyone who thinks that PFS is what Pathfinder should be... there is just so much more that they are missing out on
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
these forums exist for us peasants to talk to the kingsDo you... do you really think so? You think they expressly put the forums here so that we can interact with Tonya? Or the PFS review team? I was not aware that PFS leadership was obligated to read or answer anything here; I see none of them here debating this with you, nor do I see them making concessions to you, nor do I see any of them making the changes you requested. They're just letting you waste your breath talking to the rest of us.
However, if you've seen differently, great. I wish you the best of outcomes.
I absolutely believe that these forums are here to provide a venue for all members of Organized Play, whether they are ordinary players and gms, or designers like Thursty, or Tonya herself, a place to communicate with one another. On multiple occasions, I have seen a well-reasoned and polite discussion sway and change the minds of leadership.
As a result of the interactions on these forums, I’ve lobbied for numerous changes to the campaign. Some of my lobbying (opening up quests to non-pregen characters) was successful. Other attempts (like sign language in PFS) fell through.
Our leadership wants to know the minds of its player base, especially the folks who spend time organizing games and making them happen. They care deeply about the campaign as a whole, and value our feedback. How do I know this, you ask? Well, because I’ve talked with them in person. It’s really clear from those conversations that they pay attention to what we say, whether here, or at conventions, or through other media like facebook.
As for PFS versus other Pathfinder, I actually like PFS better than home games for the most part. I love the ongoing storylines. I love all the quirky players that I meet, and that I get to trade off playing and GMing. I love my face-to-face crowd at Dreamers, and the community of international players that I’ve gotten to meet through Play-by-Post. I love that you can travel all sorts of places, have a kick-ass personal journey and have a fantastic variety of adventure types. Most importantly, I love that we cooperate as well as explore and report.
As Big Norse Wolf so wisely noted, with the right group, it does not matter whether it is PFS or a completely open Pathfinder ruleset. The right community makes all the difference, and the folks that I have met so far through PFS are awesome.
Yours Sincerely,
Hmm
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
With the right group there's little to no difference.
They're typically vastly different namely in the way that most classes operate.
Actually, now I'm curious.
Can you give one example of something that wasn't added to the Additional Resources document because it was "too powerful"?
The Breastplate that gives you an extra revelation? That wizard and alchemist archetype from Haunted Heroes.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Links?
I've never seen an actual comment from Leadership that something was "too powerful", but I haven't read every thread out there.
I don't expect that you are going to see it, since "too powerful" is among the things people would see as an invitation to throw statistics at each other and convince people that option 23b that is already legal is better.
"Not a good fit for organized play" avoids many of these discussions.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's my point.
The original poster's stance is that Campaign Leadership shouldn't restrict additional resources because they are "too powerful".
So I'm asking which ones have been ruled to be "too powerful".
I don't think there are any.
Synthesist summoner? Chained summoner?
Whether it was stated or not I'm pretty sure that was the case.
|
We can all assume whatever reason we want.
*I'm* not arguing they aren't too powerful for Organized Play.
Again, it's the OP's argument that things shouldn't be restricted because they are, in quotation marks, "too powerful".
And so it's safe to let this discussion drop, because nothing (to my knowledge) was ever restricted because it was, in quotation marks, "too powerful".
|
I think it was in one of the many AR speculation threads but John Compton did say that some of the items from Adventurer's Armory 2 were going to be saved for chronicles.That's accurate. There's an imminent scenario I'll be developing that handles some of the banned content in Adventurer's Armory 2.
OOH OOH, is it...evergreen?
|
I think it was in one of the many AR speculation threads but John Compton did say that some of the items from Adventurer's Armory 2 were going to be saved for chronicles.That's accurate. There's an imminent scenario I'll be developing that handles some of the banned content in Adventurer's Armory 2.
Well this basically takes care of my largest complaint about vaguely saying, "options may be available on a future chronicle." In that its vague. We don't know what the options are, we don't know when or even if it will show up.
I was going to argue that if things are going to restricted in such a way, that there actually be "soon" plans to actually put those items in a chronicle sheet. Otherwise, just like what happened with Paths of the Righteous, it seems like those elements have been forgotten.
The fact that at least those elements from Adventurer's Armory 2 are going to appear on an imminent chronicle means that I can't complain about this issue any longer, as the Organized Play Leadership Team has pre-empted my complaint.
Thanks.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
That's my point.
The original poster's stance is that Campaign Leadership shouldn't restrict additional resources because they are "too powerful".
So I'm asking which ones have been ruled to be "too powerful".
I don't think there are any.
Well if we really want to be ridiculously pedantic Fey Obidience and Ancestral Eidolon satisfy your requirement. Not disagreeing with their choice either but still those two options were restricted because it was too powerful.
What Michael said, plus re:basis, typically reasons include
- thematic (e.g. no Aspis Agents)
- game-play concerns (e.g. Master Summoner's many critters at once)
- Organized Play rule conflict (e.g. anything that boosts crafting or is inherently evil like that dissection alchemist archetype)
- power (e.g. Sythesist Summoner - this one is really the rarest reason)
I ask because I'm surprised by many of the things banned from PFS play. In my mind the only reason PFS should ban an item is if it doesn't align with the base rules of PFS like no crafting, using variant rules, etc.
Especially when PFS helps drive a lot of side-line consumers to purchase their products so they can have a legal character. I'm surprised as a company Paizo isn't regulating this more. Especially with sources out there like pfsrd and archives of nethys that supply homegames with all the crunch of these products.
What I don't understand is when things like Bladed Brush are banned. My only thought is that this mystery group thought it "too powerful." To be honest, that's not really their call.
Paizo is the game company, they are the professionals and playtest their material to decide what is "too powerful". Of course they could occasionally produce something broken but they should be the ones to correct that with a FAQ (and hopefully do internal testing to prevent this).
The person making the final call does work for Paizo. The others just provide input.
So, I'll ask you directly, if you don't want the Leadership Team making decisions for the Campaign, who should?I think this thought process is not considering the fact that Paizo doesn't publish things with the organized play campaign in mind, and as such, not everything they publish is going to fit the campaign.I'm not saying things can't be restricted that don't fit the campagin (such as evil aligned feats / traits / archetypes, crafting, etc.) I'm also not saying Paizo needs to publish things with organized play in mind (although they certainly do with the addition of vanities and things in newer material).
But Paizo does publish things with balance in mind. For the campaign staff to ban options simply because they feel it is too overpowered seems a little disrespectful to the Paizo devs.
I'm not saying the Leadership Team shouldn't make decisions for the campaign. I'm just saying "This ability is too powerful so we should ban it before it hits PFS play" shouldn't be one of them.
What is too powerful will always be subjective. The goal of PFS is to provide a scenario that works for everyone. Many of the things made by Paizo are GREAT for home games because each GM can say yes or no. PFS GM's don't get to make that call. PFS GM's don't get to adjust encounters by changing the strategy or changing monsters in any form. They also don't get to ban certain combinations that can be too powerful for the GM or for the general population. Due to the the GM's hands being tied so much it makes sense that things are as level as possible.
Having balance in mind, and having balance in practice that works across the board are very different things. PFS is focused on the second on to ensure that everyone has a good experience.
I've played with enough people of various skill level to know that you can't just give different people access to the same stuff, and expect for it to work with the GM's hands being tied. For PFS you'd either have to give the GM freedom to change things which would result in too much table variance, or you have to be careful about what is allowed at the table. PFS uses the 2nd option.
Edited:for clarity
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Links?
Check the campaign clarifications. They aren't banned but have errata. Ancestral Eidolon is a bit odd but that one Tonya does explain somewhere as to why it's a balancing issue. The fey obidence was so broken that well no comment needed. Instead of +4 to 20ish skills its now +4 to three out of those 20ish skills...
|
|
Links?Check the campaign clarifications. They aren't banned but have errata. Ancestral Eidolon is a bit odd but that one Tonya does explain somewhere as to why it's a balancing issue. The fey obidence was so broken that well no comment needed. Instead of +4 to 20ish skills its now +4 to three out of those 20ish skills...
I think what everyone is saying, is that without a specific comment saying, "we changed this because it was broken or too powerful" we don't actually "know." We can speculate with a very high probability of being correct. But we don't actually know.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Huh, I thought the basis of anything being banned was its too fun to players XD
One of the biggest reasons is that the something is no fun for any player but the one playing it. The easiest examples are anything that includes a ton of pets, like Pack Hunter and Packmaster.
|
Huh, I thought the basis of anything being banned was its too fun to players XDOne of the biggest reasons is that the something is no fun for any player but the one playing it. The easiest examples are anything that includes a ton of pets, like Pack Hunter and Packmaster.
I really think this has less to do with people not having fun as that PFS has consistency when it comes to not allowing archetypes that focus on multiple pets because they slow play down.
Personally I love watching a player with a well built character succeed. They should be rewarded for putting in the research to construct a powerful character. I also like it when they optimize something I hadn't thought of to great success.
I have seen some people get upset about this but usually they are running some odd-ball build or have half their feats are devoted to fluff. I personally don't have a problem with this! I do find it silly though when they are upset their character isn't shining as well as someone else's in a game where your power level is pretty dependent on system mastery.
The fey obidence was so broken that well no comment needed.
I assume this was banned because it essentially introduces a new mechanic (following obedience / what those obedience's are) and some of the obediences were vague / involved crafting (Imbrex's). I'm not saying there weren't incredibly strong just that they satisfy that criteria as well.
Having balance in mind, and having balance in practice that works across the board are very different things. PFS is focused on the second on to ensure that everyone has a good experience.
I'm pretty sure Paizo has this in mind too.
At it's core Pathfinder is a rules system. I'd hope Paizo doesn't use the excuse of "Well if it's too powerful GMs will just ban it" and publish anything willy nilly. I'm pretty sure they try hard to balance it with other content unless of course the difference in balance is intentional as in say a Mythic Campaign.
To clarify what I mean about PFS being Pathfinder as it "should be". PFS strives to keep all characters within Pathfinder's gold tier, all GMs & players following RAW, and present a consistent way for players to play Pathfinder. PFS should be as close as possible to how Pathfinder operates mechanically.
Of course some things are going to slip through the cracks at Paizo. I'd hope that's few and far between. I don't believe though something like Bladed Brush did. It's extremely obvious to anyone with Pathfinder knowledge that it's designed to let a specific build work mechanically.
With regard to everyone suddenly turning into glaive wielding swashbucklers that really isn't any argument. There are threads like PFS DPR Olympics where outrageous legal builds are posted. That doesn't mean suddenly the whole community is going to play them. Plus from what I've read those achieve way more power than someone using Bladed Brush.
Can you give one example of something that wasn't added to the Additional Resources document because it was "too powerful"?
Well the two that come to my mind are Bladed Brush and Virtuous Bravo. There have been a few posts by others in this thread.
But if I'm going to make an argument on why something should be allowed I wanted to know on what basis things were banned in the first place. And I definitely disagree with something being banned for power level.
Also since this discussion I'm definitely against items being banned for future chronicles. To my knowledge the rules in place were if you own it, it's legal, you can use it. I don't have a problem with Race / Class boons being rewarded but don't like them as chronicles.
Personally I think having an adventure that opens up options from something like the Adventure's Armory 2 is a bad idea. It's basically turning that adventure into an "adventure tax" characters must play to open up those options.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
As a result of the interactions on these forums, I’ve lobbied for numerous changes to the campaign. Some of my lobbying (opening up quests to non-pregen characters) was successful. Other attempts (like sign language in PFS) fell through.
Although it isn't open to PFS, I note that both sign and tactical versions of languages are legal in SFS. They even allow it for free if you start with a disability. See pg. 21 of the SFS Guide 1.0 for the language.
Note that when picking languages, they include pg. 40 which calls out the ability to pick signed or tactical versions of languages.
I believe part of the problem in PFS is they didn't want 'secret languages' popping up where the NPCs were incapable of understanding them but the players all knew them. They have already published 8 full seasons of scenarios and adding something like that was seen as potentially problematic.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
I think what everyone is saying, is that without a specific comment saying, "we changed this because it was broken or too powerful" we don't actually "know." We can speculate with a very high probability of being correct. But we don't actually know.Links?Check the campaign clarifications. They aren't banned but have errata. Ancestral Eidolon is a bit odd but that one Tonya does explain somewhere as to why it's a balancing issue. The fey obidence was so broken that well no comment needed. Instead of +4 to 20ish skills its now +4 to three out of those 20ish skills...
That's what errata is though. They literally came out and stated that x ability is too strong and we made changes.
I assume this was banned because it essentially introduces a new mechanic (following obedience / what those obedience's are) and some of the obediences were vague / involved crafting (Imbrex's). I'm not saying there weren't incredibly strong just that they satisfy that criteria as well.
Nope not banned. It was errata'd. :D