Additional Resources: Who Decides?


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 75 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Who decides what additional resources are valid for PFS play. Is it a paid Paizo official, a group of venture captains, a combination of both?

Also, what is their basis for what stays and what is banned?

Liberty's Edge 3/5 *

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

My understanding is that the process involves Venture Officers (VL and above) providing input to the campaign staff who make the final call.

But the exact process is kept under wraps and likely covered under the NDA the VOs sign.

Bottom line, don't expect a lot of answers.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Online—VTT

What Micheal Hallet said above is my understanding as well.

As for what stays and what is banned, its probably a process of figuring out what would be too overpowered either by itself or in conjunction with currently available materials.

5/5

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)

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Majuba wrote:
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).

5/5 5/55/55/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
kaisc006 wrote:
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.

Well, it is.

Yes, PFS exists to sell books. But it can't do that if people bail out on PFS. And if an option is too good (synthesist summoner?) people WILL bail out on PFS. If bladed brush wielding shelyntes are the only melee people ever see, it gets boring, and people quit.

I think its ridiculous to call PFS restrictive at this point, as if all that many dms wouldn't restrict or redact at least 10 times as many of the shennanigans as PFS legal stuff allows.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
And if an option is too good (synthesist summoner?) people WILL bail out on PFS. If bladed brush wielding shelyntes are the only melee people ever see, it gets boring, and people quit.

The point is Paizo shouldn't publish something that is brokenly powerful. If Paizo believed that bladed brush would suddenly cause everyone to turn into a worshiper of shelyn because it was so strong then they shouldn't of published it.

I would be extremely upset if I designed something, the publishing company of the game vetted it, found it to be balanced (since you'd think they wouldn't publish anything brokenly powerful to begin with), and then suddenly a mystery group of people found it too strong.

And if Paizo does publish something broken, then they should be able to fix it.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kaisc006 wrote:


I would be extremely upset if I designed something, the publishing company of the game vetted it, found it to be balanced (since you'd think they wouldn't publish anything brokenly powerful to begin with), and then suddenly a mystery group of people found it too strong.

PFS is not the only (nor probably the majority?) Of pathfinder games played. Some things are published with the DM sitting at the table to keep an eye on, prevent combinations, and set the power level for the group. PFS has too many different tables and too many layers between the people playing and the people making the decisions for that to be feasible.

A big thing is that in home games people tend to take different food groups. In pathfinder that kind of protection doesn't exsit, so a bigger level of parity between the options needs to exist. In a home game bob the quizinart fighter and merlin the wizard have completely different niches, so bobs slices and dices feat being overpowered probably won't make anyone feel bad. In PFS, if slices and dices is that much better, everyone without it feels like a chump.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Definitively, only paid Paizo employees make these choices. The organized play team of John Compton, Linda Zayas-Palmer, and Tonya Woldridge make all the final decisions and they are paid by Paizo to make those decisions. They are all full-time paid employees of Paizo that live in the Seattle are and work out of the Paizo offices in Renton.

Dark Archive 4/5

As detailed above one can only guess that overall power is the reason for a ban, there is no confirmation of that assumption. Unfortunately that already questionable basis for an argument is further undercut by the factually incorrect assumption that Paizo would not release anything that was too powerful. Multiple errata, a new summoner and plenty of other tweaks to the base game not even just PFS demonstrate this is wrong.

As someone else pointed out above overall power is not even the most common reason for an option to be restricted. The fact that GMs need to adhere closely to the script of an adventure, significantly alters game play. Many tactical options can become wacky in an environment where the GM cannot exercise a higher level of discretion to balance out the downside of choices.

Paizo Employee 5/5 Starfinder Society Developer

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
Definitively, only paid Paizo employees make these choices. The organized play team of John Compton, Linda Zayas-Palmer, and Tonya Woldridge make all the final decisions and they are paid by Paizo to make those decisions. They are all full-time paid employees of Paizo that live in the Seattle are and work out of the Paizo offices in Renton.

I mean, to be fair... I like to think I'm pretty involved in some of the the AR process. >_>

The Exchange 4/5 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There is a group of VCs and VLs (only a few, I'm not on the team) that advise John and Linda on the content, but the decision is theirs. John wrote a really in-depth post about the process a couple of years ago. It discusses the variety of reasons things are excluded. It's good reading.

edit: and of course Thursty now for Starfinder.

Scarab Sages 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lack of clarity around how an item/feat/spell/whatever works is another reason something might be banned. Since the Campaign Clarifications document was added, that’s been less of a concern, but it’s still there. Bladed Brush in particular has several threads debating how it interacts with things like Slashing Grace, Spell Combat, and other abilities that require a free hand. Whether or not you even wield the glance with one or two hands is debatable. It’s entirely possible the decision not to allow Bladed Brush had nothing to do with power level and everything to do with the rules being too fuzzy around it. We don’t really know for any particular item.

Also, some items aren’t legal because they are saving them as potential rewards on a chronicle sheet. Several archetypes and items that aren’t normally legal have been opened up that way.

Basically the PFS team does not decide what is in the books that are published. They look at those books and decide what is appropriate for the campaign and might decide something isn’t for a variety of reasons. Sometimes that’s a single item in the book. Sometimes it’s basically the entire book (Mythic Adventures).

Input from the community has led to things that previously weren’t legal being made legal. If there’s something you think should be legal, the most productive thing to do is to politely and concisely make a case for why. While believing that Paizo shouldn’t publish anything that isn’t PFS legal is fine to have as an opinion, it’s not the reality, and isn’t likely to lead to more things being made legal.

The Exchange 4/5 5/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

This comes up so often I have some cut and paste text for it. One of which actually uses Bladed Brush as an example!

On reasons for banning wrote:

It is important to note that there are far more reasons something might not be allowed than simply "it's too powerful." Sometimes it's multiple reasons.In no particular order and in a non-exhaustive list those include:

-Does not fit in with PFS campaign setting (such as only being found in one particular part of Golarion or requiring evil play)
-Does not work with PFS specific rules (such as crafting)
-Reserved to appear on an adventure chronicle
-Text is confusing/conflicts with established rules (may appear later in Campaign Clarifications document)
-Conflicts with upcoming publication (that we know nothing about - the hardest one to realize)
-Too powerful/mispriced

On making something legal wrote:

I do encourage anyone who feels strongly about making a particular item legal to create a thread dedicated to that one item. Rational and honest discussion is the best (only) way to get the result you desire. Trying to obfuscate isn't going to work: I've met the entire Paizo team and they'll see through such attempts.

Example of Rational Argument:

I've been looking hard at the Bladed Brush feat and I really don't think it's too powerful for a single feat. It does a lot of things but even in combination it doesn't appear that they are above the "power curve." In no particular order:

1. You can treat it as one-handed piercing or slashing melee weapon and as if you were not making attacks with your off-hand for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a duelist's or swashbuckler's precise strike).
-So obviously this is intended to let a swashbuckler use the glaive with her class features. That's good, probably worth at least part of a feat. But the way I read it you still count as holding the weapon in your off hand so you can't use a shield (other than a buckler), or cast a spell with somatic components, or hold a wand. I can't come up with other ways to use this part than with a duelist or swashbuckler, can anyone else?

2. You can change between a reach and non-reach action as a move action.
-This is a neat addition but I don't think it's a big deal. You can almost always just take a 5' step to get at the proper range. Since it's a move action you can't go back and forth every turn to have reach only when it isn't your turn. And you can't make a full attack if you have to switch. And you still use two hands even when you are using it without reach. I see some very limited uses for this, mainly when you can't move or don't want to (for whatever reason) or positioning is awkward. Anyone see other uses?

3. You can use Weapon Finesse with a glaive.
-Probably the most important part of the feat but I don't think it's worth a whole feat. There are two-handed weapons that you can finesse already. You still would do damage based on your strength. And you can't use Piranha Strike with a glaive even with this feat since it's not a light weapon. You'd still need to take Power Attack. The one issue I see is that you might read this as making the glaive eligible for the Agile enchant. So maybe that ought to be cleared up.

Honestly, I could probably see any one of those three powers being printed as an individual feat, but do they need to be? I think if Campaign Clarifications notes that you still are wielding the glaive with both hands so - for example - a magus can't use it with spell combat and also notes that the glaive is not eligible for enchantments that require a weapon that can be used with Weapon Finesse then Bladed Brush is right in line with other feats.

Edit: Hmmm. I seem to have forgotten about Slashing Grace. By my reading Slashing Grace still wouldn't work since it not only requires you to "not be making an attack with your off-hand" but it doesn't work any time "another hand is otherwise occupied." Again, if you clarify that you still count as holding the glaive in both hands it isn't too powerful.

Example of an Attempt to Obfuscate:

Bladed Brush should be legal because it isn't a big deal. It's an entire feat just to use Weapon Finesse with a Glaive. AND you have to take another feat as a prerequisite. This shouldn't even be a whole feat unless you add more to it! It does some extra stuff for a swashbuckler but the shorten grip is useless since it's a move action. You might as well just move or take a 5' step.

So make sure you point out the advantages as well as the disadvantages. And make sure it's civil. Starting out with "WTF isn't this allowed!" isn't helping your cause at all.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Thurston Hillman wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Definitively, only paid Paizo employees make these choices. The organized play team of John Compton, Linda Zayas-Palmer, and Tonya Woldridge make all the final decisions and they are paid by Paizo to make those decisions. They are all full-time paid employees of Paizo that live in the Seattle are and work out of the Paizo offices in Renton.
I mean, to be fair... I like to think I'm pretty involved in some of the the AR process. >_>

For PFS too? Ok, my bad.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is that the community ourselves sometimes requests an item to be removed from the Additional Resources document.

5/5

Doh - totally remembered but forgot to type out one extra big reason:

  • Excluded initially so as to provide as a boon on a Chronicle sheet.
    A lot from Paths of Righteousness falls into this category.

  • 1/5 Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo

    So you'll see a lot less of campaign settings and player companion books make it in than hardcover books. Reason is is that freelancers write these and they aren't really vetted by the PDT for balance concerns.
    Also it seems that they've been doing more "NICHE PROTECTION" banning, like the Teisatsu is very likely banned because it would "invalidate" the normal stalker rogue. And the Oath of the People’s Council is banned because it would "invalidate" the already legal martyr. Sure this might not actually be the reason these and other like it are banned, but it sure seems that way.

    1/5 5/5

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    The other thing that is ALWAYS overlooked on AR is that sometimes things are restricted/not allowed because they're being saved for future chronicles, boons, and nifty things that the PFS team has determined would be neat ways to implement them.

    I was kind of pleasantly surprised to see one at one point, and it kind of pushed me to getting an AR to go with it because it was that neat.

    Scarab Sages 5/5

    Only problem with saving things, is that typically you never know if something is being saved or not, and just when something will be written to include the item. That season? In three?

    1/5 5/5

    Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    They've made notes on the more recent AR that things will be incorporated in the future and are being held for chronicle sheets.

    Beyond that?

    One's guess is as good as mine.

    Scarab Sages 5/5

    Can you give an example? I scanned through all the entries in red and didn't see anything that says that in the AR.

    EDIT:
    Doing a more comprehensive search on the AR page for the word "chronicle" elicited 78 responses. Of those 78 responses, there was only one that referred to options being held for a future chronicle sheet.

    Paths of the Righteous wrote:
    Several options in this book are being withheld to appear on Chronicle sheets.

    EDIT2:

    Paths of the Righteous was put into my downloads in October of 2016. I'm going to guess that the AR didn't get updated until November or December. Do we know of anything from that book that's made it onto a chronicle in the last year?

    5/5 *****

    Tallow wrote:
    Can you give an example? I scanned through all the entries in red and didn't see anything that says that in the AR.
    Paths of the Righteous wrote:

    Pathfinder Player Companion: Paths of the Righteous **

    Several options in this book are being withheld to appear on Chronicle sheets.

    Feats: The Daring Exploit, Favored Prestige Class, Ghost Whisperer, Smite Evil Magic, Strike True, Two-Weapon Drunkard, Uncanny Ally feats are legal for play. Prestige Classes: The Ashavic dancer, crimson templar, darechaser, devoted muse, rose warden, sacred sentinel, scar seeker, and sphere singer prestige classes are legal for play. A runeguard substitutes any Spell Focus feat for Scribe Scroll as a prerequisite. A sphere singer's wandering dream ability functions as written, despite the Lucid Dreamer feat not otherwise being legal for play. Misc.: The magic items, spells, and witch patrons in this book are legal for play. Shield of wings is only available to characters who worship Ragathiel.

    Scarab Sages 5/5

    andreww wrote:
    Tallow wrote:
    Can you give an example? I scanned through all the entries in red and didn't see anything that says that in the AR.
    Paths of the Righteous wrote:

    Pathfinder Player Companion: Paths of the Righteous **

    Several options in this book are being withheld to appear on Chronicle sheets.

    Feats: The Daring Exploit, Favored Prestige Class, Ghost Whisperer, Smite Evil Magic, Strike True, Two-Weapon Drunkard, Uncanny Ally feats are legal for play. Prestige Classes: The Ashavic dancer, crimson templar, darechaser, devoted muse, rose warden, sacred sentinel, scar seeker, and sphere singer prestige classes are legal for play. A runeguard substitutes any Spell Focus feat for Scribe Scroll as a prerequisite. A sphere singer's wandering dream ability functions as written, despite the Lucid Dreamer feat not otherwise being legal for play. Misc.: The magic items, spells, and witch patrons in this book are legal for play. Shield of wings is only available to characters who worship Ragathiel.

    Right, as I noted in my edit above, this is the ONLY reference as such, and the reference is approximately 1 year old. My guess is, that by the time they choose to make it an option on a chronicle sheet, it will be old enough that everyone's forgotten about that potential, and as such, will have small impact.

    1/5 5/5

    The Runeguard prestige class was opened up by a chronicle sheet. Note that while there is the note in the AR about it substituting a prerequisite feat, the class itself is NOT listed as being legal for play in the AR.

    Sovereign Court 3/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Canada—Ontario—Toronto

    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.

    Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    kaisc006 wrote:
    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."

    It could have been any one of:

    - Too powerful (there are some pretty scary builds with it, especially Daring Champion cavaliers).

    - Too contentious how it works. The fact that there are extremely long threads arguing about the meaning of the text proves that the text is unclear. (Bonus points for people who say "it's not unclear because I know exactly what it means, and the dozens of other arguing people just got it wrong".)

    - It's being held back for a chronicle.

    kaisc006 wrote:
    To be honest, that's not really their call.

    It's not, and they don't make the call. The advisory group reads, and advises. It's still the Paizo paid people making the decision, just with more input.

    Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

    I'm trying to determine who's call it should be if not the leaders of the Campaign.

    That's like saying your homegame GM shouldn't make decisions on what material they allow.

    Scarab Sages 5/5

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Nefreet wrote:

    I'm trying to determine who's call it should be if not the leaders of the Campaign.

    That's like saying your homegame GM shouldn't make decisions on what material they allow.

    Pretty much this.

    I've been seeing a lot lately, either here on the boards, or on the Pathfinder Society facebook page, where people are conflating the Pathfinder Design Team's (and the various developers for the companion and campaign supplements) decisions for published books and the Pathfinder Society Organized Play Team's decisions for what from those published books fits into the campaign. Feeling that the organized play team doesn't have the right to disallow anything if it gets published by Paizo.

    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.

    Another thing that I haven't seen brought up, is that a lot of the hardcover books are published with setting neutral stuff, and so not everything published as setting neutral fits into the Golarion setting, which is the setting that Pathfinder Society uses.

    Paizo Employee 4/5 Organized Play Lead Developer

    7 people marked this as a favorite.
    Graham Wilson wrote:
    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.

    Lantern Lodge

    Nefreet wrote:
    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.

    BigNorseWolf wrote:
    And if an option is too good (synthesist summoner?) people WILL bail out on PFS.

    This actually proves my point that things shouldn't be banned before entering PFS play. The Synthesist was pretty terrible design since it broke a fundamental change of Pathfinder (Wildshape not allowing dump stats). But Paizo published it so we thought it must be balanced.

    It entered organized play which is the best way to see if something is balanced outside of internal testing. Why? Because characters are kept within tier gold, adventures tailored for most parties rather than a specific party, and GMs restricted to RAW.

    Let the community decide if something is too powerful not a mystery group that trumps what Paizo designed. Power levels of feats/archetypes/traits are way too subjective for a few to decide outside of the Paizo design team.

    Also, I trust in the Paizo devs not VLs or VCs. One of the reasons I like PFS, and I'm sure there are others, is the RAW environment. Many homegames I've played with are run by GMs who don't understand balance and this kills the experience for me.

    Lau Bannenberg wrote:
    It's not, and they don't make the call. The advisory group reads, and advises. It's still the Paizo paid people making the decision, just with more input.

    If this is true it just strikes me as odd that the company would willingly publish a game breaking ability (since they would be admitting yeah this is a broken ability pretty much at the time of publishing). Also that they would limit most of the companion sources to fluff feats rather than mechanically viable ones which means less sales.

    Graham Wilson wrote:
    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.

    I don't really understand why they should withhold anything from the players for future chronicles. If someone owns the book and they intend on having it in community play they should be able to use it. I'm sure there are enough creative people within the society to make boons separate from "you now have X option."

    Don't get me wrong I enjoy society play. Just I've always been curious why some things are restricted from the get go.

    3/5 5/5

    John Compton wrote:
    Graham Wilson wrote:
    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.

    Would that make it 'restricted-access' rather than 'banned'? =)

    Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

    kaisc006 wrote:
    Nefreet wrote:
    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.

    I was using a comparative metaphor.

    Of course PFS isn't a homegame, but it is set up similarly.

    Homegames have a GM that controls the Campaign.

    For PFS, that GM is the Leadership Team.

    So, I'll ask you directly, if you don't want the Leadership Team making decisions for the Campaign, who should?

    Lantern Lodge

    Nefreet wrote:
    So, I'll ask you directly, if you don't want the Leadership Team making decisions for the Campaign, who should?
    Tallow wrote:
    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.

    Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

    kaisc006 wrote:
    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.

    And the other 19-some-odd reasons?

    Sovereign Court 3/5 **

    Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber

    There exist options that are reasonable for a home game that are at the same time overpowered in an organized play setting.

    Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

    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 Exchange 4/5 5/5

    5 people marked this as a favorite.

    kaisc006, I want to address one thing you seem to be stuck on: the idea that Paizo is knowingly publishing material that turns out to be "too powerful". That isn't the case.

    If you've worked in any kind of technology field (or bought new tech) you know that things often get released that turn out to have flaws. Often because "everyone knows" internally how something works or because a certain mode simply wasn't considered possible. It's been reviewed internally, it just wasn't caught.
    1. "You can't use a % in that field. We've known that since the first day of development. No one puts a % there. Did that not make it into the documentation? Crap."
    2. "It's smoking? Why would anyone short pins 1 and 5 together? Oh there's a legacy accessory from another internal group that uses them to split the signal? We didn't have time to test all 342 legacy accessories before release."

    The review group's job is to look at material with fresh eyes and say "hang on, this is confusing." Or "this is pretty powerful when combined with this other thing." And similar issues. They pass on concerns. Just because someone in the review group doesn't like an item, that doesn't mean it's going to be banned or changed.

    Paizo developers John, Linda, and Thurston read the review group's concerns and they are the ones who ultimately make the decision.

    The Exchange 4/5 5/5

    I should point out that there have been several items over the years that were banned from PFS on release of a hardcover. For reasons that were clearly "too powerful." The items were errata'd on the next printing and then became legal for PFS. (Divine Protection from Advanced Class Guide comes to mind.)

    So, the review process works.

    5/5 5/55/55/5

    John Compton wrote:

    That's accurate. There's an imminent scenario I'll be developing that handles some of the banned content in Adventurer's Armory 2.

    9-22 Dipped in glue and rolled around a giants equipment drawer?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    This thread boils down to "But I want muh stuff!"

    I'm not clear on what the point of that is. Nobody here has the power to change this, and those who do have power to change it, won't. And I suspect most PFS players are happy about that. Leadership has a proven system, and we like it, and that's partly why we are attracted to PFS.

    Literally, there is nothing that can come of this discussion. All it can do is peter out or get locked.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    kaisc006 wrote:
    Nefreet wrote:
    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's not your home game, but it is a game with a particular character to it. It's designed to be playable by a relatively random mix of players of varying skill levels and preferred play styles and run by GMs of varying skill levels. That requires a bit of curation on the part of the PFS leadership team.

    kaisc006 wrote:
    BigNorseWolf wrote:
    And if an option is too good (synthesist summoner?) people WILL bail out on PFS.
    This actually proves my point that things shouldn't be banned before entering PFS play. The Synthesist was pretty terrible design since it broke a fundamental change of Pathfinder (Wildshape not allowing dump stats). But Paizo published it so we thought it must be balanced.

    Paizo publishes a lot of stuff that might be balanced for one campaign but not another. Options that may be OP for PFS may work just fine in a home campaign. The game's a hodgepodgey toolkit of options, not all of which have to play nice together.

    Lantern Lodge

    aboyd wrote:
    Literally, there is nothing that can come of this discussion. All it can do is peter out or get locked.

    Why no one is being disrespectful?

    aboyd wrote:
    This thread boils down to "But I want muh stuff!"

    Essentially but I think you can have an conversation about why said stuff should be allowed. Yes, I think as much paizo content as possible should be allowed. We just disagree on what "as possible" is.


    kaisc006 wrote:
    aboyd wrote:
    Literally, there is nothing that can come of this discussion. All it can do is peter out or get locked.
    Why no one is being disrespectful?

    You don't have to be disrespectful for a thread to be closed. They have, on occasion, closed a thread simply because "all that could be said has been said, and that's enough." In other words, once the powers that be decide that a topic is just running in circles, useless, they'll kill it. And that accurately describes this topic. It's a go-nowhere, get-nothing-changed topic. It's just a theoretical "what if we could run things, and do it our own way?" topic. It has no real-world traction.

    kaisc006 wrote:
    aboyd wrote:
    This thread boils down to "But I want muh stuff!"
    Essentially but I think you can have an conversation about why said stuff should be allowed.

    Have it. I'm not saying you can't. I'm saying it's pointless. It's like a king made laws and now some peasant who has no influence with the king is standing in front of 3 other peasants saying, "I don't agree with the king. Change it, you guys!"

    I mean, what do you expect the peasants to do? We're not in power, there is nothing to be done but nod at you and say, "OK, well, good luck with getting them to abandon all their rules about which things are allowed or not." And then we wander off to go back to our normal day. There is nothing for us to do.

    kaisc006 wrote:
    I think as much paizo content as possible should be allowed. We just disagree on what "as possible" is.

    I haven't expressed any disagreement or agreement at all. The point is, whether we agree or not, it's irrelevant. It's a conversation that has no point. If we disagree, why even express it, as it gains nothing? If we agree, why does it matter? It won't change anything.

    For my part, I guess I was just so astonished to see what is essentially a pointless shouting into the void that I came by to say, "Hey, you're shouting into a void. You know that, right?" I guess if you know that and are cool with it, carry on.

    Lantern Lodge

    aboyd wrote:
    This thread boils down to "But I want muh stuff!"I mean, what do you expect the peasants to do? We're not in power, there is nothing to be done but nod at you and say, "OK, well, good luck with getting them to abandon all their rules about which things are allowed or not." And then we wander off to go back to our normal day. There is nothing for us to do.

    Lol peasants we may be but these forums exist for us peasants to talk to the kings and voice our opinions. Since I see no peasants rallying behind me thought I guess I'll be back off to plowing the fields or erk the dungeons!

    Shadow Lodge

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Thurston Hillman wrote:
    I mean, to be fair... I like to think I'm pretty involved in some of the the AR process. >_>

    Who let you out of your cage?

    5/5 5/55/55/5

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    kaisc006 wrote:


    This actually proves my point that things shouldn't be banned before entering PFS play.

    Proof is a very strong word.

    I'm not sure where the line for validating it is, but you are very. very far from it.

    Quote:
    The Synthesist was pretty terrible design since it broke a fundamental change of Pathfinder (Wildshape not allowing dump stats). But Paizo published it so we thought it must be balanced.

    There's a large number of problems here.

    For starters, what do you mean "we?" ? Lots of people looked at that, figured out how abusable it was and said oh hell no.

    Secondly, you're only looking at PFS as testing ground for pathfinder forgetting that there are actual, genuine, you know.. people? Playing it. If someone has to change and redo their character they're going to get ticked off. Enough people get enough ticked off, they quit.

    Third, just because it's POTENTIALLY unbalanced doesn't mean that it's always unbalanced. A blow torch and a ten year old are potentially dangerous. Depends a lot on the 10 year old. In a family, dad can say that billy can use it and bob can't because of what bob did with the plumb bob last week.* In a school, you don't have that kind of direct knowledge and attention over the kids, and with 100 kid you're guaranteed to h ave more than a few billy's, so you ban blowtorches.

    In a home game, where most Pathfinder stuff is written for, the DM can figure out whether they should allow synthesist summoners are not. For PFS, with so many Billys, it's not a good call.

    The environment for PFS is radically different than a home game. its going to have dramatically different needs and requirements. It really isn't a surprise that something that works for one won't work for the other. Almost every hoome game does the exact same thing: they ban options, allow some things and not others. Why is it surprising or upsetting that PFS does the same?

    *improvised manriku guisari

    Quote:
    Let the community decide if something is too powerful not a mystery group that trumps what Paizo designed. Power levels of feats/archetypes/traits are way too subjective for a few to decide outside of the Paizo design team.

    pretty sure if we did that there would be a LOT more banhammers flying around.

    Quote:
    Also, I trust in the Paizo devs not VLs or VCs. One of the reasons I like PFS, and I'm sure there are others, is the RAW environment. Many homegames I've played with are run by GMs who don't understand balance and this kills the experience for me.

    Keep in mind that for PFS raw only goes so far. RAW in pfs is RUN as written. The scenario.

    ]


    kaisc006 wrote:
    these forums exist for us peasants to talk to the kings

    Do 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.

    Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

    There is at least one member of the team that reads every thread.

    That doesn't mean they're going to respond to every request.

    5/5 5/55/55/5

    aboyd wrote:


    However, if you've seen differently, great. I wish you the best of outcomes.

    The regional support program and getting the monsters included in the scenarios definitely got (at minimum) a big push from the torch and pitchfork set being able to directly rabble from the bottom to the top.

    The steel lined +4 rules lawyer bane core rulebooks not so much...

    1 to 50 of 75 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Additional Resources: Who Decides? All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.