The issue is that none of those situations apply, so what is to be explained? I'm nor sure how else to state that.
|
As written bladed brush does not work with slashing grace anyways as it treats you as not attacking with your off hand while slashing grace requires the hand to be completely empty. You're still holding the Glaive in 2 hands.
Take 3 levels of phalanx soldier and you'll be able to have your one handed glaive for devoted muse. But you're not getting dex to damage on that glaive by any means, sorry.
And as for Virtuoso Bravo, that's one of an insanely few number of archetypes I actually ban in homegames. It's a straight up power increase.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is that none of those situations apply...
So prove that. It has been done before. Here is the result.
We are not privy to that information. Nor does the campaign staff generally have the time to explain decisions. So you will have to do your analysis and make sure to look for unknowns as well as knowns.
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/mispricedObviously, not all of this list is of use to you. You're not going to have upcoming publications or knowledge about the option being reserved for a chronicle. But you can focus on the items that you do have access to. No one said convincing the staff to make changes was easy, only that the easiest way to do so is via clearly explaining the pros and cons.
The team already knows that people want it allowed. The trick is to give them a reason to allow it beyond that.
The issue is, none of those situations apply to bladed brush, so what is there to say? Not sure how many other ways I can ask that. Earlier in this thread a bunch of words were posted to these situations that essentially equated to 'read the feat,' and I was told that is how a post should be made. I asked IF that post had been made, and what the dev response was, and I got no answer.
As written bladed brush does not work with slashing grace anyways as it treats you as not attacking with your off hand while slashing grace requires the hand to be completely empty. You're still holding the Glaive in 2 hands.
Take 3 levels of phalanx soldier and you'll be able to have your one handed glaive for devoted muse. But you're not getting dex to damage on that glaive by any means, sorry.
And as for Virtuoso Bravo, that's one of an insanely few number of archetypes I actually ban in homegames. It's a straight up power increase.
The issue of its omission is not about the glaive's finessability or its handedness, but specifically its use with the deeds provided by the devoted muse - which is why the feat was written directly WITH the prestige class. Phalanx Soldier, as well as any of the other suggested pfs viable paths to devoted muse, does nothing to change that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As Steven link, the method being advised here can work, given a reason analysis of all factors.
Campaign leadership don't share with use the reasons. Yes, this makes it hard to understand why. So we have to make the best case we can with the available information.
In thing a comfortable saying, decisions made about what ban and what not to ban are not done a whim. The whole PFS team has input. And I think venture officers also have some level of input.
Take a moment to digest what everyone is saying. We are not trying to lead you down the wrong path. Many of use don't have the answer to your question. And if someone does, they may be under a NDA so can't even say they have knowledge.
Step back. A lot of good information has been given to you. Start your analysis. Present a good case! A lot of players will thank you for getting it unbanned.
But go with an open mind. There is more to consider than just you. Organized Campaign to everyone and consideration has to be made the impact of something with regards to the other things out in Pathfinder. You may discover why it was banned in to the first place. If this happens, it will be easier to accept.
The issue is, none of those situations apply to bladed brush...Why not?
You should be aware, I have never read Bladed Brush.
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.
This was already quoted above, so I would assume this thread was already created somewhere. It makes zero sense to write it all again if this has already received a negative or absent response.
|
Is this the only character concept out of every possible combination of options that you're interested in playing?
We'd love to have you as a player, and eventually a GM if you're interested, but perhaps you could put this particular combination on the back burner until it is sorted out?
When I started PFS I wanted to play a Holy Gun. I got to second level before someone caught my error, and I was forced to rebuild the character. But after 39 characters I still haven't run out of concepts that intrigue me.
Or play the Devoted Muse in a homegame, and build your other ideas here. PFS presents an amazing opportunity, but it's not possible to please all of the people all of the time.
|
This was already quoted above, so I would assume this thread was already created somewhere. It makes zero sense to write it all again if this has already received a negative or absent response.
Actually, no.
That’s just my “reasonable example” that I post in spoilers every time there is a question about legality. As far as I know no one has ever started a thread called “Campaign Clarifications that would make Bladed Brush acceptable in PFS” (or something similar).
If you do decide to start such a thread I will offer another suggestion: take time to consider posts in batches rather than immediately responding to each. A few concise posts go a lot farther than repetition of the same points.
This was already quoted above, so I would assume this thread was already created somewhere. It makes zero sense to write it all again if this has already received a negative or absent response.Actually, no.
That’s just my “reasonable example” that I post in spoilers every time there is a question about legality. As far as I know no one has ever started a thread called “Campaign Clarifications that would make Bladed Brush acceptable in PFS” (or something similar).
No offense, but it makes zero sense to write that out, and spread it around, yet not actually make the petition.
Is this the only character concept out of every possible combination of options that you're interested in playing?
We'd love to have you as a player, and eventually a GM if you're interested, but perhaps you could put this particular combination on the back burner until it is sorted out?
When I started PFS I wanted to play a Holy Gun. I got to second level before someone caught my error, and I was forced to rebuild the character. But after 39 characters I still haven't run out of concepts that intrigue me.
Or play the Devoted Muse in a homegame, and build your other ideas here. PFS presents an amazing opportunity, but it's not possible to please all of the people all of the time.
No, this is not my only character concept, and I have been playing a shelynite in pfs for a year or so, but to get the right feel, i cannot use a glaive (sylph kapenia dancer). In a non pfs game i play a completely different shelynite but in order to match shelyns ideals and actually use her favored weapon well (built before paths of the righteous), it is a brutish half-orc forgepriest. She crafts, and uses a golden glaive, but she certainly looks nothing like any of the slender and graceful glaive wielders illustrated throughout various sourcebooks - none of which are buildable in pfs.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No offense, but it makes zero sense to write that out, and spread it around, yet not actually make the petition.This was already quoted above, so I would assume this thread was already created somewhere. It makes zero sense to write it all again if this has already received a negative or absent response.Actually, no.
That’s just my “reasonable example” that I post in spoilers every time there is a question about legality. As far as I know no one has ever started a thread called “Campaign Clarifications that would make Bladed Brush acceptable in PFS” (or something similar).
Somehow I knew that was coming :)
The truth is that I don’t think Bladed Brush will ever be gotten into a shape where it can be used in PFS - short of a major rewrite that changes some of the core functionality. Until then it makes a handy example of how to start the discussion when a thread about legalizing an option pops up every couple of weeks.
There’s just too many edge cases. I explored a couple of them (magi, Piranha Strike, agile) but there are many more around “hands used” and “level of effort.” (Not to mention reach vs. non-reach.) I don’t think I can come up with a clarification that is short enough to be useful but still cover all those cases.
But I accept that other people are better wordsmiths than I am. If someone else wants to make the argument - even use my words as a jumping off point - they are welcome to.
A solution which is probably easier said than done is to join or put together your own gaming group. Then you don't have to worry about PFS rules and can try to ignore Paizo's nerfs/erratas.
Dude doesnt want to put the work in to try and get it legalized or fixed. So i suggest we just stop engaging.
Where did I say this?
|
|
Theres no fixing this archetype
Half of the point of a swashbuckler is parry and riposte. Getting that with good saves and charisma tomsaves makes the paladin a better swahsbuckler than the swashbuckler. That is going to get an archetype banhammered
If you want the flavor use the flavor. The swashbuckler doesnt have A code that says must be debauched and debased
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Appealing for an unban of this archetype is an attempt at futility. As written it is better than the swashbucler and probably strictly superior to the base Paladin for any build mot relying on archery, or natural weapons.
Initially I was equally anoyed that PFS is so restrictive. Meanwhile I have come to understand, that if paizo as a company were as good at balancing it's content as PFS is, Pathfinder would be a much better game.
So the only way to get this archetype unbanned would be to remove the Opportune Parry and Riposte deed from it, right? That looks like something that could be done in the Campaign Clarifications document.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh the archetype won't become legal. I was thinking Bladed Brush.
But, like I said up thread, you probably won't like the errata'd version anyways, so careful what you wish for.
If the image is truly what you're going for, then nothing about these two items being restricted will prevent you from obtaining that image.
If it's the mechanics you're looking for, it will have to be saved for a homegame.
|
|
So the only way to get this archetype unbanned would be to remove the Opportune Parry and Riposte deed from it, right? That looks like something that could be done in the Campaign Clarifications document.
thats really beyond fixing a gray area or dms call that the CC does and into a complete redesign.
That said, the additional resources does alter quite a few archetypes and abilities to make them pfs compatible.
So the only way to get this archetype unbanned would be to remove the Opportune Parry and Riposte deed from it, right? That looks like something that could be done in the Campaign Clarifications document.
For my original intent (shelynite holy glaive+panache wielder towards devoted muse), the parry isn't even what I care about - it's more about getting those stacked effective deed levels (for precise strike, since otherwise damage is pretty limited, due to low/no str). If parry is all that desired, then a 1 level dip in swash gets that no matter how you go towards muse.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That said, the additional resources does alter quite a few archetypes and abilities to make them pfs compatible.
Mostly that's "replace this crafting feat with..." and "replace this spell that's not legal in PFS with...".
The PFS team doesn't want to take over the development team's job and rewrite everything.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hello there! I'm Lyric the Singing Paladin, and I wanted to tell you that Shelynite Paladins don't need Virtuous Bravo to be awesome. You can fight with a glaive, sing with trolls, and redeem all those that need redemption just off straight paladin. Or if you like, you can be a paladin who splashes Oracle, or Bard, or even Swashbuckler.
I look forward to meeting your next character, and maybe even adventuring together at a convention, whether online or in person!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If someone is attacking those I have sworn to protect -- which includes my own party -- I do not hesitate to fight to protect them. What I do hesitate to do is kill unless it is an evil outsider or undead. I will talk to the other side the entire time, entreating them to change their ways, and do other tactics including fighting non-lethally. But being a Shelynite does not mean being a patsy. You are allowed to fight in self-defense. Lyric's terrible initiative modifier is legendary (I once had a -4 modifier, since I'm deaf) but that's okay. I tell everyone, "I never start a fight. I just finish them."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a non pfs game i play a completely different shelynite but in order to match shelyns ideals and actually use her favored weapon well (built before paths of the righteous), it is a brutish half-orc forgepriest. She crafts, and uses a golden glaive, but she certainly looks nothing like any of the slender and graceful glaive wielders illustrated throughout various sourcebooks - none of which are buildable in pfs.
Half-orcs haven't been forced to be brutish, since the PF open playtest in 2008.
They have the exact same stat mods as a humans.|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In that case, it is discovered the end enemy was a traitor all along who sabotaged a mission in the background for a outerworld patron. Knowing that patron, it was 99,99 percent likely this end in a bloodbath and unlikely to be receptive to any talk.
But the paladin still did the speech, I wasn't surprised this was for nothing. Self-defence was not enough, the better case was to bring it straight to the enemy's face.
Hell is paved with good intentions.
Phillippe, let’s agree to disagree on this. It’s clear that you had a bad experience with a non-tactical Shelynite paladin. But Lyric has a positive intelligence modifier, and I play her that way.
There is nothing that says that you cannot take down a known deceiver and murderer. Even Shelynite paladins will have moments when they rush an enemy. In one murder investigation, I found out that a certain scoundrel had murdered a bard, and I could not let that evil doer walk away. I took them OUT. Simarly, someone who has sacrificed innocents to a demon... Yeah, Lyric would totally smite that.
The thing that I love about paladins is that there are a variety of ways to play them, from the hardass Oath of Vengeance types to canny archers to Bret’s folksy Erastilian paladin who tracks creatures in the woods and has pegged survival as one of his main skills. Your deity has a major effect on your values as a paladin, but your personality and tactics are not set in stone. There is room to discover who you are, and to have your own unique approach to things.
Hmm
|
Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Even at lower levels, this would border obscenity for a one-handed weapon.
I was expecting more. Outside of the fighter only feats you don't really gain much being a swashbuckler do you. That really does confirm my suspicion the class doesn't have much of anything that it can give up of why bother playing the original class.
|
Initially I was equally anoyed that PFS is so restrictive. Meanwhile I have come to understand, that if paizo as a company were as good at balancing it's content as PFS is, Pathfinder would be a much better game.
I find this quote interesting as in one of the previous threads I mentioned that by PFS banning archetypes / feats right off the bat like Virtuous Bravo / Bladed Brush they are insinuating that Paizo is publishing unbalanced content.
I think an argument can be made for taking a Swashbuckler over Virtuous Bravo.
1. Swashbuckler is not restricted by Paladin Code of Honor (and this is a big one). This also opens up interesting multiclass options with Rogue / Ninja that would raise eyebrows if you did so with a Paladin.
2. Better to hit and damage from weapon training / fighter feats. Factoring in Greater Weapon Training and Weapon Specialization, you're looking at +6 to hit and +8 damage at 20th level compared to the Paladin's 7 smite foes where they are at probably +6 attack +20 damage. Over the long run the Swashbuckler will pull out on top.
3. Early Access to Improved Critical.
4. Better skills. The Virtuous Bravo is locked into Acrobatics and Diplomacy / Intimidate or they can sacrifice HP from favored class.
5. More feats which the gap is widened by not needing to burn one on Improved Critical. Fighter feats which means slightly better damage as stated above, versatility, and AC with greater shield focus.
Meanwhile the Virtuous Bravo will have excellent saves, excellent spike damage, more versatility through Divine Bond. It should be noted that Divine Bond can offset some of the difference of the Swashbuckler's Weapon Training but the Swasbuckler's Weapon Training is always active.
So there is a trade off. Balance. There is always going to be what you feel is a "better" option but that doesn't mean suddenly no one will see a reason to play a Swashbuckler.
Also in boards where they discuss Paladin Archetypes some rate Virtuous Bravo below the normal Paladin because it loses spells.
But what really matters is Paizo found it balanced because they published it. They knew exactly what they were making because it used established mechanics. It wasn't like this archetype snuck through the cracks / its purpose wasn't clear.
There's literally 0 reason you couldn't describe your strength based forge priest in exactly the terms you described.
So would you see a problem with a 6 INT character solving every puzzle, thinking tactically every fight, etc? There is definitely a correlation between player stats and roleplaying a character.
Also there are skills that run off Dex.
Bladed Brush was specifically designed to make a dexterous reach fighter mechanically viable. Right now it's only workable with an elven branched spear and a 3 level dip in Unchained Rogue.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're expecting random nut at pfs table number 4 to embody a deeply philosophical question of how to balance a desire for order and process with the desire to do good that has eluded the great thinkers of humanity for centuries you might be setting your standards too high.
Thats random pfs nut number 7s job.
Like I said earlier, the Virtuous Bravo was really only looked at as the most obvious path towards Devoted Muse. If Bladed Brush isn't allowed, than really the whole idea of playing a Devoted Muse is sort of silly anyway.
Regarding just going plain Swashbuckler -> Devoted Muse, I had considered that before coming across the Virtuous Bravo, but liked the much more divine and structured code over the overtly frivolous flavor of the swashbucker. IF bladed brush becomes a legal thing (I genuinely believe it is only banned because it is misunderstood at this point), then I'll probably go forward with this character, but with virtuous bravo out, I think the way forward will be through cavalier:
Cavalier (Courtly Knight; Daring Champion) [Order of the Blue Rose] 4, Warpriest [Good, Luck] 2, Devoted Muse x
Makes for a much sloppier path than Virtuous Bravo -> Devoted Muse, but it gets there eventually. Advantage of this path over the Virtuous Bravo, however, is the Blue Rose's focus on nonlethal damage, which does meld very well with a Shelynite warrior.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
We never got an official word on why Bladed Brush didn't make it in. It's obvious that the contentious text is part of it. (You can find 300+ post threads with people insisting it's not unclear, everyone else just read it wrong.)
But it's quite possible that power level is also part of it, because it lets you combine the high damage potential of a two-handed weapon with the Precise Strike ability, which was probably intended precisely to offset swashbucklers with their one-handed weapon theme lagging too far behind 2H barbarians and such.
|
|
That slight damage jump is off-set by a far lower crit multiplier (Rapier 18-20x2, Katana/Scimitar with Slashing Grace 18-20x2, Glaive x3).
Most swashbucklers only regain panache if they either confirm a critical or reduce an appropriate target to 0 or less.
So sure, the numbers may seem like they'd be 'huge' from a glaive, but the more realistic outcome is that someone with a higher crit-threat range is going to have more chances to crit (and we won't even mention things like Keen turning into a 25% chance on any hit and how that works)
The damage potential is also greatly minimized by not being able to apply dex to damage with Slashing Grace to the glaive (which seems to be one of the major confusions about this feat).
A bastard sword with slashing grace is likely far more useful to a swashbuckler than a glaive with bladed brush.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Initially I was equally anoyed that PFS is so restrictive. Meanwhile I have come to understand, that if paizo as a company were as good at balancing it's content as PFS is, Pathfinder would be a much better game.I find this quote interesting as in one of the previous threads I mentioned that by PFS banning archetypes / feats right off the bat like Virtuous Bravo / Bladed Brush they are insinuating that Paizo is publishing unbalanced content.
.
.
.
But what really matters is Paizo found it balanced because they published it. They knew exactly what they were making because it used established mechanics. It wasn't like this archetype snuck through the cracks / its purpose wasn't clear...
I gave this same response in the other thread, but I'm going to quote myself because it appears that some people have read this thread but not the other:
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.
I'm not insinuating that Paizo is publishing unbalanced content. I'm explicitly stating that a small percentage of published content is confusing or unbalanced. This is not unique to Paizo. The Lord of the Rings has had at least half a dozen revisions to clean up errors and inconsistencies. In high school my calculus class was using the first edition of the textbook. We found multiple wrong answers in the answer keys. (The publisher expected there would be errors and actually included instructions for submitting errors to a "bug bounty" program.) People are not foolproof and putting something on paper doesn't mean it is perfect.