So, I'm relatively new to PFS, and was working no building my -2 character - wanting to be a devout shelynite paladin - only to discover that the most appropriate archetype - virtuous bravo - for that purpose is for some reason disallowed for society play.
What is the reason for this? I have seen crafting focused archetypes banned, and that made sense - this one, however, I simply do not understand. It does nothing but blend two otherwise available classes, much like any other archetype does. It also seems to be the most devout way to progress towards the shelynite prestige class (devoted muse) - which, frustratingly, IS allowed in pfs.
I'm guessing "better swashbuckler than swashbuckler". Plus, it grants opportune parry and riposte (something they stripped from virtually all non-swashbucklers in errata). There may be more; that's just off the top of my head.
As a fellow lover of such elements, I sympathize.
How is it better at swashbuckling than a swashbuckler? It doesn't even get panache until level 4 (and is giving up all spellcasting to do so).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, just noticed that Bladed Brush is also not allowed - so I'm pretty sure this idea is a non-starter. Guess this is why everyone I know said I'd get frustrated with pfs's extra rules.
|
Depending on what you want, you might consider a Daring Champion. It's not a Paladin at all, but rather a Swashbuckler-like Cavalier. No magic, but better skills and it still has the "principled gentleman warrior" thing going for it.
Otherwise, the Oath Against Grotesquery would fit a Shelynite well, as would, I think, an Empyreal Knight (so long as you can stomach that terrible Voices of the Spheres tradeoff). The Chosen One seems fitting too, though I'm really not sure what the upside of it is supposed to be. Soul Sentinel might fit too.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Holy moly that's a strong archetype.
Paladin's good saving throws, paladin Cha to saves while also using it for Panache, wearing mithral breastplate and getting a Dodge bonus too, Smite Evil as well as Precise Strike, and also Opportune Parry and Riposte...
Yeah, it gets rid of just about every weakness the Swashbuckler has and keeps most of the strengths.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it gets rid of just about every weakness the Swashbuckler has and keeps most of the strengths.
Well the fundamental problem with the Swashbuckler is that 1 Swashbuckler/ x practically anything else does the same thing and probably does it better.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Well the fundamental problem with the Swashbuckler is that 1 Swashbuckler/ x practically anything else does the same thing and probably does it better.Yeah, it gets rid of just about every weakness the Swashbuckler has and keeps most of the strengths.
Except Precise Strike. Precise Strike gives the paladin the thing he's always wanted: enough damage to stay ahead of the barbarian, but without running out of Smites and even if the enemy isn't evil. Oh, and it stacks with Smite.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Chosen One seems fitting too, though I'm really not sure what the upside of it is supposed to be.
Getting a familiar with a unique personality is its own upside.
But mechanically, the upside is the the familiar is more generally useful than the mount or bonded weapon it replaces. It can cast Guidance all day from level 1, and Lay on Paws to be a backup healer. That means that if an ally is injured, the paladin no longer has to choose between healing their ally or eliminating the threat: The familiar can heal the ally while the pally stays on offense. That's a huge boost in action economy.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, just noticed that Bladed Brush is also not allowed - so I'm pretty sure this idea is a non-starter. Guess this is why everyone I know said I'd get frustrated with pfs's extra rules.
I wanted to address this note, because PFS's "extra rules" are no different than the houserules of many GMs. In fact I know several GMs that base their houserules and allowed resources using PFS as a guideline because it's a more thorough attempt at limiting power creep than the average GM has time to research.
Bladed Brush has its own problems, even in base Pathfinder. A quick search of this Forum and the Rules Forum will bring up quite a few debates about how it even works. Bladed Brush may be allowed some day, but it's going to need to be clarified before it is.
And those are just two reasons why something might not be included in the Additional Resources list. There are several more considerations that may prevent other options from being added.
I don't look at these considerations as a bad thing. The success of PFS is arguably attributable to this sort of "balancing act".
Most GMs I play with permit anything Paizo prints, plus a selection of 3pp stuff (dreamscarred press stuff and worldissquare feat tax rules), so this stuff is quite a shock.
Regarding the Bladed Brush thing. You're saying it is banned by Paizo because Paizo didn't write it well? That's pretty sad to put that out there in their campaign that is supposed to be advertising the system. (Especially since there is no hope of a fix, with Paizo's refusal to errata or faq soft cover books).
Really, it comes down to the bladed brush thing being the real sticker here. No matter what alternative paths there might be to Devoted Muse, it will still never really work right. I had thought it would finally allow a proper graceful shelynite warrior to be viable. Instead it will still have to be tied to strength to be effective, completely against theme.
I'll still be able to build one in my real pathfinder campaigns - just not in pfs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're saying it is banned by Paizo because Paizo didn't write it well?
Paizo and PFS are not the same thing.
You're saying it is banned by Paizo because Paizo didn't write it well?Paizo and PFS are not the same thing.
You're just going to leave it at that without explaining it?
Most GMs I play with permit anything Paizo prints, plus a selection of 3pp stuff (dreamscarred press stuff and worldissquare feat tax rules), so this stuff is quite a shock.Man, where do you play?
Mostly online. The desire for more in person play is what brought me to the local pfs.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're just going to leave it at that without explaining it?
Paizo writes their rules for the Pathfinder Roleplaying game and the general public. PFS writes their rules for the PFS community and the specific needs of organized play. These are not the same communities and do no have the same considerations. What works in one will not work in another.
You're just going to leave it at that without explaining it?Paizo writes their rules for the Pathfinder Roleplaying game and the general public. PFS writes their rules for the PFS community and the specific needs of organized play. These are not the same communities and do no have the same considerations. What works in one will not work in another.
Does Paizo not publish the PFS guide? I understand it is a specific campaign, but to say it is not by Paizo is obviously false.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does Paizo not publish the PFS guide? I understand it is a specific campaign, but to say it is not by Paizo is obviously false.You're just going to leave it at that without explaining it?Paizo writes their rules for the Pathfinder Roleplaying game and the general public. PFS writes their rules for the PFS community and the specific needs of organized play. These are not the same communities and do no have the same considerations. What works in one will not work in another.
He is correct.
Employees of Paizo, and members of the PFS community who aren't employed by Paizo, write the PFS Guide.
Different communities, different target audiences.
|
|
Yeah, PFS is run by Paizo employees, but not all Paizo content (actually nearly nothing) is written with PFS in mind specifically. A few things are (like Pathfinder Society Primer, Seeker of Secrets and Pathfinder Society Field Guide) and with those basically everything is allowed.
Things that work in a home game might not work that well in PFS. In a home game a GM can watch out for things like balance and adjust encounters accordingly or things like that. In PFS that people in the lead have to often err on the side of caution, because allowing something and then realizing it doesn't really work and having to ban it later leads to a lot more annoyed and angry people than just banning it from the start.
|
He is correct.
No, PFS is entirely an organ of Paizo[1]. Its decisions are made by Paizo employees (if perhaps with input from volunteers selected by those same employees), and it runs entirely on books published and sold by Paizo, in order to promote said Paizo products.
1) The absurd legal fiction of the "Organized Play Foundation" notwithstanding.
Does Paizo not publish the PFS guide? I understand it is a specific campaign, but to say it is not by Paizo is obviously false.The Pathfinder Design Team and the Pathfinder Society Campaign Staff are not the same people, with differing tasks and goals.
Of course I understand they are not necessarily the same Paizo employees. I never contested that. I contested the statement that PFS was not coming from Paizo.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The statement was that PFS and Paizo are not the same thing. This is true. PFS is a subset of Paizo, not the same as Paizo.
There is a common misconception that just because Paizo publishes it, it must be okay for PFS, or for a home game, or for whatever the proponent is discussing. This cannot be true, because Paizo publishes a great deal of content in a wide variety. The adage of being able to please all or some of the people holds true here. Mythic rules are not appropriate for all tables. Horror rules are not appropriate for all tables. And while the archetype in question here is not so far afield as those sets, it can still be inappropriate to some tables. The campaign staff has decided that it is not appropriate to PFS, and so they have restricted it, just as any other GM might decide to do.
The statement was that PFS and Paizo are not the same thing. This is true. PFS is a subset of Paizo, not the same as Paizo.
There is a common misconception that just because Paizo publishes it, it must be okay for PFS, or for a home game, or for whatever the proponent is discussing. This cannot be true, because Paizo publishes a great deal of content in a wide variety. The adage of being able to please all or some of the people holds true here. Mythic rules are not appropriate for all tables. Horror rules are not appropriate for all tables. And while the archetype in question here is not so far afield as those sets, it can still be inappropriate to some tables. The campaign staff has decided that it is not appropriate to PFS, and so they have restricted it, just as any other GM might decide to do.
I made no such assumptions here,and I believe I even stated that I understood that some things had to be different for the organized campaign. My post was based on the surprise and disappointment at these two things being banned, with no real understanding of how they would negatively affect the campaign - thus a post was made to request clarification on the reason.
That said, I find the stated reasons here (made by other users, not those making said decisions) to be incredibly lacking. Banning a feat simply because some users are confused is the wrong handling of the situation. The correct way to deal with that situation is to provide the necessary clarification, either via faq, or rule fix in the additional resources.
As it stands now, 'allowing' the devoted muse, while being unable to use Shelyn's favored weapon for most of its abilities, is not be a situation the 'pfs staff' should be satisfied with.
|
|
The statement was that PFS and Paizo are not the same thing. This is true. PFS is a subset of Paizo, not the same as Paizo.
There is a common misconception that just because Paizo publishes it, it must be okay for PFS, or for a home game, or for whatever the proponent is discussing. This cannot be true, because Paizo publishes a great deal of content in a wide variety. The adage of being able to please all or some of the people holds true here. Mythic rules are not appropriate for all tables. Horror rules are not appropriate for all tables. And while the archetype in question here is not so far afield as those sets, it can still be inappropriate to some tables. The campaign staff has decided that it is not appropriate to PFS, and so they have restricted it, just as any other GM might decide to do.
Indeed, much of Core line of Hardcover books have material that doesn't fit into Golarion either. The Core line of books is made to fit as wide an audience as possible. Golarion doesn't necessarily use everything they publish. So anything not deemed to fit into Golarion will also not fit into PFS.
|
|
The statement was that PFS and Paizo are not the same thing. This is true. PFS is a subset of Paizo, not the same as Paizo.
There is a common misconception that just because Paizo publishes it, it must be okay for PFS, or for a home game, or for whatever the proponent is discussing. This cannot be true, because Paizo publishes a great deal of content in a wide variety. The adage of being able to please all or some of the people holds true here. Mythic rules are not appropriate for all tables. Horror rules are not appropriate for all tables. And while the archetype in question here is not so far afield as those sets, it can still be inappropriate to some tables. The campaign staff has decided that it is not appropriate to PFS, and so they have restricted it, just as any other GM might decide to do.
I made no such assumptions here,and I believe I even stated that I understood that some things had to be different for the organized campaign. My post was based on the surprise and disappointment at these two things being banned, with no real understanding of how they would negatively affect the campaign - thus a post was made to request clarification on the reason.
That said, I find the stated reasons here (made by other users, not those making said decisions) to be incredibly lacking. Banning a feat simply because some users are confused is the wrong handling of the situation. The correct way to deal with that situation is to provide the necessary clarification, either via faq, or rule fix in the additional resources.
They do have a campaign clarification (CC) document, where they have started essentially doing PFS campaign specific FAQ / errata stuff for the soft-cover books that the Pathfinder Design Team (PDT) does not touch for FAQ stuff. Its also telling that the PDT hasn't done an FAQ since August of 2017.
The PFS team updates the Additional Resources (AR) about once every 60 to 90 days and the CC about once every 90 to 120 days.
So while they consider how to FAQ or Errata things for the CC, they may make it non-legal in the AR until such a fix has been made. I've seen a few things get made legal at a later date when fixed in the CC. Essentially, seeing how slowly things move with the AR and the CC for the last 2 years, I really think you are asking way too much that these fixes happen upon release of the book to the AR.
|
|
As it stands now, 'allowing' the devoted muse, while being unable to use Shelyn's favored weapon for most of its abilities, is not be a situation the 'pfs staff' should be satisfied with.
Frankly, I doubt they look at things with that level of granularity. And even if they do, I doubt they would fix things with that level of granularity. Fixes are largely going to be limited to making sure things aren't overpowered or that they actually work as intended so that they can release them to the AR for general use in the campaign.
You are expecting way too much.
I really can't see what an issue would be with bladed brush while slashing grace is legal. It really doesn't take more thought to decide to ban something because of confusion x, than it does to simply clarify x.
As it stands now, 'allowing' the devoted muse, while being unable to use Shelyn's favored weapon for most of its abilities, is not be a situation the 'pfs staff' should be satisfied with.Frankly, I doubt they look at things with that level of granularity. And even if they do, I doubt they would fix things with that level of granularity. Fixes are largely going to be limited to making sure things aren't overpowered or that they actually work as intended so that they can release them to the AR for general use in the campaign.
You are expecting way too much.
Are you attesting that the devoted muse is 'working as intended' in pfs?
The devoted muse and bladed brush link is not some obscure combination. They are printed on the same page.
|
| 1 person 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!
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
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.
So I assume that thread has already been posted, and the team has weighed in on it? I am all for doing so if it has not been. However, it is impossible to make such a thread with the relevant points, if it is not known WHY an item was banned to begin with.
|
|
My suggestion?
Multiclass, either dip Swash for a level or two or dip Pali.
I dipped two level of Pali and did the rest as Inspired Blade (at least to 14th, contemplating more Pali or a dip into Devoted Muse. Not sure as yet.
As for Bladed Brush.. I like it, would be nice to be a Dev Muse with it but the ability it provides is just too much for a single feat and I figured it would never make the cut. I mean it lets you use a glaive with swashbuckling abilities, change reach AND let’s you finesse it?
Even if Slashing grace doesn’t apply, that’s a lot of good in one feat
|
|
As it stands now, 'allowing' the devoted muse, while being unable to use Shelyn's favored weapon for most of its abilities, is not be a situation the 'pfs staff' should be satisfied with.Frankly, I doubt they look at things with that level of granularity. And even if they do, I doubt they would fix things with that level of granularity. Fixes are largely going to be limited to making sure things aren't overpowered or that they actually work as intended so that they can release them to the AR for general use in the campaign.
You are expecting way too much.
Are you attesting that the devoted muse is 'working as intended' in pfs?
The devoted muse and bladed brush link is not some obscure combination. They are printed on the same page.
No, what I'm saying is, that when they look to approve things for the AR, they don't immediately look to what they need to fix for the CC. They literally don't have that kind of time.
You are expecting way too much.
|
|
So I assume that thread has already been posted, and the team has weighed in on it? I am all for doing so if it has not been. However, it is impossible to make such a thread with the relevant points, if it is not known WHY an item was banned to begin with.
The point is, that to make a good argument for why something should be included, you need to actually take an honest look at something and consider all the options why it might be banned and see how it might apply to that item. Make the counterargument against yourself before you try to debunk those reasons.
So I assume that thread has already been posted, and the team has weighed in on it? I am all for doing so if it has not been. However, it is impossible to make such a thread with the relevant points, if it is not known WHY an item was banned to begin with.The point is, that to make a good argument for why something should be included, you need to actually take an honest look at something and consider all the options why it might be banned and see how it might apply to that item. Make the counterargument against yourself before you try to debunk those reasons.
That is only possible if I know the reasons a thing might be banned. I'm not aware of any published policy on this. If you are privy to this information, would it not be much easier to simply inform me of the reason for bladed brush's pfs exclusion when I asked? All that was stated here wad a bunch of conjecture, much of which seemingly based on things that the feat clearly does not do.
The point here, is that a decision was made by 'someone' that this feat is not to be allowed in organized play. To refute that decision properly, one would need to actually know the decision that was made. Firing a shotgun blast of random things they might have thought into a void accomplishes nothing, and simply wastes time, and certainly doesn't help the pfs experience any.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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/mispriced
Obviously, 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.