Lost Omens: Firebrands Sanctioning Update

Organized Play General Discussion

Paizo Employee 5/55/5 * Organized Play Coordinator

16 people marked this as a favorite.

Hi all! Popping in with a quick update for everyone because our Organized Play Monthly Update is in a weird spot next month.

On Wednesday, Pathfinder Lost Omens: Firebrands releases to the public, and the Character Options page will be updated as well. We're trying something a little bit different with the sanctioning on this book.

In my three years with Organized Play, I've always been told that we don't tell people why we choose to ban certain options. When we explain why we're not allowing options, some players take that as an opportunity to argue with us, claiming "that spell isn't that powerful" or "come on, that feat isn't evil, let us use it." But you know me, I like to test things for myself.

The sanctioning for Firebrands will come with brief explanations of why the Limited or Restricted options have been marked as such. I'll be very frank that this is an experiment. If the community treats this as an opportunity to debate us on the options, if people become insufferable about our reasoning, well, lesson learned, we'll go back to the inscrutable black box. However, if the community can handle having this logic...maybe we'll continue doing it.

One thing I do want to say is that this text absolutely should not be used or taken as an indictment of my coworkers who created this book or the freelancers who wrote these options. We are absolutely not passing judgement or placing blame when we say "this option is too powerful." Organized Play is not the only audience for our books; there are plenty of options we've published that are great, that we're thrilled exist, but that are absolutely unsuitable for Organized Play for one reason or another. Look at the Living Vessel archetype: fantastic archetype, truly wonderful, full of flavor and potential, and absolutely a nightmare to adjudicate in a campaign without a consistent GM. Again, if the community takes this text as a reason to scold our writers, designers, or editors, the experiment has failed.

We hope you all enjoy Firebrands! It's a great book and I can't want to see our Pathfinder Society characters get a taste of the new options.

Dark Archive 4/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

That's a bold move. I certainly hope the community can handle this with grace, because I would absolutely love these insights into what affects sanctioning!

Vigilant Seal **** Venture-Lieutenant, Georgia—Atlanta

This seems like a very good option. I’m excited for it as it should be fun to try the change.

4/5 5/55/55/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for doing this experiment.

Fingers crossed that the community will accept it for what it is.

Wayfinders 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Contributor

Ooh, I am so excited for this.

Silver Crusade 1/5 **** Venture-Agent, Online—VTT

5 people marked this as a favorite.

*grabs popcorn and looks around the room*

“No one suck the fun out of this.”

Paizo Employee 5/55/5 * Organized Play Coordinator

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The sanctioning is now live.

Wayfinders 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Contributor

Ooh, I love how you did this listing. It's very clear and well-organized. Thank you, Alex!

3/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I absolutely, 100% support the giving of justification for sanctioning decisions.

Dark Archive 4/5 5/5 ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Certainly didn’t seem like their were any mega-controversial reasons on that list.

Thank you, Alex!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Thanks for this, Alex. That kind of information is very helpful to GMs deciding whether or not to allow these options in home games.

3/5 **

I will have to take a look at the document.

Community / Forums / Organized Play / General Discussion / Lost Omens: Firebrands Sanctioning Update All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion