|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I don't see how this is possible or even achievable based on what I said.
3 level 10's is 30, plus a level 7 pregen is 37, divided by 4 is 9.25 or 9, so you play down at the 6 player adjustment or play up depending on the season. But since there isn't a pregen higher than level 7, this is the only time this happens.
Otherwise, if you are playing at an otherwise 1-2 table, use the level 1 pregen. If you are playing at an otherwise 3-4 or 4-5, use the level 4 pregen.
If you are playing at an otherwise 5-6, 6-7, 8-9 or 10-11, then the level 7 pregen is the appropriate one.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
I see nothing banning you from selecting either level range appropriate pregen as the table prefers. I prefer to make sure the pregen matches the sub-tier, but if the pregen can determine the sub-tier I will consider the wishes of the party.
If you have a table of level 1s or 2s, common sense says you don't allow a level 4 pregen to play at that table.
I know that the guide to organized play doesn't specifically spell that out. But frankly it shouldn't have to. Common sense says you use the appropriate leveled pregen. Which means you try to match the APL of the actual player characters as best you can.
That's how I enforce it at my tables, and how I impress it should be enforced at tables that I play at.
The rule has nothing to do with a change to the archetype. It only refers to a change to an ability score Dependant thing.
currently the rules of the Guide to Organized Play v6.0, pages 27 and 28, do not support a rebuild. No feat or trait was changed or removed. No class, prestige class, or class feature dependent ability score was altered. Nothing about the class changed so that you no longer have proficiency in certain weapons.
By the rules, this change does not fall under any auspices of a rebuild opportunity.
You can petition for one if you like. But currently the rules do not support a rebuild.
I am not going to get into the argument about whether I feel this deserves a rebuild or not. As that isn't what this thread is about. Its asking if one is allowed. Currently one is not.
Tabletop Prophet wrote:
I'm not sure I understand your distinction at all.
Mark Stratton wrote:
That's what I thought. But since I am somewhat personally invested in what was written, I didn't want to sound all pompous like I'd written the perfect wording or something.
That being said, the intent was so that the campaign staff didn't have to re-explore the wording everytime some new class came out. That the rule would cover the new class based on how the new class was written.
Tabletop Prophet wrote:
Because if the 75,000 people who played Pathfinder Society used only the PRD, then Paizo wouldn't be selling books.
James, I agree with you. As it currently stands, shamans require a deity. I am merely pointing out that it is contrary to their flavor, and it could be easily fixed. It seems the exception was designed with the idea that more exceptions may be added in the future. It is my hope, that the shaman will be added to this list of exceptions.
I helped write the text of the rule. So I can speak to its intent.
The intent was to write a rule that could accommodate new classes based on how those new classes were written.
The Shaman is specifically written that they don't worship a deity.
Therefore, they clearly fall under the "or otherwise specified" classification of the rule.
This was in regards to a spell like Fabricate, which typically creates mundane items, and items of little expense.
I believe further on in the thread you'll find that common sense is invoked, and as long as it doesn't get ridiculous. That if abused, it certainly would not be allowed.
Creating any amount of treasure that essentially breaks the WBL would not persist from scenario to scenario. And no amount of wrangling by a player with FAQ's or message board posts is going to change that.
Charles Scholz wrote:
Those are the special Paizo volunteer shirts that you get if you GM at Gen Con or Paizo Con (or presumably PaizoCon UK).
Yes. I'll see if I can pull up the section in the guide that deals with this.
Guide to Organized Play, v6.0, page 24 wrote:
Except there is no "victory" to be had here. The situation is what it is, and those affected by it just need to make the best of it they can.
Using fancy words to impugn other folks ability to use logic also isn't really appropriate.
It wasn't completely endorsed or the design team wouldn't have written in a clause saying they were reserving the right to look at it again at a later date.
While its implicit in their job title that they gave the right to revisit any ruling they make, it made me entirely steer clear of it that they explicitly said they might.
Revisionist history paints this as completely legit with no ref flags and a sense of irritation and wonderment that they changed it.
It was in black and white, saying they might. No other ruling to my recollection ever did that.
They allowed it to remain. But the secondary effect was one they had not considered and were not aware of until it actually happened and they were made aware of it. They allowed it to remain under scrutiny.
It is revisionist history to say that they knew about it before hand and were happy with it.
you figure the pregen levels into the total APL.
If you have a mix mash of levels, then whatever level the Pregen(s) end up being will likely determine the final APL and what sub-tier and whether any adjustment is made.
But if all regular characters fit into one or the other subtier, then the pregen should match that sub-tier as best as possible.
Mark Stratton wrote:
Whether the language is explicit or not, at some point we need to use common sense.
Mark Stratton wrote:
Common sense says you play in sub tier with pregens.
Mark Stratton wrote:
Being able to play and being appropriate for the sub-tier are two different things.
That's why if you aren't appropriate for the sub-tier, its called out-of-sub-tier.
Any V-O could have made the same offer. It just happened to be me. Mike and I do not have a working relationship in which I can bend his ear any more than anyone or any other VO could.
My opinion on this is very clear. It has not changed since my earlier posts. So I could not objectively present your opinion to Mike in my own words.
But I do have integrity. And as such, when I make an offer to present something as written, that's exactly what I'll do.
Whether it has any effect, or just makes Mike mad at me for making him read and "consider" again for a 3rd time, I don't know. But I'm willing to take that bullet if it helps alleviate concerns here.
Consider though, that if one of you do this, and I present it, and Mike either responds similarly or not at all, then the discussion should probably turn towards "Whats the best current options for my character?" rather than, "He's ruined I want extended grandfathering or a rebuild!"
The argument has apparently circled back around to mention of rebuilds.
So someone mentioned that nothing in the PrC changed, so by the exact wording of the current rebuild rules in the Guide to Organized Play, no rebuild should be allowed, because nothing in the actual class has changed.
Then it was brought up that this was just semantics and the end result is the same.
I just made a flippant observation (and it was aimed at myself as well), that pedantry is fine as long as the pedantry helps your argument.
What's the point?
The characters can still get into the prestige classes. That hasn't changed. It will just take two or three more levels than the player originally thought.
Is this good or bad? Frankly, at this point, I don't care anymore. This argument is exhausting because of wading through all the pedantry. But the bottom line, is the only damage, I can see, is not to the character, but to the player who might not enjoy the extra couple levels of being less effective than they would have been had they got into the PrC at the earlier level.
Is this a good enough reason to make Mike change his mind?
To date, it has not been.
They are asking for characters level 2 and up who were already on the path to be allowed to progress as if early entry still existed. No new or level one characters allowed. Basically no one could rush a bunch of characters in to suddenly be good for the future and realistically very few people would suddenly jump on the chance to head for the PrC early if they weren't already headed that way.
So let me tell you what I'm going to do.
Someone write me a post without emotional reason or passion in it, that logically explains the problem. Don't say why its good or bad. Just logically explain the problem.
Then logically explain what the ramifications are to the characters affected. Please, no impassioned pleas or hyperbole about how your character is ruined. Just a logical explanation of the ramifications to that character. If played to completion, what are its long term prognosis and at what point is it difficult to have fun playing because of lack of early entry. why can this character just not wait for another 2 levels to get the prestige class? How would this tangibly hurt the character or make it unfun to play.
Then logically explain one or two solutions that would solve the problems addressed above.
If the post meets these prerequisites, I will personally email Mike and point him to the post. I will let you know the time and date that I pointed Mike to the post.
With the understanding that:
A) He most likely will still say no.
B) He may not respond at all, because he's already said no twice. He has already assured me last week that he's read every post in this thread (and probably still is reading).
If he does not respond within a week, assume that his previous responses still hold and he chooses not to repeat himself for the 3rd time. Understand that any lack of response directly from Mike at this point is not disrespect, but rather an unwillingness to continue arguing a point he's already made a decision on twice.
But if you want someone to hear a compiled, logical idea, then I will listen to it and push it up the chain.
But any hint of hyperbole or emotion, and I'll kick it back.
Lets get this straight shall we?
Pedantic arguments that work in the favor of the arguer's case, are just proof that the argument is correct.
Pedantic arguments that work against the favor of the arguer's case, are just nitpicking straw men.
If you are going to argue semantics to make a case for your point, then you should be ready for those who want to pick the nits out of your pedantry.
However, in this case, I do not believe I'm trying to argue any specific point. I'm just correcting a mistaken concept so that the point-makers can try to make their points with full semantic back-up.
This is incorrect.
The requirements were to cast 3rd level spells.
For a short while, Spell-Like Abilities were able to meet this requirement. They no longer are.
The PrC never considered Spell-Like Abilities.
This is incorrect Jiggy.
The Prestige class certainly did not change at all.
The only change is how Spell-Like Abilities are dealt with in the game. The initial FAQ had a side effect on PrCs. That side effect no longer exists.
But the PrC did not change, at all.
It is specifically listed in the scenario that the GM only receives the Wish boon if the players receive the boon. I ran it twice, and my players did not get it either time.
Actually that's not strictly true.
You can only get the boon if you actually play it and earn it.
You can never get the boon by GM'ing this one.
I'm not sure we have 6 neferphras.
Ryan Bolduan I don't think ever got his 5th, although he's got to be close and Jack, Kitty, and J Michael are all at 4 stars and should get their 5th sometime in the next 18 months.
Gosh, I keep feeling like I'm missing someone, but I don't think I am.
The wiki uses language directly from the books.
Nobody said that mwangi skin tone was out. Nobody.
Just no Drow. Pure and simple.
If you play Skulls and Shackles, then it is reasonable that perhaps your initial 1st level build will not be piratey. Afterall, you are shanghaied.
But if you refuse to eventually make build choices that make you at least somewhat effective as a pirate, then you probably aren't going to enjoy Skulls and Shackles too much.
We aren't playing WoW, where you have goofballs running around as "LORDOFDARKNESS!"
If you are playing Second Darkness, and the GM tells you that anything drow-like is off-limits, and you create a character with Drow stuff, then he has a right to veto that character. Its his campaign. You have a right not to play in his campaign if that really sticks in your craw.
Mike is PFS's GM, for all intents and purposes. He has said, "No Drow."
If you choose options for your character that essentially make you look like a Drow, then that really is your problem. Not the GM's. and they have the right to say no.
Ekujae, by the way, are a Tribe of Wild Elves from the Mwangi.
Per the Wiki, elves are almost always fair skinned. The only exceptions noted are the tanned elves of the deserts of Osirion, and Drow. There is a vague implication that the wild elves of the Mwangi Expanse might have a darker skin tone as well. But that is never explicitly noted.
So if you are an elf, with a significantly dark skin tone, then you are most likely a Drow, by Golarion Lore.
Drow are described as having ember-dark skin.
This coloration is significantly different than the ethnicities from the Mwangi Expanse or Garundi. So a half-elf who's human half is Mwangi, would at most have a dark brown skin tone.
Easily identifiable from an ember-dark skin tone.
I honestly don't see what's so hard using the existing lore of the land your character lives in to define what your character looks like. Deviating from that, means you really aren't playing Pathfinder Society in Golarion.