|
I still haven't heard a reason not to.Because it rewards those people who (often deliberately) sail close to the wind in exploiting overpowered options that are almost certain to receive errata at some point in the future. Under your scheme, they would get the benefit of that option (before the errata), AND the chance to rebuild for free (using the latest rules from just-released books). At least as it stands, there's a tiny element of risk to min-maxing in this way.
That is by far the best reason I have heard. But again, it seems weird to me that this would be the chosen way to combat min-maxing. If they want to get serious about doing so in any meaningful way, the target should not be rebuilds, but like a zillion others things.
That is by far the best reason I have heard. But again, it seems weird to me that this would be the chosen way to combat min-maxing. If they want to get serious about doing so in any meaningful way, the target should not be rebuilds, but like a zillion others things.I still haven't heard a reason not to.Because it rewards those people who (often deliberately) sail close to the wind in exploiting overpowered options that are almost certain to receive errata at some point in the future. Under your scheme, they would get the benefit of that option (before the errata), AND the chance to rebuild for free (using the latest rules from just-released books). At least as it stands, there's a tiny element of risk to min-maxing in this way.
Like slumber hex, mirror image, or color spray?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can say there aren't good reasons. There aren't. And see my edit to your comments above.
But you can't say there aren't any reasons. There are.
You have yet to respond to my long post. So I'm going to assume you really don't have a way to refute that argument, based on the history of the game.
You can claim, that to you, the reasons aren't good.
But frankly, the only persons' reasons that matter, are the campaign staff who make the decisions. If they feel its a good reason, and the campaign isn't suffering for it, then who are any of us to say the reason is not good?
So far, since I started playing PFS since February 2011 (so over 3 years now), I've seen several instances of people declaring that some decision is going to ruin the game and cause droves of players to quit. From the gunslinger, to 1st level total and free rebuilds, to ultimate campaign rebuilds, and I'm sure we'll hear lots of cries about the Advanced Class Guide here in the near future as well. Perhaps a few people actually did quit over these choices.
I know someone quit because their Ape animal companion could no longer wield a lucern hammer and wear plate mail right around February of 2011. I'm pretty sure it was because most of the people on these boards were pretty brutal to them about how much cheese that was, rather than because of the change, but that's not the point. The point is, a few people here and there have quit. Even if the decision behind what type of rebuild to allow for the crane wing/ripost errata or the elf/aasimar oracle FCB clarification causes 100 people to quit the game.
That reason is not a bad one, because despite all the chicken little "sky is falling" claims and threats out there, this campaign has continued to grow at a pace that is frankly unprecedented.
So you can keep saying that the reasons aren't good. That you are unpersuaded.
But just because you say what you say, does not make it so (I know the converse is also true, but I'm not the one claiming that the status quo is broken and all reasons to keep it the way it is are bad).
|
|
You discredit all roleplaying and verisimilitudinous reasons, but frankly, those are the major reasons.
This is a "role" playing game. Not a "roll" playing game. I know some people treat it like the latter, and for the sake of not calling "badwrongfun" that's fine. Everyone is entitled to have fun playing this game however they wish up to the point it conflicts with anyone else's style of fun.
But this is a "role" playing game. And the campaign leadership has determined that this campaign will mainly be a "role" playing campaign. It is because it is organized play that it actually does cater quite well to the "roll" players out there as well. And frankly, that can be a good thing.
I'm going to go out on a limb here (and I don't think its a real big or long one) and say that the majority of people who play Pathfinder Society prefer "role" playing to "roll" playing. Perhaps not the vocal majority (which consists of those who post on these boards), but the vast majority. A huge portion of the Lion's share. They like to "role" play.
This would be a totally valid point, except that I refute the premise. Is this anything more than the old, so called "Stormwind Fallacy" cropping up again. I'll admit, I find the Stormwind Fallacy overly simplistic. I.e. there are cases where optimizing necessarily diminshes RP and vice versa. But overall it's a pretty valid refutation.
When other campaigns out there have allowed willy nilly rebuilds (everytime a new source book came out, you could do a total rebuild to try out the new stuff--this was a way to try and sell those new books too), the "role" players basically stopped playing, because now it wasn't about playing a character in a shared story anymore, but more about who could create the best collection of stats.And when you have the Lion's Share of your player base stop playing the game, because it no longer appeals to you, then the campaign fails. Just like those that allowed willy nilly rebuilds did.
It would be nice to see some kind of data on this, but I'll take your word for it and accept it for the purpose of argument. And yes, this is a really good reason, if it's so. The problem is that, once again, I am not advocating "will-nilly" rebuilding. Just rebuilding in a handful of circumstances.
It is not a mechanical reasons. And I'm not going to appeal to your better sense of verisimilitude either. Its obvious that verisimilitude is not...
Actually, you have me all wrong. Perhaps not "verisimilitude" but aesthetics and RP are huge concerns of mine. I am a major opponent of over-enthusiastic optimizing. I'm not sure what I have said that has led you to believe otherwise. I just dispute the premise that anything I'm advocating necessarily supports min-max playing any more than it supports RP and aesthetic/concept driven character design.
|
|
I still haven't heard a reason not to.Because it rewards those people who (often deliberately) sail close to the wind in exploiting overpowered options that are almost certain to receive errata at some point in the future. Under your scheme, they would get the benefit of that option (before the errata), AND the chance to rebuild for free (using the latest rules from just-released books). At least as it stands, there's a tiny element of risk to min-maxing in this way.
So the paizo staff want to punish people that use strong options? Because lots of non-min-maxers get stuck with things too?
I think that is a very poor argument for the blind effect it has
It honesty punishes honest players. The people I know that are upset about this cheated and rebuilt anyway because who will ctach them, or quit the game.
As those options better?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is by far the best reason I have heard. But again, it seems weird to me that this would be the chosen way to combat min-maxing. If they want to get serious about doing so in any meaningful way, the target should not be rebuilds, but like a zillion others things.I still haven't heard a reason not to.Because it rewards those people who (often deliberately) sail close to the wind in exploiting overpowered options that are almost certain to receive errata at some point in the future. Under your scheme, they would get the benefit of that option (before the errata), AND the chance to rebuild for free (using the latest rules from just-released books). At least as it stands, there's a tiny element of risk to min-maxing in this way.
To this, the campaign staff are actually restricted on what they can restrict. The mandate is to allow as much of Paizo's published product as they can, so that the campaign can, you know, do its job.
Pathfinder Society Organized Play is essentially a marketing tool to sell Pathfinder and other Paizo product.
To severely restrict all potential overpowered or broken options, would in essence, be doing a very poor job of being a marketing tool.
|
|
You have yet to respond to my long post...
Lol, just did.
I know someone quit because their Ape animal companion could no longer wield a lucern hammer and wear plate mail right around February of 2011...
Look, I'm with you brother. You're preaching to the choir. Stuff like this goes up my ass a mile. But I also think it's beside the point. I say ban and errata a zillion things that need it, and let everybody who gets affected by it do rebuilds. Hit the damn reset button and deal with the min-maxers in one fell swoop. On the other hand, there's no reason to be draconian. Knock them down, but let them get back on their feet.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do think that the divide on this largely falls along lines of character-driven players vs. tactics/mechanics-driven players. I also recognize that that's not a strict dichotomy and more of a spectrum. I count myself as about 60% tactics/40% character; I primarily approach Pathfinder as a series of puzzles (combat, social, actual puzzles, etc.). But I do enjoy roleplaying and the history of my characters that develops organically from their experiences. I also enjoy running into characters they've played with before and reminiscing on their shared experiences.
I get that character continuity may not be interesting to you. But the campaign is not designed with one-shot characters in mind.
The whole point of the living campaign is that there are consequences. Consequences in the decisions made in character creation. Consequences in the actions they take. With the introduction of retraining, I believe they introduced a reasonable balance of allowing for corrections while retaining a measure of consequence: in this case, the expenditure of PP and gold.
Clearly, when a rule changes, the player should not be held to choices made in good faith. The problem is that a line has to be drawn somewhere (I get that you disagree with this fundamentally, I address that below). If there is no line drawn, those consequences become entirely optional. I've found that games of any type do not go well when players have the option to ignore rules.
The logical place to draw the line is with the Feat (Archetype, Class, etc.) whose rules have changed. Setting the line at pre-requisites opens up a can of worms where certain exploitative players will take the inch and run a mile (many examples have already been given). The good news is that the retraining rules now exist for a player to swap out pre-requisites at a fairly modest cost. The bad news is that a character who was focus-built 100% around the modified ability (in this case, Crane Wing) may no longer be enjoyable for that player.
I will say, and this is 100% my opinion, that a character who can be described as "the guy with Crane Wing" was probably not a very interesting character to begin with.
And I'm sorry, but people need to stop coming back with the argument of "why don't you just go do a home game then?" There are plenty of reasons to want an organized experience that is different from the current one, but that is still impossible in a home game. Not to digress too much, but the most obvious one is being relieved of the burden of organizing/coordinating sessions. There are many more.
If your argument is based out of "character continuity doesn't matter anyway, so why not let people retrain?" we need to address why it doesn't matter anyway, or whether it does. If that's not your argument, or one of them, you need to not introduce it. Nonetheless, I've put this in spoilers in an attempt to avoid a derail.
You've (perhaps unintentionally) talked about cutting out all of the meaningful organized play elements of an organized play campaign. Which is totally fine. I'm curious: aside from actual event coordination, what are you looking for that you can't get in a home game? A curated ruleset? Probably not, considering you mentioned "the essential pointlessness of most of the PFS rules."
Boons? Would those still have any meaning if they were 100% transferable? Or would you only care about the mechanical benefits regardless? Should Boons even need to be earned "given the ease of PFS scenarios"? What if a character dies? Do you lose the boons attached to it?
Here's what I've discerned from your posts in this thread so far:
- PFS is stupid easy
- The additional campaign rules are essentially pointless
- Character continuity should be optional
What are you looking for out of this campaign other than warm bodies to impress with your system mastery?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have yet to respond to my long post...
Lol, just did.
Look, I'm with you brother. You're preaching to the choir. Stuff like this goes up my ass a mile. But I also think it's beside the point. I say ban and errata a zillion things that need it, and let everybody who gets affected by it do rebuilds. Hit the damn reset button and deal with the min-maxers in one fell swoop. On the other hand, there's no reason to be draconian. Knock them down, but let them get back on their feet.I know someone quit because their Ape animal companion could no longer wield a lucern hammer and wear plate mail right around February of 2011...
That's the point though.
If you are a huge proponent of "role" play vs. "roll" play, then I really have no idea why you are arguing what you are arguing.
Because frankly, it doesn't matter what errata does to nerf your character (unless it makes it completely unplayable--and many claims to that are dubious at best in most cases--I need examples of why something is unplayable because I won't just accept it because someone says it), if you are more into "role" playing than "roll" playing, you'd rather retire your character than change the entire theme of who and what they are.
They become an entity, a personality. And even small changes completely changes who they are. Bbauzh, my first character, is a deaf oracle that eventually became a rage prophet. If the deaf curse was banned for some reason, I'd never play the character again, because that's who Bbauzh has been for 14 levels. That's who he is. And even choosing a different curse as the only rebuild, would fundamentally change his entire history and personality.
If it were a home game, and I had a player in such a situation, I'd be willing (and I would hope any GM I played with would be as well) to create a special adventure or encounter or something that told the story of why such a fundamental change happened to the character. In PFS, we don't have that option.
So Bbauzh would be retired should that ever come to pass. Because it would completely change who he is.
Bob Jonquet has already stated that his crane riposte master of many styles character is probably on the way to retirement because the character is fundamentally a crane riposte character. The character's entire history, personality, and theme is based around blocking other people's attacks. He has posted about how conflicted he is about whether he can play the character anymore. For mainly "role" play reasons. Would he like a more liberal rebuild? I'm sure he would. But he's stated that he's fine with the way things have been ruled.
So the only reason that someone would want a complete and total rebuild of a character in this situation, is so that they can "roll" play just as well as they did before. Because I refuse to believe that unless your build was min-maxed with a carefully designed level dip and feat taking without paying the prerequisite feat tax, that you are unplayable with dodge, improved unarmed strike, and crane style.
And if you are not unplayable (just a bit less optimally awesome as you were before), then there isn't a reason to fully rebuild that character.
Unless the character is just a page full of stats, and not a personality carefully crafted and honed with "role" playing through their career.
|
|
Cynical, indeed. And you blame me for complaining?
Pathfinder Society Organized Play is essentially a marketing tool to sell Pathfinder and other Paizo product.
To severely restrict all potential overpowered or broken options, would in essence, be doing a very poor job of being a marketing tool.
How is this cynical?
I'm not complaining. I'm explaining.
And I'm actually quite ok with it being a marketing tool.
|
|
I personally would rather see a lot more of these kinds of rulings to prevent Pathfinder from suffering the same power spiral of 3.5...
Damn it, so would I! But balance the stick with the carrot. Look, at the end of the day the South needed some smacking down in the Civil War (I'm from Tennessee, btw, so I get to say so). But Lincoln was a wise man. He said afterwards, we're not going to exploit them. We're going to go help them rebuild and rejoin the Union as respected and valued participants. Well, he lost that battle, having already spent all of his political capital. The South was exploited and the North have looked like giant dicks ever since. Southerners eventually paid them back by electing G.W. Let's not be the North or the South. Let's be Lincoln.
P.S. Lol, this post is obviously ridiculous and hyperbolic, but you get my drift.
|
|
If you are a huge proponent of "role" play vs. "roll" play, then I really have no idea why you are arguing what you are arguing.
I understand that you do not understand. It is difficult to explain. But just as I accepted some of the things you said at face value, please believe me when I say that there are many ways to approach "role playing" that are not your way. In some cases they are antithetical to your way. They are still, however "role playing" in that their primary concern is aesthetics rather than optimization.
Also, please understand that I entirely refute your premise that between "roll playing" and "role playing" the twain shall never meet.
|
|
I personally would rather see a lot more of these kinds of rulings to prevent Pathfinder from suffering the same power spiral of 3.5...Damn it, so would I! But balance the stick with the carrot. Look, at the end of the day the South needed some smacking down in the Civil War (I'm from Tennessee, btw, so I get to say so). But Lincoln was a wise man. He said afterwards, we're not going to exploit them. We're going to go help them rebuild and rejoin the Union as respected and valued participants. Well, he lost that battle, having already spent all of his political capital. The South was exploited and the North have looked like giant dicks ever since. Southerners eventually paid them back by electing G.W. Let's not be the North or the South. Let's be Lincoln.
P.S. Lol, this post is obviously ridiculous and hyperbolic, but you get my drift.
If you look at the strict rules for rebuilding when changes happen, as a punishment, then you have a point with this post.
But since the strict rebuild rules are not a punishment, then your post really is off base.
|
|
stuff
My characters are all built with everything interlocking. My character's story their abilities, traits, ability score and everything else.
They are a giant interlocking puzzle. I would say it is not fair to even give percentage between story and tactics. Now granted they are all power built.
Now the name of feats and classes I call fluff. They have no mechanics to me. The ability to deflect blows does. So now they limited me deflecting blows while fighting. So I want another ability that does thios, snake style. Why should I have to spend character resources to give the ability I want, deflecting blows while fighting?
I completely disagree with exploitive characters. Cheaters are going to cheat, and already have and will again. Can you honestly tell me there are people you know that do not cheat and rebuild illegally? I am not saying that you caught, but have very strong suspcions of?
I personally know 8 people that have rebuilt characters on their own.
I know 2 people that abandonded characters instead of cheating, I am one of them.
|
|
If you are a huge proponent of "role" play vs. "roll" play, then I really have no idea why you are arguing what you are arguing.
I understand that you do not understand. It is difficult to explain. But just as I accepted some of the things you said at face value, please believe me when I say that there are many ways to approach "role playing" that are not your way. In some cases they are antithetical to your way. They are still, however "role playing" in that their primary concern is aesthetics rather than optimization.
Also, please understand that I entirely refute your premise that between "roll playing" and "role playing" the twain shall never meet.
My home group is largely a group of Strategy war gamers. They love to play the game to enjoy the tactical part of the battles. Some of them are min/maxers, and some are not. We all enjoy each other's company and enjoy the game with each other.
So I understand the mix and mash of role play and roll play can meet.
But I'm not sure what you mean that my version of "role" play is not about aesthetics, when that's exactly what my version of "role" play is about. The aesthetics of personality, character, drive, emotion, characterization, etc.
|
|
stuffMy characters are all built with everything interlocking. My character's story their abilities, traits, ability score and everything else.
They are a giant interlocking puzzle. I would say it is not fair to even give percentage between story and tactics. Now granted they are all power built.
Now the name of feats and classes I call fluff. They have no mechanics to me. The ability to deflect blows does. So now they limited me deflecting blows while fighting. So I want another ability that does thios, snake style. Why should I have to spend character resources to give the ability I want, deflecting blows while fighting?
I completely disagree with exploitive characters. Cheaters are going to cheat, and already have and will again. Can you honestly tell me there are people you know that do not cheat and rebuild illegally? I am not saying that you caught, but have very strong suspcions of?
I personally know 8 people that have rebuilt characters on their own.
I know 2 people that abandonded characters instead of cheating, I am one of them.
This level of cheating would not be tolerated at my game days. Players who do so, know this. They also know that my memory is quite good.
Fundamental rebuilds like what you are talking about, would be as obvious to me as the sun is in the sky at high noon on the longest day of the year.
So no, I have never witnessed such a cheating rebuild at one of my tables. Because if we have any players like that in the region I help to coordinate, I firmly believe our player base would relieve them of that attitude, or the person would probably find themselves not welcome at our tables as a cheater.
Those players who turn a blind eye to this level of cheating, really aren't helping solve the problem, but rather are helping to perpetuate the problem by allowing it to happen.
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, there are a bunch of folks here telling us that liberal rebuilds are a bad idea, and a bunch of people want them. Who is right?
Hostility and insults and axes to gring aside... I do notice that many of the folks saying that rebuilds are to be avoided, have a lot of stars beside their names. 4 stars is for GMing 100 games, and 5 is for GMing 150. Usually, people who GM that much are pretty solid in their local organizations, not just running tables but also organizing cons and events and training new GMs and players. They've been around, and often know pretty well what works and what doesn't on a campaign scale and not just at their table. If that many folks who are that experienced are telling us it is a bad idea, maybe that should carry some weight. I don't suggest someone's opinion is more valid based on GM stars, but it may be based on more experience.
Last point from me: Eric's post referencing parents and children may not have been nice to hear, but if you look at the character of the forums over the past three years or so, the level of civility *has* gone way down of late. I never thought I would see people bashing a guy in his retirement thread, and the vitriol aimed at Paizo staff sickens me. Every thread on this crane Wing thing has posts in it that, if said in person at my place of work, would have the speaker in the HUman Resources office in seconds. I don'th think Paizo treats us like children; I think that segments of the online Paizo forum community behaves like children a good part of the time. Prove me wrong. Please.
We are lucky that we have a strong Organized Play campaign, with great staff and volunteer support, and a company that takes such care to make sure its base is happy as a whole. Open playtests? Developers reading the forums for feedback? Paizo does a pretty darn good job, and all we ever show them is how unhappy we are about the few areas they don't meet our expectations in.
Campaigns have rules, made by the GM. People have made their points, now let the GM make the ruling and move on.
|
|
I completely disagree with exploitive characters. Cheaters are going to cheat, and already have and will again. Can you honestly tell me there are people you know that do not cheat and rebuild illegally? I am not saying that you caught, but have very strong suspcions of?
I personally know 8 people that have rebuilt characters on their own.
I know 2 people that abandonded characters instead of cheating, I am one of them.
I've shelved three characters myself. I've encountered one player who was outright cheating, and only then because it was mind-numbingly blatant. I generally try to avoid worrying about whether someone's cheating, because, as you said, cheaters will cheat.
But I think there's a difference between exploitive players and cheaters. I would argue that exploitive players often have the strongest grasp of the rules and how to walk the line right up to cheating. For an example, see the long, gruesome Thunder & Fang thread that I'm ashamed to have participated in. RAW, dual-wielding Earthbreakers is not cheating. Clearly, frequently stated RAI, it is. But PFS is RAW, so they're in the clear.
If Thunder & Fang gets a FAQ or Errata, I wouldn't advocating handing out rebuilds to characters with dual-wielded or Large Earth Breakers.
EDIT:
Quick edit to clarify that I do not equate exploitive playing with power-gaming or min-maxing. There's a difference (in my mind) between system mastery and taking advantage of errors in editing.
|
|
Sutff
I am often pointed at when people ask someone how to build a stornger character. I get about 1 email a day asking me advice on build stuff.
So when people show me their builds I give advice. I notice when they cheat because those were not the feats, they had i suggested for later levels. That is on them though. I view it liek golf and yuou keep your own score.
I read the earthbreaker thing, it is not overpowered. Just kind of silly.
I abhor the hatred powergamers get. Some people a powergamer should be punished for building their characters well. I find this silly. Powergamers should be punished if they hog the action and DM's attention at the table. But that is not a powergamer, but a jerk. Evern a weak built character can be that jerk.
I know how to toe the line and I have exact ideas of what characters I want in my head. I spend a week research and building a character fromt he area they were rasied in golaria to all the feats and traits. Now because I spend so much time and effort these changes wreck my idea for my character. Then it wrecks my game and makes PFS less enjoyable since I am forced to be something then what I wanted and was agreed legal beforehand.
|
|
Hostility and insults and axes to gring aside...
I actually haven't noticed that much "hostility" in this thread. Seems like it's been pretty civil to me, relatively speaking. To be honest, reducing someone's sincere opinion to an "ax to grind" is one of the more insensitive remarks I've seen here.
I do notice that many of the folks saying that rebuilds are to be avoided, have a lot of stars beside their names. 4 stars is for GMing 100 games, and 5 is for GMing 150. Usually, people who GM that much are pretty solid in their local organizations, not just running tables but also organizing cons and events and training new GMs and players. They've been around, and often know pretty well what works and what doesn't on a campaign scale and not just at their table. If that many folks who are that experienced are telling us it is a bad idea, maybe that should carry some weight. I don't suggest someone's opinion is more valid based on GM stars, but it may be based on more experience.
Again, the appeal to authority. Also, I will put my GMing and overall gaming experience up against anyone's, but I think it's a mistake to promote these kinds of showdowns.
Last point from me: Eric's post referencing parents and children may not have been nice to hear, but if you look at the character of the forums over the past three years or so, the level of civility *has* gone way down of late. I never thought I would see people bashing a guy in his retirement thread, and the vitriol aimed at Paizo staff sickens me...
No argument about the overall level of vitriol. If anyone thinks I'm out of line here (with my tone/language, not my content) let me know. I swear it is accidental. In any case, two wrongs don't make a right. Being treated badly, brusquely or condescendingly by staff members is not going to improve the level of discourse here anytime soon.
|
|
So I understand the mix and mash of role play and roll play can meet.
But I'm not sure what you mean that my version of "role" play is not about aesthetics, when that's exactly what my version of "role" play is about. The aesthetics of personality, character, drive, emotion, characterization, etc.
I never meant to imply any such thing of you or your group. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. My point was that there are many very different, but all valid ways to approach "role playing" and aesthetic/high concept characters. The writers of Leverage approach their characters very differently than the writers of Game of Thrones. But to call the Leverage characters "bad" because they don't play by the same rules as the GoT ones would be silly. That's the best analogy I can come up with. I hope it makes some sense.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scott can correct me if I'm wrong, but the vitriol he is referring to is in general on the boards. For those of us who started on the boards playing when the Beta was out, the boards have become more sarcastic, less helpful and definitely more angry/depressing. It's probably why you see so many of the Old Guard trying to derail threads with wacky humor.
|
|
But I think there's a difference between exploitive players and cheaters. I would argue that exploitive players often have the strongest grasp of the rules and how to walk the line right up to cheating. For an example, see the long, gruesome Thunder & Fang thread that I'm ashamed to have participated in. RAW, dual-wielding Earthbreakers is not cheating. Clearly, frequently stated RAI, it is. But PFS is RAW, so they're in the clear...
EDIT:
Quick edit to clarify that I do not equate exploitive playing with power-gaming or min-maxing. There's a difference (in my mind) between system mastery and taking advantage of errors in editing.
I think this is a very interesting point. My question to you would be: which is worse? Exploitation, high octane min-maxing, or cheating?
In my opinion, it entirely depends on the player's goals in performing the behavior in question. If someone optimizes, exploits editing or even cheats to create an interesting, balanced, non-disruptive character, who honestly cares? Why should this bother anyone (to a point, obviously)?
If, on the other hand, a player uses totally legal rules to create an uninspired, overpowered, disruptive character, I'd say we have reason for concern.
EDIT: It is, in other words, a problem if we have a system that people feel they need to game in order to do interesting things, but at the same time enables exploitative or power hungry users to legally create disruptive and overpowered builds.
|
|
The downside to easy retrains is that players can easily and quickly refeat, or modify their character to fit a scenario or party. This does not make sense from a roleplay or environment perspective at all.
So how does banning stuff and errata on stuff fit with roleplaying, etc?
"Oh look, that neat trick I did must have been magic because I cannot do it anymore....."
|
Maybe there needs to be some basic guidelines established.
If the PFS guide were to talk about rebuilding in terms of "do it if you need to, but keep it as minimal as possible" with some wording about the intent of keeping character personality/direction as intact as possible, and why that's important. Then some guidelines on how rebuilding should be handled:
Free rebuilds:
- (current options - 1st level & errata rebuilding)
- A build option that your character had is no longer available, retrain related options to adapt
- A build option that you took doesn't function as you thought, retrain related options to adapt
- A build option you took was vastly overpowered or underpowered every time you played
- A new product has been released that contains options that would work well your build
Prestige rebuilds:
- Options that normally wouldn't be buildable, such as adding prestige for additional HP
- A vastly different character build
- A build option that your tables could use better than the original choice (eg. climb vs knowledge skills)
Not a fantastic list, but you get the idea - it's a start.
What we have to be careful of is that veteran players, especially GMs, are always going to be in a superior position to newbies. GMs and long time players have the option of using another character or a GM credit baby. Newer players will be in a position where they need to play a lengthy period of time to get to the same point, alongside learning the different options for their builds. Until they get there, they're stuck with paying 3-7 prestige per rebuild option after level 2 hits. 1st level rebuilding recognises this. This is great, but you don't know how your character will be at level 5 at that point.
It's easy to see how players who are good at building characters would argue against rebuild for verisimilitude's sake and players who aren't as good at it would argue for it for the sake of more enjoyment in their game.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to try and come at this question from a global angle. I have been a member of 5 Organized Play campaigns: Living Greyhawk, Living Forgotten Realms, Living Arcanis, Legends of Arcanis and Pathfinder Society.
Going from memory of the rebuild rules, Living Greyhawk didn't allow any, Living Arcanis allowed some, Legends of Arcanis allows it until you stop playing Intro scenarios, Living Forgotten Realms allows a rebuild every level and PFS allows a rebuild until your level 2 and then has implemented rules for limited retrains through errata or Ultimate Campaign.
In terms of what is allowed from sourcebooks, LFR and Legends of Arcanis allow pretty much everything, Living Arcanis marked in the book what was allowed and Living Greyhawk and PFS have FAQ/Errata/Other documents that explain what is allowed.
Out of all the campaigns, Living Greyhawk was extremely restrictive with the large campaign "document" (I say document, but I really mean small book), PFS has a much smaller campaign rules document, followed by LFR and both Arcanis'.
In terms of overall campaign document complexity, rebuild rules and additional resource allowance by far the most restrictive campaign has been Living Greyhawk > PFS > Living Arcanis > Legends of Arcanis > LFR
Now take a look at the success of these campaigns. I don't think it's too far of a leap in logic to assign a strong level of correlation between the level of restrictiveness of a campaign to its overall success.
To the OP, there is one option that you forgot to add to your list of options to the campaign (which is also the most restrictive): no rebuild whatsoever.
See, what frustrates me is that your decisions are invalidated with this errata.
You had a idea for what you wanted to do, now you can't.
If i ever /do/ play PFS, I'd assuredly play a spell-caster, as really, whatever decisions i make are probably not going to be invalidated.
I'd have a constant looming fear that a good choice for the power of my character would be nerfed, and i couldn't do anything about it.
|
The downside to easy retrains is that players can easily and quickly refeat, or modify their character to fit a scenario or party. This does not make sense from a roleplay or environment perspective at all.
So how does banning stuff and errata on stuff fit with roleplaying, etc?
"Oh look, that neat trick I did must have been magic because I cannot do it anymore....."
I made the kesel run in 18 parsecs...
Uh huh...
You sound doubtful
For starters your ship is on blocks, and secondly you can't tell the difference between a measurement of distance and a measurement of time.
But I did! Stupid errata..
|
|
I'm going to try and come at this question from a global angle. I have been a member of 5 Organized Play campaigns: Living Greyhawk, Living Forgotten Realms, Living Arcanis, Legends of Arcanis and Pathfinder Society.
Going from memory of the rebuild rules, Living Greyhawk didn't allow any, Living Arcanis allowed some, Legends of Arcanis allows it until you stop playing Intro scenarios, Living Forgotten Realms allows a rebuild every level and PFS allows a rebuild until your level 2 and then has implemented rules for limited retrains through errata or Ultimate Campaign.
In terms of what is allowed from sourcebooks, LFR and Legends of Arcanis allow pretty much everything, Living Arcanis marked in the book what was allowed and Living Greyhawk and PFS have FAQ/Errata/Other documents that explain what is allowed.
Out of all the campaigns, Living Greyhawk was extremely restrictive with the large campaign "document" (I say document, but I really mean small book), PFS has a much smaller campaign rules document, followed by LFR and both Arcanis'.
In terms of overall campaign document complexity, rebuild rules and additional resource allowance by far the most restrictive campaign has been Living Greyhawk > PFS > Living Arcanis > Legends of Arcanis > LFR
Now take a look at the success of these campaigns. I don't think it's too far of a leap in logic to assign a strong level of correlation between the level of restrictiveness of a campaign to its overall success.
To the OP, there is one option that you forgot to add to your list of options to the campaign (which is also the most restrictive): no rebuild whatsoever.
I think what you say makes a lot of sense in some ways, but may be (unintentionally) misleading in others. I was working my way back to discussing this in relation to one of redward's posts, but I'll just go into it here.
First of all, correlation does not imply causation. Not trying to piss on your bonfire here. The cause of those campaigns' relative success may absolutely be what you claim it is, but it is not necessarily so and I think that's important to note. There are a ton of other variables in play.
That said, we're also still kind of having trouble making it clear when we're arguing about an overall liberal approach to rebuilding and when we're talking about rebuilding in response to errata. So I also want to point out that your post really addresses the former and not so much the latter, which is the more important of the two.
But anyway, since we're talking about it...
Here's the way I look at this. Let's say there was a living campaign that was known for being really, really difficult. A campaign that had a high character mortality rate, where resurrection was an unlikely prospect in most cases. A campaign where you began as an NPC class and couldn't even take Magus levels (or whatever) unless you actually found and got trained by the appropriate NPC. A campaign where you could only acquire magic items, improved familiars and other interesting resources by finding them during play, and even then you probably had to "unlock" these things by making interesting in-game choices. A campaign where your characters' actions actually influenced the world and the course of the metaplot... Well, if there was a campaign like this, I would be very intrigued. Such a campaign would demand strict rebuilding rules and similar restrictive mechanics in order to be meaningful. In such a campaign, I would absolutely support these things.
Pathfinder Society is not such a campaign. Basically none of the campaign elements I listed above are in effect in PFS. Pathfinder Society is easy, has a low mortality rate, and has few to no consequences for death, even then, above 3rd level. Pathfinder Society gives you access to everything, all the time. Even in the few cases where you can get interesting unique stuff (Gamin or the braid of a thousand masters, for instance), you pretty much get it automatically for completing the mod, and don't have to make any interesting choices to attain it (also, everybody has access to it). And finally, in Pathfinder Society your characters' actions are basically irrelevant to the overall plot or to future mods. Even the basic conceit of working for the Society going on these isolated missions in various parts of the world lends itself entirely to an episodic format, and not at all to a novelistic one.
And honestly, I'm cool with that too. But that sounds to me like a totally awesome format for trying out all kinds of funky cool builds and/or character concepts that I'll have a ball playing for, say, 1 to 8 game sessions, and a really terrible format for getting really invested in this one character and his accomplishments and his long term story arc.
Basically, I would approach characters in these two formats very differently, and I find it frustrating when a game with PFS's format acts like it has the other format, and puts up rules and roadblocks based on this total misrepresentation of what it really is. As TM said, it is the second most restrictive of the 5 living campaigns he's been involved in. That seems pointless to me under the circumstances. That's just the way I see it...
|
I lean more to the side of rebuild until happy, only because in PFS, abandoning a character is also abandoning my play in a scenario. With a limited, while growing, amount of scenarios, any investment into a character is also reducing the amount of scenarios I can play in and simply abandoning a character is also abandoning those scenarios I played in. If I have a level 7 Fighter/Monk-Master of Many Styles, who I no longer enjoy playing, I am also having to accept that I wasted potentially 21 scenarios that I can never play in again for credit.
If this wasn't the case and we were allowed to replay scenarios for credit, I'd have no problem simply putting on a tough face and agreeing to the current attitude, of "take what we give you and if you don't like it leave(your character),".
If we could mark a character as "retired/dead/nonexistant" and thus opening up the scenarios they played in for play again that'd be great, that'd likely reduce any complaints I have about how FAQ's and Erratas interact with characters at the moment.
Some might retort that I can simply make a new character and GM those scenario's, applying credit as thus, but I've found that most of my GM "babies" lack the same identity my other characters have and as such most of my GM "babies" are were I try out the latest min/max build crossing the forum grounds, I also rarely enjoy playing those characters because of their of lack identity.
|
|
Scott can correct me if I'm wrong, but the vitriol he is referring to is in general on the boards. For those of us who started on the boards playing when the Beta was out, the boards have become more sarcastic, less helpful and definitely more angry/depressing. It's probably why you see so many of the Old Guard trying to derail threads with wacky humor.
I agree. I can actually point to the Summer of 2011 as the turning point, even.
-Matt
|
|
Going from memory of the rebuild rules, Living Greyhawk didn't allow any...
This wasn't actually true. The 3.5 conversion and the 3.0 splatbook rotation both came with full rebuilds. It can be argued that the power level of the campaign's PCs went up significantly with each of these rebuilds. In fact, I can point to Living Greyhawk as an example of why rebuilds should be given out carefully.
As one example, I can recall a lot of casters suddenly having Evasion after being able to rebuild into Complete Divine's Divine Oracle.
That being said, we are well past the point of no return when it comes to the power level of PFS's available material. Pandora's Box has been open for quite awhile now (ex: Slumber Hex, or Let's Nerf Save-or-Dies by Giving Out One With Unlimited Uses Per Day!).
-Matt
|
|
But again, it seems weird to me that this would be the chosen way to combat min-maxing. If they want to get serious about doing so in any meaningful way, the target should not be rebuilds, but like a zillion others things.Like slumber hex, mirror image, or color spray?
...to name but a few of the usual suspects.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally see no problem with allow rebuilds, complete or partial. If it's due to an errata, let it happen for free. It's true that this means some people may make stronger characters than they had before, but why should that be a problem?
If someone comes with an overpowered summoner that's all of a sudden an overpowered barbarian, I'm still doing my thing.
Maybe that person's next character would be just as OP. Maybe the next player (and we do see different players in PFS) would bring something just as OP.
I enjoyed the development of a character from level to level. There's a reason there are 20 levels of power at which to play in this game. I even enjoy the early ones where characters are weak.
So you could say that we don't allow complete rebuilds because the whole bent of the game is to play a character from bottom to top. Some games don't have scaling power levels. Some do. I enjoy this part of the game, but I suppose that if push comes to shove, I don't see it as essential.
There are several builds that are very strong at specific levels and weak at other levels.
People advocating the "right" to rebuild character every time they want are essentially advocating the "right" to have the best build for the level at each level.That could be acceptable if all people had the same system mastery and all people were interested in that. As that isn't true we would end with a group of muncking players doing 90% of the mission alone and the other players twirling their thumbs most of the time.
Erick Wilson say "it annoy me" isn't a valid reason. Actually "it annoy the other players at the table" is a valid reason. It fall under the "don't be a jerk" rule.
To me it seem that a guy coming to a game with a folder full of different version of his character and that ask "What are you bringing to the table? ... Good, so I take version X of my character." will annoy a lot of players.
Especially if he choose his character in a way that will allow him to outshine similar characters of other players.
Your question answers itself. It's what IS necessary in order to keep them happy
To me it seem the way to keep a small number of players happy while annoying a larger number of players.
"As far as you feel it is necessary" is charte blanche to rebuild your character from the ground up, making it the most efficient machine for the current level, even if reaching it would have been an hardship playing several level with a underpowered character.Then there is a problem of the efficiency and ease of use of a character. If the player has used him and his abilities from level 1 onward he know it very well. When using a character generated from scratch at level 8 he will have to master its new abilities.
Especially if they are copying a "perfect build" from the forum their knowledge of the character abilities isn't granted.
If you are too strict, you choke the life out of your game.
If you are too lenient, you let the game slip through your fingers.
Erick,
This thread seems to have two elements in it:
1) errata rebuilds
2) full rebuilds at anytime.
1): A decision has to be made on how extensive any rebuild is required based on an errata. It can be challenging to determine where to put that line, as demonstrated in this thread - I put skills points into x skill to be able to get y ability, so I should be able to rebuild that too - basically some will want a free rebuild.
I haven't played with, seen played, or researched the crane style feat chain, so I won't comment on where that point should be. But I suspect that Mike and John are very familiar with the subject and chose what they felt was the most appropriate point.
Presenting a rationale for why the rebuild should be larger, up to and including a free rebuild, has a chance to getting Mike and John to change their mind - but it should be a specific thread on it's own with a subject line that reflects that. This thread has much more going on in it and any arguments presented seem to be falling on the full rebuilds at anytime discussion.
2) One of the aspects that I like about PFS is that choices matter, both short term and long term. Decisions on what gear to buy, when to buy it, what skills and feats to take, etc.. have long term effects on your character.
Full rebuilds at anytime remove that aspect. Your decision on anything doesn't matter - cause you can change it when ever you want. This includes stocking up on expensive consumables, because you will get all of that gold back next session, when you rebuild your PC, even if you take the same build as you mysteriously get the gold back.
For some builds, they are subpar until they hit a specific level - let's take 5 as a nice midterm level. That means that right now, you have to play 12 sessions with a subpar PC, in order to shine when you hit level 5. You have to manage to survive and get there - and I suspect feeling good about your accomplishment. Full rebuilds at any time will take away that consequence.
Also, please note that as of season 5, player actions are having some consequences on the campaign story. When GMs report scenarios, they usually have to indicate PC choices/actions on a few subjects (box A,B,C or D).
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Perhaps. Or the fact that as they have more experience, the loss of a single character would not hamper their ability to play scenarios with their friends, due to not having an effective character at a given level.
I have a 8th level character who is built around using Spirited Charge. Were they to errata that feat to be less effective, and not permit a significant rebuild (including ability scores and prerequisite feats), that character would effectively be shelved. This would as not be much of a problem for me, as I have several other characters in that level range, compared to a newer player who now has his only high-level character made ineffective, and as a result, is unable to participate in scenarios with the characters his characters has built up a roleplaying relationship with.
The crux of the matter is that unless you happen to have GMs with the memory that Andrew Christian claims, the rules preventing a small rebuild are near unenforceable. If a local player decided that his most recent feat wasn't useful after having it for a session and quietly changed it, it is very unlikely that he would be...
Read through the thread, but I'm 'picking on Mekkis' to put all my thoughts in one spot.
Yes, PFS is an honour system. And yes we should 'trust, but Verify' Campaign leadership is all about TbV. From the inventory trackng sheet to auditing process, to having to have the allowed resources document, it's all about trust but verify. I've never been asked to produce my PDFs, and have only had to ask a player once. I *will* check PDfs for more obscure sources (I actually carry my dead tree Elves of Golarion for Samiel's trick arrows, since it's quicker to pull up.)
Retirement, while not as much of a risk as death, *is* a risk. The complaining about Crane Wing seems to be that it went from a 'must have' to 'good to have.'* Rey 'suffers' from that he can't get a Familiar. I didn't know that when I built him. tal es muerte. My paperwork on Dexios sucks, so I don't play him anymore, etc.
The Synthiest mess** came from a mix of missing a detail in the rebuild rules (that specifically allowed complete rebuilds) and the simple fact that people were amplifying the most powerful option. I myself didn't have much sympathy for the 'Stephen Hawking in Tony Stark's armor' type things we were seeing, so I didn't worry much about the lamentations.
Something else to keep in mind, is 'the campaign leadership' that makes these decisions isn't just Mike and John. It's all the VOs, so Columbus has as much input as Charleston, and data from all over comes in. That's how they make decisions. Not "How do we screw over the martials this week." But "What's good for the campaign?"
Aside on the slumber hex. I must have the worst luck in Society. In Ksenia's 9 levels, I've constantly run into constructs, undead, half elves, swarms, night hags, etc that *can't* be slumbered. Plus you have to be in 30 feet of the target. Not where a mid-to-high level caster wants to be.
*
**