|
Jiggy wrote:
This resolution is preferable to the AR deviation. I'm content. :)
I sometimes wonder whether you started this whole thread just to remove early access altogether. You certainly achieved it.
Status quo was fine till you rocked the boat.
I started this thread because earlier that day it was mentioned in another thread Evangelist early entry was surely op. When the class was first released I didn't think so, still didn't think so, and thought enough time had passed that others might be able to think the same way.
There was three outcomes possible from this:
1. Everyone gets to enjoy more game content as it becomes opened up.
2. Nothing changes.
3. They backtrack on their FAQ for SLAs.
The third option meant taking away options from players and killing game diversity as well as 'proving' there was actual power related concerns. It seemed unlikely to occur. I still don't think there are power related concerns but hey its not my rules.
|
Trying to blame someone for a rules change like this because they were simply discussing it is asinine. The developers decided there was a problem with it, and they modified their clarification to reflect what they felt was the correct functionality. It's really that simple. The people in this thread are not at fault.
EDIT: rephrased
|
Jiggy wrote:
This resolution is preferable to the AR deviation. I'm content. :)
I sometimes wonder whether you started this whole thread just to remove early access altogether. You certainly achieved it.
Status quo was fine till you rocked the boat.
I started this thread because earlier that day it was mentioned in another thread Evangelist early entry was surely op. When the class was first released I didn't think so, still didn't think so, and thought enough time had passed that others might be able to think the same way.
There was three outcomes possible from this:
1. Everyone gets to enjoy more game content as it becomes opened up.
2. Nothing changes.
3. They backtrack on their FAQ for SLAs.The third option meant taking away options from players and killing game diversity as well as 'proving' there was actual power related concerns. It seemed unlikely to occur. I still don't think there are power related concerns but hey its not my rules.
When you try to change the status quo, you often do get change, but it just as often isn't the change you want. You wagered getting into one PRC 2 levels early (and for the PRC that probably needed it least, which was what I was arguing) against having early access removed altogether.
It's like when kids whinge about not having enough treats, parents sometimes get tired of it and take away the treats altogether.
|
There was three outcomes possible from this:1. Everyone gets to enjoy more game content as it becomes opened up.
2. Nothing changes.
3. They backtrack on their FAQ for SLAs.The third option meant taking away options from players and killing game diversity as well as 'proving' there was actual power related concerns. It seemed unlikely to occur. I still don't think there are power related concerns but hey its not my rules.
I disagree with your notion that by adopting option 3 and recanting the previous FAQ in any way kills game diversity. In fact I would posit that it enhances game diversity because now players are not pigeon holed into choosing a specific race or deity or school of magic to gain early access to a particular PrC, now every race or appropriate feeder class option is valid. That is diversity.
|
|
Losing options doesn't make new ones suddenly appear. You always had the alternative available to you.
It's like when kids whinge about not having enough treats, parents sometimes get tired of it and take away the treats altogether.
Stop. I don't appreciate my ideas or myself being belittled just because you disagree with them. Be more respectful of others in the community.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
now every race or appropriate feeder class option is valid. That is diversity.
That would be diversity, if it were true. But it's not. Just because you got rid of a better option doesn't make the worse options become valid.
Traditional-entry EK spends the vast majority of the PC's career being worse at hitting things than other martial/caster hybrids (bard, inquisitor, etc). It was true before early entry was a thing, it continued to be true when early entry became a thing, and taking away early entry has not made it stop being true.
And I don't think it's reasonable to say that "worse than every other way to fill the role" is "valid".