Proposed Change to Grandfathering SLAs for PrC Early Entry

[Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily"]

pheniox42 wrote:

As someone who has a 11.15 MT, The issue would be the rush of Evangelists, not MT's. I actually blame Inner Sea Gods's power creep as the reason I won't be able to play the MT's and AT's without pulling down the party.

Evangelist already has an explicit exception barring early entry.

[Tuna Slaad]

It comes down to this, campaign leadership, Mike and John, have ruled what is in the best interest of the campaign. This is why we have professional leadership.
You asked and they confirmed the decision in the best interest of the campaign.

[The Fox]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

thejeff wrote:

.

The mistake in the tiefling/aasimar change was announcing it and then grandfathering characters between the announcement and the actual change. If they'd just done it "as of now", there wouldn't have been the opportunity.

I don't see it as a big deal. It really wouldn't matter if someone stockpiled 4 aasimars or 40, they can only play one at a time. (I stocked up 2 playing 2 dming)

I agree.

Just for another data point, I stocked one of each, aasimar and tiefling, and then I ended up building them into non-planetouched characters anyway.

[pauljathome]

Tuna Slaad wrote:

It comes down to this, campaign leadership, Mike and John, have ruled what is in the best interest of the campaign. This is why we have professional leadership.

You asked and they confirmed the decision in the best interest of the campaign.

Um, are you saying that we should never ask them to revisit their decisions, that we should never offer alternatives, that we should never state that we disagree with their decisions?

This thread consist of people, quite respectfully, asking them to change their ruling. I think that is a fine and good thing.

They're definitely competent professionals who have the best interest of the campaign at heart (the internet being what it is I'll explicitly point out that I am quite sincere when I say that). That doesn't mean that every decision they make is correct and most certainly does not mean that we should just quietly sit here if we see things differently than they do.

[glass]

wellsmv wrote:

I vote NO...

Id rather force those who built broken characters with cheese builds to retire the character

Should I retire my single-classed Druid? 'cause he is far more broken than anything my nearly-but-not-quite-MT could dream of being.

EDIT: I'd support the OP's proposal, although it would not save my MT from retirement.

EDIT2: Well, support it in the sense that it would be significantly better than the current situation. As I said in the other thread, changes of this sort should really have a grace period.

_
glass.

[Mark Stratton]

Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lillly wrote:

If they happen to have a race that makes this possible, AND they happen to have a class that makes this possible, AND they happen to have the correct stat allocation to make it possible despite the fact that it's not optimal for most target builds, AND they weren't already planning on doing this? Frankly, for the 1 or 2 people that actually meet all of those requirements, so what? It's not worth screwing over everyone else to avoid the corner case of all corner cases.

Well, if, as you assert, it's only 1 or 2 people, or it's only the corner cases of all corner cases, I would say that isn't anywhere near "screwing over everyone..."

If the issue is what to do with current characters who are caught up in the change in policy, then exaggerating the number of people it might affect is a bit unnecessary.

[thejeff]

Mark Stratton wrote:

Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lillly wrote:

If they happen to have a race that makes this possible, AND they happen to have a class that makes this possible, AND they happen to have the correct stat allocation to make it possible despite the fact that it's not optimal for most target builds, AND they weren't already planning on doing this? Frankly, for the 1 or 2 people that actually meet all of those requirements, so what? It's not worth screwing over everyone else to avoid the corner case of all corner cases.

Well, if, as you assert, it's only 1 or 2 people, or it's only the corner cases of all corner cases, I would say that isn't anywhere near "screwing over everyone..."

If the issue is what to do with current characters who are caught up in the change in policy, then exaggerating the number of people it might affect is a bit unnecessary.

Different corner cases.

That's the corner case of those who weren't already planning to take advantage of the SLA, but might if grandfathering was extended to all existing characters, not just those already in the prestige class.

The "screwing over everyone" refers to those who'd built character to take advantage of the SLA's counting for spells, but hadn't actually taken an early entry prestige level yet.

[Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily"]

What thejeff said - I was referring to the fact that extended grandfathering in this case would be almost impossible to abuse just because, unlike the tiefling/aasimar thing, there's almost no one who would be in a position to be able to abuse it.