| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't being a "RAW specialist," or "subverting dev intentions," when the dev team explicitly and specifically states, [paraphrase] "We understand this will allow early entry into PrC's. We're cool with that. PrC's are kinda bad right now. Hope this helps. Peace out." [/paraphrase].
That's funny 'cause I read the old FAQ not long ago and what I recall it saying was
We realize this allows early entry into some PrCs but they're generally considered subpar so we're going to try this solution as see if we like it. We might change it up later.</paraphrase>
Which at the time I thought was an unusual caveat for an FAQ. Looks like they decided they didn't like it and changed it up. *shrug*
- Torger
Which means it wasn't a loophole or an exploit back then. It was a legitimate part of the system. That's what is being fought here. Whether or not we like that it's gone now, it certainly it. But it wasn't an "exploit" back then.
owner - Redcap's Corner, Owner - Redcap's Corner
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have mixed feelings. Early entry into prestige classes was not a big deal at all for balance, but the previous ruling was so arbitrary and inconsistent. I think the new ruling is way more intuitive and elegant, but I'm sad to see eldritch knights, arcane tricksters, mystic theurges, and (to a lesser extent) arcane archers stop being playable.
Which means it wasn't a loophole or an exploit back then. It was a legitimate part of the system. That's what is being fought here. Whether or not we like that it's gone now, it certainly it. But it wasn't an "exploit" back then.cause I read the old FAQ not long ago and what I recall it saying was
We realize this allows early entry into some PrCs but they're generally considered subpar so we're going to try this solution as see if we like it. We might change it up later.</paraphrase>
Which at the time I thought was an unusual caveat for an FAQ. Looks like they decided they didn't like it and changed it up. *shrug*
- Torger
Yea I wasn't getting at "exploit" or not at the time or not.
What I was getting at is that it doesn't have to be an "exploit" to be a badly thought out band aid solution.
And that it was worth noting that the developers specifically allowed for the fact that they weren't quite sure about this one and might go back and revisit it.
It's not like they Pulled the rug out when no one was looking. They were upfront about not being sure they liked the rug in the first place.
- Torger
Which means it wasn't a loophole or an exploit back then. It was a legitimate part of the system. That's what is being fought here. Whether or not we like that it's gone now, it certainly it. But it wasn't an "exploit" back then.cause I read the old FAQ not long ago and what I recall it saying was
We realize this allows early entry into some PrCs but they're generally considered subpar so we're going to try this solution as see if we like it. We might change it up later.</paraphrase>
Which at the time I thought was an unusual caveat for an FAQ. Looks like they decided they didn't like it and changed it up. *shrug*
- Torger
Yea I wasn't getting at "exploit" or not at the time or not.
What I was getting at is that it doesn't have to be an "exploit" to be a badly thought out band aid solution.
And that it was worth noting that the developers specifically allowed for the fact that they weren't quite sure about this one and might go back and revisit it.
It's not like the Pulled the rug out when no one was looking. They were upfront about not being sure they liked the rug in the first place.
- Torger
That's one way to paint it.
However, the part about revisiting was specifically tied to the situation unbalancing gameplay.
A year and a half later there weren't many (if any) complaints about balance. People felt comfortable that the FAQ had been vetted and laid to rest. That's another way to paint the picture.
I guess one thing the new FAQ doesn't nerf is characters who use traditional entries into prestige classes. Whether or not Mystic Theurge is a fun class to play without early entry is a matter of debate, but I'd imagine that playing a traditional entry MT alongside early entry MT's might be kind of depressing.
If nothing else the FAQ might make more different approaches to the same prestige classes better balanced against each other (even if some folks think the balance is that they all suck). Obviously nobody likes having the rug pulled out from under an active PC, but I'm trying to see the positive here. One of my previous PC's got FAQ'd twice (Weird Words and Weapon Cords). It was pretty disconcerting at the time, but I got over it and had a lot of fun with the PC anyhow.
Which means it wasn't a loophole or an exploit back then. It was a legitimate part of the system. That's what is being fought here. Whether or not we like that it's gone now, it certainly it. But it wasn't an "exploit" back then.cause I read the old FAQ not long ago and what I recall it saying was
We realize this allows early entry into some PrCs but they're generally considered subpar so we're going to try this solution as see if we like it. We might change it up later.</paraphrase>
Which at the time I thought was an unusual caveat for an FAQ. Looks like they decided they didn't like it and changed it up. *shrug*
- Torger
Yea I wasn't getting at "exploit" or not at the time or not.
What I was getting at is that it doesn't have to be an "exploit" to be a badly thought out band aid solution.
And that it was worth noting that the developers specifically allowed for the fact that they weren't quite sure about this one and might go back and revisit it.
It's not like they Pulled the rug out when no one was looking. They were upfront about not being sure they liked the rug in the first place.
- Torger
And we weren't specifically talking about hwo we wanted it to be back, or that Paizo were wrong for changing it back.
We were arguing that it wasn't an exploit because someone said it was. You agree with us on that point, which is why your post was misaimed.
Uhmm...
What do we do with a PFS character that was just ready to start MT with the old ruling? If I try to continue him on as is in just one of the classes he's fairly hosed.
Not much may ask on the PFS boards about how it works but I don't think you get much if the character is still playable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that it was worth noting that the developers specifically allowed for the fact that they weren't quite sure about this one and might go back and revisit it.It's not like the Pulled the rug out when no one was looking. They were upfront about not being sure they liked the rug in the first place.
- Torger
That's one way to paint it.
However, the part about revisiting was specifically tied to the situation unbalancing gameplay.
A year and a half later there weren't many (if any) complaints about balance. People felt comfortable that the FAQ had been vetted and laid to rest. That's another way to paint the picture.
Just because the people who complained about the balance of the rule quieted down over a year and a half doesn't mean their opinion changed. As evidenced by the number of people in this thread who've stuck their head in and said sweet I never liked it to begin with</paraphrase>
I will grant you that a year and a half is a long time to leave a rule "in beta" so I retract my opinion that people are being unreasonable in expressing shock and surprise.
- Torger
P.S. I like your </paraphrase> tag it's super useful. That you can quote me on :P
*Edited (ironically) for broken quote tags*
Carp! I hate retiring a 4th level character. But I don't think he will be much fun to play as is. He was my 'grand fathered' aasimar too.
We were arguing that it wasn't an exploit because someone said it was. You agree with us on that point, which is why your post was misaimed.
My intent wasn't to aim the post at anyone but to bring to light an aspect of the discussion that no one had brought up yet but that a section of BBTBones' post segued nicely into.
I was aiming at the thread not at anyone in particular. Apologies if I missed and grazed you.
- Torger
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I don't think anyone has posted a single broken/OP build that used early entry.
I've created legal (with old rules) builds doing all prestige class builds using 1 base class and multiple prestige classes and evangelist to evade the "can't use a class to meet the own class's prerequisites" with the Evangelist advancing a different Prestige Class.
So the early entry saved these builds 4 levels of base class junk. Whether or not this was broken, I'll leave to others. I can say it certainly was more powerful than anything else I could think to build to do what that build did. Honestly I never used it solely because Herolab completely didn't do the build correctly and I was unwilling to code the fixes to Herolab to make it rules compliant.
Perhaps this change is a prelude to revamping the entrance requirements for the core prestige classes.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Carp! I hate retiring a 4th level character. But I don't think he will be much fun to play as is. He was my 'grand fathered' aasimar too.
I'd run it up the VL/VC channel, you may be eligible for a free rebuild to a different class.
Perhaps this change is a prelude to revamping the entrance requirements for the core prestige classes.
Unlikely, but I'd welcome that.
I don't think anyone has posted a single broken/OP build that used early entry.I've created legal (with old rules) builds doing all prestige class builds using 1 base class and multiple prestige classes and evangelist to evade the "can't use a class to meet the own class's prerequisites" with the Evangelist advancing a different Prestige Class.
So the early entry saved these builds 4 levels of base class junk. Whether or not this was broken, I'll leave to others. I can say it certainly was more powerful than anything else I could think to build to do what that build did. Honestly I never used it solely because Herolab completely didn't do the build correctly and I was unwilling to code the fixes to Herolab to make it rules compliant.
Would you care to post the build? It's hard to imagine what you mean by "using a class to meet the own class's prerequisites," much less the part about it being more powerful than the base class.
Also, Ravingdork, you mentioned something about a Mystic Theurge that took some incredibly powerful feat to get +3 to caster level in 1 class and +1 to caster level in another class. But just increasing caster level isn't enough to increase spell progression. Does the feat specifically do that as well?
If so, can other prestige classes take the feat, or is it Mystic Theurge only?
Either way though, you still have to suffer through multiple levels of crap to get it, I'm sure.
So SLA's don't generally qualify as meeting prerequisites for feats, but can they still progress feats? For example, consider a gnome wiz1/bard5/ftr4 with the gnome magic racial trait who picked up the Arcane Strike feat at level 1. He now has three caster levels: level 1 as a wizard (which he used to get the feat), level 5 as a bard, and level 10 for his SLA's. So now does his Arcane Strike grant +1, +2, or +3 to damage?
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have mixed feelings. Early entry into prestige classes was not a big deal at all for balance, but the previous ruling was so arbitrary and inconsistent. I think the new ruling is way more intuitive and elegant, but I'm sad to see eldritch knights, arcane tricksters, mystic theurges, and (to a lesser extent) arcane archers stop being playable.
They've always been playable. I've seen them succeed time and time again in actual games. They're just not optimal. People tend to think that if it's not optimal, it's useless, which isn't the least bit true.
|
Carp! I hate retiring a 4th level character. But I don't think he will be much fun to play as is. He was my 'grand fathered' aasimar too.Does this mean my 11th level PFS Aasimar early-entry Arcane Trickster is now legal or not legal?
If you have played at least one session with the character in the prestige class, then it's legal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously nobody likes having the rug pulled out from under an active PC, but I'm trying to see the positive here.
Surely in most reasonable games you'd have such a character fall under a "grandfather clause" of some sort, allowing you to play it "as is" to the end of the campaign.
A GM insisting on playing by the RAW would likely stymie another attempt to do so in the next campaign, however.
If you have played at least one session with the character in the prestige class, then it's legal.Carp! I hate retiring a 4th level character. But I don't think he will be much fun to play as is. He was my 'grand fathered' aasimar too.Does this mean my 11th level PFS Aasimar early-entry Arcane Trickster is now legal or not legal?
Unless something changed I don't think builds get grandfathered in past rules changes I would head over to the PFS forums and address this concerns with the experts on their end.
Also, Ravingdork, you mentioned something about a Mystic Theurge that took some incredibly powerful feat to get +3 to caster level in 1 class and +1 to caster level in another class. But just increasing caster level isn't enough to increase spell progression. Does the feat specifically do that as well?
If so, can other prestige classes take the feat, or is it Mystic Theurge only?
It's not a feat, it's an organization member benefit, which uses up no other resources other than gold and time (since you have to pay your dues and generally support your organization).
And yes, the organization's benefit actually DOES increase your spell progression, not just your caster level. The +2 CL from the trait doesn't do that though.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless something changed I don't think builds get grandfathered in past rules changes I would head over to the PFS forums and address this concerns with the experts on their end.If you have played at least one session with the character in the prestige class, then it's legal.Carp! I hate retiring a 4th level character. But I don't think he will be much fun to play as is. He was my 'grand fathered' aasimar too.Does this mean my 11th level PFS Aasimar early-entry Arcane Trickster is now legal or not legal?
From the relevant thread in the PFS Forum:
A character who has a) relied on a spell-like ability to enter a prestige class in place of conventional spellcasting ability and b) earned at least one Chronicle sheet as a result of playing that character after taking a level in that prestige class gets to keep the character as is. We're not interested in performing a massive character rebuilding operation. From another thread, it appears that there is some confusion over the meaning of the above point. The PC who meets the conditions above gets to keep and continue playing that character—including the process of continuing to gain levels in that prestige class. Saying "you get to keep the character as is" would be a rather backhanded and disingenuous way of allowing a PC to keep a prestige class option, especially for a mystic theurge. Do you already have the first level of a prestige class? Great, you should be allowed to take the second level, too.
The aim is simply to allow those who have invested in the character to the point that they have actually used the prestige class to finish out the character's career. As others have pointed out above, having to redesign a PC at level 9 (for example), after building the PC's personality and abilities over the course of many levels, is really jarring and tends to result in the PC just being abandoned. I'm not interested in ruining those players'/characters' day.
Thanks that will clear it up if you played and earned a chronicle after getting at least one level in the PrC then you are good.
Benjamin, how exactly did this nerf the arcane archer? I'm building one as my PC at the moment and I really can't see if you just shouldn't have added the arcane archer or if I'm missing something I should know.
I have mixed feelings. Early entry into prestige classes was not a big deal at all for balance, but the previous ruling was so arbitrary and inconsistent. I think the new ruling is way more intuitive and elegant, but I'm sad to see eldritch knights, arcane tricksters, mystic theurges, and (to a lesser extent) arcane archers stop being playable.They've always been playable. I've seen them succeed time and time again in actual games. They're just not optimal. People tend to think that if it's not optimal, it's useless, which isn't the least bit true.
Bravo and well put sir. I tip my furry Russian hat to you.
- Torger
Unless something changed I don't think builds get grandfathered in past rules changes I would head over to the PFS forums and address this concerns with the experts on their end.If you have played at least one session with the character in the prestige class, then it's legal.Carp! I hate retiring a 4th level character. But I don't think he will be much fun to play as is. He was my 'grand fathered' aasimar too.Does this mean my 11th level PFS Aasimar early-entry Arcane Trickster is now legal or not legal?From the relevant thread in the PFS Forum:
...
A character who has a) relied on a spell-like ability to enter a prestige class in place of conventional spellcasting ability and b) earned at least one Chronicle sheet as a result of playing that character after taking a level in that prestige class gets to keep the character as is. We're not interested in performing a massive character rebuilding operation. From another thread, it appears that there is some confusion over the meaning of the above point. The PC who meets the conditions above gets to keep and continue playing that character—including the process of continuing to gain levels in that prestige class. Saying "you get to keep the character as is" would be a rather backhanded and disingenuous way of allowing a PC to keep a prestige class option, especially for a mystic theurge. Do you already have the first level of a prestige class? Great, you should be allowed to take the second level, too.
The aim is simply to allow those who have invested in the character to the point that they have actually used the prestige class to finish out the character's career. As others have pointed out above, having to redesign a PC at level 9 (for example), after building the PC's personality and abilities over the course of many levels, is really
Unfortunately mine hasn't played as the prestige class yet. So I will have to decide if he is still playable (for me) or if I need to retire him.
I have mixed feelings. Early entry into prestige classes was not a big deal at all for balance, but the previous ruling was so arbitrary and inconsistent. I think the new ruling is way more intuitive and elegant, but I'm sad to see eldritch knights, arcane tricksters, mystic theurges, and (to a lesser extent) arcane archers stop being playable.They've always been playable. I've seen them succeed time and time again in actual games. They're just not optimal. People tend to think that if it's not optimal, it's useless, which isn't the least bit true.
I genuinely agree with this statement, and I do intend on continuing to play Mystic Theurges. They were my favorite class before the old FAQ, and they continue to be my favorite.
I'm really just sad to see so much of the guide become useless. I suppose it could be worse, some of it can be read in a way that is still applicable, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't feel like I wasted a lot of time working on it.
I have mixed feelings. Early entry into prestige classes was not a big deal at all for balance, but the previous ruling was so arbitrary and inconsistent. I think the new ruling is way more intuitive and elegant, but I'm sad to see eldritch knights, arcane tricksters, mystic theurges, and (to a lesser extent) arcane archers stop being playable.They've always been playable. I've seen them succeed time and time again in actual games. They're just not optimal. People tend to think that if it's not optimal, it's useless, which isn't the least bit true.I genuinely agree with this statement, and I do intend on continuing to play Mystic Theurges. They were my favorite class before the old FAQ, and they continue to be my favorite.
I'm really just sad to see so much of the guide become useless. I suppose it could be worse, some of it can be read in a way that is still applicable, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't feel like I wasted a lot of time working on it.
I do feel for you Wiggles. It is one of the biggest guides out there, and a huge chunk is dedicated to the whole early entry thing.
A guide doesn't have to be on an amazing class to be good, though. I ppint to Oterisk's Duelist Guide as prime example. Or the Pathfinder Chronicler. Or the Myrmidarch mini guide. Most of them start with a warning along the lines of "If you want to be the best, this isn't the way to go, but let's see how to nake the best out of this option we can."
It would mean a serious change in tone, obviously, and a good amount of work to change it up, though, and I could see looking at homework like that and going "bugget this, I'm out", though, so I can totally respect washing your hands of it.
Unfortunately mine hasn't played as the prestige class yet. So I will have to decide if he is still playable (for me) or if I need to retire him.
If the rules kick your butt, kick back.
Play dangerous games with premades. If you survive write the sheet on a new replacement pc. If you die let the pc destroyed by the FAQ take the hit.| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
On early entry, before the old FAQ did you see anyone use prestige classes? If so, I can see how you might think of it as a loophole. If not, did you think making them more viable brought more interest in playing them?An elegant solution to a crappy Mystic Theurge class would be to either (a) fix the Mystic Theurge class or (b) create a new class that blends the divine and arcane spells lists (like the Witch).
An inelegant solution would be to take an existing rule and say "if you squint hard and put common sense aside, then you can finesse the existing rules into allowing early entry".
I'm glad the inelegant solution is gone.
I think there where people on the other side of this that thought that the old FAQ was the elegant solution. An example is that an innately magical race made sense as being able to take things like arcane strike. Add to that the fact that the line between SLA and spells are blurred. "Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells" Somehow them being just like spells, just like the rules say, was seen as cheesy and inelegant... I just don't see it. It was just defining how "just like spells" they where. I always saw the fact that they helped prestige classes a nice side affect of the clarification and not the reason for it. It why I don't see a point in the "if they wanted to fix prestige classes they should..." arguments. I don't thing that's what the old FAQ was for.
I rather people would say they liked/disliked it [and why if they wish] rather than calling it names like cheesy, a loophole and inelegant.
How did this improve the game?
Think deeply.
What is truly gained by this change?
The improvement for me is that all races are back to a level playing field for prestige class entry.
Is that playing field too high or too low? That's a reasonable question. I simply feel that any alteration should move the whole field up or down for all races.
For some people that's not a concern at all and for them this will not improve the game.
But for me it does.
- Torger
P.S. To pre-empt the argument that some races are already better suited to some classes and prestige classes than others based on ability modifiers and special abilities I say that's like comparing a speed bump to a mountain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have mixed feelings. Early entry into prestige classes was not a big deal at all for balance, but the previous ruling was so arbitrary and inconsistent. I think the new ruling is way more intuitive and elegant, but I'm sad to see eldritch knights, arcane tricksters, mystic theurges, and (to a lesser extent) arcane archers stop being playable.They've always been playable. I've seen them succeed time and time again in actual games. They're just not optimal. People tend to think that if it's not optimal, it's useless, which isn't the least bit true.
You have always been an inspiration to me! And now this. I weep happy tears. [NO SARCASM!]
I think there where people on the other side of this that thought that the old FAQ was the elegant solution. An example is that an innately magical race made sense as being able to take things like arcane strike.
Interesting point of view, and not one that I had considered till now. Thank you for broadening my horizons.
I still don't think it's worth the disparity of how easily some races can get into a prestige class over others but at least I understand where the other side of the argument is coming from now.
- Torger
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have mixed feelings. Early entry into prestige classes was not a big deal at all for balance, but the previous ruling was so arbitrary and inconsistent. I think the new ruling is way more intuitive and elegant, but I'm sad to see eldritch knights, arcane tricksters, mystic theurges, and (to a lesser extent) arcane archers stop being playable.They've always been playable. I've seen them succeed time and time again in actual games. They're just not optimal. People tend to think that if it's not optimal, it's useless, which isn't the least bit true.
LOL The Warrior npc class is playable, it just falls below what most people are willing to play. A better way is to say is that the FAQ made them more playable to a wider audience. For the first time, a lot of people actually thought about playing one that normally wouldn't. If nothing else, the old FAQ got people talking about them as something other than a super niche character.
Torger Miltenberger: For those with traits, any race could take feats like arcane strike. As far as prestige classes, I saw a lot of class ability being used as well as racial.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there where people on the other side of this that thought that the old FAQ was the elegant solution. An example is that an innately magical race made sense as being able to take things like arcane strike.Interesting point of view, and not one that I had considered till now. Thank you for broadening my horizons.
I still don't think it's worth the disparity of how easily some races can get into a prestige class over others but at least I understand where the other side of the argument is coming from now.
- Torger
And that is the typical paizo FAQ mentality. If you want to fix something don't do it with delicate tools but by aiming a shotgun in the problem's general direction.
Perhaps PrCs have been the target and arcane strike and similar the collateral damage.
|
|
I see the point of the pro-new ruling side better thanks to Toten above.
That said, I feel that being able to pursue somewhat competitive builds through the old ruling was better than having all races at a theoretical "same level".
Because IMO the first creates new builds while the latter adds nothing to the game. Obviously YMMV ;-)
Contributor
|
I liked spell-like abilities qualifying you for item creation feats and Arcane Strike. I didn't like Daylight 1/day being the same as five levels of wizard. "Able to cast 3rd-level spells", to me, always meant being a true spellcaster, not having an innate one-shot power. If something said "ability to cast Daylight", on the other hand, I'd be all for that aasimar taking that option.
So I'm glad this got reversed, because for me, it hurt verisimilitude. I'm not glad that people were hurt by it, but there was no easy way to avoid that without undermining the entire change. I also agree with Ravingdork that the classes are still usable now that they must be played as originally designed. If your friends are harassing you for not being optimized enough, the problem isn't necessarily you or your character.
And as for FAQ complaints, I strongly disagreed with new Crane Wing, non-stacking ability modifiers, and my personal most enraging, the denial of the Wildblooded sorcerer bloodlines for Eldritch Heritage. So I know the feeling. :)
I have mixed feelings. Early entry into prestige classes was not a big deal at all for balance, but the previous ruling was so arbitrary and inconsistent. I think the new ruling is way more intuitive and elegant, but I'm sad to see eldritch knights, arcane tricksters, mystic theurges, and (to a lesser extent) arcane archers stop being playable.They've always been playable. I've seen them succeed time and time again in actual games. They're just not optimal. People tend to think that if it's not optimal, it's useless, which isn't the least bit true.LOL The Warrior npc class is playable, it just falls below what most people are willing to play. A better way is to say is that the FAQ made them more playable to a wider audience. For the first time, a lot of people actually thought about playing one that normally wouldn't. If nothing else, the old FAQ got people talking about them as something other than a super niche character.
After 3 1/2 years on these forums I would be positively afraid of RavingDork playing a Warrior. I promise he can and will find something to bring the fear into your heart.
I have mixed feelings. Early entry into prestige classes was not a big deal at all for balance, but the previous ruling was so arbitrary and inconsistent. I think the new ruling is way more intuitive and elegant, but I'm sad to see eldritch knights, arcane tricksters, mystic theurges, and (to a lesser extent) arcane archers stop being playable.They've always been playable. I've seen them succeed time and time again in actual games. They're just not optimal. People tend to think that if it's not optimal, it's useless, which isn't the least bit true.
While "stop being playable" may be an exaggeration, you have to admit that this SEVERELY restricts the creativity of players that would want to build prestige characters.
Is the Wizard 3/Cleric 3/MT X still playable? Sure. But what about the Sorcerer/Oracle/MT? Or the Bard/Cleric/MT? Or the Sorcerer/Slayer/AT? These builds will be so far behind that they will essentially be non-combatants unless the party is intentionally unoptimized. And they will have to wait and wait and wait to get going and do the things they were designed to do.
Maybe I'm just bitter because my Nature Fang 6/Arcane Trickster X that I was so excited to play is now not legal. It just seems like this new rule forces the builds to be more and more standard to even maintain a semblance of viability.
I actually like this change. The "SLA count as spells" FAQ caused too many unexpected rules interactions and wasn't very well thought, IMO.
And I still deny that it will restrict the creativity of most players. Because what did they do. They read a guide and followed that guide to the letter. The revers is true. You have to learn to focus on spells that are useful regardless of level. And learn to use that to the fullest.
Are you less powerful in raw power. I admit yes. Are you less useful? Nope!
Torger Miltenberger: For those with traits, any race could take feats like arcane strike. As far as prestige classes, I saw a lot of class ability being used as well as racial.
Heh, nice inter-thread shot across the bow. I approve.
- Torger
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I can see both sides of the argument.
I never thought the early entry to PrC's was too powerful, but I thought the old rule made some of the PrC's too easy. It is not what the concept (in my mind) of prestige class means. It is something you should be working to gain the acceptance and entrance into the organization/guild/fellowship that trains you to be that. It is the way I have always thought of them. But if you get it at 3rd or 4th level, pffft... That is barely starting for many campaigns. You didn't work for nothing.
On the other hand without that ruling, I will admit I usually would not want to play a PrC like MT simply because by the time it really takes serious effect, I'm almost done with the character. PFS retires at level 12 (for the most part) and most of the home campaigns I've been in don't go much higher if even that high.
I guess I don't have a real strong opinion on it either way. I think most home game GM's will pick one or the other without regard to the new or old FAQ. It will invalidate one of my several PC's in PFS. But I can live with that.